User talk:Mkativerata/Administrator capability statement

Point 4
I've been following the conversation on WT:RFA. One sentence that concerns me is #4. My thinking is that it's difficult for someone who is not an admin to demonstrate "ability to use administrative tools." Instead, it might be better to incorporate your sentiment here into other lines or a new line. For example, I think a line like "Demonstrated ability to edit neutrally and without an improper purpose" might be easier for a candidate to show (and to criticize those who haven't met the criteria, like those with a history of POV-pushing). This could also be worked into #1 instead of being a separate point. (side note:overall, I think this list is a good idea, and hope it gains traction.)Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea - how about this? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - except how does one demonstrate the ability to edit neutrally? If that's all you've ever done, how do you prove it? This is more related to what can kill an RFA, editing with obvious bias. Franamax (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My only concern about that is that it makes the "involved" link a bit of an Easter egg link. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've removed the link. WP:INVOLVED is a subset of what we mean by acting neutrally and without improper purpose, so it's not an accurate link. Re Franamax: I suspect if there are no red flags and you have a reasonable level of experience, that would be how you "demonstrate" the ability to edit neutrally. But we might be able to conceive of some better wording to get that message through. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "A contribution record of neutral article edits, and a demonstrated understanding that administrators must always observe the same principles of impartiality in admin actions"? That seems too long, but captures what I would be looking for. Each clause can be tested separately, the first by checking contrib history, the second by questions at the RFA. Franamax (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is demonstrated across the project space though, such as XfDs, article talk pages, etc. How about: "A record of neutrality as an editor, and a demonstrated understanding that administrators must always observe the principles of neutrality and impartiality when using their tools" --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is better. I can see arguments coming up between inclusionists and deletionists over what constitutes "neutrality" in project space WRT xFD discussions, though maybe that is an unavoidable consequence. I guess I was thinking of neutral editing of articles (and article talk) in particular, as that is the end target of what we do. But indeed, the concept applies to all spaces, so your wording is better. Franamax (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First point / first+second point
I'd like to propose that the first two points be re-merged to their original intent, but reworded as "Working knowledge of the broad range of administrative tools and sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied" (or more elegant wording). I think the objection raised to the original "Sound judgement and experience relevant to the broad range of administrative tools" revolved around "experience" vs. "broad range", in that it really isn't reasonable to expect an admin candidate to know everything and have worked in all the possible areas. The benefit I see in my wording is that it allows the candidate to demonstrate basic understanding or what the various main rivers and side-ponds of administration are (which can be done by just reading the relevant project pages) and to indicate how well they understand when you should be actually pushing the button, as opposed to maybe going to a noticeboard for consensus. The current wording seems problematic, as "[a]bility to use sound judgement" is sufficiently vague that any supporter or opposer can get into "has"/"has-not" arguments. And really, I don't care how unsound you are as an article contributor, just so long as you are a good admin - although there will likely be a correlation between the two. But we're testing potential admins here, so shouldn't the criteria be worded towards use of admin tools? Franamax (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I raised at WT:RFA, I like the way Mkativerata set it up. I feel pretty strongly that we should stick with "the range", rather than "the broad range". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with merging 1 and 2 back, it's good to get the number of criteria down as well by merging where possible. I'd probably leave out the word "broad" to try to keep both sides of that particular debate reasonably happy: both sides can then determine exactly what the "range" is. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After server outage, interesting how when we start discussing improvements to RFA they shut the servers off. :) Yes, "broad" can go, as it is open to exactly the sort of trickiness Trypto mentions. Franamax (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I made them shut down! ;-) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! --Mkativerata (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "working knowledge" might be an issue, since candidates by definition have not yet worked with the tools. (Not sure how to say it though.) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Understanding of"? We can probably expect an admin candidate to at least understand the elements of the job they're seeking. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, better yet: "Demonstrated understanding of". --Tryptofish (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So "Demonstrated understanding of the range of administrative tools, and sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied"? That satisfies my desire for clarity and ability of any reviewing editor to objectively test and discuss each component (except maybe I have a comma splice in there or some other confusion). Franamax (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Communication
How about Ability to communicate clearly, constructively and courteously with other editors. I think this a fairly important part of being an admin, and goes beyond civility. For example, it includes explaining contentious decisions and responding to complaints (could even include good edit summary usage). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes (any way to work it into the existing list items?). --Tryptofish (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is really the "civility" bit rewritten. I'd rather see the whole "civility" thing discarded on a general basis wiki-wide, because the real issue is whether you can communicate effectively . If being rude or blunt gets the job done without bad feelings on the part of the interacting editor, who cares how it happens? (There is of course the example it sets for others, but I know there are some editors here I can be much more direct with than others) This wording could completely replace "Civil behaviour" in the relevant point (#5 as I write), but the bit about ability to de-escalate should stay. So "Ability to communicate clearly, constructively and courteously with other editors; and the ability to avoid unnecessary escalation of conflict"? Each bit is objectively testable. Franamax (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that because (a) civility is a contentious issue; and (b) "courteously" does the job without the baggage. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to get the job done to me as well. One man's incivility is another man's banter. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having an ability doesn't mean that one always uses it. I would prefer "a record of communicating clearly, constructively and courteously with other editors". That would cover the people who communicate perfectly well in some circumstances, but for example choose never to inform authors when they tag their articles for deletion. At the same time a substantial record will rarely be a perfect one.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  04:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be my fault, I took a few "demonstrated"s out of the individual points when I put "must demonstrate" into the preamble (or changes similar thereto). I was trying to unify the criteria in wording, with the explicit assumption that every point needed to be demonstrated either from the record of edits, or from answers to Qs. Perhaps I have successfully confounded the whole matter, but that's where I was going with those changes. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Another idea--directions to questioners and voters
I think it might be helpful that if such a list of criteria were appending to RFAs, that participants be given instructions. Specifically, voters who raise concerns/praise could be asked to expressly state which criteria it is the candidate seems to not meet. So, for instance, someone could say "Oppose per criteria 6, as the user has contributed less than 2000 edits to article and article talk pages" or "Neutral: While a generally good editor, I'm concerned that, based on the discussion seen at Talk:Example, the editor does not meet Criteria 3." While this kind of phrasing is more appropriate for oppose and neutral votes, a support voter could also make explicit reference, such as, "Support: Overall an excellent benefit to the project; I especially note that xyr work on the highly contentious RfC on Political Topic Omega is evidence of exactly what we need in an administrator."

My thinking here goes back to my training as a personnel manager, about how much more effective it is when explaining disciplinary/hiring decisions in the context of "Candidate X shouldn't be hired because they don't meet Requirement A" or "Employee Y is being written up because they didn't meet Standard B" than it is to just generally say "They done bad." Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I'd see it working -- probably similar to what you're thinking -- is that the criteria would be a basis for (a) editors to interrogate supports and opposes; and (b) 'crats to determine the consensus. So if an oppose said only 3,000 edits but didn't explain why that arbitrary number gave rise to any problems with respect to the criteria, it wouldn't count for much. A good oppose would say The candidate has only been around for 3 months, and has accumulated 3,000 edits, most of which are anti-vandalism. So I don't think the candidate has exposed herself to the project with sufficient depth to gain an adequate knowledge of policies and guidelines (#2). Nor is the experience sufficient for me to judge many of the other criteria. We could have an edit notice to each RfA asking !voters to review and consider the candidate against the criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Yes, exactly. I've already been thinking of writing an "Interpretation guidelines" section, but I'm thinking that curbing my enthusiasm and letting the whole thing gel for a while might be better. We need to establish that this is a very good point-reference that can keep RFAs on track, but not the be-all and end-all of candidate evaluation. Franamax (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How much content creation is enough?
I can accept that a would-be admin should have at least some amount of experience creating or improving content. But if possible, I would like to see an upper bound to how much content creation a !voter may legitimately demand of a candidate. For example, is one GA enough? Three GA's? If a !voter opposes a candidate because he/she doesn't have 10 GA's or a FA, is that reasonable, or is it going too far? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that there should be reasonable limits, I don't think that such a question really fits within what Mkativerata is trying to do here—that is, create a sort of "job requirements" for administrators. Also, I'd be worried about going into a long discussion about that, as you certainly won't get consensus, and it could easily derail something that could be useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the idea here is to avoid numerical limits. Two illuminating comments (for me) are at 21:35 13Jan11 (Jim Miller) and 22:19 13Jan11 (Malleus Fatuorum) on WT:RFA (and further on in that thread too). Commitment to content improvement can take many forms, but each !voter will still need to evaluate against their own expectations. I think we should be shifting the whole mindset away from "I've got two GA's and 12 DYK's, can I be an admin now so I don't have to do any more?" and toward recognizing a day-to-day commitment to making articles better. If you pick one random article every day and go through it to fix all the typos and grammos, you might never get a fancy reward-box left on your talk page, but in my books, that is commitment to content improvement. Franamax (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that adding reliably sourced information with an inline cite is a basic skill that all new admins should have. I like nominating candidates who have referenced uBLPs that other people have created, aside from demonstrating an understanding of citation and sourcing, I think that people who clear up after others often have the right mentality for the mop.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Preamble
Comparing this version with this, I'm concerned that the expansion of the preamble may actually have complicated things more than helped. I think that editors can argue endlessly about what the first paragraph should or should not say, with no right or wrong answer, and I feel like such arguments are exactly the kinds of things that can sidetrack a proposal when it gets to RfC. And the detail about RfA questions in the second paragraph could bump up against the current debate about there being too many such questions. Perhaps this is a case where, if for no reasons other than strategy, WP:KISS should apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added that partly in response to the concerns raised originally about #1, to make the point that a candidate is not expected to know every single "admin-thing" there is, and set the tone for a very general list of capabilities. My advice would be to slice and dice it to your heart's content, i.e. let's have the endless argument now. ;) Myself, I think it's amazingly well-written, but I would say that, wouldn't I? :) Franamax (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, that's exactly what I always think about my own writing! Actually, my first instinct is to just revert all of it, which is why I chose instead to raise this in talk and see what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the introductory wording is going to be the most important part, as it will explain the purpose of the criteria. I'm inclined to think for the time being it should be as uncontroversial as possible, and then when the purpose and use of the capabilities are more defined (there's still a long way to go on that at WT:RFA) we can refined the wording. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary (crat responsibility)
I modified the last sentence/paragraph (regarding bureaucrat responsibility) to try to make it clearer that crats are to evaluate !votes — not merely count them. Comments and merciless editing welcome, of course. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merciless support! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I question whether dispute resolution should really be listed as part of the content commitment. While certainly a part of content work, it seems a bit of a stretch to include it as part of the definition of that area. It would be more appropriate in either 3(neutrality) or 4(stressful situations) as being a useful demonstration of experience. There are many ways to demonstrate such ability including project talk page discussions, third opinions, medcab and other places. It is clearly an important skill for much administrator work, but I think it says more to people skills and communication than content work.  Jim Miller  See me 12:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, some people (myself probably included) would argue that effective dispute resolution can be an important way to improve content. And an ability to communicate well and to work with others is certainly considered essential to good adminship (as opposed to mindless use of dangerous power tools by someone whose rigid world view doesn't encompass the relevance of "people skills").   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see this argument from both sides. On the one hand, dispute resolution of the sort that occurs at WP:WQA is really not a matter of content experience—and blabbering at WT:RFA is even less so. On the other hand, engaging in a protracted discussion on an article talk page about a dispute about content definitely is. The current wording is "content-related dispute resolution". Is that good enough to cover that distinction? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Tryptofish. Content-related dispute resolution is probably the most highly-valued skill at RfA: see HelloAnnyong and Amatulic's RfAs which sailed through on the back of solid Third Opinion experience. It's one thing to churn out audited content on obscure topics (I don't mean that perjoratively, because all my audited content is obscure). It's another thing altogether to get your hands dirty by helping to resolve content disputes. The community rightly values it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting it wasn't. I consider DR to be an extremely important skill for an admin. I was merely pointing out that I still wouldn't count it as content building and it would be better placed in number 3 or 4 as a way to demonstrate neutrality or handling stressful situations. Neither of those have any concrete examples in them. Finding examples of content building for an admin candidate should be as difficult as finding water in an ocean. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all better demonstrated through dispute resolution than 6 is.  Jim Miller  See me 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see your point. There's also an argument that if you don't do any content work or any of the other things mentioned in the footnote, you have no business wading into content-related dispute resolution!--Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I would be uncomfortable removing it from the content point, because, without it, it could be inferred that it has no bearing on content experience. I think the person who makes a habit of backseat driving on talk pages without content competence can be recognized as such. Perhaps the real issue here is that the content point is the only one that does list examples, and maybe listing examples makes it too much like a checklist to check off quantitatively, instead of something where competence needs to be "demonstrated" qualitatively. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the additional bit expanding on "content improvement" was better when it was a footnote. I was thinking of a "Guidelines for interpretation" section, where that note also could go. The message here is that there are many ways to improve (as opposed to defending) content beyond just amassing certain stars. Successfully resolving a dispute on an article talk page involves critical evaluation of sources and language used in an article, proposing revised wording, searching for additional sources, summarizing opposing viewpoints - all sorts of stuff that requires skill in actually learning about a topic in-depth and ending up with a better article. It can be a lot of work getting just one sentence straight and you might never atually edit the article. Can the wording be changed to better reflect that? Franamax (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping
Anyone interested in following through with this? I think I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been very active lately. I've also been thinking of waiting for the "right time" for this, and I don't think it has been the right time lately (because there have been a couple of recent failed proposals at WT:RFA). But it's definitely worthwhile to start discussions about how to carry this through. My thoughts at the moment are simply to propose it as an addition to WP:RFA as a first step. That first step wouldn't involved instructions to 'crats or !voters: it would simply propose them as "expected capabilities" which might help both prospective candidates and !voters. Over time, the more it creeps into RfAs, the more its role can evolve. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)