User:KnightLago/Admin Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm back! ok, sorry about my absence... but let's get started!

OK, so I'll do a sort of editor review thing first, and then just add questions, comments, suggestions, etc as we go along. And of course, if you have any questions, ask!

Contents

[edit] Editor Review

User:KnightLago
run at Fri Dec 7 07:51:29 2007 GMT
Category: 6  
Image talk: 3  
Image: 32  
Mainspace 3452  
Talk: 176  
Template: 66  
User talk: 688  
User: 550  
Wikipedia talk: 66  
Wikipedia: 495  
avg edits per page 3.52  
earliest 23:47, 23 March 2006  
number of unique pages 1573  
total 5534  
2006/3  4   
2006/4  14   
2006/5  27   
2006/6  13   
2006/7  58   
2006/8  467   
2006/9  55   
2006/10  199   
2006/11  225   
2006/12  485   
2007/1  299   
2007/2  40   
2007/3  131   
2007/4  328   
2007/5  306   
2007/6  200   
2007/7  434   
2007/8  93   
2007/9  53   
2007/10  1099   
2007/11  837   
2007/12  167

(taken from here )

Ok, well on terms of count you have more than me. You have a lot of edits in all namespaces, which is also really good, so well done. The main thing that I notice to improve on (and at the same time I'm noticing that you are improving on it) is edit summaries. Just remember to fill in one after editing- and I think last time I checked there was a select in my preferences that could prompt you to enter one before you save the page.

I just recently turned that feature on. KnightLago (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, let's get this thing started!

It's a pretty good idea to read through some admin reading lists if you haven't already. The actual Administrators' reading list is pretty good, but remember you can always still check back on the policy pages whenever you need to, admin or not (I usually check at least one policy page every time I edit). But that's a good link to keep handy.

Then of course there's Administrators, which explains all about administrators and what they do.

I'd also recommend Wikipedia:Maintenance, because that's really what adminship is all about.

Ok, so if you go for an RFA, then obviously you're going to come across the three RFA questions. I suggest you have a go at them now, because then we can have a look at your answers and go over strengths, weaknesses, and things we can improve on, or things we can build on. Here you go:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I intend to start off slowly using the mop at CSD, AIV, and UAA. I would also continue to monitor recent changes and use the tools there when appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my contributions to Florida Atlantic University, which is now a featured article. I spent a number of months writing and rewriting the article. Once I got it up to snuff I then shepherded it through a copyedit, peer review, and finally FAC. During this process I wrote a few articles for The Signpost. Examples are here, here, and here. At the moment I am searching for another article that interests me to work on improving it to FA.
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: I have had a few minor disagreements with users before, but all were resolved through discussion. The only major one that comes to mind is here. I consider it major because the other user quit the project after expressing his frustrations. Both myself and a 3rd uninvolved user tried to discuss the problem with him, but he was mad that the article was not more positive and argued it should be more like other articles that were NPOV violations. He also seemed to be fed up with Wikipedia in general. I am not really sure what else I could have done, I hoped he would return after cooling down, but I haven't seen him since. I'm a big fan of talking to others when there is controversy. This usually results in a compromise that improves the article. In dealing with stress I follow the same approach and try to not take things personally.

Anyway, there's a bit for you :) Cheers- CattleGirl talk 08:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done for now. KnightLago (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All of those answers were great! Your FA article was great, as was your reaction to conflict- talk it out, don't get angry, basically. So well done there.

[edit] Questions

Ok, so now a few more questions... either about adminship or common questions/issues that arise on wikipedia. And some good ones I spotted on WP:RFA... Cheers- CattleGirl talk 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Personally, what do you believe are the main attributes of a good admin?

A: Trustworthy, reliable, helpful, calm, knowledge of and experience with policy and its implementation.

2. Why are you interested in adminship? (personally)

A: I believe the tools would help me contribute to the project more effectively. I spend time at recent changes and find a lot of nonsense/vandalism pages and also a lot of vandalism. In the past I have always reported both to the appropriate places as needed. With the tools I could help with the CSD backlog and AIV, while continuing to monitor recent changes.

3. What's your take on WP:IAR?

A: It is good policy because it reminds people to use common sense in helping the project. However, if someone is going to claim IAR they need to be able to explain their action and why it falls under this policy. Nicely put :)

4. An IP is reported to WP:AIV for vandalism after the final warning. Researching the user, you see that he has not vandalized after the most recent final warning, but has been given many other final warnings in the past and has just finished a two-month block for vandalism. You also see that the user has not made any edits in the last six hours. What would you do as an administrator and why?

A: I would not block in this case. Blocking is not meant to be punitive but to prevent harm. If the IP stopped vandalizing six hours ago there is no immediate harm to prevent. I would leave a note on their talk page encouraging them to contribute more positively and let them know continued vandalism would result in another block of a longer duration. Exactly right. I've seen quite a few blocks that occured hours after the user offended- in which case the block is ineffective.

5. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no reliable sources to verify claims. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?

A: I would encourage everyone to calmly discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Revert wars are unnecessary and harmful. I would not express an opinion on the matter, but remind everyone of the need for verifiability. I would also suggest that if they were unable to come to an agreement they should follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

Done for now. KnightLago (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Questions

Well, as you can see I made a few quick comments as I read along. You really know your stuff well! I'll give you a few more questions, and some nifty things I found during my browsings...

1. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?

A: Banning is a formal revocation of editing privileges by the community, the Arbcom, Jimbo, or the Foundation. An indef block is done when there is major disruption, vandalism only account, etc. If no admin unblocks, the user is considered banned.

2. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?

A: This is tricky. I would first strongly encourage the user to abide by NPOV as it is a nonnegotiable policy. I would then open a RFC, depending on the result of that I would go for community sanctions, such as 1RR, and then if the POV pusher continues, blocks for disruption starting small and increasing as warranted.

3. A page has been deleted three times, but has been recreated by different individuals. The page is borderline notability. What would you do and why?

A: I would first look at the previous reasons for deletion. If there were previous AFDs then I might delete as recreation of deleted material. If the article was speedy deleted before and now there appears to be some notability I would nominate it for AFD.

4. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

A: I would say both. They hold technical positions with the extra tools they are given. They hold political positions in that they are recognized as trusted members within the community and they must maintain that trust.

5. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

A: I would like more people to focus on the work of the encyclopedia. On actual article improvement, sourcing, cleanup, etc. A lot of times people get involved with drama and forget what we are here for. Besides encouraging users to focus on the encyclopedia, I am not really sure what else I could do. People are people. Adminship would make life easier in that the mop would be useful at recent changes, deleting nonsense pages, etc. I could also help at CSD and AIV.

6. RFA- do you have any criteria for them? It'd be interested to compare you to your criteria, if you have any.

A: I don't vote in RFAs much, but when I do I look at the users edit count (while this is not the be all, end all, it is a quick indicator of the users experience), how long they have been editing, what they focus on and their contributions, and whether or not they have any FAs to their name, and most importantly, whether they are trustworthy. KnightLago (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Ok. This is where you look at the links I'll grab... and make your verdict on whether it's vandalism, good faith, pure annoyance (which I suppose is vandalism again...) and so on and so forth. Don't forgot to include which warning you'd give them...

1. 1 While this could be vandalism I would simply AGF and undo. I would then check the user's contributions and see what they were up to and act accordingly.

2. 2 Vandalism. I would warn in this case. The level of warning, as this is a school IP, would depend on the recent contributions and other warnings already on the talk page. I would make sure to point the user/s to the sandbox.

3. 3 No action, appears to be an appropriate for the article.

4. 4 Vandalism. Warn for adding non-relevant information/test edits, point to the sandbox.

5. 5 No action, appears to be an appropriate for the article.

Well, that's quite a bit more for you to do... looking forward to your answers! Cheers- CattleGirl talk 10:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I was going to reply to everything individually, but I don't think I need to. You know your stuff =] See my message on your talk page. CattleGirl talk 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)