User:N5iln/essays

Criteria to be something other than an editor
Wikipedia is a full-time volunteer operation. No, that's not an oxymoron. It means that, from the standpoint of day-to-day operations, it's a 100% volunteer effort. With that in mind, there are some tasks that can't be performed by the typical editor. Wikipedia also requires the efforts of its volunteer administrators (sysops), bureaucrats, and so forth. Administrators and bureaucrats are positions that any editor may aspire to. To become one requires the consensus of the community (see WP:RFA for more information on the process itself). Many users who decide to voice their support or opposition to a particular candidate's suitability have at least some basic criteria which a candidate must meet before being granted the requested level of access.

What appears below are my own basic criteria. Note that with very few exceptions, those criteria are flexible and will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Don't take any of this as being Carved In Stone™; they're guidelines, not rules, and these guidelines only apply to my own decision-making process. The list is also perpetually a work in progress, and will likely change from time to time as I perceive the need.

Candidates for administrator
In order to meet the basic requirements, a candidate should meet the minimum criteria outlined below:
 * Registered and autoconfirmed account status for at least nine months
 * Reasonably active for at least six months prior to filing of the RfA
 * Edit count: irrelevant; I stand firmly against WP:EDITCOUNTITIS
 * Percentage of "automated" edits: also irrelevant, for the same reason as above
 * Clean block log
 * Demonstrated knowledge of common tasks inherent to Wikipedia, including proper use of markup and the ability to correctly transclude a page
 * Consistent use of clear and concise edit summaries

The following are highly desired criteria, but need not all appear in a candidate's history:
 * Creation of at least three articles, complete with properly-cited references to reliable, verifiable, neutral sources (if one or more make GA or FA status, it's a definite plus)
 * Active in at least two areas which shares common ground with administrator activity, including (but not limited to) AIV, UAA, RFPP, CSD or XfD
 * Active WP:GNOME-like editing (which may coincide with NPP or AIV as necessary)

A good knowledge base and the technical skills are only two of the legs of the stool. The third leg is temperament. The following is a partial and very subjective "go/no-go" list of attitude and behavior sets that I evaluate:
 * Propensity for authoritarianism - NO GO.
 * Willingness to admit an error - GO.
 * Willingness to both admit and correct an error - GO.
 * Excessive snide, sarcastic or snarky commentary on a User Talk page, an article Talk page or a Noticeboard - NO GO.
 * Any demonstrated or documented history of "do as I say, not as I do" WP:WIKILAWYERING - NO GO.
 * Demonstrated ability to remain on topic in a heated conversation - GO.
 * Demonstrated ability to ignore personal attacks and remain on topic: GO.
 * Habit of "giving as good as you get" - NO GO.
 * Habitual commenting for the sake of commenting - NO GO.
 * Showing a tendency towards "us vs. them" posturing - NO GO.
 * Self-deprecation - GO.
 * Habitual self-deprecation to the point of not taking a position for fear of being disagreed with - NO GO.
 * Anything else - evaluated case by case.

Candidates for bureaucrat
Bureaucrats are the folks who look over RfA results and decide whether a given candidate has met consensus to receive access to the admin toolset. In the case of close RfA results, bureaucrats evaluate the entirety of the given RfA and, either on their own or in a "'crat chat", determine consensus. It's that last part that makes being a bureaucrat a "step up" from being an administrator.

In order to be a bureaucrat, a candidate must submit themselves to the RfB gauntlet, which is much like the RfA gauntlet, but with even higher standards and more scrutiny. The "consensus" threshold for obtaining the bureaucrat bit is also higher, because of the added responsibility.

In order to meet the basic requirements for bureaucrat, I believe the candidate must meet these minimum criteria:
 * Active editing on Wikipedia for at least two years.
 * Active as a Wikipedia administrator for at least one year.
 * Squeaky-clean block log.
 * Edit count - irrelevant; I stand firmly against WP:EDITCOUNTITIS.
 * Excellent communication skills, as demonstrated on Talk pages and noticeboards.
 * No history of wheel-warring.

Highly-desirable criteria for becoming a bureaucrat include, but are not limited to:
 * Active participation in RfA processes, including discussions.
 * Ability to not only admit mistakes, but correct them immediately, no matter who points them out.
 * Demonstrated ability to remain cool in a heated discussion on a Talk page or noticeboard.
 * Positive, active contributions to the administrative processes, e.g. activity as a WP:SPI clerk.

Subjective criteria for temperament are the same as for those seeking the administrative toolset.