Sr13 (talk · contribs) I wish to simply know what areas I can improve on and don't plan to apply for RfA until I have strong support from others.
I mostly do maintainance work, which includes...
I also have 2000+ edits (I plan to have much more), of which 920 are mainspace edits. I do notice two downfalls already-
A timeframe in which I can become an admin is also helpful. Constructive criticism is greatly appreciated! Sr13 (T|C) 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Information
Questions
Well holy schmoley, I think you're a pretty ideal candidate for admin. You're warm, you do solid and necessary work, and most importantly (to me, at least) you readily admit when you've made a mistake. These are excellent traits for any administrator. I can't predict when you'll be nominated, but I would vote for you in a second. A nomination from me, however, wouldn't go very far as I haven't been here that long myself:).
My only concern is that you don't seem to be doing any actual writing in the mainspace. That's not to say that what you do isn't sorely needed on Wikipedia, I just have concerns that if you were to become admin, it would burn you out a bit. If your answers to the questions are any indication, you're an excellent writer. I think you would benefit from contributing to some articles in your areas of passion and interest.
I have an essay on my user page called "Tips for the angry new administrator" that sort of spells out my philosophy on this more. If you like it, feel free to link to it or cut and paste it or whatever. It's pretty much my generic advice to any admin or admin candidate, and was inspired by Deskana's editor review. Best of fortune to you! Nina Odell 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I can't say much that won't repeat Nina Odell's statements. Just improve edit summaries and slightly increase mainspace edits and you will be set. I personally think that improving an article to GA/FA status is a ridiculous standard set by some users, but it certainly doesn't harm you any. Judging from what I see I would most certainly grant you admin powers. I would encourage you to go for an RFA in about a months time or so, after you increase summaries and do some article work. Philip Gronowski Contribs 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello (again), Sr13! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I haven't been able to get to a computer for a while. I believe that you would make a wonderful candidate for admin, and I would definitely vote for you. About your edit summary usage, although I don't think it should be a reason not to not make someone a user, it may inhibit your progress slightly. I also agree with Phillip above that improveing an article to GA/FA status is a bad standard, for the reason that users can make great amounts of improvement to Wikipedia, but not have it all focused on one article. As well, your work on WP:PJAA has been very diligent and has improved the project very much from its original state. All-in-all, I think you would make a great Admin, and wish you the best of luck!! Ninetywazup? 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding a timeframe for becoming an admin, my first response is to suggest you (re)read Wikipedia:What adminship is not. It's not a bad goal to what to be an admin, but the strongest candidates are those who can say (with justification) that they really can use the admin tools in the areas they're already working on. (My second response would be to say that you've only be editing seriously for less than four months, and I wouldn't suggest an RfA any earlier than mid-June.) Your edit count is "inflated" by the number of welcome messages you've posted (nothing wrong with them, but much less work/effort/time than editing an article or going after a vandal).
You indicate that that you are working on improving sub-par edit summary usage, but don't say that you've done the single most important thing to fix the problem - change a setting on your preferences that will prompt you for an edit summary if you try to save a page without one. Are you skipping doing edit summaries because you're trying to increase your edit count as quickly as possible?
I don't want to discourage you from doing what you enjoy - I don't understand the sentence I generally do maintainance work and occasionally edit articles. (I know...sad huh?) on your user page, and you might consider deleting it - but working on improving articles (as opposed to "maintenance") is thought by many if not most experienced Wikipedians as a very important aspect of being a good editor. My suggestion is to pick something you're interested in (you mention mathematics, but it could be a book you're just read on Jesuit missions in California, or a specialty magizine you subscribe to) and look at articles in Wikipedia on that. You're pretty likely to find a few that are stubs, if not missing altogether (even after a google search). Use Google Scholar and library sources to try to make that/those some really good articles. You don't need to accomplish this in a day or a week - if you've found an article you're interested in, you can chip away at it over a month or two or three, getting a book or magazine out of the library and citing it while adding content, returning it and getting another, and so on.
I don't think you need to improve an article to FA/GA status - I've noticed that this as a criteria for a successful RfA has pretty much vanished (without any commentary that I remember). But if you want a successful RfA (and again, I caution you about making that a goal - adminship is not a trophy, and other editors can usually sense when a candidate thinks it is), you need a much stronger answer to the question on contributions - that you're worked on X type of articles, including Y and Z articles, or that you really improved A, B, C, and D, over a period of months.
I'm also concerned that you're reverting vandalism but possibly not taking the next step - warning the user and/or reporting the user to WP:AIV. For example, on January 15th you did [this revert]. The vandalization was done by User:222.150.255.125, who had just come off a 31 hour block for vandalism. If it had been me doing the revert, I would have immediately (after checking the user contributions for other vandalism - there was none, and I assume you did check) posted something at WP:AIV to get the user blocked again.
In fact, your pattern seems to be that you never post a warning to any anon IP address that has vandalized, and you never report any user to WP:AIV. Those are both areas where you should change. (The three things worth (re)reading are Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, and Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.) It doesn't take much time to post a ((subst:blatantvandal))> template on even a hit-and-run (first-time) anon IP vandal's talk page, and it means that if the vandalism repeats, the next editor seeing it can post a final warning and the third time vandalism is seen, an admin can shut down the IP address. If you're not the first to start the process, then if this turns out to be a repeat vandal, you the process has started later than it should have.
I'm guessing from In the future, I plan to become a mathematician on your user page that you're young - high school, maybe. (I suggest not responding to this - note that it's not a question - there are no advantages to disclosing your age.) I mention this because if you are young, six months or a whole year often seems like a long away - if you work hard, why can't you be an admin in (say) three or four months? To keep repeating myself - adminship is not a trophy, it's not the next step in the hierarchy, it's not about getting to a certain level in a game. Your real goal should be to enjoy yourself when editing on wikipedia, to be learning (which doesn't happen, really, if you're rotely putting welcome notices on users pages), and to feel that you're a real contributor. Wikipedia is going to be here in two or five or ten years. You're better off enjoying and learning and not worrying about adminship, rather than spending time doing X and Y and Z (whatever it seems to take to look good), even though they aren't fun -- because as likely as not you won't get an adminship, and then you'll have at leeast partly wasted - your time and effort.
Hope this helps. John Broughton | ♫♫ 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well what can I say that hasn't already been said above? You seem to be an excellent editor, but I believe it's a bit too early for adminship. I suggest at least 4000 edits and six months on Wikipedia before nominating yourself on RfA to ensure a successful candidacy. You may also wish to improve your amount of XfD and policy discussion on Wikipedia, which is very important for the ideal candidate. At least one FA/GA has never been a criteria, but each candidate is expected to make solid encyclopedic contribution which may include wikifying, cleaning, or adding references to articles. As for vandalism reverts, I suggest using an automated program such as VandalProof in order to both revert the edit and warn the vandal in one click, which is so much easier than the usual manual reversion. Please take a good heed of all the advices and apply for adminship in a few months or so. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)