User:Prom3th3an/coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My Strengths

  • Recent Changes Patrol (Primary Role)
  • Abuse Reports (Secondary Role)
  • Mediation Cabal (Diversifying)
  • Articles For Deletion (Diversifying)

My Weaknesses

  • Article Writing (I have written only one article, a humor essay WP:BSI)
  • Very little involvement in wikipedia talk
  • Time :-)

First thing's first

The first thing to understand about adminship is what it is and what it isn't. Adminship does in fact convey the ability to use a powerful set of tools. The list of admin tools is much longer than most people believe; some of them are mundane, like seeing Special:Unwatchedpages, and some of them are very powerful, such as the ability to change Wikipedia's messages and styles.

However, an editor needs to keep in mind that these tools do not entitle an administrator to anything greater than an editor without them. WP:ADMIN states that "administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else". Principally we are all here to build an encyclopedia. Administrators have extra privileges which allow them to do things important to the administration (hence the title, eh?) of the encyclopedia.

However, administrators are expected to display exemplary behavior. They are generally held to a higher standard (for instance by the ArbCom) because they are in a position which demands trust. That's not to say an admin can't make mistakes; everyone will at some point or another. But administrators are expected to display a dedication to Wikipedia's rules and processes that shows they appreciate Wikipedia's goals.

Any thoughts you have on what I've said here are more than welcome.

If you haven't already read it, you should read the deceptively simple meta:Foundation issues. What do these "issues" mean to you, and how do they (or should they) affect your contributions here on Wikipedia?

As a final (and tangentially related) question, why do you want to become an administrator?

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I admire what you have pointed out and I would hope that if I became an admin people would still treat me as any other editor and not think that by being an admin, I have some form of authority. I like the way people treat me as an equal and would not want to jeopardise my approachability by becoming an admin. I do understand although I am treated as an equal I would be upheld to the highest standard of "Civility, Maturity, Responsibility"
I have read meta:Foundation issues, and I totally agree that those 5 issues are exactly that (issues), and will probably always exist. As a whole I believe that issue no. 2 is one of Wikipedia’s largest issues, closely followed by NPOV.
I want to become an admin because I want to help this worthwhile project and believe the extra tools will enhance my ability to do so. I want to be bold and to leave my mark on Wikipedia, one that made it better. At the end of the day, if I was an admin I would be able to lessen the load on others and be able to do things for myself and others, instead of just relying on other admins to do them for me. Prom3th3an (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
These are thoughtful answers. Many people have many reasons for editing Wikipedia, but I find that the editors who are most effective are usually the ones who come to Wikipedia because they believe in its goals.
Here are a couple more questions for you to ponder, related:
  • What does "consensus" mean to you?
  • What does "the wiki process" mean to you?
Regards - Revolving Bugbear 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I, coming from a democratic country can see that consensus its often confussed with democracy (which is probably what your trying to get at) when idealy they are two different things. I'm of the opinion that a consensus is when everyone is at least willing to put up / live with / accept an outcome, even if it wasnt exactly what they had in mind. Consesus is hevily built into compromise. In terms of wikipedia, I think a consesus on all notable decisions is of high importance.
I think the wiki process (in its simplest terms) is the contant process of change - consensus - change - consesus - change. This is a fundamental of Wikipedia and something everyone should understand   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting ideas to practice

Promethean, you seem to understand and appreciate the ideas behind Wikipedia. It's important to have a solid foundation, from the foundation issues, which are the basic fundamentals of Wikipedia, to the simplified ruleset, which serve as a guide for how an editor should go about contributing.

On top of all these there are a flurry of policies and guidelines which are important to understand. It is not important to memorize all of these, of course, but you should know how to find them and how to apply them. So here are a few questions to start you in the direction of policy. Some of them have 'correct' answers, and some of them don't necessarily.

1. What is the difference between a policy and a guideline?

    • Being a legal studies student and can use this analogy. Policies are law, Guidelines are customs. Policies must be observer and followed at all times EG WP:CIVIL is a policy whereby it details how users must be civil with one another and what happens if they don't.

2. What do you think the most important policy on Wikipedia is?

    • I believe all policies are equally important and should be viewed equally. Its disappointing when an editor says WP:VANDAL is more important then WP:CIVIL. Sure vandals are in there numbers and the policy is refferd to lots and lots and lots of times, but imagine if we wern't civil with one another Im of the opinion that we would have flamewars over editwars left right and center and wikipedia would not be a nice place to be. So in summery althought some policies stick out (are used) more than others, they are all equally important.

3. What place to process pages have in Wikipedia policy? Essay pages?

    • Essay pages serve policys and guidlines in the same form that the bible does with the ten commandements. Rathor than saying dont do this dont do that the essay pages put a scenario to the reader (sometimes this scenario is humorous) which can make it easier and fun to understand.

4. What do you think of WP:Ignore All Rules?

    • No policy gets in the way of concensus

Regards - Revolving Bugbear 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: You say that "policies must be observed and followed at all times", but that "no policy gets in the way of consensus". How do you reconcile these two ideas? Perhaps more specifically, when should IAR be employed -- can you think of any examples when you would, in fact, ignore a rule? - Revolving Bugbear 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I should rephrase, policies must be observed and followed at all times by idividiual editors, however if there is a consensus then you may ignore policy. I think IAR is one of those uesless clauses you see regulery at the end of a big contract that undermines the whole thing, Its only meaningful application woulde be if there was a large consesus wanting to ingnore a policy. (EG a once of event for a specific article)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)