Talk: Admin criteria

Discussion for User:M.mendel/Admin Criteria

Question: is this meant as a "be all and end all" or is it merely the equivalent of a WikiEssay? *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of making some sort of "official" page if enough other people add their opinions. --Macros 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously this is great, but its never going to be implemented as official criteria of any kind, so - why bother :S-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? --Macros 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In a wiki where admins can be appointed on the basis of being friends with the bureaucrat, even in the face of massive community opposition, under the pretext that "Hes a great editor on another wiki.....no really, i just cant reveal his username, but srsly, great contributor" why the hell would the people with the power to select admins want to have their powers limited to appointing only appropriate candidates?-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a really crappy (not to mention biased) way of summarizing the multiple walls of text Auron wrote in defense of his promotion of Phalanage. Poisoning the well is bad. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cobalt's words may not be pleasant to your eyes, but they are indeed true. Some people value honesty more than sophistry. ;D 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As to defining what makes a good admin, if you intend this as anything other than a WikiEssay, it's a horrendous idea. Yes, there are general things you look for in an Admin, but trying to take a list of "objective" criteria and apply them to every candidate and then basing decisions on that set list of criteria is a crappy idea. They're indicators at best. Besides, there's no one "template" or "definition" which can ever hope to define a good admin properly and not everyone is gonna agree on whether candidate X fits that template anyway, so what's the point? Not to mention the fact that something is always lost in the attempt to write something down in an unqualified fashion. I also don't like the implication that it's intended to make the decision for the Bureaucrats. That said, if you're just trying to get down some thoughts on various things people should take into account (among others), I don't have a problem with it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If consensus between at least 2 Bcrats was required before a decision was made, there would be no problem - seems simple enough to me. Also, indent moar plz-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'm considering that possibility (see User:Defiant Elements/RFA). It wouldn't solve this particular problem though. Telling all three Bureaucrats the precise criteria upon which Sysops are promoted, then telling them whether a Sysop has those qualities, and then using that as a justification for essentially forcing a Bureaucrat to promote (or at least, that's the feeling I'm getting) is no different than telling one. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :DE, would you please /&%$/&$ing read what I write? "This is a list of criteria that help discussing admin candidates. It is NOT a list you check off to get a candate score. It is there to give people an idea what to write in their RfA opinions. That is what help discussing means. These are the points that a bureaucrat must weigh in his mind clearly means that the Bureaucrat decides, not the public; the public through well-reasoned argument helps the Bureaucrat come to a decision that ultimately benefits the community, but the Bureaucrat is the one doing the weighing.

Seriously, I am quite worked up atm because you so completely build my writing into a straw man that I start to suspect you want to misunderstand me - for whatever reason. I sincereyl hope that this is not the case. --◄mendel► 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I originally posted this in response to your comment on my page and then figured I should move it here after skimming the page. As I said though, as long as that's the case, I have no problem with it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. --◄mendel► 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are other points the Bureaucrat should be weighing in her mind, please add them to the list! --◄mendel► 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Im sure Bureaucrats are capable of "weighing in their mind" all of these things already. If we are to create guidelines instructing bureaucrats what to think before they make an arbitary decision...well, really, they shouldnt be bcrats if they cant think for themselves. If you dont wish to create objective criteria that has to be stuck by then anyone can say "oh ye, i weighed all this in my mind before i appointed the guy with 2 edits - and from my mind-weighing i can safely conclude that he represents the community very well" :-/ I don't wish to jump camps or anything, but seriously now, Atleast DE's idea of consensus means that there is a process which it can be conclusively proven has been followed - most bcrats on any wiki who appoint someone based on something other than the candidates appropriateness are going to say that they did plenty of er, mind-weighing beforehand and that they feel he/she represnts the community wonderfully and not "oh i know hes shit, but i like his style!'" -- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more for the regular users than the bcrats. This is to improve the RfA process by giving the users something meaningful to discuss, instead of rehashing the old "lots of contribs, nice guy" stuff. --Macros 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thats even less meaningful, the discussions don't achieve anything, the decision is made on the basis of what the bureaucrat thinks, not on the discussion between members of the community :S-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that what the community discusses has no impact on the Bureaucrats' thinking at all? Then your position is a clear negative on the whole concept of RfA, and you don't need to be splitting hairs here - just say "no". If you admit that the discussion may raise points that the Bcrats should think about, then the questions that the Bcrat ponders should be on the table so community input is invited. Community consensus doesn't just matter for decision making - indeed, we would be better off with a few polls if that was the case - community consensus means that everyone including the Bureaucrats take care to respect each other and understand each other's arguments so that everybody's actions have a higher chance to benefit the community as a whole. If you say that Bureaucrats should not listen to the community then you might as well call the Bureaucrat an Autocrat and be done with it - it'd save me a lot of time thatI could better spend elsewhere. --◄mendel► 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not indenting this since it's general comments - I like this. It gives a better idea than the RfA page or the GW:ADMIN page or anything else, about what we usually should be thinking about candidates these days. In fact I think it ought to be merged into one of those documents somehow, sort of as an instructional guide which directs discussion...maybe it would help improve the quality of RfA "votes". (although hopefully they don't all become the "Bureaucrat" page from hell!) One thing I have to say, though, is that these criteria are perhaps a bit too inclusive of what an admin's duties are. Remember that the strict definition is "prot/ban/del". Anyting extra than that, such as social skills, conflict resolution, kind to new uesrs, etc. is a bonus. They should not be given equal weight to the first three criteria, as they are ultimately the most important...whether or not the user can be trusted with admin powers. Basically, will they use them well. I'm not really sure how the rest of the boni can be turned into objective "criteria" to discuss, without misleading some users into believing they are equally important / expected. (T/C) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I would like you to reconsider your statement about the role of admins. GuildWiki:Administrate users, not content says: normal editors must abide by the decisions made by administrators (they can be overturned by other admins, of course). To be able to wield this power in a community that is based on voluntary contributions with limited sanctions available, they must have the skills and the respect required. I understand (and wrote) that not every admin has to have that; it depends on an understanding of the role the admin candidate is to be promoted for. I could justify promoting an admin solely for the power to ban/prot/del if it was apparent that the wiki was left "unprotected" for extended periods of time, or that existing admins were overworked dealing with the ban/del/prot tags. --◄mendel► 10:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the only reason I promoted Dr Ishmael, is because deletion of the garbage was getting ridiculously slow and I was overworked enough already. :p No-one seemed upset about that, though, and as is evident, the other "admin material" came naturally later.

That policy? Frankly I didn't even know we had that one, or I forgot...it is invoked so rarely and doesn't have a cool GW: shortcut like the others (afaik). It has the same stuff as GW:ADMIN and GW:YAV and GW:AGF though, just worded differently and with different focus. Anyway, "To be able to wield this power in a community that is based on voluntary contributions with limited sanctions available, they must have the skills and the respect required. Where do you get that idea? I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but merely curious as that is not an opinion that I have ever entertained myself or really heard others propose (in so clear a way). It would help me to understand your point, which I am afraid is lost on my sleepless daze. (T/C) 11:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that policy. I just stumbled upon this quote: Were admins here merely in charge of deleting and protection, he would be a great candidate. —Tanaric 15:04, 31 January 2007 (CST) Now you might think refers to banning, but see here: I believe that, as much as I wish it were otherwise, the words and stances of sysops on the GuildWiki have an immediate and tangible effect on the culture and standards of this place. If I believed that adminship were only a matter of additional tools, I'd grant you them right now with no qualms or hesitation. —Tanaric 13:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I had hoped that my point would be self-evident upon reflection. Why would you work for an incompetent boss you don't respect? For the money? Riiiiight... Anyway, I did a google search on "managing voluntary work" and dug up these quotes:

• An ethos of 'niceness' and decency in many voluntary organisations creates a need for special skills in managing staff efficiently and effectively. - An ethos of participation and consensus in some voluntary organisations may create difficulties in decision-making and management of staff and volunteers. (Very telling,but not to this point: "There's a lot of significance attached to everyone's feeling involved, but who can actually influence what happens is another matter.") - In many voluntary organisations, managers report that the 'myth' of equality means that there is no automatic acceptance of credentials and experience, and often some resistance to them. Managers have to earn respect anew. [1]
• In case of disputes, operate on the principle that “The Staff is Always Right.” Or operate on the principle of “My Volunteers, Right or Wrong.” This is no time for compromise. Sounds like your 99% principle, right? Unfortunately, this is a quote from How to Generate Conflict Between Paid Staff and Volunteers.
• How to Deal with Conflict. Read that now, it's a short list. This is what some admins need to be able to do. And just for the fun of it (and because google threw it up): Retention and Recognition. Google search of that site is here. --◄mendel► 15:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

--◄mendel► 11:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC)