Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcrop/Getting adminship

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Porchcrop/Getting adminship

edit

A "checklist" on how to become an admin that contains a lot of factual errors and considering the user isn't even an admin they don't have the necessary experience to inform others on how to become an admin. Becoming an admin is not a test, either the user has the experience or they don't.

Learning the policies and guidelines, that goes without say, if one wants to run for adminship and doesn't know squat about policy (I hope RfA doesn't come to that) then they've got a LONG way to go. Adding yourself to the Admin hopefuls category, HOW does that help at all? You need to be at least 7-12 years old!? People are already getting berated for being under 15 let alone below 12. Having successful edit requests does not assist a user in becoming an admin, Mini-administrative tools, Getting every single right on Wikipedia, users need to show express need for these rights and show themselves to be familiar with their relevant policies and guidelines.

Now we come to things you should not be doing, everything there goes without say, if a user is a serial vandal and creates an RfA there's no chance that they'd succeed. Not having sock puppets, another no-brainer. All-in-all this "how-to guide" is misleading and will not at all help other users in succeeding at RfA, a lot of the points listed should go without say. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:39am • 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why this page has to be deleted. But it definitely gives other users advice. If there's anything I can improve the essay, please let me know. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 00:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If users want to learn how to become an admin they can go straight to WP:ADCO, there's no reason to confuse them by listing links and saying that they should not have sock puppets, should be familiar with policies and guidelines and should request rights to bump up their "status" on Wikipedia and bring them closer to adminship. Users ALREADY SHOULD know that they aren't to misuse accounts and that they should be familiar with the policies that govern editing Wikipedia and maintain the encyclopedia's integrity. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:51am • 00:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Advice being obvious is not a reason for deletion - I'm sure there are some people for whom it is not obvious. I wholeheartedly concur with the suggestion that persons under the age of 7 years should not yet apply for administrator privileges. The deletion nomination mentions "a lot of factual errors" but does not enumerate them (other than stating the obvious, which is not quite the same thing.) If there are errors they can and should be fixed. The essay is not sufficiently misleading as to cause harm (for example it does not purport to provide technical guidance on topics such as how to dismantle an atomic bomb.) Nothing about this essay breaches any policy regarding what material can be kept in userspace. If it is considered significantly misleading then it could be removed from some of the categories it is in, but I'm not sure even the case for that has been adequately made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standards for userspace material are of course significantly lower than they are for the mainspace and Wikipedia: spaces. There are factual errors (as well as errors in the page's spirit as I mention below). I think the essay ought to be removed from the categories in which it resides until the issues are dealt with. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In general this page seems to treat adminship as a badge or status symbol (ie - how to "get a successful RfA" and that adminship is "for users with good behaviour"), rather than a set of tools that merely assist in the operation of the encyclopedia. I believe the author has a fundamental misunderstanding of what adminship on Wikipedia is. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge numbers of essays and other userpages that discuss things like "my RfA criteria" and list things like certain editcounts, certain amounts of content creation, certain amounts of time served, as being the way to get adminship, and don't discuss its just being a set of tools as you suggest should be necessary here. (This is not quite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's actually common practice.) This essay is not significantly different to those, apart from having a slightly flawed tone and a few faintly ridiculous suggestions. Also, the author's level of understanding (which is being worked on) is not relevant to the retention or deletion of the page - remember to comment on content, not on contributors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not an ad-hominem attack on the author. If it pleases you, I can rephrase it as "the content fundamentally misrepresents what adminship is." P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure there's no harm but it's pointless, adminship is not a badge or something to adorn one's mantelpiece and the whole essay needs to be re-written before it can be taken seriously. How one earth does getting a successful edit request help a user become an admin? How does finding every unsigned comment and adding {{unsigned}} going to help? How is enjoying being an administrator at all helpful if THEY AREN'T already an admin? This essay states the obvious and ignores the important points about the blazing furnace that is RfA, it's like leading lambs to the slaughter, they don't know where they're headed but they assume it's to greener pastures. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:19am • 01:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure what you mean when you say a "successful edit" helps a user become an admin. A successful edit does not make a user an admin, but it definitely moves a user closer to adminship. The "enjoy being an administrator" statement is not an advice before becoming an admin, but it's just to tell them to enjoy their adminship after they get adminship. The unsigned template is another task that can help other users to adminship (it helps the user, but that does not mean if the user adds the template the first time then that user can become an admin instantly). And this essay gives other users alot of advice for their runs af RFA. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 14:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 7-12 years old? You expect a 7 year old to understand anything about how Wikipedia works? This subpage has no reason for deletion, BTW, but I thought that was a ridiculous thing to say. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know of an 8 year old that nearly got an article to GA, but I'm thinking this is not a great place to mention their username. (Of course, not everyone who claims to be 8, actually is 8). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
The page does not violate the topic ban in any way. Porchcrop has a mentor who is well able to advise him on what is helpful or not helpful in the situation (and in fact was specifically selected to do so.) Also there are several accurate statements in the page, I have pointed out one of them above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course. The suggestion that persons under the age of 7 years should not yet apply for administrator privileges, should immediately be adopted as canon wp:policy.
My point is that this essay makes no sense without the backstory, and with the backstory it becomes an embarrassment. This bag of trite platitudes is very far from competent advice on adminship, nor is it humorous. All it is is a symptomatic illustration of how utterly clueless user:Porchcrop is about adminship (amongst other topics). As this cluelessness has dragged them into trouble before, essays like this can never be helpful to either them, or (with content like this) to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The essay was written a year an a half prior to the topic bans. Porchcrop has been making good progress since I started mentoring him, and it is not going to happen over night. I will be discussing this and other parts of his user space at the appropriate time, there's no rush, this isn't harming anyone. WormTT · (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point that this article pre-dates the ban is a good one. However his recent actions, I'm thinking particularly of claiming to be an admin as an April Fool joke, still cause concern over WP:COMPETENCE. Porchcrop needs to drop the perseveration with adminship. Anything that panders to this becomes part of the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is rather funny to read, and truly demonstrates how much adminship has become a reward for doing everything on that list (even though that page isn't entirely true). However, it is in that user's userspace, and I see no reason to remove it. If we are going to remove this, we may as well go and remove every incorrect thing that has been said about adminship ever, and considering how much we seem to disagree on that, I'd say that this is not a practical proposal. Keep per the fact that users are allowed to have opinions. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it does not appear to meet any criterion for deletion. However, I encourage User:Porchcrop to delist it as an essay or provide a more strongly-worded disclaimer in the lede if he does not wish to remove it altogether. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should at least be delisted as an essay and tagged as humor. Surely the first section is not to be taken literally. That issue aside, I don't see solid reasons to delete. Pichpich (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, this is not an essay—it's a hilarious checklist. Secondly, I agree that it needs a better disclaimer, lest some unsuspecting new user stumble upon it and begin doing these ridiculous things to become an admin (hell, it's better than a flash game—who wouldn't want to: "Upload good images", "Fix broken links", "Do Any other random way of patrolling", "Do typo/spelling/grammar fixing" [note the two entries listed immediately above this one are grammatically incorrect], "Sign unsigned comments", and "Make views better" [which is so unambiguous, everyone should be doing this!], doing all of these tasks "with good experience"?). Anywho, I'm inclined to just slap on a {{humor}} tag and be done with it. But deletion? Not policy-supported or warranted. Lulz4evah. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs to be fixed, not deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite my disagreement with some of the content, it does not meet the criteria for deletion. However, I would agree with those above who suggest untagging it as an essay - although I disagree with tagging it as "humourous", as I don't think that was the user's intention, although if it was then tagging it that way would be appropriate PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it's not helpful advice, it's also not subject to deletion, in my opinion. I agree that the "Essay" tag needs to be removed, and it should not be listed in places such as Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Unfortunately, it seems that some of the factual errors and misleading advice was pointed out on the talk page more than a year ago, and again more recently, but that was ignored. Hopefully it will be fixed now, though - that's the important thing. The page is a couple of years old and had been unchanged for many months, but since this MfD started, Porchcrop has begun to remove some of the things mentioned here, so it is improving. --bonadea contributions talk 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hey folks. Just chiming in as Porchcrop's mentor. There is no requirement to delete this essay, nor indeed remove the essay tag. I don't agree with it, but surely that's what a minority view point is. One of the goals that Porchcrop and I agreed upon is a thorough review of his userspace, and when that comes I will be suggesting a {{db-u1}}, because it's not helping anyone. One thing I would agree with though is removing it from Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, I do not believe it is appropriate there. WormTT · (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{db-u1}} would be a very welcome sign of some maturity. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And is unlikey to happen in the very short future, I've given Porchcrop more than enough to be dealing with, working through a learning process. Once he is finished, we'll start looking at his userspace, and I will discuss the page with him then. He may choose to fix it, he may choose to delete it, he may choose to leave it, but the choice will be down to him. As I said, helping Porchcrop isn't something that will happen over night, and I don't expect him to give up his goals, just be more realistic about acheiving them. WormTT · (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The Admins' reading list is for new admins to help them with different readings. This page is additional advice for users who want to become admins. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. This page is your (hilarious) opinions on adminship, many of which are a minority view and rather misleading in the current arrangement. It's for people who want to become your definition of an admin, not an admin in general. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't help by saying that users need a correct {{editrequest}} that is one of the most misleading statements I found and it certainly doesn't help by stating the blatently obvious (eg. sock-puppetry, policies and guidelines etc.), if a user doesn't follow the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia they are MOST CERTAINLY not suitable to be an administrator nor will they ever be. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:35pm • 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks like you are causing drama, which is not helpful. Those are information to let a user know what they can do as non-admins. And if their request(s) get accepted, they get closer to adminship.
P.S. Thanks for removing this from WP:GRFA and the categories. I was going to do it myself after the consensus said it's not yet a helpful essay. But I'd like to thank you for removing it James. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 00:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Porchcrop/Getting_adminship&oldid=1140437822"