Wikipedia

User:Prhartcom/Adminship

< User:Prhartcom

This subpage of my Prhartcom user page is for my own use to take notes on my journey to adminship. I do not necessarily desire the administrator role, but I know that I have the competence and temperament to take it on and I understand that such added responsibility to my volunteer efforts may actually help the community. Therefore, if my adminship has the potential to create better outcomes for others and to help create a better encyclopedia, then I would not shirk from my responsibilities; I would agree to take it on if offered.

I have heard that the RfA process can be painful if one is not adequately prepared. For that reason, I created this page to keep myself focused and goal-oriented in the coming months or years until I see for myself—and others can see for themselves—that I may actually be ready. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia normally, but I wish to keep this page in the back of my mind. If all goes well, this page will simply guide me to be a better Wikipedian.

Prhartcom (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

edit

While the criteria for adminship is not definitively stated or universally agreed upon by the community (see more notes below), I decided to begin with the criteria provided by administrator Kudpung, as his !vote results matched the eventual outcome 90% of the time.[1]

Ideally a candidate should have or be:

  1. The maturity level of a responsible adult (18+)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. The ability to communicate in proper standard English
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 12 months autoconfirmed user or at least 6,000 edits non-automated edits in the preceding 6 months (My non-automated edits)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. >30% 28% edits to Talk and Wikipedia space (My non-automated edits pie chart)
      Done —Prhartcom♥ 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. At least 1,000 BLP edits (My BLP edits)
      Done Prhartcom♥ 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. At least 4 created articles of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted – no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor – FA, GA, or DYK are not prerequisites, but a very minimum of article creation and/or an equivalent amount of new content should demonstrate that we are here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia (My pages created)
      Partly done
  7. No mass creation of very short stubs
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. >100 new page patrols (My NPP log)
      Done Prhartcom♥ 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  9. No warnings or comment about wrong NPP tagging in the preceding 6 months
      Done Prhartcom♥ 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  10. <5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling
      Done Prhartcom♥ 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  11. >10 advice edits to a help desk that demonstrate knowledge of the policies/guidelines (My GA Help Desk archives here and here)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. >50 edits to AfD with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the policies (My AfD votes)
      Done Prhartcom♥ 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  13. >10 edits to RfA with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the process (My RfA votes)
      Partly done
  14. 99% edit summaries in the main space (My edit summary %)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. No warnings for vandalism
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  16. No warnings for spam
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  17. No sockpuppetry (unauthorized use of multiple accounts)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  18. No L3, L4, or single issue warnings
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  19. A clean block log of at least 12 months
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  20. No confirmed personal attacks reported to a notice board
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  21. Civility
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  22. 1 or less 3rr warning, and older than 6 months
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  23. No warnings of any kind 3 months preceding RfA
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  24. No CSD, PROD, or AfD notices for own creations preceding 6 months
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  25. No reverted non-admin closures of any debate types
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  26. No unnecessary "clerking" of admin areas
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  27. No possible signs that the candidate has joined Wikipedia with the express intention of working towards adminship (includes hat-collecting and over-enthusiastic participation on admin boards)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  28. No canvassing on- or off-Wiki (off-Wiki discussion with your nominator is OK)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  29. No hat-collecting (people don't join the army just because they want to shoot guns and they don't join the police force just because they want to drive a fast car with a blue light and a siren and hand out speeding fines)
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sysop candidates need (and should practice and be able to explain to others):

  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good understanding of debate page format, and other notice board formats
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The need to communicate civilly and politely, avoiding slang
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC):

"If you check all the boxes above, chances are that you'll pass with flying colours."

— Kudpung

Preparing oneself for adminship

edit

I must also ensure I am prepared for adminship according to this list, which appears here: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#Preparing yourself for adminship.

Candidates for adminship must convince the community that they can be trusted with:

  • Basics: Candidates must trusted to be able to handle the basics of blocking users, protecting and deleting pages, and closing debates.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked: Candidates must be block free for a considerable length of time (N/A to me).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Civility: Candidates must demonstrate cool headed participation in discussions.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Content: Candidates must demonstrate they understand how to write articles and cite reliable sources.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Creations: Candidates' own creations must demonstrate a knowledge of article policies, guidelines, and style.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Diversity: Candidates' pie chart must show participation in all important areas (My pie chart).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Fresh start: Candidates who have started over after Arbcom must declare their intention (N/A to me).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Low edit count: Candidates with few edits are regarded by most as evidence of insufficient experience (N/A to me).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • High edit count: Candidates with mostly automated edits have been known to fail.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Length of membership: Candidates active too short a time is usually an issue (N/A to me).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Judgement: Candidates must demonstrate that they can assess consensus and make carefully considered decisions.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Maturity: Candidates must demonstrate common sense and write with good prose.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Single purpose candidates: Candidates are unlikely to be nominated based on a knowledge of bots, scripts, copyright, etc. (N/A to me).
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Talk: Candidates must demonstrate that their participation at Wikipedia is not for social purposes.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • User page: Candidates' user page must be uncluttered and have intelligent content without highly self-promotional content.
  Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As well, Candidates for adminship must convince the community that they have no issue with:

  1. Copyright: The use of unauthorised content is a major policy issue.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. My username: It should not be unusual or overly long and should respect conventions.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Flamboyant signatures: This is seen by some as ostentation.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Talk page clean up: This is not recommended. Access to archives should be easy.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Barnstars: These should not be left on the talk page, as it is seen by some as ostentation (I do not believe this is a problem).
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  6. Userboxes: These should not express opinions on controversial issues.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  7. Humor: This, especially sarcasm, cynicism, and even friendly banter, is often seen as bad form.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  8. Conspiracies: The advice is to rebuke with utmost care, or preferably ignore.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  9. Old enemies: They may have an axe to grind and may arrive at the RfA.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  10. Older issues: Try to iron out any old differences.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  11. Off-Wiki activity: Others may have leads to behavior that may cast doubts on a candidate's overall suitability.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  12. Canvassing: RfA is not a popularity poll and this should not be done. A userpage {{RFA-notice}} is okay.
      Done Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Other criteria

edit

Other administrators have suggested the following criteria:

  • Demonstrable participation in at least one major admin area. These areas include WP:CSD, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, and WP:AIV.
  • Work at WP:AfD for at least three months. It is a big plus.
  • Tag articles for WP:CSD per policy.
  • Demonstrable a good knowledge of how to close WP:XFDs by closing them correctly.

Questions

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help by doing tasks that I don't have the authority to do now. I can visualize opening the Admin dashboard and working on each of the many different ways to help there, trying them all. I plan to work in each type of backlog at first, such as CSD, Requested edits, and Open sockpuppet investigations, working with many different editors, gaining experience in each administrative area. I suppose I am happy to help in the areas other administrators suggest I am needed the most. I may not do admin work every day, but it will be an honor to do a small amount of meaningful good; righting a few wrongs in this vast project. Hopefully I will occasionally help a few people as we improve the encyclopedia piece by piece.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have enjoyed a few successes at Wikipedia. I have volunteered for over a year at the Good Article Help Desk by answering editor's questions at WP:GAHELP, WT:GAN, and WT:GA. I cleaned up or rewrote the entire Good Article domain at Wikipedia including all of the instructions, introductions, and categorizations at WP:GA, WP:GAN, WP:GANI, WP:GA? and WP:GAR. In many cases, I knew what to explain in the policy text because I had previously helped other editors deal with those policies at the Good Article Help Desk. I have gathered evidence against sock puppets and worked with COI contributors. I have uploaded files, created redirects, made new categories, improved disambiguation pages, and I have coded and tested templates. I have nuked and completely rewritten articles. I did most of these things while discussing it with other editors; some of whom, I am honored to say, I have worked with repeatedly. And of course I'm proud of my WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:TFA, and WP:DYK work, including where I started at Wikipedia: watching over one hundred Adventures of Tintin articles. I'd like to try everything on Wikipedia at least once and I'd like to continue working in Wikipedia for years to come.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have never been called to the carpet for poor behavior here at Wikipedia, but yes of course; working with other people can sometimes be stressful. It's just a matter of managing it. For example, my work on current event articles Germanwings Flight 9525 and Kim Davis (county clerk) called for me to be a participant in a team effort, with much cooperation and diplomacy necessary when communicating with other editors. Some were people who cared about the article, but might argue or obstruct much more than they contribute. There are times when the desire to respond in kind to someone's base comment is tempting, and I fear there have been times that I showed my hand. Most of the time, however, I am able to stay calm, take the high road, and ultimately show them how it's really done. My contribution to the History of Japan article was not content, but arbitration between parties in order to resolve a conflict. I am proud to have been recognized with barnstars for my diplomacy, dispute resolution, acts of kindness, a helping hand, and civility. It pays to try to see things from the other person's point of view, as I think it helps me become a better editor.

Toolbox and guide

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prhartcom/Adminship&oldid=1024405232"