User:Terence/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terence's admin coaching page. Anything related to his admin coaching will be posted on this page. His admin coaches are NSLE, Jareth and Mailer Diablo (third coach).

[edit] Standard RFA Questions

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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.

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

A.

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.

(The below answer is not my answer for question 3 for this AC programme) I have been in one major conflict, that is with Monicasdude when other editors and myself disputed at the FAC of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) when he objected about it. He made points about improving the article, but still refused to accept the concensus. After the article was promoted to FA status, he still disputed that the article contained weasel words and the NPOV is disrupted. This went through a number of reverts and followed by a RFC. He removed my comments from my talk page thrice without reasoning, I was then part of his second RFC for his conduct. Also, I was once part of the dispute of the table listing the airlines serving Singapore Changi Airport as the WikiProject Airports wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations served in a standard format. I made a personal attack without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and be civil at all times. Several months later, another editor and I had a dispute with its sister WikiProject over a Singapore Airlines subpages. This articles were sent to AFD and one was deleted and the other kept due to a lack of concensus. The dispute was whether the two articles, Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet violaged Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The two disputes with the WikiProject has since ended. Well, since I do a lot of AFDs, some TFDs and MFDs, I will help close the discussions and for other things for deletion such as IFDs and CFDs. Of course, I will still participate actively in AFDs, TFDs and other things listed for deletion. I will help with RC patrol and if I spot any vandalism, it will be reverted immediately. I am shocked to see that some vandalism are not even reverted. Some useful articles get nominated for deletion due to the article not being cleanup and wikified. This articles just need to be cleanup and they will be fine. Well many articles have been nominated for speedy deletion, but many do not fit the criteria. If not, I will bring it up to AFD or its respective places for deletion. I do see lots of vandals, attack/ imposter usernames, WoW, the Communism vandal sockpuppets as well as other sockpuppets, I am helpless in this situation as I cannot block this users. IP addresses who vandalise should be blocked as they are disruptive to the community. I do not tolerate vandals and trolls, but if they are clueless newbies testing pages, I will give them a chance to learn. Articles that are copyright violations should be fixed immediately and I will help fix it or else delete it

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

A. Anglo-Chinese School (International), Thum Ping Tjin, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore). Anglo-Chinese School (International) and Thum Ping Tjin are articles I've written from scratch and is one of the articles that I wrote which are not stubs. I have provided most of the content for both articles. Well, there are some additions and alterations to the article which I do not mind of course since we are an encyclopedia. I am contented at the articles' standards currently, and hope in can be further expanded or improved if possible. Though I did not contribute much to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), I feel that I have contributed something to the article and its sub-pages. It is currently a featured article, and it is an effort put up by the Singapore community. For Light Rapid Transit (Singapore), I helped expand, cleanup and improve the article to the style of its sister article i.e. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). I hope to pay more attention to the article in future, and hopefully become a good or featured article.

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 been in one major conflict, that is with Monicasdude when other editors and myself disputed at the FAC of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) when he objected about it. He made points about improving the article, but still refused to accept the concensus. After the article was promoted to FA status, he still disputed that the article contained weasel words and the NPOV is disrupted. This went through a number of reverts and followed by a RFC. He removed my comments from my talk page thrice without reasoning, I was then part of his second RFC for his conduct. Also, I was once part of the dispute of the table listing the airlines serving Singapore Changi Airport as the WikiProject Airports wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations served in a standard format. I made a personal attack without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and be civil at all times. Several months later, another editor and I had a dispute with its sister WikiProject over a Singapore Airlines subpages. This articles were sent to AFD and one was deleted and the other kept due to a lack of concensus. The dispute was whether the two articles, Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet violaged Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The two disputes with the WikiProject has since ended.

[edit] NSLE's questions

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   A: If the editor's sockpuppets have not been blocked, I will definitely block them on the spot. Next, I will file the incident at WP:AN/I for administrators to gain a concensus and discussion. Also, I will inform the user of the sockpuppets to stop creating sockpuppets either online or offline. This will be followed by going off-wiki and file it at places such as IRC for further discussion. After gaining a concensus, I will respect the concenus whatever the outcome is. If its serious, I will file an WP:RFAr for sockpuppetry and see the outcome of the Arbitration case result.

2. 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?

   A: I will discuss with the admin at his/her talk page to explain the reason for the article to be kept as well as to prevent wheel warring unless it wasn't deleted yet, I would bring it to AFD for a community concensus. If it was deleted, I will bring it to deletion review or restore it to before and send it to AFD depending on the situation. Well, if the result of the debate was to delete it, I shall respect the community's decision and I do not have any say in anything.

3. 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?

   A: I will block them for making personal attacks and vandalism for a period of 24 hours. Everyone on the project needs to be civil regardless whether they are a user or an anon. The anon's conduct will be reported at either WP:AN or WP:AN/I to bring this matter to the attention of administrators to get a concensus and respect the concensus after that.

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

   A: This is a situation that really depends. If the situation has gone too far, I will respect the other admin's decision as well as submitting my statement and let the ArbCom decide on what to do with them if accepted. However, if this is not the case, I would try to mediate both of them on IRC, telling them to keep cool at all times and remain civil. I will mediate them to a certain point if they still engage in edit warring and may request for a mediation case. If mediation is rejected as well, I will continue with my mediation with them until they remain civil. Further

--Terence Ong 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional questions to consider

1. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?

A: I will relist the AFD to get a clearer concensus for other users who have not participated in the discussion to see whether is worth keeping or not. If the other users (after relisting) all vote delete, then I will count the first 7 and the rest to vote delete in which I will take a 75% concensus whether to delete or not. If not, I will close the AFD at no concensus which is automatically to keep it. If the other users after the relisting vote keep, then I will close it at keep.

You also have the option of looking at the evidence -- if the people disputing produce clear evidence the the article does meet the WP:BIO criteria, you can choose to close as a keep. Sometimes articles that fall outside the experience of the general user-base here are mistakenly nominated (for instance, prominent cultural items in Yemen might not be well known to most) and since AfD is not a vote, admins can use their judgement based on the discussion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: A hard one. This really depends on the situation.

1. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A: This is when they are known sockpuppets of a user or vandal, accounts simply for vandalism, suspected sockpuppets of vandals such as Willy on Wheels, the Communism vandal etc. Also, attack or impersonation accounts such as Terence Ong is an ass, Terence Ong on Wheels or accounts too similar to an existing user for example User:Raul656 is to somewhat impersonate established user User:Raul654 or impersonations by the communism vandal such as User:TerenceOng or other impersonators.

1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: Instead of leaving Wikipedia, I will take a Wikibreak and do other activities in the meantime to cool down. I believe such stress shouldn't be taken too easily. This goes for real life issues as well. Back to Wikipedia, I will keep calm and relief myself even during a heated debate.

1. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A: We have over a million users on Wikipedia which only less than a percent of them are administrators. I would like to help to do the admin chores, handle conflicts and also help the efficiency of deleting pages and files. Also, I will also help to improve the efficiency of administrator duties.

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

A: I believe that Wikipedia shouldn't be political as we are an encyclopaedia NOT a country or political site. Administrators are to handle situations, do maintenance work i.e. blocks/unblocks, handle trolls, delete/restore pages, protect/semi-protect a page etc. Administrators are not like a member of the upper house, they are just to maintain and make the encyclopaedia run well.

Just wanted to say, this is a fantastic answer :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Have there been any times where you were insisting on a certain edit and realized later or during the dispute that your version in fact had a POV problem?

A: As far as I can remember, there has never been a situation like that. I would like to add if there is such a situation, I will NPOVise the edit to make the article have a neutral point of view.

1. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?

A: This really depends, but I can tell the difference. If the article is too POV, I will revert it and discuss the issue on the talk page as well as warning the editor not to write POV things on Wikipedia. Pure vandalism will be reverted on the spot and the user will be warned.

1. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A: Yes, there is a need to do so. At

1. You are a member of WP:Esperanza and the Kindness Campaign. Will your experience with these projects help/influence how you behave as an admin? If so, please explain how.

A: It helps to improve my civility at times and helps me to keep cool as well as not to bite newbies. On the behaviour side, I must have self control and keep cool at all times even in red hot debates.

1. Can semi protect be used on articles where there are many edit conflicts?

A: No, it cannot be used in such situations. Semi protects are used to prevent new users (maybe vandals) and anons in which most are vandals from editing due to recent vandalism by them. Edit conflicts can be settled by either an administrator resolving the situation.

1. How has your stance as an Inclusionist affected your participation at AfD? Will it affect your work as an admin?

A: Nope, not at all. Inclusionism is only a belief, what matters most is whether what the topic is about, is it notable, is it verifiable etc. Besides, I have a slight incline to deletionism recently due to what a kind of encyclopaedia we have, nonsense articles all over the place. They should be speedied at sight. I'm fair at AFDs, I seldom take sides whehter to keep or delete the article unless in certain circumstances.

Note: I will not answer all the questions at one go, I will answer it after some time. --Terence Ong 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me posting here, but I suppose in your RfA, there might be opposition to use of an image in your signature. I suggest you remove it before accepting nom. Regards, --Andy123(talk) 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)