User:Evilphoenix/Admin criteria

My method attempts to provide a consistent, objective way for me to evaluate potential RfA candidates. It is difficult to absolutely quantify what does or does not make a good Administrator, or to evaluate a given person with absolute certainty. Nevertheless, this is my best attempt at a clearly defined approach to representing qualitative elements as an arbitrary quantity.

My method evaluates candidates based on a variety of metrics, assigning a value based on criteria for each metric. The results are plotted on a 100 point scale. Candidates above a certain number receive a Support from me, candidates within a certain range receive a Neutral, and candidates below a certain score receive an Oppose. These numbers are subject to change, however any change to end result numbering will be changed prior to the evaluation of any candidate under that adjusted scheme. At the current time they are as follows:


 * Over 70: Support.
 * Between 60 - 70: Neutral.
 * Below 60: Oppose.

Breakdown
The various criteria for Adminship are broken down into various metrics. Each metric is evaluated on a Five point "Box system", where each Box represents a given level of achievement, and has defined parameters that describe what is evaluated for each level. The Box values are as follows:


 * Box 5 (81 - 100): Superior achievement, excels above criteria.
 * Box 4 (61 -80): Excellent achievement, satisfies most criteria.
 * Box 3 (41 - 60): Good achievement, meets a percentage of criteria.
 * Box 2 (21 - 40): Poor achievement, fails to meet certain criteria.
 * Box 1 (0 -20): Very Poor achievement, fails all criteria.

Out of a possible 100 points, my criteria are as follows:


 * Time on Wikipedia (20 points)
 * Editcountitis (20 points)
 * User Space (20 points)
 * Grammar (10 points)
 * RfA behavior (10 points)
 * Personal Knowledge of User (20 points)

Time on Wikipedia (20 points)

 * Box 5 (20 points maximum): Superior: Over 6 months of consistent, unbroken contribution to Wikipedia. If inactive for more than a month, over 8 months total contribution.
 * Box 4 (16 points): Excellent: 4 - 5 months of unbroken contribution, 6 months otherwise.
 * Box 3 (12 points): Good: 3 months unbroken contribution, 5-6 months otherwise.
 * Box 2 (8 points): Poor: 1 - 2 months unbroken contribution, 3-4 otherwise.
 * Box 1 (4 points): Very Poor: less than a month on Wikipedia, or less than 3 months total.

Edit Quantity (10 points)

 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: Over 6,000 total edits.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: Over 3,000 total edits.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good: Over 2,000 total edits.
 * Box 2 (4 points): Poor: Over 1,000 total edits.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: Less than 1,000 total edits.

Edit Distribution (10 points)
Edit Distribution is based on participation in the following areas:
 * 1) Notable amount of non-trivial Mainspace contributions.
 * 2) Vandal reversion in the Mainspace.
 * 3) Participation in New Page patrolling.
 * 4) Participation in User Talk discussion.
 * 5) Placing Vandal Warning templates.
 * 6) Topical discussion.
 * 7) Participation on Article Talk pages.
 * 8) Participation in Articles for Deletion discussion, and/or MfD, CfD, DRV, and RfD.
 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: Representation in most or all areas.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: Representation in at least some areas.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good: Representation in a few areas.
 * Box 2 (4 points): Poor: Representation in one area, no apparent distribution elsewhere.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: Seems to only edit Userboxes.

User Page(10 points)

 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: Clean, visually appealing User Page. Gives excellent summary of User's contributions to Wikipedia. May contain a modest amount of Userboxes. Contains some biographical information about User, but is not excessive. Contains no spelling errors or awkward grammar. Contains no personal attacks or offensive content.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: Reasonably decent in appearance. Gives a sense of User's contributions to Wikipedia. Contains no spelling errors or awkward grammar. May contain a fair amount of Userboxes. If present, does not contain an excessive amount of biographical information about user. Contains no personal attacks or offensive content.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good: Reasonably decent in appearance. Does not really give a good description of User's contributions to Wikipedia. May contain a few spelling errors or awkward grammar. May contain a fair amount of Userboxes. May contain significant biographical information about User. Contains no personal attacks or offensive content.
 * Box 2 (3 points): Poor: Poor in appearance. Fails to provide indication of User's contributions to Wikipedia. Contains spelling errors and awkward grammar. Contains excessive Userboxes. Contains excessive biographical information about User. Makes negative references to other users or organizations. Contains content in poor taste.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: Hideous in appearance, or entirely blank User Page. Contains no reference to User's contributions to Wikipedia. Contains excessive spelling errors and awkward grammar. Contains excessive Userboxes. Contains excessive biographical information about User. Contains personal attacks or offensive content.

Talk Page (10 points)

 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: Active, well used Discussion Page. Provides organized Archives to all prior discussion. User is engaged enough in the community to have several Archives. Discussion on page clearly demonstrates that User is helpful and available to help other Users with questions, polite to Users with critiques and complaints, and calm in dealing with trolling. User is frequently sought for advice on their Talk page. Thank you notices for RfA voting comprise at most a minimum of content on their Talk page.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: Active Discussion Page. Provides organized Archives to most prior discussion. User is engaged enough in the community to have some Archives. Discussion on page demonstrates that User is helpful and available to help other Users with questions, polite to Users with critiques and complaints, and calm in dealing with trolling. User is sought for advice on their Talk page. Thank you notices for RfA voting do not comprise a majority of content on their Talk page.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good: Positive interaction on Talk Page. Provides Archives to prior discussion. User is engaged enough in the community to have an Archive. Discussion on page clearly demonstrates that User is polite to other Users with questions, calm to Users with critiques and complaints, and calm in dealing with trolling. User is occasionally sought for advice. Thank you notices for RfA voting do not comprise a significant majority of content on their Talk page.
 * Box 2 (3 points): Poor: Neutral interaction on Talk Page, or very low quantity of interaction on Talk Page. Does not provide Archives to prior discussion. Has long, unarchived Talk Page, even if Archives present. Discussion on page demonstrates that User receives frequent critiques and complaints. User is impatient in dealing with trolling. User is not sought for advice on their Talk page. Thank you notices for RfA voting comprise a significant majority of content on their Talk page.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: Negative interaction on Talk Page, or decided lack of interaction on Talk Page. Does not provide Archives to prior discussion. Frequently blanks comments without Archiving. Discussion on page clearly demonstrates that User receives frequent critiques and complaints. User becomes angry in dealing with trolling. User received Warning Templates on their Talk Page. Thank you notices for RfA voting comprise entirety of content on their Talk page.

Grammar (10 points)

 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: User consistently demonstrates clear, articulate, accessible writing in all contributions and discussion.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: User demonstrates excellent grammar in all contributions and in most discussion.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good: User demonstrates excellent grammar in all contributions, makes occasional spelling errors and awkward word choices in discussion.
 * Box 2 (4 points): Poor: User demonstrates spelling errors and awkward phrasing in contributions and discussions.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: User has exceedingly poor grammar.

RfA Formatting (10 points)

 * Box 5 (10 points maximum): Superior: Clean, well formatted RfA. Clean, well articulated nomination introduction. Articulate, thoughtful answers to RfA questions. "Correct" answers to RfA questions. Polite interaction with all users. Does not challenge or question Oppose voters. No votes placed on RfA prior to RfA being transcluded to RfA page. RfA subpage transcluded to RfA with edit summary wikilinking to RfA subpage. Does not visit Talk page of RfA voters to discuss RfA votes.
 * Box 4 (8 points): Excellent: Clean, well formatted RfA. Clean, well articulated nomination introduction. Good answers to RfA questions. "Correct" answers to RfA questions. Polite interaction with all users. May politely comment on a few Oppose votes with good reason. No votes placed on RfA prior to RfA being transcluded to RfA page. RfA subpage transcluded to RfA with edit summary. Does not visit Talk page of RfA voters to discuss RfA votes.
 * Box 3 (6 points): Good:  Decent nomination introduction. Good answers to RfA questions. "Correct" answers to RfA questions. Polite interaction with all users. May politely comment on Oppose votes. No votes placed on RfA prior to RfA being transcluded to RfA page. RfA subpage transcluded to RfA with edit summary. May politely seek discussion with RfA votes on their Talk Pages.
 * Box 2 (4 points): Poor: Poor nomination introduction. Moderate answers to RfA questions. "Decent" answers to RfA questions. Occasionally reacts poorly to some Users on RfA page. Challenges Oppose votes. Votes placed on RfA prior to RfA being transcluded to RfA page. RfA subpage transcluded to RfA without edit summary.Challenges RfA voters on their Talk Page.
 * Box 1 (2 points): Very Poor: Poor nomination introduction. Short, poor answers to RfA questions. "Poor" answers to RfA questions. Reacts poorly to Users on RfA page. Challenges Oppose votes. Votes placed on RfA prior to RfA being transcluded to RfA page. RfA subpage transcluded to RfA without edit summary. Belligerent to RfA voters on their Talk Page.

Personal Knowledge of User (20 points)

 * Box 5 (20 points maximum): Superior: I have a personal knowledge of the User, and have had multiple, positive interactions with the User. I personally know User has a good grasp of policy, and have seen the User react well to stressful situations. I would have considered nominating this User, or I did nominate this User.
 * Box 4 (16 points): Excellent: I have a personal knowledge of the User, and have seen contributions from this User. I may not have personally interacted with User, but someone I know well has and vouches for User.
 * Box 3 (12 points): Good: I have heard of this User before, but have not directly interacted.
 * Box 2 (8 points): Poor: I do not know the User, or I do know the User to have had a negative history with other Users. I have seen poor behavior from this User.
 * Box 1 (4 points): Very Poor: I or someone I trust has had negative interactions with the User. I or someone I trust has previously blocked the User.