User:Useight/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

  1. What admin areas do you intend to work in?
    I plan on starting in the area where I have the most experience and slowly branching out from there. I will start with helping clear the backlog at CAT:CSD, either deleting or declining to delete articles listed there. I will also continue to patrol the New Pages (while not directly admin-related, relates to my primary admin function). I also figure to do some work at WP:AFD, mainly closing discussions that have reached an obvious conclusion, before I feel comfortable dealing with more controversial discussions. I'll possibly check WP:AIV to block reported vandals (after checking their contribs and warnings, of course). Other items in the admin backlog will take a backseat for at least a while.
  2. What do you believe are your best contributions?
    I started my Wikipedia career editing articles with the realm of WikiProject Video games, specifically WikiProject Nintendo, but I have recently switched to an NFL-related emphasis (I'll probably switch back after the season's over). So, I find my mainspace contributions to be my best stuff. I haven't started any articles that have become GA or FA, but I have started List of living supercentenarians, Nike Air Pasco, Safety Patrol (film), and a couple others. Regardless of that fact, I believe my best contributions are what I have done to improve video game- and football-related articles, both of which are often susceptible to POV and vandalism.
  3. What conflicts have you been in and how have you handled them?
    The event that caused me the most stress was when I was mistakenly blocked. I had tagged an article with {{db-attack}} (but that was before I used edit summaries much) and I was blocked along with the two other contributors to that article. When I realized I had been blocked for 48 hours, I e-mailed the admin who blocked me and was able to get it all sorted out. The full transcript of what happened can be read on my talk page. Ever since that day I have made it a point to use edit summaries, initially because I was afraid I might be blocked again, but now I use them so other editors can easily see what I did and/or my motive. Since then, I haven't been in any really substantial conflicts, and I always try to keep a level head and calm demeanor when dealing with other editors.

Remember, you don't need to answer the questions if you don't want to. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highly probable questions

You answered those questions marvelously. One of the most important things you have to reflect in a RFA question is how you learned. If you discuss how you learn from your mistakes, chances are you will be more likely to do so as an admin.

Now here's just a few questions that !voters will very likely ask you, seeing that you've already been through 2 RFA's. The trick is not to be too anxious. The more anxious you are to be an admin, the more rushed you'll seem and the more you'll make Jimbo bite back his words about "Adminship is no big deal."

  1. How do you believe you've improved from your previous RFA's? Do you feel like you've addressed all of the problems pointed out?
    The main problems pointed out by the opposing editors were: 1) Not enough time as an editor; 2) A couple inappropriate speedy deletion tags; 3) Some lackluster comments on AFD that didn't really help the discussion; and 4) Too little time passed since previous RFA.
    As for number one, I have now been an editor for nearly a year, and while that alone is definitely not a reason to promote an editor to admin, it has given me more experience and understanding of policies and procedures. I have been able to participate more in AFDs, CSDs and other areas within the Wikipedia namespace, giving me a better handle on what admins do. For number two, I have more thoroughly studied the criteria for speedy deletion and go over it again occasionally as a refresher. I have also slowed down a little in tagging articles for speedy deletion to give each one some time and consideration. I don't want good, encyclopedic content deleted on account of my mistake (albeit it can be restored). As for number three, I have long sinced stopped adding comments such as "Delete, per nom" that don't really add to the discussion, but I make it my personal rule to bring up and link to a policy that helps solidify the point I am trying to make. Lastly, number four, I had only waited just under six weeks to reapply for adminship. The reason for this was that I knew my time available as an editor (and therefore time available to answer any optional questions that might arise) would drop substantially when school started again. So I applied in the first week of September, when I probably should've waited at least two more weeks. It has now been almost two months since my last RFA, giving me more adequate time to learn from and correct past problems, which I believe I have done.
  2. Would you place yourself on Category:Administrators open to recall?
    Yes, I would immediately place myself in the category. Admins are not kings, they don't have unlimited and unquestioned power. It is the community who decided to trust them and give them the tools, and the community retains the power to take those tools away. Of course, there already methods for de-sysopping admins, but this category makes it easier, and I will always be ready to stand judgement again if requested.
  3. How would you apply IAR to your contributions?
    I know the rules are there for a reason and shouldn't be ignored just to prove a point. I believe the rules should only be ignored if they are preventing an editor from improving the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia wasn't written for the rules, the rules were written for the encyclopedia and we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog. Keeping the spirit of improving Wikipedia in mind, the rules can be ignored on occasion, but this should be the exception, not the norm. The IAR rule was written because Wikipedia is dynamic and rapidly changing, while the rules evolve slowly and can't keep up with what may arise. In my own contributions as an admin, I will be initially sticking with more objective areas, such as CSD, where the article is deleted if it doesn't meet criteria or declined to delete if criteria is met. IAR might play a role in the subjective matter of whether I think the article can be improved to meet criteria, but I will use IAR carefully and with good judgement when it comes to CSD.
  4. What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?
    I do have a few personal requirements, but they are not set in stone. First, I want to see at least 2000 edits (editcountitis? maybe) before I support, however I won't oppose for that reason alone, I'd probably be neutral. But I am a little flexible there if they are close to 2000 or if they have been editing for a year or so. Secondly, I also like to see about 50% of their edits to the mainspace. Afterall, we're here to build an encyclopedia. I am quite lenient on this one, though, and will not hesitate to support admins who have lower than 50% if I think they are knowledgeable and trustworthy. Third, I have a strict policy against personal attacks. Admins must be courteous and able to keep a cool head. I will not support an RFA of an editor who personally attacked another editor within the last few months. Someone with a short fuse might be too quick on the block button. Also, I require near perfect use of edit summaries over the last few months, other editors need to be able to easily see what they're doing and/or their motive behind it. And finally, I review the the editor's contribs that relate to the areas they mention in Q1, while subjective, to see if I am impressed by their work in those areas.

In addition, another trait that admins should have, in my opinion, is broad-mindedness. Administrators have a very tough job mediating and judging consensus. As a result, one must be very rational and somewhat meticulous with regard to analysis. I highly recommend pondering the koans in WP:ZEN to help culture such a trait. "Up upon the surface/Only straws will come and float./Whoever wants to reach the pearls/Must go and dive below."

I read the essay, which I had never seen before, and it is very philosophical, but it helps one keep an open mind. I'm also going to give the link to my brother, User:TheInfinityZero. P.S. - Sorry it took so long to answer the questions, I saw them last night, but then I went to a Halloween party and then went to sleep. Useight 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff to look at

Admin coaching is largely based on asking about your experiences, so I'm sorry if this is tedious answering all these questions about yourself. You've done a fine job, so keep it up. I've already asked you a number of questions that you've answered admirably, but admin coaching should go beyond asking, it should also involve some sort of practice. You already participate in speedy deletions, so that's really awesome. Here's some things that you might want to try out or take a look at. I try to find stuff outside the commonly quoted essays and the admin reading list (which can be found on WP:RFA or WP:ADMIN). And remember, you don't even need to do any of them. They're just things that I suggest you do to enrich your knowledge.

  • Review other editors at Editor review. If you practice evaluating other users and find what they should improve, you'll get a sense of how you can develop yourself. Heck, if you've never tried it out, get yourself an editor review. You might even find processes and stuff you've never heard of before.
  • Everybody knows about AFD, but what about stuff like User categories for deletion or Redirects for deletion? By looking at the "forgotten" XFD's, you'll gain more knowledge about what admins do and maybe even find something you'd be interested in doing.
  • Third opinion is a good place to go as well. It's the prime place to train yourself in mediating and moderating disputes. Remember to be as neutral as possible and whenever you can, make a compromise. This is how consensus works.
  • Welcome a user. Of course, we will have the old-timers with us for hopefully a long time, but what good is a bunch of old people without any growth? If there is no growth, how can we possibly discover the sum of all human knowledge? The newcomers are our greatest assets, and the first month or so is a very integral time in that what they see will affect how they edit for a good long time. Too often have I seen a harsh, hostile group of well-established users (not directed towards anyone) just make it a hard time for these new guys, who too often turn vandal. I hold great emphasis on this and the doctrine of wikilove, because it is just essential for the continued growth of the project. You've heard of WP:CIVIL, but have you taken it to the next step?
  • Take a look at some meta philosophies. Ever wonder whether you were an exopede or a metapede? Do you believe in Wikitoritarianism or Wikidemocratism? Knowing concretely what your beliefs are, as with any faith or institution, is a very vital thing. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the meta philosophies and determined that I'm definitely an Exopedian and a Deletionist. I'm sure I fall into more categories than just those two, but I haven't looked them all over. The other items you mentioned will take me some time, but I definitely want to try my hand at the Third Opinion. I reviewed an editor a long time ago, but I selected an easy one (I think he had under 20 edits), so I'm going to give that another shot. This will take me some time, though. Useight 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning your experience with admin processes

Just a few questions concerning what you've done before. I omitted AfD's and Speedy deletions because I know you've done them before.

Have you ever...

  • Listed a vandal for WP:AIV?
  • Listed a page for protection?
  • Participated in WP:AN or WP:ANI discussion?
  • Acted as a neutral party in dispute?
  • Used any .js tools or installed any editing helpers (popups, TWINKLE, VandalSniper, special navbars, etc.)?
  • !voted in an WP:RFA?
  • contributed to the Reference desk?
  • get the Signpost?

If you haven't, you might want to take a look at these. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some of those:

Reported five or six vandals to AIV who were subsequently blocked. I know it's not a lot, but I don't run into persistent vandals all that often.
Tried setting up my monobook.js to use TWINKLE, but then discovered it doesn't work in Internet Explorer. Every edit I have ever made was manual, not a one was automated or semi-automated.
I have contributed to many RFAs.
I have answered a couple questions on the Reference Desk, but only every once and again.

I have never requested page protection, participated at WP:AN or WP:ANI, acted as a neutral party, or read the Signpost. I'll sign up for the Signpost and I'll try to toss some edits to WP:AN, WP:ANI, and the Reference Desk into the mix. I've also got to remember to welcome new users on occasion as well. Useight 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My editing patterns

I usually edit in blocks, focusing on one area for a while, then moving on to another. This is what I normally do (depending on how much time I have): 1) Check my watchlist, mainly looking at diffs from IPs and edits that changed the article size drastically 2) Update NFL-related pages (only done on Sunday or Monday) 3) Patrol new pages, tagging for deletion and giving warnings if necessary 4) Check AFD, comment on a few

I occasionally look at the Contested CSDs and now plan to added the Reference Desk and welcoming new users to my list. Useight 01:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...that's much better than me. I really don't have concrete plans besides checking my watchlist and RFA. Maybe a stop to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association sometimes. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What-if scenarios and other questions

Another way !voters like to test your knowledge is through what-if scenarios. Due to the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia, you'll rarely find a time when you have such a scenario thrust upon you, but it's good to already have a "game plan" set up.

  • 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 weaknesses. I don't like that question at job interviews either. I'd have to say that I might move too quickly and make a mistake, which I have done a couple times in the past, without giving people the benefit of the doubt. I'd definitely read up on procedures at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, and WP:COIN, since I am unfamiliar with them. I'd completely avoid dealing with images because I have no experience with that area.
  • If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
    I would make a change to WP:OR. All research is someone's original research, anyway. Just because a Wikipedian did the research doesn't make it false. The problem lies with verifiability. So my change would be to create a section of Wikipedia that only holds articles considered original research until it can be verified. Sure there'd be some logistics that would have to be worked out, such as it not being a sandbox for patent nonsense or perhaps a deadline for verifiability or deletion. After the kinks were worked out, hopefully there would be a place for this information while waiting for some more evidence.
  • When do you feel it is appropriate to decline a request in WP:AIV?
    I would decline blocking a user reported at AIV if they did not receive the full set of warnings or did not vandalize after the last warning. However, I'd keep an eye on the contribs of that user for a while.
    • Continuing this question, let's say a vandal received their last warning a month ago, but they've been back vandalizing. What do you do?
      I think I would give them this warning: {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}}, an only warning. I want to give them one last chance rather than jump on the block button.
  • A user requests semi-protection of an article, but you fully protect it. Why?
    In order to stop an edit war. This would only be a temporary full protection and would only serve as a time for the offending editors to give it a break. Also, 24 hour blocks may be necessary if any editors crossed the WP:3RR line.
  • An administrator speedy deleted an article under G11. Later, you notice that an anonymous user has recreated the article. Should you delete the article under G1, G4, both, or do something else?
    I'd delete it under G4 and if it happened multiple times with the same article, I'd salt it. I would also leave a comment on the user's talk page with a link to G11.
  • 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?
    I suppose you're referring to WP:BJAODN or something similar. And do I believe it should remain in Wikipedia? In a word, yes. Some humorous items provide a great break and opportunity to relax a little. Sure it's encyclopedia, which is definitely serious work, but why can't we joke around while doing it? As for the Orthodoxy and Heresy essay, I think I'm an Encyclopedist, but not an extreme one. I don't do a whole lot of communication with other edits, I mostly just go about doing my job. However, I'm a supporter of WP:BJAODN, as mentioned above and I believe userboxes are also helpful. They help to understand where an editor is coming from, their point of view, customs, beliefs, etc. And I believe that WikiGnomes and WikiFairies are a necessity. What would Wikipedia be without them? Ugly. And articles that are riddled with typos or tables that overlap text would not help in making Wikipedia as popular as it is today.
  • 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?
    I mostly contribute to video game- and football-related articles. I have joined four WikiProjects: WikiProject Nintendo, WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Latter-Day Saint Movement, and WikiProject Harry Potter, however I don't contribute as much to the two latter ones as I do with the two former projects. After the NFL season ends, I do expect my focus to shift from football articles back to the Harry Potter WikiProject.

[edit] Assignment

I don't like admin coaching to turn into school or anything, but I feel like we should have an assignment. I'd like you to write an essay. It could be about anything, from your thoughts on some policy to another completely different revelation of your own. It's totally optional, like anything on here, but I encourage you to write out your thoughts, after all, the point of a wiki is to be open. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep some ideas on the back burner today. I have a gargantuan accounting midterm to take this afternoon that'll take me a good four hours, but I'll have some time after that. Now to figure out a topic...Useight 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resuming

Sorry about the hiatus. Here's some questions about blocking.

  1. What's the difference between blocking and banning?
    A block is a technical measure to prevent a username or IP address from editing. The duration of the block can range from hours to indefinite. Said block is usually used to prevent the user from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia via breaking various rules (vandalism, 3RR, etc). On the other hand, a ban is more from the social/community standpoint instead of from a technical one. The ban pretty much means "The encyclopedia anyone can edit...except you." Another difference is that a ban isn't put into place by a single administrator (as is done with a block), but instead is done by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation.
  2. What is the purpose of a block? Is it ever punitive?
    The purpose of a block is to prevent a user from continuing to distrupt Wikipedia. It can be used to indefinitely block a recurring vandal, a sockpuppet, etc, or it can also be used to temporarily prevent the user from editing. This gives the user some time to cool down and shake off the incident. This is often used in the case of 3RR or first-time offenders of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, a block is preventative, not punitive.
  3. How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
    While definitely harder to spot than persisent vandals, if I ran across a POV-extremist, I'd monitor their contribs and use the {{subst:uw-npov1}} through {{subst:uw-npov4}} on their talk page. I'd also give them a link to WP:NPOV. A temporary block (24 or 48 hours) would possibly become necessary if they were persisent enough.
  4. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and how can you avoid it?
    Wheel warring is a bad idea for two reasons. The first is for the same reasons that 3RR is bad to do: it causes anger between the involved parties, disrupts the natural flow of Wikipedia, and is the opposite of consensus, something upon which Wikipedia is built. The other reason why wheel warring is bad is that can demonstrate to newcomers wrong ideas about Wikipedia. If one admin blocks a new editor and then another unblocks, and then he's reblocked and unblocked again, the new editor will see that administrators don't really know what they're doing and don't have a handle on policy, or maybe they'll see that blocking policy isn't consistent, or perhaps think that there is no policy on when to block. They also may get frustrated entirely and leave Wikipedia. None of the results of wheel warrring benefit Wikipedia. Wheel warring can be avoided the same way 3RR can be avoided: relax, take a breather, and seek consensus before proceeding.

[edit] RFA

I have written an essay. Well, it could still use some work, but I've got a rough draft done. It can be found here.

Anyway, I was thinking of applying again at RFA on December 2nd. It will have been three months since my previous RFA and December 2, 2007 also marks one year since I joined Wikipedia. I thought that'd be a fun way to celebrate one year. What is your opinion on the matter? Have I adequately improved my knowledge and ability? I think I'm ready, but do you think the community will also feel that way? Useight 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some minor stuff to your essay. I feel that you'd be a great candidate, and that December would be a great time. Just one thing, don't self-nom yourself this time, or else they might get a "too-eager" feeling. Let me nominate you. After all, that is the last step of admin coaching, the coach seeing you off on your last trial. bibliomaniac15 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Those were some nice touches on the essay. It looks good. Useight 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't really think of how to proceed now. I think we can stop with admin coaching. I will create a nom for you December 1 or 2, depending when I am on. Just keep working until then. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep doing my thing. Thanks for all your great tips and advice. It's definitely helped me round out my Wikipedia editing and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Useight (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)