Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-26928286-20170719210225/@comment-9154802-20170720031715

While an edit and time system is good at determining ones' dedication to a wiki, whether or not someone should be promoted should be more focused on their judgement and ability to operate things competently. Their page quality should also be considered, as you need someone who is clearly capable of holding deep and thorough discussions on complicated situations, something which someone of poor writing capability may not be able to do. Intellect is also something you can base a promotion on, but this may make you come across as too much of darwinist. (But you certainly wouldn't want someone who's clearly impaired and has the smarts of a toddler.)

However, one thing to keep in mind is that admin promotion is also quite a judgement call. You need to be able to tell if that person is right for the job and can work with users well enough. You can't have someone who's gonna cut people slack cause they're friends. No one should ever be cut slack. You break a rule, you get punished, no if and or butts, admins have to be merciless to work properly. They can't be making deals and what not because you're nice to them.

Also, on the subject of neutral responses as Porcy brought up, I believe that unless it's a support, you need to explain your opinion on the subject. Just telling "Neutral" or "Opposed" doesn't say anything and doesn't allow admins to try and make compromise so everyone as possible can be satisfied, and it's in my personal opinion that anyone who fails to explain themselves should be ignored until they do so.

Now I'm a bit tired, probably could've gone into more detail, but people on other wikis tend to dislike long posts (Though if you can't take the time to read a long, detailed, and thorough post on a situation, then you shouldn't apply for Admin, just saying. That'd be next level incompetence.)