User:Ad Orientem/So you want to be an Admin?

Intro
On Wikipedia it is often said that there is almost no mistake that can't be fixed with a few clicks on a computer mouse. Granting Adminship rights is one of the few exceptions as there is no formula by which we can easily unring that particular bell. Common sense suggests that some minimum standards should be applied since Admins have tools at their disposal that if misused, either in malice (happily very rare) or in ignorance, can cause considerable unpleasantness. Even so, there isn't much in the form of hard and fast standards for those who would be Admins. This pretty much leaves the question to each editor contributing to an RfA. Predictably, opinions on what the standards should be, vary, often dramatically.

What follows is a short list with explanatory notes, of some of the more important things I tend to look for. It is not all inclusive. Each case is different and I don't have the time or inclination to try and list every point of consideration in an RfA. It is not irreformable. I reserve the right to change my mind whenever I come into information that suggests I may need to do so. And it is not exclusive. Lots of other editors have their own opinions and standards which may, or may not, differ from my own. Their views are however no less valid than mine. With that out of the way here are a few of the more important boxes I like to check when looking at a prospective Admin.

A checklist

 * Tenure Conceding exceptions, I like to see two years on Wikipedia before asking for the tools.


 * Edit count 10,000+ is what I like to see, but 5,000+ might work for an otherwise very strong candidate. Less than 5,000 edits doesn't leave enough of a track record for my comfort level.
 * A need for the tools? I don't think that's the right question. In my experience very few editors have a real need for the tools. However, the community does need experienced editors who are willing to accept the tools and use them for the benefit of the project. So this oft quoted criterion at RfA really doesn't mean much to me.
 * Behind the scenes You need to have a reasonable record in things outside of content creation (which is important) such as Afd and some participation in noticeboard discussions. This is so I can get an idea of your command of policy and guidelines, how you handle dispute resolution and questions involving whether to keep or delete an article which are among the more important things Admins are called on to handle. In general I like candidates who understand that yes, the sky is indeed blue, but who also understand that the rules are the norm and are not to be set aside casually. Again though, even if you don't plan on using all of the tools, you need to know how to, because the unhappy truth is that at some point someone is going to come to you with a problem, or you are going to stumble on a situation that will require Admin intervention. Most of the time it's OK to call up another Admin and ask for help or advice. Often seeking advice from other experienced editors before acting is the right thing to do. But when you are that guy (or gal) on the spot, you are expected to be able to deal with an article that needs to go or an editor acting like a three-year-old with a keyboard. A lot of Admins have specific areas of interest, and many avoid ANI and other similar activities. But if you have no interest in handling a problem that is brought to you on your talk page, then frankly you probably should reconsider asking for the tools.
 * Speaking of rules While you do need to have a basic grasp, I don't like wiki-lawyering.
 * Edit summaries Ideally every edit should have an edit summary. But at least the non-minor ones do. Also if you check the minor edit box, it really should be minor. If you don't know the difference, that could be a problem. Here's a hint though. Any edit that involves more than a couple of words or slight changes in punctuation/spelling is rarely minor.
 * Plays and gets along well with others I really really don't like ANI. Yes, I accept it as a necessary evil, but I avoid it like the plague and if you want my support to be an Admin you will not have a long track record there as a plaintiff or defendent. All of this said, it is not uncommon for experienced editors to assist with reviewing reports, which can be helpful, especially where the report is complicated and might require a little digging. Additionally, some editors considering RfA will do this to help gain experience with policy and guideline questions as well as dealing with problematic editors. I expect Admins to have a thick skin. That means you don't go off crying to mother every-time someone says you are biased or tells you to go jump off a bridge in a heated discussion. Conversely, I don't want Admins who have a track record of being called out for a lack of civility or a short fuse. No, I won't vote against you if you have been in ANI a few times here and there. Things happen and there are legitimate cases where people are just being jerks or abusing rules (hopefully not you). But I like to see candidates with a track record of defusing conflicts without appeal to ANI.
 * A (mostly) clean record I'm not particularly interested in your early days as an editor. We were all there once, and it's a learning experience. But I don't like seeing any history of serious Admin related sanctions or a lot of warnings posted on your talk page after the first 1,000 or so edits. Any BLOCK in the last 12 months is likely to be a problem for me. Multiple blocks, unless they are ancient history, are usually a deal breaker. Also, I get nervous when candidates do a lot of deleting, vice archiving, on their talk page. It makes me wonder if there is something they would rather not have easily seen.
 * Mainspace work You need some. This is an encyclopedia. That's what we are about. As an admin, many, probably most of the issues you are going to deal with will center around content creation and disputes. I don't require a dozen FA articles to your credit, but you need to have been in the trenches so to speak and know what's involved.
 * Jack of all trades? Some editors over at RfA expect candidates to have a ton of edits all over the place. I don't. It's not realistic. I do look for contributions beyond just NPP and tagging in the mainspace. In line with the above, I don't particularly care if you have 50 new articles and five Featured ones, though that certainly won't be counted against you! All of that said though, I do like well-rounded admins. Show me you have worked on more than just a few things.
 * Can you commit? You don't need to live on Wikipedia, but you should be on here enough that you can answer questions or concerns that might arise from anything you do, in a timely manner.

As always, if you have any questions or comments about my little check list feel free to drop me a line on the talk page.