User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



[edit] Admin coaching

This section is for exchanging advice on preparing for adminship. If you'd like others to look over your contributions and give you feedback on your activities and experience, or would like some advice on a specific area in which you would like to improve, let us all know below. Everyone is encouraged to help everyone, so feel free to jump right in and help. You'll learn a lot by analysing the contributions of others. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review.

[edit] The only difference between admins and other editors...

Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.

Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My areas of weakness

Hi, well here goes! Your original advice to me was to get into some of the tools for vandal hunting and also to participate in the non-admin closure of AfD's. So far I've managed to convert to a PC (from my iBook) in order to get Lupin's pop-ups working without killing my browser, and I've been approved for, and am using, VandalProof with, I think, some degree of success - approximately 1000 edits in the past three or four days.

Unfortunately it appears that VP is a bit buggy at version 1.3, I'm hoping it'll be fixed soon so I can back on it.

So, I guess my first question is: looking at my contributions, can you identify areas which I need to work on right away? I must confess that vandal hunting is my primary contribution at the moment, but I have created over sixty articles so my non-vandal mainspace edits aren't too shabby either.

Anyway, let me know what you think, and thanks for agreeing to participate in coaching me! Cheers! Budgiekiller 12:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I too would like you to look through my contributions and tell me my weaknesses as well. Thanks. -AMK152 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice: emphasize your strengths, rather than worry about shoring up your weaknesses.

It is true that some nominees get denied admin status because they lack edits in one area or another. I think this is rather short-sighted of the people who happen to be "voting" at the RfA when this occurs, because there is no reason why a particular editor couldn't specialize and still be considered a valuable member of the sysadmin team. Wikipedia needs editors of all types and with different strengths, and that applies to sysadmins as well. I don't see the logic in demanding that system admins spread their edits out equally amongst the namespaces nor throughout the activities on Wikipedia. A sysop who specializes in vandal hunting, for instance, would most likely have more expertise in this area than an admin generalist with the same number of overall edits. And that's a good thing. If Wikipedia only had generalists, then the highest levels of expertise in each area would be lower. And that's not as good. Therefore: Viva la difference!
I've taken a look at your contributions, and both of you are very strong editors. There is no reason why you shouldn't go for adminship on your current strengths. Trust is the major factor by which editors should be judged to be worthy sysadmins. But the reality is that users participating in RfA discussions can lend their support or object for any reason they see fit, and the reasons run the entire spectrum from the on-target issue of trustworthiness to minor peripheral tastes. I've seen RfAs turned down for lack of edits (based on one's overall total and on section totals), lack of participation in a specific area like AfDs, lack of consistent use of edit summaries, for grudges held by those they conflicted with in the past (such as on AfDs, etc.), and even based on a person's voting record at RfA, or for the fact that they nominated themselves! I've been informed by some that they wouldn't vote for me because of my colorful signature, or because of the way I emphasize my VERY STRONG DELETE or VERY STRONG KEEP votes (I'm sorry, "opinions") at deletion discussions (they said it represented a bad attitude and annoyed them because it meant I was shouting). And even though this situation exists, preparing openly specifically to overcome these potential objections is frowned upon as "gaming the RfA system". There is even criticism of aiming to become an admin in the first place.

On the other hand, I've seen RfA's of extremely narrowly specialized individuals succeed with great support. So there is hope. It's pretty much the luck of the draw in terms of whomever happens to be participating on the RfA page when you make your request or are nominated.

Wikipedia needs more sysadmins. The team of sysadmins we have now cannot keep up with their maintenance duties, and the backlogs continually grow. Therefore, my best advice is to seek nomination and run on the strengths you currently have, and emphasize your strong interests in those areas in which you truly have strong interests. If you are turned down, then deal with the objections by correcting anything they've pointed out, and then ask your nominator in a few months to nominate you again, and explain at the RfA that you've worked on the areas pointed out to you the last time.

In my opinion, you are both ready to become sysadmins now. If you feel you must prepare more first, study the pages listed on the recommended reading list above.
In the meantime, there's no reason to discontinue receiving coaching here, or ever, because there is little difference between those who wish to become better editors and those who wish to become admins. Great editors make great admins, and generally get nominated sooner or later in recognition of their contributions and their integrity. Take a look at the most prolific accounts on Wikipedia, and notice the proportion of those who are sysadmins, and you will see what I mean. Being an eventualist is by far the least stressful way of becoming an admin: that is, recognize that it will happen naturally anyways.
I will continue to add new subjects to this page for your benefit and the benefit of all. I'm planning to create new sections in the future for sharing expertise on countering vandalism, running bots, AWB techniquies, approaches to resolving conflict, monitoring the state of the 'pedia, and more. If there are other specific areas you are interested in, please let me know. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist   08:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Analyze me!

As I asked above, can you, from my contributions, tell me where I'm most likely to be considered weak if making an application to become an admin? Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I answered above, that depends upon your approach or how you are presented. Many RfAs of specialized editors succeed on their strengths by emphasizing those strengths in the nomination. I believe that is the best (and most honest) approach. Vandal hunters are by far the most favored type of specialist at RfA, because Wikipedia needs as many vandal hunters as it can get. Trusted vandal reverters who can block vandals are in high demand.
If you still want to take the generalist's approach, then work on Categories, Portals, templates, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Some Wikipedia namespace activities you can try are more deletion discussions (especially the types you haven't tried much WP:MfD, WP:CfD, WP:TfD), volunteer at Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, participate in the discussoins at the Wikipedia:Village pump (any or all), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (providing useful commentary and not just "support"/"oppose", etc.
When you spot a red-linked username or an IP contributing to a page send them the an appropreate greeting from the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Engage in policy and guideline discussions (found on the talk pages of policies and guidelines). Edit/cleanup/improve Wikipedia's help pages (some of which are in the Help namespace, and some in the Wikipedia namespace); those in the help namespace must be edited at Wikimedia (a link is always provided), except for the Wikipedia-specific portions.
Wikipedia's daily departments, such as the features on the Main page (picutre of the day, etc.) need constant volunteer support (to select and schedule the contributory pages).
Install an admin navigation bar on one of your userpages (see the one at the top of User:Rich Farmbrough's or the Go for it user page, and start frequenting the pages those link to. Hang out at Wikipedia:Administrator's notice board. And close some deletion discussions.
Basically, general involvement in a wide variety of activities on Wikipedia's "Blue pages". The more areas you have experience in, the better. Put in a couple thousand edits, amongst the areas from those just mentioned which you've participated in the least, and you should be fine. But don't resign from the article namespace. Articles are the raison d’être of Wikipedia.  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me too!

Same goes here- CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an easy one. Continue editing articles and reading help pages. As you proceed, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's style guides, templates, and categories. As you become more experienced in editing articles and participating in article discussions on their talk pages, delve into Wikipedia's blue pages more and more (especially Policies and guidelines and choose areas you find interesting from my reply to Budgiekiller, above). Get to know your way around the encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Contents and Wikipedia:Navigational templates) and the Wikipedia namespace {get to know Wikipedia:Community portal, Wikipedia:Shortcuts, and the Wikipedia:Department directory like the back of your hand). In about 6 months to a year, you'll be an obvious candidate for adminship. When you feel you are ready, read all the pages on the recommended reading list above. And of course, start using the tips posted on this page and at the Wikipedia:Tip of the day project. One of the fastest ways to learn is to teach, so putting in time at the Help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desks will improve your learning curve (be sure to browse their archives too). And throughout all this, remember, be supportive of your fellow Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Barnstars, and Wikipedia:Esperanza. Enjoy yourself, and edit away!  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMK152

Hi AMK. As part of my coaching assignment, I've been monitoring your edits. I'm impressed with the sheer volume of work you've been doing. I'm also glad to see you pull away from SpongeBob Squarepants from time to time (specialization is good, but some diversification is good too). You expressed interest in preparing yourself for adminship, and one of the things that come up in RfAs is whether or not the editor needs the admin tools. Based on your editing activities, it is clear that you do not need them at this time. You get along perfectly fine without them. There isn't anything in your editing routine that really requires the mop. There's nothing wrong with this. It's just that the mop is generally handed to those who are immersed in Wikipedia's administrative chores, like closing AfDs, monitoring recent changes and fighting vandalism, departmental chores like WP:POTD, helping out at peer review, requests for feedback, third opinion, etc.

Admin rights can be particularly helpful for working in certain areas of Wikipedia:

But if you aren't interested in working in these areas, then the admin tools may not be of any use to you. There are many janitorial-like chores on Wikipedia which do not require admin tools, and these are listed in the editorial department section of the Wikipedia:Department directory. Performance in those areas are used as a guide to project how well one will perform as an admin. But before you go for adminship, you will need to know what you want to do with the admin tools.

So, if you are still interested, perhaps you should shift your efforts. Begin exploring and working on Wikipedia's "blue pages". Helping out on Wikipedia's backlogs is also greatly needed. Take a look at the Community portal and the Wikipedia Department Directory, and let me know what areas interest you the most.

 The Transhumanist   12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General learning tip

Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins.  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA standards

The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.

The last chart on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards shows how articles are growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted.

Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait.  The Transhumanist   02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7EThe_Transhumanist_Virtual_classroom_Admin_coaching_a186.html"