My criteria
- Note: Always subject to change without notice
Net positives
- Agree to be open to recall.
- Solid edit summaries.
- User page is clean and useful.
- User talk page is archived by a bot, and archives show reasonable discussions and a willingness to compromise.
- Has shown a solid understanding of copyright and what it means to Wikipedia.
- Has had a registered account on WP with consistent and meaningful edits for 12 months or more.
- Has already done some work in the areas where the candidate wants to contribute as an admin.
- Has a meaningful percentage of edits in article space, article talk space, WP, WT, and UT.
- Good spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I admit it; I'm a bigot in this regard. I judge candidates on how well they use the language.
- Doesn't need to be over 18, but should have reached the age of majority (i.e., legally allowed to enter into binding contracts) wherever they reside.
Further discussion along these lines can be found at:
Net negatives
- Drama—there's too much here already.
- Have more than one FA, GA, or have started multiple articles.
- Why? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If a candidate's strength is content contribution, that is the best use of an editor's time.
- Too many edits in too short a time.
- Too many edits means that either the candidate doesn't have a life (bad) or uses an automated tool too much of the time (bad) or is sloppy (bad).
- There's too much emphasis on having n000 edits. This leads to editors just trying to rack up lots and lots of edits rather than trying to understand policy or slowly researching to create better articles. Sheer quantity should never be more important than quality.
- Recent blocks.
- Recent vandalism.