User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins

So, you want to be an admin.

Editcount
Don't worry too much about editcount. It's more quality than quantity that counts. Someone can run 10,000 Huggle edits without demonstrating any qualities that deserve the trust of the community. Another user, with just a couple of thousand well-judged manual edits heavily weighted to adding significant well-sourced content on article pages, can absolutely prove themselves worthy of the mop. That said, if you're clearly a newbie, albeit a really good one, with loads of potential you really ought to read another essay: WP:TOONEW.

Put another way, review some recent RfAs and see how the community is responding to other candidates. Fashions change and there's definitely a trend of huge editcount inflation among the !voters.

Types of candidates
I've seen all types of candidates sail and fail at RfA. There are no hard and fast rules, but let's look at some types of editor and my humble opinions on them.

Content editor
These usually do well at RfA. If you can get some peer-reviewed work to your name (a GA, an FA or perhaps a WP:FL) that'll really impress, especially featured material. It's not just that you produce good quality content, it's that the wiser heads in the community know that to get that shiny star on an article, you'll need to work with others and take criticism in the right way.

Projectspace editors
These editors haunt the policy and guideline-related pages, which tend to be prefixed "Wikipedia:". Projectspace editors arouse some suspicion at RfA, especially if it's perceived that they're "drama queens" or "not here to build an encyclopedia". And even more so if reviewers get a sniff that these editors want to use their tools for content-space purposes, such as AfD. But a Projectspace editor with a strong interest in, say, MfD could make a good candidate, especially if there's a smattering of decent content edits too. But if you look at your last 1,000 or so edits and find that a high proportion are at ANI/AN/ArbCom pages, you might want to throw yourself into "productive" editing for a while to show others that you understand the encyclopedia, not just the drahmazzzzz.

Wikignomes
WikiGnomes ferret around in articles fixing things. Their work is often undervalued, but they're priceless. Some content editors like me (OK especially those like me) may dislike the fiddling with citation templates and fixing of WP:DASH issues and prefer to get on with inserting or fixing chunks of copy, but it takes both sorts to make a decent article. Wikignomes can make really good and really bad RfA candidates. Really good if they show themselves as helpful, in article space, collaborative etc. Bad when they are clearly OWNish or bad tempered about things that a lot of us think are trivial. It's about how your edits show you to be... and how you portray those edits yourself at RfA, which does, after all, have elements of being about marketing.

All-rounders
All-rounders possess experience in more than one of these areas and they are the most likely to succeed. Perhaps you're primarily a gnome, but you contribute a lot at WP:UAA. If you're an all-rounder, grin.

Overall
It's fine to define yourself in one of these areas. Just be clear on why you need the tools to help you work better and if there are administrative areas you're not likely to get involved in because you're not well-versed with them, be frank.

Ah yes, one last thing. Most of the advice on this page is actually synonymous with "Tips for aspiring better Wikipedians". I might even make a redirect in that name and point it here. Or I might not. Ho hum. You might want to take a look at this essay I wrote, which is humorous but has serious aspects to it. Yes, just "try and be the best editor you can be" is perhaps the Golden Rule of RfA.

Questions
Here are my standard questions to you, oh admin-of-tomorrow:


 * 1) Are you always civil?
 * 2) Do you have any experience in adminny areas?
 * 3) Can you display that you work well with others without flying off the handle?
 * 4) Can you show evidence of improving the encyclopedia?
 * You really want to be answering "yes" to all of those.
 * Next, consider this one:
 * 1) What skeletons are there in your cupboard? Old ones may be forgivable, even if quite egregious.
 * Next, consider this one:
 * 1) What skeletons are there in your cupboard? Old ones may be forgivable, even if quite egregious.
 * 1) What skeletons are there in your cupboard? Old ones may be forgivable, even if quite egregious.

It is best to be upfront about any troublesome history, including failed RfAs, blocks, username changes, editwars, disputes, incivility etc. Demonstrate how you learned from the experience, how it made you into a better user and how it's not been repeated in a long time.

Advice

 * 1) From today onwards, regardless of when you intend to have your RfA, behave as you'd expect an admin to. I don't mean pretending to be an admin, I mean behaving appropriately.
 * 2) If you've failed an RfA in the past, invite your fiercest critics to review your recent contribs. If they're impressed, ask them to nominate you!
 * 3) Ditto for a bad experience at WP:ORCP

Sign here
If you found this helpful. At all.


 * 1) Patton t / c 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- AfterFX  21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Joe1000000 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Irondome (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) I like the editing behavioural approach by type and the pretty astute assumptions on how an RfA mob would regard them.
 * 6) Positive and helpful.  But it ignores some of the more daunting events at RFA.  Although there have been more positive discussions in the last year.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Great advice
 * 8) The only thing I'd add is something like "can you field any questions thrown at you in a thoughtful manner?" Good and thoughtful answers at RfA tip undecided people towards supporting, which increases the likelihood of a pass. Poorly thought out or wrong answers incur pile-on opposes and a withdrawal. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) I'd perhaps add something to the "content creator" point about having an answer to a Why do you need admin tools and what experience do you have to show there? question as I've seen some RfAs of such candidates where this point engendered opposition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)