User talk:Redvers/Admin Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Admin Coaching

This page has been set up for my Admin Coaching by fellow Esperanzans NSLE and Drini.

[edit] Questions

A tough one! What's the most useful thing you learnt on becoming an admin? :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The importance of being polite. You may be doing the right thing, bu if you come out looking rude or mean, you'll be burnt. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Most useful thing I learnt... I'd have to say I learnt to tolerate people better. When you're in conflicts (over editing, or even something else (like I was with User:EddieSegoura over sockpuppets) you've got to keep cool, I was always civil dealing with Eddie but I had reached my breaking point internally, but as an admin you've got to remain calm otherwise you'd come across wrongly, and get yourself in trouble ;) NSLE _(T+C) at 02:10 UTC (2006-02-28)

But now, the question is on you!! (mwahahahahahha)

Question. Have you in your wikitime found yourself in conflict because you were actually following the rules? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Only really with blatant vandals, and I don't think they count!

There was one issue, were I Speedy tagged Newberries Variety Group for non-notability just when it was created when I was on RC Patrol.

I got a fair hail of abuse for that - WP:BITE, mainly - by email and one on my talk page. I don't think I bit the newbie - I had written to him/her to explain my actions and offer help when I tagged the article. I also asked on #Wikipedia for admins to quickly review it - there was no consensus on WP:BITE, but there was a consensus that the article had reason to exist (one admin said "All subjects are notable", which surprised me).

I notice the article now has been expanded into an advert, asking for donations and noting for itself that the group in non-notable. Nevertheless, I'm steering clear of it! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞

Question What's the best and the worst you've experienced so far on wikipedia? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The best I've experienced is when a vandal I had warned repeatedly attacked my user page and talk page with offensive and threatening nonsense. I reverted it a couple of times, the attack got worse and then... others editors piled in, reverting, blocking, sending me messages of support and responding with good humour. It was a lovely, community-enhancing experience.

The worst I've seen is probably the worst most people have seen: the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin thing. It showed that the RfC process could very easily break; that a pile-on is always a bad thing; and that the community here can be unpleasant when it puts its mind to it (I'm not taking sides or saying that the above applies to one side or the other). When Philwelch tried to draw the sting and do something about restoring sanity to the process, I helped, under a hail of abuse from both sides (I may gain some Opposes for it, too, ho hum). The result was a better RfC, although no consensus emerged about any of the issues. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞

Questino If you were able to change a policy, which one would you change and why? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A few months ago, I would have said "make CSD more liberal" - we have an immense amount of slop that will never be improved or expanded that we could happily afford to lose. But recent events have shown that CSD is, in places, very loose already and more subjective than it appears. I suppose that now I'd like CSD reformed to make the rules harder and faster, as it were: but now I'd worry about what came out at the end of such a process, so its probably best to leave well enough alone.

So, to pick one of the other 40 official policies to reform... I suppose I'd go for NPA. I've been watching (though not taking part in) the discussions at Wikipedia:Esperanza/NPA Reform and it looks promising in many places. I'll continue to watch to see where the consensus takes the reform.

Can I have a software upgrade as part of this question? Please? ;o) I'd like the "Save" button greyed-out until something is typed into the Edit Summary field! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞

Question - You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What do you do? NSLE _(T+C) at 02:10 UTC (2006-02-28)

Tough one. I think I would first contact them off-Wiki by email and effectively say "I know what you're doing; please stop now and we can forget the matter" - though without the hint of blackmail that sentence carries! There's then a fork in the road: if it produced a denial I'd do one thing and if it failed to work, I'd do another.

Denial: I'd go to WP:AN/I and present my evidence, to try to gain a consensus on what to do. Since the editor is well-known and popular, I'd be risking a pile-on against me, so I'd have to prepare to be a bit stressed and to hold my nerve.

Failure: I'd contact, off-Wiki, other admins I admire and asked for advice in general terms (naming no names at first). I'd then pick the best of that advice and act on it. If that didn't work, I'd pose a similar general question on WikiEN-I. Finally, I would go to WP:AN/I with my evidence and hold my breath.

The one thing I wouldn't do - even if the editor in question was a friend of mine - would be to let them carry on. I'd certainly see myself blocking the socks that had been abusive. But I would avoid a wheel-war over unblocking them. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Redvers, one more... While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do? NSLE _(T+C) at 09:54 UTC (2006-03-01)

I'd want to avoid a wheel war above all else, so it depends on whether it had been deleted or just tagged for speedy deletion. If it was just tagged, then I'd send it off to AfD instead to get the community consensus (I wouldn't express an opinion/vote myself in that case).

If the article was gone, I'd contact the administrator who had deleted it and discuss with them whether it was worth undeleting and putting it through AfD instead. I wouldn't unilaterally do it, but I would offer to do it if the other admin didn't mind. If they did mind, I'd expect them to have some reason for minding and it would probably persuade me. If it didn't, then I'd consider taking it to Deletion Review (and but not expressing an opinion there, either) - again, I'd explain my thinking to the admin in question and make it clear that I'm not questioning their judgement, I'm just trying to give the article a chance because of personal doubts. If the admin strongly objected to this, then I'm afraid I'd be terribly lily-livered and accept their strong opinion on the matter and move on. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your answers. I think you're quite ready for adminship, IMO, but it may be better to wait a while. Another one: You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest? (This happened to me overnight while I was sleeping, funny enough) NSLE _(T+C) at 00:53 UTC (2006-03-02)

I'd block them for 24 hours for vandalism and incivility; then I'd go to WP:AN/I and request that fellow admins review the decision as I was an involved party. I'd stand by the consensus there: confirm, extend or unblock. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NSLE: but it may be better to wait a while - for interest, how long... and why? :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, your time (active) on Wikipedia has been limited to since around October 2005, pretty much, and you will lose marks in some people's books for that. Your mainspace-talk edits are also a little low. I personally think you're ready, and could try in late April. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:26 UTC (2006-03-03)

[edit] First draft

Below is my first draft^[1] of the answers I would give to the standard questions when/if I was nominated for Adminship. I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions!

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A - The Images namespace always has a related backlog that I'd like to help out on. Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Uploader unsure of copyright status are the two that have most caught my eye where I can bring experience and elbow grease to help out. IfD could also use a hand. I would also plan to do more RC Patrols - I've slacked off from it lately and it would be good to get back into the fray equipped with the tools.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A - My first real contributions of new articles, Irish Peace Tower and Iron harvest remain my favourites - the latter especially, because it has been improved a lot by subsequent editors (the joy of Wiki!). I've enjoyed translating a handful of articles from the German Wikipedia on broadcasting subjects - slow, hard work but worthwhile. Again, these have then been improved by subsequent editors, which is very pleasing. I'm also proud of some of the obscure articles I've cleaned up just by hitting Special:Random and getting to work. There's some odd things in my contributions list because of it!

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A - Nothing really to write home about. I've disagreed with decisions others have made, but my choice is to try to stick to 1RR and talk about a change rather than getting into a war. I've annoyed my fair share of vandals (here, here, here and here if you want a laugh). In the interests of full disclosure, I've once been accused of breaking WP:BITE (see here). I don't agree that I did, so asked for opinions on #Wikipedia. There was no consensus, so who knows? I dropped the subject, anyway. Also (and I can't find the diff to present it here), one fellow user accused me in an Edit Summary of having made a malicious edit. We talked about it and the accusation was withdrawn and apologised for, but it'll still be lurking in the history of an article somewhere!

Basically, when faced with conflict of any sort, my immediate reaction is to want to talk about the issues and find a consensus. If something does annoy me, then I'd usually rather go silent than kick off an argument. Essentially, I would always assume that I'd buggered up first, and check my own reasoning and processes before firing off. This does not apply to simple vandalism - for that I have no tolerance - and no quarms about reverting it and putting a stop to it!

• ↑  I standby these answers - they are truthful. But you may have suggestions for better ways of saying what I'm saying ➨ ❝REDVERS❞