GuildWiki:Admin criteria

What?
This is a list of criteria that help discussing admin candidates. It is hoped that many people find many of these criteria relevant for many of the candidates.

Why?
This is not a checklist to judge existing admins. According to GW:ADMIN, we're stuck with them for life, and they will only get demoted for serious blunders that hopefully we won't need a list to discern.

This list serves to focus the discussion that accompanies a RfA. These are the points that a bureaucrat must weigh in his mind and that the community should argue. Ideally, RfA discussion should be focused on the points on this list.

Of course this list is in no way final. There are always special circumstances that may render some criteria unimportant while highlighting others not (yet) on the list.

What is missing?
An admin must not only be suitable for the job, he/she must also have the trust of the bureaucrats to get promoted, and there may be no need for his or her skills. The criteria below don't adress that.

Help!
If you can think of a criterion a good admin should have, feel free to add it to the list. Write a paragraph describing why you feel a good admin should be like that.

It is sufficient when some people think that some admins need to be that way. Please do not delete criteria; do not revert. Ignore trolls.

Discuss - modify - enlarge!

Deleting
As an admin, the candidate will have the power to delete. How is the candidate likely to use that power? Has the candidate requested pages or files to be deleted?

Protecting
As an admin, the candidate will have the power to protect a page. How is the candidate likely to use that power? Would the page really need protection?

Banning
As an admin, the candidate will have the power to ban. How is the candidate likely to use that power? Has the candidate requested other users to be banned? Has s/he voiced an opinion in ban discussions?

Conflict moderation
An admin has the final say in disputes (although other admins can overturn that). Has the candidate shown that s/he can moderate disputes? Do the candidate's interventions calm conflicts, or do they feed them?

Rule enforcement
Does the candidate enforce Guildwiki policies, guidelines and community consensus? Does the candidate give a good example of respecting them? What does the admin do to correct infractions? Does he explain rules to people who don't understand them?

Help and support
Does the admin help other users get the most out of the wiki in furthering their aims for the good of the wiki? (a bit short)

Community trust
Does the community trust the candidate and give weight to her or his opinions? Is the candidate open about her or his intentions? Does s/he discuss and explain her or his decisions well? Is the candidate impartial? Does s/he abstain from discussions where s/he would be biased?

Community Support
Is the candidate able to rally support for projects s/he engages in?

Speed vs Thoughtfulness
Is the candidate quick to rush into action? Is the candidate thoughtful and considered in his actions? What is the outcome in either case?

Initiative
Does the candidate step in to moderate conflicts successfully even when s/he is not personally concerned (or called for help)?

Ability to compromise
Is the candidate able to back down from an untenable point in a discussion? Can the candidate compromise on issues where a solution satisfactory to all parties cannot be reached? Is the candidate able to adopt a temporary solution to a non-urgent problem and leave the thorough discussion until later?

Technical knowledge
Does the candidate have technical knowledge that enables her or him to judge what actions or changes may be technically feasible? Areas of knowledge include Wikicode, Templates, Site CSS and Javascript, Mediawiki extensions, and Bots.

Experience
Does the candidate have a track record in other administrative roles (wiki, forum)? How did s/he perform in respect to these criteria?

"Coworkers"
How does the candidate fit in with the existing admin team? If the fit is bad, that could lead to administrative decisions being often called into question or overturned by other admins. The candidate should thus be able to at least get along with the currently active admins, and avoid provoking disputes within the adminship.

Seeking Input
Does the candidate seek the input of others before deciding on a course of action that will affect other editors and potentially cause conflict?