User:Nealparr/RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been at Wikipedia since 2005 and have made (as of the timestamp below) 947 mainspace edits and 1269 talk page edits [1]. I am considering running for admin, but wanted to get some feedback from editors because I often participate in discussions about fringe topics. I think I help to keep Wikipedia articles informative, neutral, and well written, but that opinion doesn't mean much without feedback from others. Probably the most notable contribution I've made is that a rewrite that I contributed a significant portion to enabled Parapsychology to become Featured Article status. Please leave whatever comments (good, bad, and ugly) below. I don't know if I'm allowed to or not, but I'm suspending the WP:CIVIL policy on this page.

Thank you in advance. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Why do you want to be an admin? What would you do with those tools? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Great question! I should have covered that in the introduction above. I come from an IT/IS background and wanted to expand my participation in the wiki project beyond just editing. I've deployed MediaWiki to several unrelated websites and have used the administration features on those sites, but wanted to extend my familiarization with the system here where there's a lot more going on. I feel it will give me a better understanding of issues related to managing the system in a large user base environment. I'm only toying with the idea of running for admin, but wanted to see if my interest in non-mainstream topics might hurt my chances of pursuing my greater IT-related interests. I feel I've made informative, neutral, and well written contributions on topics that -- while fringe -- are of interest in pop-culture, and wanted to see if the user base here felt the same. As I said, good question, thanks for asking. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot you can do on the back- and front-end of IT work at Wikipedia/Wikimedia without necessarily being an admin. It would be good to begin to involve yourself with these projects before pursuing RfA. For example, you could begin work with Bugzilla or SVN. Lending aid to a developer would help you make your case. Getting a meta and a commons account might be of particular use. Do you keep up with the Technology report? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually take part in some of the open source debugging programs offered, sort of unofficially. I could get more involved, though, definitely. My goal is less on the development side however and more towards how the site is used and managed, especially in terms of managing a large user base. But I also think being an admin is one of the lower tiers of progressing up the ladder of the Wikipedia community, so from that perspective I would probably have to be an admin if I wanted to "move up". --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to proceed then is to start working in the areas that interest you and then when you find that you can no longer do your work efficiently without having administrator access, get someone to nominate you for the RfA. Preferably, get someone to nominate you who can speak to how valuable it would be for you to have the admin tools to help with the area. That's a sure-fire way to get the mop and bucket. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • my comment is that participation in fringish topics surely wouldn't hurt. It's the tenor of the participation that matters. If you are helpful, polite, and full of reliable sources....I think you wouldn't have much issues. One observation is that many of the regular commentators at Rfa like to see both article work and some wikispace work (vandalism fix, participate at afd's, projects, commentary at rfc's/ani etc) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion, thank you. I don't spend much time in those areas and I probably should. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree - people at RfA usually want to see some participation in "admin" areas, like AfD, etc. It's best if you can cite a specific case or two where the tools would be helpful for what you do. For editors who participate in controversial areas, RfA's are a crapshoot. Many get through (I did), but be aware that anyone you've crossed paths with in the past is likely to show up and pursue any residual grudge they may hold. It's best to go with full disclosure of any significant conflicts up front, but even this doesn't always help if the torches and pitchforks come out. I realize this is a bit cynical, but I've seen a lot of RfA's. I don't think your topic interests should be an issue per se - my general impression (without combing through your contribs) is that you've been civil and constructive where you've commented, though our views have differed. In terms of the things under your control, I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with "admin" areas (not that you aren't already familiar, but people always insist on proof of this) and have a clearly articulated idea of how you see yourself using the tools to improve the encyclopedia. That goes a long way. I think you'd be a good admin and you'd do fine at RfA, but then like I said, it's a bit of a crapshoot. Actually, the best advice is to put a helmet on and try to be Zen about accepting whatever the outcome is - a failed RfA can be pretty painful, and has led some good editors to leave the project. MastCell Talk 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
These are all great suggestions. Thank you. It appears that if I decide to pursue it the first step would be to clearly define why I'd want to, start participating in other areas more, and take part in the admin mentoring program. Makes sense to me : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)