I am a firm believer that adminship should be no big deal. This criteria is flexible, and I will not rigidly stick to it all the time. It is mainly just a framework to personally help me evaluate candidates.
Core criteria edit
- At least six months of experience and around 5,000 edits, of which a decent portion should be in the mainspace. However, if you are a very exceptional candidate, I might still consider you even if you have less than that. Prior experience on other wikis is also helpful. It doesn't matter whether or not they are operated by the WMF, but editors from other WMF wikis are more likely to be familiar with the way Wikipedia works. It's a plus if you have responsibly used advanced user permissions on other wikis.
- No blocks within the past six months. However, this depends on the reason for the block and the duration of it. Having a completely clean block log is best, of course.
- A good civility record. Of course, I understand we're all humans and lose it occasionally, so isolated incidents are understandable.
- Demonstrable participation in at least one major admin area. These areas include WP:CSD, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, and WP:AIV.
- Evidence that you understand basic Wikipedia policies and will use the tools responsibly. I understand that all humans make mistakes, but I will think twice about supporting you if only 50% of articles that you nominate for CSD actually get deleted.
Some other notes edit
- I don't insist upon large amounts of recognized content, such as GAs and FAs, but I would like to see at least some content work.
- I care more about maturity than age; if you're young but are nonetheless a competent and mature editor, I'll probably support.
- I will not ask you ridiculous questions at RfA. I will only ask ones that are relevant to adminship and your actions on Wikipedia.