User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins
|This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
||This essay is incomplete and may be expanded at some point before I die.
Or it may not. Please feel free to discuss it on the talk page.
So, you want to be an admin.
Don't worry too much about editcount. It's more quality than quantity that counts. Someone can run 10,000 Huggle edits without demonstrating any qualities that deserve the trust of the community. Another user, with just a couple of thousand well-judged manual edits, can absolutely prove themselves worthy of the mop. That said, if you're clearly a newbie, albeit a really good one, with loads of potential you really ought to read another essay: WP:TOONEW. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Types of candidates
I've seen all types of candidates sail and fail at RfA. There are no hard and fast rules, but let's look at some types of editor and my humble opinions on them.
These editors haunt the policy and guideline-related pages, which tend to be prefixed "Wikipedia:". Projectspace editors arouse some suspicion at RfA, especially if it's perceived that they're "drama queens" or "not here to build an encyclopedia". And even more so if reviewers get a sniff that these editors want to use their tools for content-space purposes, such as AfD. But a projectspace editor with a strong interest in, say, MfD could make a good candidate, especially if there's a smattering of decent content edits too.
WikiGnomes ferret around in articles fixing things. Their work is often undervalued, but they're priceless. Some content editors like me (OK especially those like me) may dislike the fiddling with citation templates and fixing of WP:DASH issues and prefer to get on with inserting or fixing chunks of copy, but it takes both sorts to make a decent article.
All-rounders possess experience in more than one of these areas and they are the most likely to succeed. Perhaps you're primarily a gnome, but you contribute a lot at WP:UAA.
It's fine to define yourself in one of these areas. Just be clear on why you need the tools to help you work better and if there are administrative areas you're not likely to get involved in because you're not well-versed with them, be frank.
Ah yes, one last thing. Most of the advice on this page is actually synonymous with "Tips for aspiring better Wikipedians". I might even make a redirect in that name and point it here. Or I might not. Ho hum. Yes, just "try and be the best editor you can be" is perhaps the Golden Rule of RfA.
Here are my standard questions to you, oh admin-of-tomorrow:
- Are you always civil?
- Do you have any experience in adminny areas?
- You really want to be answering "yes" to all of those.
- Next, consider this one:
- What skeletons are there in your cupboard? Old ones may be forgivable, even if quite egregious.
It is best to be upfront about any troublesome history, including failed RfAs, blocks, username changes, editwars, disputes, incivility etc. Demonstrate how you learned from the experience, how it made you into a better user and how it's not been repeated in a long time.
- From today onwards, regardless of when you intend to have your RfA, behave as you'd expect an admin to. I don't mean pretending to be an admin, I mean behaving appropriately.
- If you've failed an RfA in the past, invite your fiercest critics to review your recent contribs. If they're impressed, ask them to nominate you!
- User:Dweller/quirky My other essays, ramblings, boastsheets, ravings and other assorted vanity.
If you found this helpful. At all.