User:Malinaccier/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you ready to wield the mop?
Are you ready to wield the mop?

Since admin coaching often consists of asking questions and what-if scenarios, we'll just start with the traditional RFA questions.

Contents

[edit] Traditional RFA questions

  • What admin areas do you intend to work in?
    • I would begin by closing AFDs where consensus is clear, and then moving to more controversial ones as I gained experience in determining consensus. Especially early on, I would target the administrative backlogs and help clear those out. On the vandal fighting side, I would help out at CSD when it starts to get backlogged, keep an eye on WP:AIV, and use that helpful rollback to revert unhelpful edits. I would also keep WP:ANI on my watchlist and help out wherever I could.
  • What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
    • What really pops out at me was my arguement with User:75.11.12.136. The IP address was adding the same improper information to Spells in Harry Potter so much that it was getting disruptive. I warned the IP several times, and my userpage was vandalized, which made me pretty mad. The rest of the day, I was in a sort of bad mood about the relatively small conflict. After this, I decided that I needed to cool down, and welcomed new users and started doing a little WP:RCP, which made me feel less angry toward the IP.
  • What do you believe are your best contributions?

[edit] Checklist

Here's a checklist of things that you should try if you haven't already. If you do these, you'll gain more experience on adminship. I'm hoping you'll tell me what you have and haven't done and thus may need to work on.

Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.svg I try to contribute to every RFA that I can.
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.svg Several.
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif Yeah, a few times.
Not yet: I thought of it, but it looked like only a few editors got reviewed.
  • reviewed an editor at editor review?
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif I think once.
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif Yeah, I get it.
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
I use Popups on my Public account (User:Malinaccier Public), but I haven't done anything automated yet.
Update I'm now using Lupin's anti-vandal tool, and am trying to figure out twinkle on my Public account.
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif A lot of AFD, and some TFD.
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif I've asked a question on the science desk, but I haven't answered a query.
  • uploaded an image?
No, but I may get a new digital camera, and then I would find articles needing simple pictures.
Update: Just uploaded Image:Winged helmet.jpg on the first.
  • welcomed a user?
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif About 400.
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
No
No
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
Image:Check mark 23x20 02.gif Yeah, I have looked at every one of these. You can look at deleted pages as an admin, so you should look at My Wikiphilosophy page, which I requested to be deleted a while back. I mostly agree with parts of everything.

I really liked your Wikiphilosophy page. Forgive me for being nosy, but why did you have it deleted? bibliomaniac15 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you liked it that much, then maybe I should still have it =). Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I undeleted it? I really like it, and it could be of help in a future RFA. bibliomaniac15 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, just tell me when you do so I can make a link to it on my userpage. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I restored it. bibliomaniac15 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some possible RFA questions

Since you've participated in RFA before, I would guess that you would be quite familiar with the usual RFA questions that would come up. Here's some:

  • Would you place yourself on Category:Administrators open to recall? Why or why not?
    • Yes, I would want to know if I was doing a bad job, and if I was substantially harming Wikipedia in some way by being an admin, it would obviously be better if I wasn't an admin.
  • How do and would you apply IAR to your contributions if you were made an admin?
    • If, in my opinion, some policy is harming, or prohibiting the growth of an article, I would ignore this policy to help Wikipedia grow. I wouldn't ignore rules just to get out of having to deal with some problem, or make something easier for me—I would only use IAR to improve Wikipedia.
      • Could you give a more specific example of a scenario you would do this in?
        • Sure, in a deletion of an article like List of churches in Hampshire (this actually happened here), I would ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory (in my opinion the article does violate this), and save the article from deletion to avoid cluttering the article about Hampshire itself, and to provide a valuable source of information to readers.
  • Do you have any other personal criteria for a potential admin?
    • Candidates must be experienced in policy, having contributions to Projectspace pages like WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:HELPDESK, etc. They must also answer the questions asked of them reasonably well. I am usually willing to bend my standards if I believe the user would be a good admin anyway.

[edit] Habits

What do you usually do when you're on Wikipedia? Do you check your watchlist and then go newpage patrolling? Recent change patrolling? Working on an article? bibliomaniac15 02:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Usually I sign on to Wikipedia, then check my watchlist, then open my Userpage to check if there are any new RFA's. I'll take a look at these, !vote, and check on WT:RFA for new threads, and read those. After checking these, I might either look and contribute to WP:AFD, filter through the recent changes with Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, or go around to articles that interest me and make slight corrections (this I probably do the most, as I am mostly interested in fiction books and they often have inaccuracate information). On occasion, I will welcome users, do a bit of work for WP:DPL, check out WP:TFD, or continuously reload random articles. Really, it varies. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grab bag

More stuff.

  • What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks do you feel you would totally avoid?
    • Hmm, my weakness would probably have to be hastiness. Often in RFA's, I won't take the time to check the candidate's history thoroughly which leads me to make arbitrary decisions there. This sometimes transfers over to AFD discussions, but it hasn't really caused any problems. As an admin, I would probably read up on just about every admin related task I do, until I was fully comfortable with the tools and my responsibility to the community. For example, when closing an AFD, I would probably double-check the policies that users cite, and making sure their claims are valid before taking any type of action. Even if I thought I knew the policy or guideline, it would have to be verified before closure. This would also transfer over to CSD work; making sure that the article is not notable (constantly checking WP:N), and making sure that it fits the criteria for speedy deletion. The only task that I would probably avoid is WP:DRV. There is often a huge discussion and it is extremely hard to determine consensus in many cases. I would probably end up looking at DRV after a few months of being an admin, or when I feel confident in determining consensus, and know more about adminship.
  • If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
    • It would probably be to WP:N (which is a guideline, but this came to mind first). I would make it much more lax, because what I have always liked about Wikipedia is being able to find articles on just about anything (your small hometown, a school nearby, a very recently published book) here, which you normally wouldn't see in Britannica or any other encyclopedia. The most interesting articles to me are the ones always labeled listcruft, gamecruft, and fancruft. It would definitely make random page loading even more enjoyable.
  • When do you feel it is appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
    • When the alleged vandal has not recieved a final warning, or a warning that specifies the user may be blocked (unless it is a vandal bot, or the user is making many many disruptive edits very quickly).
      • Extension: Continuing this question, what do you do if the user is not a vandal or a troll but a extreme POV-pusher?
        • The first step would be for me to revert their edits, and explain to the user our NPOV policy, asking them to stop, and showing them how to show their opinion by using facts. If they continued being disruptive by their POV, I would give them a strong warning, letting them know that they can be blocked for their disruptive behavior. If the user still ignores my warnings, I would contact another administrator and gain consensus to whether the user is disruptive enough for blocking.
  • A user requests semi-protection of an article, but you fully protect it. Why?
    • Because there is probably an edit war between registered editors and IP adresses, to prevent simply locking out the IP editors.
      • Extension: Let's say that you fully protect an article because of a dispute and the warring parties ask you to act as a third neutral party. How can you maintain your neutrality and fix the dispute?
        • Assuming I had not edited the article before, and had no ties with either party's views:
If it was a content dispute, I would make sure to assume good faith with both parties, and ask each to provide sources for whatever argument they are making, or to cite policy that dictates their argument is correct. If the problem could not be solved simply by this, then I would come to another administrator and get their opinion on the matter.
If I was involved with the article or subject matter before the dispute:
To ensure neutrality by the third party (me), I would have to get another user or admin to act as a third party with no ties to either side.
  • What is your area of expertise? What subjects do you feel you could contribute the most to? Have you ever joined a WikiProject based on your area of expertise?
  • Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia?
    • This'll be a good sized one:
Fun and humorous items may not help the project, but they do not neccesarily harm it either. Everything about Wikipedia is voluntary, and why would any user stay if there was no reward whatsoever for doing so. If there was nothing fun about Wikipedia, no recognition or goals (barnstars), and no way to relate to other editors and have a laugh once and a while, what would be the point for many of the contributors? I do believe that fun and humorous items belong in Wikipedia, if only for their use in attracting and keeping editors.
I guess that I must side with the "Middle Ground Position," though I agree with several points made in the other categories. The "Encyclopedist Position" is right in the fact that users should use an NPOV, provide clear edit summaries, and reference everything, but this will probably never be encompassed by the entire population of Wikipedia editors, particularly IP editors. Also, the statement that good editors "do not stray from the above pattern of behavior," can never be accomplished because of the conflicting religions, cultures, ages, and histories of editors which may cause NPOV problems, incivility, and terse actions. The "Middle Ground Position" makes allowances forn the fact that some users will specialize in other areas of the Encyclopedia (you yourself asked me what my area of expertise is). It also highlights the fact that Wikipedia would probably not survive if all editors followed either extreme (Encyclopedism would cause many editors to leave, and the Community Maintenance alignment would result in an unstructured environment where less coordination between editors would take place). In conclusion, the only way to go is the "Middle Ground Position," a mix of the best parts of both philosophies.

[edit] Assignment

I would like you to write an essay. It can be about anything: your outlook on a policy, tips to stay cool, or some humorous interpretation of a guideline. Whatever the case, I'd like to see something that shows that you understand the policy and that you have something that could help others on Wikipedia. bibliomaniac15 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of already wrote this essay, but I changed it just a little bit: (User:Malinaccier/Good Samaritan Act). Malinaccier (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. You make a good point in this essay. The only thing is that the satire seems a bit out of place. bibliomaniac15 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I extended some of the questions in the previous section. I'll put a bold thing next to them. bibliomaniac15 04:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co nom

Just to let you know, Rudget offered to co-nominate me whenever you think I'm ready and submit an RFA. See my talk page for the discussion. Malinaccier (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.