User talk:Porchcorpter/Getting adminship

Interesting essay, but I'd be concerned about an admin candidate who actually did this. Two particular criticisms - anyone who does a little of all the things on the do list is going to spread themselves too thinly and probably make a few newbie mistakes in some of those areas. Varied experience and contributions is a plus at RFA, but someone who claims to have done a bit of everything and that they will do a bit of everything as an admin will garner opposes. Equally when applying for new tools, don't just tick off a list - apply for tools that you think you will use. "No need for the tools" may be a deprecated argument at RFA but it does get used and you don't want it used against you because you have a record of collecting tools and not using them. In short better to be solid in multiple areas and to indicate that you are cautious when trying out new areas/tools. ϢereSpielChequers 09:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, to be honest with you, I think that if this essay had been written by someone who had "got adminship" (either a current admin or a former-admin), then it might be taken more seriously. If I was to see this essay as someone who did not know of you, I would look up to see when you became an admin, and when I saw that you have never been an admin, I would question your ability to give advice.

You missed one thing: "Do not be seen as a 'hat-collector', someone who applies for all the different rights available" - in fact, in your "Mini-administrative tools" section, you seem to be implying that people should actually do that to get adminship. You have recommended ACC - most admins do not use that, why should a candidate feel that it is something which is required?

As WereSpielChequers says, you can't write a checklist for getting adminship (if there was a simple checklist, it would already be on the pages about adminship) - and if you have not met your checklist and successfully run at RfA, how can you possibly know that it would get you adminship?

I'm sorry for being so negative - I like the essay as a theory, but it really is not practical on Wikipedia, as there is no set way to become an admin - well, unless you have a time machine, and go back to when Wikipedia began, when everybody was effectively an admin - or back to 2002? 2003? when most of the then-users of Wikipedia were made admins by Jimbo.

Oh, and I've just noticed one other mistake: Why is Violating any content and style policy or guideline a blockable offense? Does this mean that if an admin finds any of your articles, and there is anything in it that violates any content/style policy/guideline then we should block you? If that was the case, then at some time or another, every single long-term editor would be blocked from editing! You might want to remove that, or rephrase it by adding "in a way which is purely to make a point", which is a circumstance under which an editor could be blocked for this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not talking to me on this talk page, as this talk page is to discuss about the essay, this is not a personal user talk page, it is just a user-subpage talk page, where an editor wouldn't receive the "You have new messages" banner. The talk page where you can make ANY discussions you want to me is here. I am thoroughly disgraced by your comment, we all have opinions, which are not bad in any ways -- we all make mistakes. Now I would politely ask you to comment on my current and positive parts of me, rather than all your old stories about me (which don't occur any longer). And if you would like to, you may also comment in my current editor review. Thanks. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the more personal comments, and apologise. The point remains, however, that you are not an admin - although to be fair, I'm sure you will acknowledge that you have not yet achieved all of the "targets" on this page.

The remainder of my comments are directly about the essay, and so I feel that they are relevant. If there is anything that remains that you consider to be about your history, that is your reading of what I said. I didn't leave a "You have a message" message, as I assumed (quite rightly as it turned out) that this page would be on your watchlist! If I received a message everytime someone left me a message on an article/policy/etc talkpage, my archive would be a lot bigger!

Making mistakes is not a bad thing - we all make them (I know I do)... we learn from them and move on, a better person (or editor in this case!).

As I say, I apologise for the more personal comments, which are removed - the comments now are purely about the essay, and so belong here. I have given advice which I feel is valid about what could be added/changed in the essay - that's why it's here, isn't it? For the community to comment on? I'm sorry if you don't like getting comments that your essay isn't oerfect, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the right place! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Here are some ideas that came to mind after a quick read through the essay. I am not thinking about grammatical errors (they can be dealt with at a different time), these are all factual errors/omissions!

1. The lede says Adminship is normally for users with good behaviour

   Could you give some examples of times when users with bad behaviour have been granted adminship? To be honest, I think you need to reword the lede... perhaps something like "This page gives some ideas to help users be successful at RfA. There is no set criteria, but you generally need good all-round experience to be successful at RfA."

2. Process: add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

   You might want to add "although some people may count this against you, as they say that it shows that you are after 'power'"

3. Enter admin coaching

   Again, you might want to add that some people may count this against you, as they feel that it shows that you are trying to 'game' the system, by learning 'the correct answers'

4. "RFA. Make sure the results are a majority of supports, and the opposes are 5 or below"

   How do you make sure of that? Once you have started your RfA, you have no control over that! Perhaps you should rephrase it to something like "RFA. You are looking for a majority of supports, with as few opposes as possible. As a general rule, if you have less than 70% support, you are unlikely to be successful, whereas if you have more than 75% support, you are likely to be successful"

5. "You need at least 2000 or 3000 edits/You need at least 500 or 1000 mainspace edits/You need to be on Wikipedia at least 4 months to 3 years"

   Rather than saying "you need x or y", choose 1 of those

6. "Mini-administrative tools": If a user is granted to use them, the user gets a step closer to having a successful RFA.

   Again, you might want to mention that trying to gain too many of them may be seen as being 'power-hungry' or 'gaming the system', and some people may hold it against you at RfA

7. "Get IP block exempt access"

   As a general rule, you won't need this, as registered editors are not generally affected by IP blocks. This should only be requested if you need it ("Other editors can request IP block exemption on a per user basis if they can show good cause")

8. Admin Coaching: "However, this programme is easier to get than a successful RFA, and it also makes successful RFA's easier to get"

   Have you got any evidence of that? How many people who have been through Admin Coaching have successfully been granted adminship? How many people who have been through Admin Coaching have not been successful? I am not aware of any statistics about this, but if you know of some, then please use it on the page!

Hope this helps, regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done all of them except for your fifth suggestion. I just need some clarification with you saying Rather than saying "you need x or y", choose 1 of those. Could you just clarify on that part? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 23:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, you say "You need at least 2000 or 3000 edits" - is it 2000 edits you need to have, or 3000? It can't be both. If it's 3000, say that. If it's 2000 then say that! The same thing goes for the other "x or y" figures - choose one, and only use that one PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well according to the admin coaching guidelines, they say that you need at least 2000-3000 edits, 500-1000 mainspace edits and 6-8 months, you could also run in 4-5 months. Anyways, as you suggested, I have done it. I have used the lower number. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WTT thoughts

Hey PC. You asked me to review the essay, so I thought I'd come along with fresh eyes and have a bit of a think. Some of the comments on the talk page do still ring true, and I'm not sure how to handle them. I've created some subsections, to make my thoughts easier to follow. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

General thoughts

What exactly is this essay meant to be? There's two possibilities

1. It's a guide to getting adminship - implied by the title and some of the sections. However -
   • What basis do you have to suggest this is a way to get adminship?
   • If there was a foolproof way of getting adminship, wouldn't it be on one of the other adminship pages?
   • As you have not become an admin, do you think that you do not meet the criteria or that the criteria is not right?
   • Have you done any research into candidates who have and haven't become admins?
2. It's a guide to show what you expect from an administrator.
   • I think this could be written as a very good personal opinion piece - and they play an important role in RfA.
   • It does need to have a few sections added to confirm that it is regarding your personal criteria.

I'll carry on assuming that it's a guide to adminship, but if it's not, a lot of my thoughts can be discounted.

The following could be written more coherently to assist reader understanding.

• "Everything listed here will help you get a successful RFA." - 'will help towards' would make mure sense
• "All are not mandatory, but they get you a step closer to having a successful RFA. A few will do, but try doing as many" - is confusing
  • Replace with "You don't have to do them all, as it may spread you thinly but they all increase your experience so try to do as many as you can"
• "And to get a successful RFA, make sure you do them with good experience."
  • Replace with "Experience is key to gaining a successful RfA, so do them regularly until you gain a good understanding"
• "Sometimes an administrator will do themselves, but you can do it yourself by requesting. "
  • "Sometimes an administrator spot these tasks themselves, but you can prompt them to by putting in a request. "
    • Would "An administrator can do them themselves, but you can do it yourself by requesting an admin to do it." be okay?
      • I'm not keen on "you can do it yourself", perhaps "you can help"

It's a guide to getting adminship. The basis is that it gives additional advice. And this essay is foolproof, although I still have lot more improvements to make. And I have not yet satisfied its criteria. I haven't exactly done research into RFAs to see why a user did or did not become an admin, but this is the way I think a user will become an admin, and I have started now to vote in RFAs, and I seem know more. Now with your suggestions, I have done the first one, could you explain what you want me to do with the rest? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. I may not agree with your point of view, what makes an adminsitrator or what you need to become an administrator, but this is an essay and you're allowed to put forward your point of view. It's certainly looking a lot better than it was Worm^TT · (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done all suggestions. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Process

Is this really the right order? As a numerical list, order is important. I'd suggest you reorganise so that a user is gets ready for adminship, and then looks into applying, rather than getting ready to apply then getting ready to be an admin. (I recommend reordering it to be (2,3,5,1,4,6,7)

The RfA is a big hurdle, which you've glossed over. I would suggest that 6 goes into a little more depth, explaining the importance of a good nomination statement, mentioning that members of the community thoroughly investigate the candidate's contributions, ask difficult questions about policies and that users may oppose you for any reason.

I've done the order re-arrangement. Regarding step 6, I have done whatever I can. But if you want to/feel like to improve the essay further, then feel free to do so. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)