Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Guidelines

A glance at the 'requests for adminship' mainpage will quickly reveal that there are no official requirements to becoming a Wikipedia administrator. Anybody can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience. However this does not mean that there are no standards to be aware of. The reality is that adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, not percentages and numbers, and each user will have their own way to assess candidates' readiness for the role. While anybody can apply, a review of failed RfA's will quickly show that members of the community have many unwritten expectations. Applications that quickly show they have little chance of success are often closed early.

Common areas where users may have expectations will be in areas that show breadth and duration of experience, stability and professionalism as a community member (quality of interaction), and understanding of the Wikipedia ethos and main policies. Other signs of helpfulness or work undertaken in the community are also looked on favorably. Whilst no specific numbers exist for any of these, it is often possible to point to grey areas where a number of users will feel that it is unlikely sufficient experience has been obtained.

In short, RfA is a process of discussion and assessment.

The purpose of the Admin Coaching Project is to help ensure that potential candidates are adequately prepared for adminship. Generally your admin coach will review your edits and provide insight as to areas where you need to grow before submitting an RfA. Your coach will help you to assess potential stumbling blocks and help prepare for your RfA.

Whilst you may well be accepted for coaching or pass RfA below the basic criteria, if the quality of your work and your ability to get along with others merits it, in many cases users who are very much below RfA standard may wish to apply for adoption instead as a first stage.

Description	Typical experience level for starting Admin Coaching	Perceptions at RfA
Total edits	1000	Applicants at RfA often have upwards of 2000 - 3000 edits, showing an extensive history of activity on the project. If you are primarily a vandal fighter, you can easily double these numbers. if most of your work is automated (Twinkle, Anti-vandalism, and the like) be prepared to show a history of adding to the wiki as well as patrolling others' actions. Note that above a certain number, edit count is far less important than edit quality.
Main space edits	200	Many users will take a view that someone who lacks experience in the main article space of the project, is inherently less likely to be aware of core issues and values of the project. A number of RfA's succeed despite this, especially users who are honest about their focus on the project; such users generally have shown a broad and strong history of positive involvement outside mainspace to compensate for this area. For most editors, around 500 - 1000 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum. A candidate with 10,000 edits, but negligible mainspace edits may find it hard to pass an RfA.
Content writing	Should have a history of editing/contributing articles.	A number of editors go further than wanting a mainspace history, and feel that a positive measurable contribution to content-writing is desirable, to cement that admins should be content aware, not just process aware. Typical examples include DYKs and preferably a Good Article. Significant contribution to a featured article is seen very positively.
Participation in XfD's	Desired, but not required.	Deletion debates are a key way that an editor can show insight and perception in judging a specific matter. (RFC, 3O, and involvement in content-related noticeboards may be others). Significant involvement in processes that show judgement of a quasi-administrative nature are looked on favorably, and provide very good evidence to the community of your understanding of how policies and norms operate. Significant in this context would be anywhere from 30 to 100, but as usual, no hard figure exists.
Policies and guidelines	Prospective coachees should demonstrate an understanding of the basic policies and guidelines.	Prospective candidates should be able to research and find the appropriate policies and guidelines, and have a good working familiarity with the main policies and norms of the community. No user knows all of these, nor is RfA an examination of your knowledge of each one. A good working knowledge of norms and policies, and how they bear on situations you are likely to encounter is what is sought. If you do not know, then asking, or checking consensus, is a norm as well. You will have to learn about the policies related to admin tools, which you will not have the chance to try out prior to RfA. You can do this by reading examples of cases discussed at WP:ANI, or tracking the comments to users listed at Category:Requests for unblock. Further evidence of familiarity comes from contribution to debates such as xFD (above) or answering and assisting others with their questions/issues. You are encouraged, when you feel ready, to contribute views on policy talk pages and WP:ANI; if your view is perceptive it will rank with any administrators as part of the discussion. If you act like an admin, you will be seen as an admin.
Number of active months on Wikipedia	3 months	Usually as with edit count, a significant history of active months is sought, typically a minimum of 6 - 8 months. Few users will feel you can establish a track record in less than around 4-5 months of active editing.
History of incivility, vandalism or being blocked	A user who is habitually or grossly uncivil or has been blocked, may need about 3 months to put this in the past. Vandalism is more serious, implying a wilful desire to disrupt, and may need 6-9 months without incident before it will be considered genuinely a historic matter	Incivility is one of the quickest ways to fail an RfA. As an administrator you will represent Wikipedia to new users. No matter what you have seen from others, adminship at this time requires a fairly high general standard of patience and civility, and a long track record of civil good quality conduct. If you have been blocked, people will look at that fairly openly, since a block can happen for many reasons. Good evidence that it does not show a problem, or old, will be sought and it will be discussed, but the community is often willing to trust people who were in that past blocked for a reason that does not reflect on the future. This assumes the block was valid and the candidate deserved the block. Valid reasons or overturned blocks can shorten/eliminate this guideline. Vandalism or other actions that require deliberate intention to disrupt (puppetry for example) by contrast is serious, and it will often be a year or more before people trust you with the tools.
Breadth of exposure.	Should have exposure to 1 to 3 projects/tasks/etc.	User seeking RfA should have exposure to several projects/tasks/etc. This may be as few as 4 - 6, or "a wide breadth of exposure to many areas".