400
edits
Shadowcrest (talk | contribs) (finished with all the admin points I had in mind, bureaucrat to be continued) |
m (17 year old cringe) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==== More importantly, what is this page not about? ==== | ==== 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 | 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 necessarily a standard by which to judge admins/bureaucrats already in administrative positions. 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? === | === 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 | 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 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 === | === Things to keep in mind === | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
=== Conflict moderation === | === 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 | 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 begins 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 === | === Policies and application === | ||
I think everyone agrees that admins should be familiar with [[SmashWiki:Policy|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? | I think everyone agrees that admins should be familiar with [[SmashWiki:Policy|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" === | === Helpfulness, professionalism, 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? | 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? | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
=== Synergy with existing admins === | === 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? | 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? What specialties a potential admin can bring to the group are also a nice bonus to have; for example, if you have a very good knowledge of Smashers/notability or are particularly good with game mechanics, your RfA is likely going to be stronger. | ||
=== Availability === | === Availability === | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
=== Intelligence/reasoning === | === Intelligence/reasoning === | ||
Good judgment is essential for all admins. This is by far the most essential criterion, and without it your request is almost certain to be unsuccessful. |