User:Emmett/Qualifications

About this page

What is it?

This page is a list of criteria that I feel are important for potential administrators and bureaucrats to have. Also note that many of these qualities are subjective-- that's why, hopefully, you have a good bureaucrat who is able to effectively judge them. I hope that candidates-- as well as regular users, even the ones who have no desire to be an admin/bureaucrat-- strive to reflect these qualities, because frankly, these are never bad traits to have.

More importantly, what is this page not about?

There are a few potential misconceptions about this page that I want to clear up. First, this is not an all-inclusive list. There are most likely a variety of other things that I consider that are not listed here, either because they don't always apply or I just forgot to put them here. Second, this is not a standard by which to judge admins/bureaucrats already in administrative positions. Administrators and bureaucrats are promoted for life. The only reason for one to lose their positions is for very serious mistakes, and if we need a list such as this to tell us when one of those occurs, the wiki is in much more trouble than a simple list can resolve. Furthermore, not every admin/bureaucrat has to be good at everything on this list. I, for example, am terrible with .js/.css, MediaWiki extensions, bots, etc. Other admins may be great at maintaining the wiki but not so great at interpersonal relations, and that's okay. We can't all be paragons of excellence.

Why did you make this?

I made this page for a couple reasons. First, I've been asked various times during my tenure as a bureaucrat what I feel are important things that I look for in candidates, and I intend for this page to be a good baseline for the answer to that question. This is also a way for me to help formulate my own thoughts, because (amazing as I am, I know), I do sometimes forget to look for certain things when evaluating a RfX. Third, it is my personal hope that this page will help return discussion on RfXs to things that are actually important to the case. I feel that, for many newer users especially, comments focus on things that are of no help to me when judging the request, and hopefully this will give those off users a way to talk about what's actually important.

Things to keep in mind

Of course, this list is in no way final. There are a number of things that are important for potential candidates to have that can not be codified, such as current need and trust of the bureaucrats. This list can't cover every aspect of administration/bureaucracy. Furthermore, depending on the circumstances, certain qualities listed here are unimportant, while certain qualities not (yet) listed here are highlighted. Just because you meet most (or even all) of these points doesn't guarantee you a promotion.

Can I modify this page?

If you feel like you have additional criterion that admins/bureaucrats should have, add a note to the talk page explaining why you feel like that's important. If I agree, I'll add it to the page; if I don't, I'll try my best to explain why I disagree. Likewise, if you don't agree with something that I've written, bring it up with me on the talk page.

Administrators

This is a list of qualities that I feel that users applying for adminship should possess. Some of it is common sense; some of it is stuff you might not have considered before. This probably overlaps some with the bureaucrat section below, but that's because these traits are largely qualities that anyone in a leadership position should have.

Deletion

As an administrator, the user in question will have the power to delete pages. Is he familiar with the wiki's standards for deletion? Has he placed delete tags before, or participated in controversial deletion discussions? Is the candidate likely to ignore established consensus?

Banning

Blocks are one of the most notable aspects of adminship, because they are so rarely clean-cut actions. In addition to considering the user's ability to ban for vandalism, other aspects are to be looked at as well. Is the user likely to be particularly harsh or particularly lenient with the block tool, in frequency or duration? Has he voiced an opinion in ban discussions before, and were their comments reasonable? Has the user asked for a ban to be placed before, and was this request reasonable? (Did the request spark more drama than the ban would have itself?) Has the user been banned before, and if so, how did he respond to the ban? Most importantly, is the user capable of effectively judging when a ban will help resolve the issue and when it will simply cause problems?

Protection

Protection is the least-used administrative tool, but still an important one. Is the user likely to be overzealous in protecting pages that really don't need it, or protecting pages for far longer than necessary?

Conflict moderation

This, along with blocks, are two of the most non-textbook parts of administrating effectively. Though admins are free to abstain from conflict moderation at their discretion (and this is usually encouraged when the admin is clearly biased toward specific users), it is still a quality that I feel every admin should possess, even if they choose not to employ it. Since in conflicts that users are unable to resolve, admins (collectively) usually get the final say: has the candidate proven in the past that he is able to argue well and without becoming excessively passionate? Is his judgment to be trusted as the arbiter of hostile situations? When the user does choose to intervene in such a case, do his posts help calm the situation, or do they merely inflate it? Most importantly, if an admin beings to get heated by the discussion (it happens), is his judgment good enough to recognize that he should take a break and calm down before resuming posting?

Policies and application

I think everyone agrees that admins should be familiar with policy. This applies to both the spirit and the letter of the law, and they should also recognize that spirit trumps letter. Has the user tried to help with enforcement of policy as a normal user (and if they have, did they do it successfully by not causing conflict), through contacting existing admins, posting on the noticeboard, or perhaps leaving violators (friendly and non-confrontational!) messages? (See also: SmashWiki:Block talk.) Does the user himself follow the policies and guidelines appropriately? Does the user have a history of "wikilawyering", and is he aware that consensus trumps policy?

Helpfulness and "people skills"

Effective communication is an essential part of being an admin. Though this is not synonymous with being friendly, it does certainly help if the candidate is kind, especially to newer users. Is the candidate willing to help new users with simple things, like signing posts and archiving, as well as more complicated things, like explaining policies? How effectively can a user explain blocks to the recipients regarding why the block was enacted? Does the user encourage new projects that could benefit the wiki?

Community trust in the candidate

Simply put, does the community trust the candidate to do well at his job? Does the community respect the opinions and decisions of the candidate? This is particularly important for people to establish in RfAs, because it might be hard for the bureaucrats to see otherwise.

Candidate trust in the community

The opposite of the above point. Does the candidate recognize that perhaps the community knows better? Is he able to recognize when there is community consensus and act accordingly, even if he disagrees? Is the candidate open about his intentions as an administrator?

Technical expertise

This isn't something that is required of potential admins, but it's certainly a nice bonus. Is the user able to benefit the site using their technical knowledge, such as working with sitewide .js/.css, writing bots, working with MediaWiki extensions, etc?

Synergy with existing admins

One thing that bureaucrats in particular should consider is how well a candidate would work with the admins already in place. However, a poor fit isn't a dealbreaker; sometimes, admins who disagree with existing admins can benefit the wiki by promoting change. At the very least, new admins should be able to get along with the existing ones in order to prevent excessive wikidrama. Is the promotion likely to result in conflict and overturned administrative actions?

Availability

Though an explicit time commitment is obviously not required of new admins (or any user), it is fairly common for new administrators to be promoted when there is a notable lack of current administrative presence.

Intelligence/reasoning

This is without a doubt the biggest issue I have with many potential candidates. To be quite honest, if you don't meet my standards for intelligence and good reasoning skills, I won't promote you. End of story. This isn't the same as agreeing with me on everything (though it probably helps, because I'm always right :P ). You can disagree with me and still be intelligent, as long as you sufficiently back it up. Also, it is probably good practice to avoid saying something stupid, either on the wiki or on IRC, because I will probably remember it. (I don't know if I'm the only bureaucrat like this, but more often than not I know in my mind whether or not I think a candidate should pass/fail as soon as I see who's running.)