What follows is my growing list of desirable (and undesirable) qualities in an Admin on Wikipedia. These are criteria I aspire and attempt to live by, so please, call me on it if I ignore one of them. This list is growing, feel free to question my thoughts, I ask only that any questions be asked on the talk page.
Positives
editAbsolute Necessities
edit- The One-[Person]-Band
- Shows willingness to contribute across namespaces (especially Talk namespaces)
- Good in a fight
- Must have shown experience communicating in a variety of situations
- Been involved (even peripherally) in at least one heated discussion or argument
- I fought the law...
- Settles debates with policy and consensus, not browbeating or WP:TRUTH
- Architects and Librarians
- Shows a desire to grow and improve the encyclopedia
- Builds articles, moves toward better articles, not just better grammar
Beneficial Qualities
edit- Topical Diversity
- Widget builders and WikiGnomes alike
- 100% Edit Summaries
- It's about respect for others time, not your perceptions
- Nomination by someone else
- And not a requested nom either
- Crosswords in Ink
- A bold but consensus-driven editor makes a great admin
Negatives
editDisqualifiers
edit- Puppetry
- Stated/Defended opinions contrary to policy
- Plane Crashing, Uselessness, Hedonism, Shrekism, or General Offensiveness
- Article or genre ownership
- An Agenda to Push (However righteous)
Misdemeanors
edit- History of vandalism, edit warring, or incivility (However long ago)
- Self-Noms
- Believing WP:IAR is the only policy