User blog comment:Brainulator9/My rant blog... again/@comment-17897872-20140813032359

Current systems that I am using in different wikias where I am a bureaucrat will use the following rubric. Every user can provide a separate column score for nomiations, where a strict average score of 84.5-100 will mean promoting (and yes, graders are pretty tough with no rounding XD). Bureaucrats' and administrators' scores count three times as much as a normal score, with chat moderators'/rollbacks' two times as much, and a user with 25 mainspace edits a normal count.

10 - Activity (how active is the person) 50 - Knowledgeableness/Usefulness (How knowledgeable or useful is the person? Would the wiki be substantially different from - 40 for usefulness, and 10 for coding knowledge) 20 - Maturity (how mature is the person) 15 - Friendliness (how friendly is the person) 5 - Uniqueness (how this user stands out from other users) === 105 TOTAL POINTS

For example, I would rate Someone456 as the following compared to everyone I've known with experiences:

10 (Extremely active) 48 (The person is very useful on the wiki and it wouldn't be the same without him - however, lack of extremely professional coding skills - just like me - draws him back just a tiny bit) 20 (I believe he is the most mature one I know so far) 13 (Sure, he is friendly. Always willing to help.) 5 (So far, the one with the most mainspace edits - I don't give a bleep about the edit count on the masthead, most-deserved b-crat, AWESOME profile picture) === 96

For example, I would rate NomineeA as the following compared to everyone I've known with experiences:

7 (Semi-active) 40 (Useful on the wiki - with second-to-none coding skills, me following) 10 (Could be much more mature; oh well) 10 (Sort-of friendly) 2 (Nice profile page) === 69 = No pass

Is this stricter? Or too strict?