On 2/16/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do have personal invested interest demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion, consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki) demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act upon it
I for one think this is a pretty good summary of the sorts of things we should be looking for in candidates. Not necessarily formal criteria, but guidelines of what a nominator or candidate should be trying to demonstrate to the community at RFA.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better, discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a dispute between two parties, than I would a candidate who can only show me how many edits they made in a given namespace.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to some discussions where they've shown a good understanding of policy, for example, than a candidate who can only demonstrate they know how to use "VandalWhacker 2.0" or whatever software is popular these days.
That sort of thing.