It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
I think that adminship standards are generally currently a little too high. I recently had a RfA and I was opposed for what I believe to be useless reasons. The major one, which I see in other RfAs as well, is edit count. Not having "enough" total edits or "enough" edits in a certain namespace (usually the mainspace and/or project namespace) can draw one many opposes.
As a community, I think that we are recognizing these reasons for opposition have little to do with if the candidate is suited for adminship. Because of this, I think that the standards of the community are going down a little (in certain unneeded aspects).
My standards
Many users have set standards for what they expect out of an adminship candidate - I am not one of them. There are a few things that I look for though.
Civility
Civility is of utmost importance. I do recognize that everyone makes mistakes though. If there was an isolated incivility some months back, that's one thing.
This section is a stub, though I'd rather you didn't expand it, as it reflects my personal views, and my views only.
Is RfA broken?
This section is a stub, though I'd rather you didn't expand it, as it reflects my personal views, and my views only.
