Admin Forum:What are a few qualities you look for in a good admin?

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Hey everyone! I've been helping out with Adoption Requests recently, which lead me to thinking: What are some great qualities to look for when promoting a new user to admin status?

On wikis that I frequently visit, the admin teams are very social. They like to engage with editors either through talk pages or in the comments section of various articles. From what I've seen, good admins work together as a team.


 * What are some of the best qualities you look for when promoting new admins?
 * Quality of edits?
 * Engagement with the community?
 * Eagerness to contribute?

Feel free to share your ideas and opinions! :) Trellar http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 00:45, November 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Godisme
 * To me, a good admin should fit the following criteria:
 * 1.High level of knowledge on the subject material - they may be a good contributor but if they do not know the source material, they are not going to make a good admin.
 * 2.Good edit history - an admin should always do good work. They should not have a troubled past on the wiki and should be making good quality edits.
 * 3.General knowledge of wikimarkup - an admin should be able to edit without the use of the RTE. Formatting and template creation are two things most admins should be working on and the RTE is not good for those.
 * 4.Commitment - I recently ran into a problem with an admin on one of my wikis. He did good work but he just was not committed to the site, only showing up once a month or so. A good admin should be active on the site and willing to help when needed. They don't need to be there every day but the more time they can put in, the better.--

Some qualities I look for are:
 * Jäzzi
 * Mainspace edits out weighing other edits.
 * Quality edits like rewriting pages or fixing mark up
 * Helping other users out on their talk page when they need help.
 * I'd like them to be active in the community, as admins are users people look up to.
 * And eagerness to contribute is good, and I'd like to see them stay eager before and after they are promoted. While everybody has a life and has other commitments, I would like to see them edit at least once a week to check in and make sure nothing happens on the wiki and that they haven't missed anything. –  Jä zz  i  00:58, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think any admins should have qualities of: All in all, there are more items an admin can go through to become better suited for the position, and in some ways, there are less. Since I listed these in my opinion of order of importance, I think a strong and firm friendship with the community is by far the best quality for an admin to have. &mdash; Wattz  2000  01:05, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wattz2000
 * 1) Respect and courtesy to most if not all users within the community.
 * 2) Quality contributions and determination for their expansion of content.
 * 3) Knowledge of the material and content to better show what they can do to help out the wiki.
 * 4) Knowledge of Wiki syntax is always good and usually a definite item to have, and even minor knowledge of css and js can be quite helpful.
 * 5) Knows the organization of the wiki by working through categorization and files uploaded to the wiki.

I believe admins should: These are most of the important things I can think of at the top of my head. I believe users who can prove themselves to be worthy of all those excellent qualities and be decided upon community consensus can be great admins!
 * Technology Wizard
 * Be trustworthy
 * Have the ability to interact with the community
 * Have a certain need for admin tools
 * Be motivated and dedicated
 * Brighten the wiki in many different ways
 * Promote new ideas for the wiki
 * Introduce projects to the community
 * Be kind, caring, respectful, optimistic, responsible, organized, mature, and active


 * Hollowness
 * What are some of the best qualities you look for when promoting new admins?

In my case it was froma next to dead wiki and (still) building the community


 * Since I have only edited for gaming wikis it helps knowing how addicted the user is to the game and time they spend online :P ;). If I play the game with them and known them for 6 months or longer (if it is possible online wise) if they are a shinning example of the perfect helper: giving help to new people and loyal and a team player, and are known for the nice or friendly mannerism, even with less wikia experience and edits could sway me if admins are needed and long term editors/contributors are not available.


 * Quality of edits?


 * Knowing they want to fill the wiki with as much info and correct info and/or want to improve the wiki (making it as easy to use/read and as pleasing to look at). Quality of edits is filling in needed/missing information or helping out on outstanding wiki community projects. Their reasoning is as simple as "we want to help make things easier for people".


 * Engagement with the community?


 * Friendly, and willing to both input ideas and collaborating with others.


 * Eagerness to contribute?


 * Eagerness is good but curious and wanting to just help is just as good.

As an new admin my 2 new admins were both with no prior experience but wanting to help and ready to learn. I was ready to help from simple beginners how-to -> to advance editing. I'd trust either of them with the wiki indefinitely. 01:31, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Admins should be: That's my RfA rational. 01:33, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ajraddatz
 * Active
 * Competent
 * Mature
 * Have a need for the tools

Administrators should... &mdash;  Annawantimes   (Talk)  01:47, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Annawantimes
 * 1) Not be concerned with the number of edits they've made, or their ranking on the leaderboard.
 * 2) Have made significant qualitative edits to the wiki.
 * 3) Foster engagement and life in the community.
 * 4) Show maturity and ability to talk to anonymous contributors who aren't vandals, and have potential to join the wiki.
 * 5) Be able to handle vandals and trolls properly; and know what to say when confronting them.
 * 6) Be trusted by a majority of the community, with good reason behind the trust.

I could probably go on... .Seshat. 02:18, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * .Seshat.
 * Knowledge of source matiral and an acceptable amount of edits on the mainstream pages to help flesh out the wiki's database of said source material.
 * Willingness to step in and resolve conflicts.
 * People skills requied to end conflicts as peacably and thoroughly as possible.
 * Knowledge of how to actually use the editor.
 * Ability to remain nonbiased in situations that might arise when conflict erupts between a user and another use the admin knows.
 * Actual knowledge and fluent grasp of the language the wiki is written in (I edit at a wiki where the only active 'crat has only a basic understanding of English grammar and, when their English isn't enough to explain a change they want to make, they close/delete the discussion and go with what they want to do despite what the community says).
 * An actual, regular presence in the community.
 * Willingness and the good sense to coordinate people to projects that need to be worked on when people ask.
 * Levelheadedness and acceptable attitude towards those who make mistakes/those who need to be banned.
 * Willingness to listen and consider propositions.
 * Dedication and the ability to manage their time, especially if they work at multiple wikis.
 * The good grace to step down or reallocate power when life keeps them from doing their duties. This, of course, includes removing their user rights (and, should they come back, willingness to participate in a probation period before their rights are reinstated, especially if they return after an extended period of time).
 * Enough modesty to admit when they're wrong about something and apologize accordingly if the situation calls for it.
 * A good handle on the community (wiki-on-wiki wars disgust me).


 * ZamorakO_o
 * They should be able to make an edit, or at least contribute in some way.
 * They must communicate. There is no way around that. An administrator is basically the slave of the community, and if he doesn't listen to the people he works for, how can he work for them?
 * They should have some sort of take charge attitude.
 * They should be approachable by newer users. 02:28, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

To me a good admin should be:
 * ForestMonthZero
 * at least moderately knowledgeable about wiki markup
 * at least moderately active (at least checking up on the wiki once a week, and performing maintenance and answering queries during that time)
 * fairly good with the language the wiki is in (grammar, spelling) or using automated tools for that task
 * willingly interact with the community on the wiki
 * be fairly friendly or at least tolerant of new users (ie, not throwing bans around or reverts or rollbacks; fixing instead of revert/rollback when the info being added is fairly reasonable, and not too horribly formatted)
 * be willing to admit to mistakes, and take remedial action to correct them
 * be willing to check into users who wish to be or are nominated to be elevated to become rollbackers/chatmoderators

However, these are not the qualities of a Founder. A founder should be:
 * willing to contribute
 * willingly interact with the community on the wiki
 * willingly seek out users who would make good admins/bureaucrats/rollbackers/chatmods
 * willingly seek out users who have qualities that the founder is missing (language skills, wiki skills, etc)
 * be fairly friendly with new contributors
 * be willing to admit to mistakes, and take remedial action to correct them
 * be fairly active with content improvements

And a bureaucrat should be:
 * willing to oversee the admins
 * be fairly cool calm and collected
 * not be dismissive of complaints, and respond in a level headed manner, even with fairly ludicrous complaints
 * be willing to check into users who wish to be or are nominated to be elevated to become admins
 * at least moderately active (at least checking up on the wiki once a week, and perform checks and balances)
 * be willing to admit to mistakes, and take remedial action to correct them

ForestMonthZero 06:35, November 15, 2011 (UTC)