Among participants at Requests for adminship it has recently[update] become fashionable to publish individual RfA voting criteria. As I fear mine is far from mainstream, I decided to follow suit.
Criterion 1 of 1: The candidate has clue, broadly construed.
I only infrequently !vote at RfA (see here for an overview) but this does not mean I have no opinion. I will typically follow every RfA that goes over the full distance though I am unlikely to !vote in any of them that move into a direction I approve. I will not pile on if it makes no difference, so there are only two reasons for me to voice my opinion:
Think again. While I (obviously) believe I fulfill my own criterion, I do not meet those of many others, particularly in terms of:
Still convinced I should become administrator? On the one hand, I am not too excited about the prospect. I already know how the additional tabs and drop-down options look like because our institution runs a wiki. My biggest satisfaction comes with submitting a well-researched start-class article on an important topic that nobody else cared about before--this will not change with additional user rights, and this will remain my main focus. I intend to keep my contribution to AN/I at the single-digit edit count it is today.
On the other hand, I am not afraid of the RfA hell, and I think I can be trusted with minor janitorial work. I believe I know all important policies, and much of the Long Tail as well. For administering our university projects the ability to quickly get rid of some ill-considered pages would come handy, as would the read access to deleted contributions. If you are admin yourself, or if you are a very experienced editor in good standing, go ahead and offer your nomination.