User:TedE/Administrator standards

The following is an (unordered) list of personal criteria for voting for Administrators.

Essential (E-)
These characteristics are an essential part of being an administrator. Any problems with these criteria is an automatic vote against the nominated administrator.
 * 1) Demonstrated overall civility
 * 2) At least 200 WP:AfD edits, of which a significant number must demonstrate research of topic (not, "per nom")
 * 3) Have steered an article through a significant peer review. The candidate must have significant responses on the peer review page.
 * 4) Have at least 4,000 edits, of which at least 25% are in the article name space
 * 5) Have at least 8% of the number of edits in the article name space

Nearly required (N-)
These characteristics are nearly required. They cut to the core of what an adminstrator does. A candidate who is lacking one is not automatically rejected, but it is a strong indication they may not be right for the job.
 * 1) Have at least 8% of the number of edits in the article name space. This indicates cooperation in the creation of articles.
 * 2) Have created at least 3 articles that are no longer stubs.
 * 3) At least 30 votes in Requests for adminship involving significant research.
 * 4) Have steered an article through FAC voting (bonus for success, but not required).
 * 5) Have created and used a new editor welcome message.
 * 6) Have edited Administrator intervention against vandalism at least 30 times, otherwise they simply don't need the tools.

Advantageous (A-)
Having advantageous characteristics will add to the overall impression of the candidate. Lacking them will detract. The accumulation of several can sway the vote.
 * 1) Demonstrated civility under pressure. This is an essential trait, but hard to find.  Some editors may not have much pressure.  I also understand that we all make mistakes and may fly off the handle at times.
 * 2) Edit summaries should normally be >90%, however summaries in talk can be relaxed.
 * 3) Edit summaries should be relevant and informative.
 * 4) Points off for calling content modifications "reverts"
 * 5) Demonstration of helping new editors