User:Damon/What It Takes to be an Admin

This essay is reflects my opinion on the subject, and is not intended to reflect official policy. Please don't interpret it as such.

Introduction

So, you want to know what I think of you as an administrator? I've been asked that more than once by several people over the past year on the wiki, so I am writing down my set of guidelines, based on what I have seen on this wiki and various others. These guidelines are not formal policy, in fact, so far as I am aware, there are no formal requirements to becoming an administrator. These are simply the things that I look for when I vote in Requests for Adminship (henceforth referred to as RfA).

Also, please note that while I am directing this specifically towards administrators, many of these criteria hold true to various other positions.

If you're reading this, then either you stumbled upon it by chance, or you're honestly looking around for my opinion. If it's the former, feel free to read ahead, so you know what I want if you ever step up to the plate and apply. If you're the latter, pay close attention, because this small set of qualifications can make or break your support vote from me. If you ever want to know my opinion before an RfA, feel free to ask me.

Quality of Edits

One of the bigger things I look for in an administrator is the quality of their edits. Admins are appointed because they are the best the wiki can offer, and are knowledgeable about the many aspects of the site. As we are a wiki, the biggest job on the site is editing articles to make sure everything is up to date, accurate, and of the highest quality the wiki can provide. The quality of our articles is what puts us above the other Elder Scrolls wikis on the internet, so an aspiring admin needs only the best of edits.

I look at quality over quantity. While it's easier to judge an aspirant's editing skills when they have 5,000 edits rather than 500, I would rather look at 500 perfect edits than 5,000 mistakes that have to be constantly cleaned up. Of course, in my opinion, I would rather see more than 3,000 content edits, so that I have a large pool to look at.

Time on the Wiki

Administrators need to have a full understanding of the site, and how it operates, so ideally, more senior members are preferred when administrators are required. While how long you've been on site is not as important as other things in my list, I would prefer editors with at least a year and a half to two years or more, because that would allow time to fully familiarize yourself with all the intricacies of operating the wiki, although I would look at a newer editor as well if they prove to be active regularly across various aspects of the site, and able to understand what's going on.

Polite and Professional

Administrators tend to be the most active editors on the site, as it takes a lot of dedication to become one, so when a new user looks to staffers for help, administrators are often the first on the list to ask for help from.

When I am looking at aspiring administrators, I look over their past discussions with various users to judge their character. In addition to the quality of articles, how well an anonymous user can get along with other members of the site can make the difference between editing and reading UESP articles over the competition. An aspirant would have to show that they can keep a cool head in heated arguments, assume good faith, and show that they consider even anonymous editors as equal members of the community who have valid opinions. UESP occasionally has dealings with other Elder Scrolls communities, so going back to being professional, an administrator needs to be a person who is capable of speaking on behalf of the wiki.

Administrators are often brought in to provide second opinions in major discussions, so I also feel that a good administrator is someone who can listen to both sides of an argument, and then help create a compromise suitable to all involved parties.

Warnings/Blocks

This section is quite important, and will have a major impact on my vote, so be mindful of this!

When I am voting for an administrator, I want to know that they are in good standing with the community. While I would be a little more forgiving towards a warning, if it was a one time thing, you would have to try really hard to convince me you deserve to be an administrator if you have numerous warnings or blocks. As I stated above, administrators are a major part of the site's appearance, so UESP's visitors need to know that the site is in good hands.

Frequently Asked Questions in RfAs

Lastly on my little essay are the questions frequently asked during past RfAs. This short list is simply to give the aspiring admin something to glance over, so they know what to expect during an RfA.

1. What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator? How will it help the wiki? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?
2. What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future?
3. How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?
4. What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?
5. What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?

Coda

That is my opinion on who qualifies for being an administrator. While I didn't cover everything under the sun, I touched base on what I consider the most important. I hope this was informative, and if there are any additional questions you have that I didn't cover, then ask me, and I will be happy to answer.