User:Xcentaur/Admin coaching/Archive

OK, so let's give this a whirl! I should clarify that this is stolen somewhat shamelessly from Glen's formatting for my own admin coaching ;) Let's start with some editing statistics:

[edit] From Interiot's Wannabe Kate Tool

Category talk:  1
Category:       2
Image:  6
Mainspace       2036
Portal: 1
Talk:   441
Template talk:  4
User talk:      1474
User:   340
Wikipedia talk: 9
Wikipedia:      327
avg edits per page      1.87
earliest        11:44, 10 March 2006
number of unique pages  2480
total   4641
2006/3  12      
2006/4  0       
2006/5  0       
2006/6  0       
2006/7  6       
2006/8  4       
2006/9  24      
2006/10         77      
2006/11         113     
2006/12         941     
2007/1  264     
2007/2  656     
2007/3  1092    
2007/4  1116    
2007/5  336     

Mainspace

106     Hrithik Roshan
57      Rani Mukerji
33      Shah Rukh Khan
31      Stephanie McMahon
28      Preity Zinta
28      Amy Dumas
20      Biasing (electronics)
18      Maging Sino Ka Man
15      Sadiqabad
11      List of Rani Mukerji's awards and nominations
11      Ahmad (name)
11      Celine Magsaysay
10      Rajat Tokas
8       Endal (dog)
8       Mount Mansfield

Talk:

68      Preity Zinta
47      Rani Mukerji
28      Shah Rukh Khan
24      Hrithik Roshan
11      AstroTurf
10      Stephanie McMahon
9       Anarchism
8       Maging Sino Ka Man
6       Abhishek Bachchan
6       Vinnie Colaiuta
5       Zakir Naik
4       Alan MacDiarmid
4       Water Margin
4       Rajat Tokas
4       Amy Dumas

Template talk:

3       Infobox Ferry
         
User:

97      Xcentaur
51      Xcentaur/monobook.js
45      Xcentaur/Interesting Edits
40      Xcentaur/Todo
21      Xcentaur/Status
19      Xcentaur/Braglist
9       Xcentaur/monobook.css
9       Xcentaur/Nav
7       Xcentaur/Contribs
6       Xcentaur/Quiz
4       Xcentaur/Names
4       Xcentaur/Sandbox
2       Fr3nZi3
2       Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez
2       Xcentaur/Interesting Edits/New Rave Football

User talk:

149     Xcentaur
17      68.223.35.221
15      Xcentaur/Archive 3
12      Plumcouch
10      Pa7
10      Xcentaur/Archive 4
8       Michaelas10
8       60.241.54.145
8       Efrenespinosa
7       Daniel
7       Cyberoidx
7       Wizzywiz
6       Ryan Postlethwaite
6       Riana
6       64.83.156.90

Wikipedia:

100     Proposed mergers
41      Articles for creation/2007-04-23
31      Administrator intervention against vandalism
29      Articles for creation/2007-04-25
19      Articles for creation/2007-04-24
13      Articles for deletion/List of nuclear power plants
9       Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
7       Articles for deletion/David DeAngelo (second nomination)
5       Requests for page protection
5       MWT
5       WikiProject Biography/Assessment
3       Introduction
3       Articles for deletion/Kaal 2
3       Articles for deletion/Joseph Finley
3       Articles for deletion/Sashank Mavayya

Wikipedia talk:

4       Administrator intervention against vandalism
2       Articles for creation
2       Proposed mergers

[edit] From Mathbot's edit summary counter

Edit summary usage for Xcentaur: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Comment: Good work! Edit summaries are very important, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise :) This is a collaborative project, and it's very important to let people know exactly what you are doing. If you could budge that up to 100%, that would be even more fantastic.

No problem. Actually, the only time I end up forgetting the edit summaries is during RC patrol - in trying to be faster and scan over more pages, I end up leaving out the summaries sometimes. I'll definitely fill it in now. xC | ☎ 09:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try some basic RfA/editor review-like questions

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.

Thank you for the links. I believe I could help with RC patrol, first and foremost. Vandalism by itself only takes seconds to revert, but the cumulative time spent by volunteers in doing this is massive. I believe by blocking vandal IPs and/or vandalism-only accounts, we could cut the chain of damage short, and thus free up editors' time to contribute to articles. I could help out with page protection requests, violations of 3RR, and requests for administrator attention. All of these are situations which shift the focus of editors away from article improvement, and so definitely need to be dealt with quickly. Aside from that, I could also help with clearing out the speedy deletion backlogs.

OK, that sounds good. How is your experience with images? If you check out C:CSD, you'll see that our image deletion backlog is quite large.

I've got reasonable experience with images, but not quite anything to brag about. I've tracked down images that were wrongly tagged in the past, I've also retagged images which had been put up under GFDL, so I guess I could help out there, despite not having much depth in experience.xC | ☎

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

If I could draw attention to my maintainence related contributions first, I have done significant cleanups of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers by merging articles pending for months and removing merge requests from the list. I believe I've completed well over 50 merges. A few examples are Origins of anarchism into History of anarchism (pending since before Aug06), and Alan MacDiarmid (before,after).

I have made significant contributions to Hrithik Roshan. I also cleaned up, reformatted and rewrote Rani Mukherjee, taking it from this to this and after further discussions, finally this.

I have also heavily contributed to Preity Zinta, cleaning up from old version to this, with inputs from the various editors.

However I am not just on the Bollywood pages, you'll also find me on Electronics related articles. In fact, my first edit as a registered user was to Negative feedback. I was also the original contributor of the article Biasing (electronics). It is a work in progress, as most articles on WP are, and I hope to bring it upto FA as soon as possible.

Great work! People love to see an admin who writes articles, too :) Good luck with bringing those articles up to standard.

Thank you :) xC | ☎

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?

We are all humans, and conflict is inevitable. However, both sides willing, patience and discussion can solve any problem.

I was involved in a revert war on Rani Mukherjee, with users Shshshsh (talk · contribs) and Shez 15 (talk · contribs). The page was being treated as a fansite, and was filled with POV, fangush and redundant sentences. I boldly cleaned it up (before,after). This did not go well with the guardians of the page, and the subsequent revert war led to this. This whole time there was no discussion on the talk pages, and the editors refused to communicate with me, although they discussed things with each other. I politely explained the situation to the blocking admin, who unblocked me. I was civil throughout the situation. As they refused to communicate on the talk page, I was forced to copy-paste their posts to each other onto the article talk. This lead to further discussion on the talk page. With help from Plumcouch (talk · contribs) and Pa7 (talk · contribs), majority of issues on the page were resolved and now the article is a (well deserved)B-class bio. I believe with further expansion of content and adding pictures, it could reach a minimum of GA.

To be honest, there aren't many such instances, not much of note as such. In all my time here, I have done my very best to remain civil and no matter how bad the situation my be, to keep calm. Times when I felt overwhelmed, I simply took a Wikibreak. It helps me to gain a new perspective, allows both sides to cool down, and prevents heated discussions from escalating. An editor taking a break is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign that they are well-meaning at heart. I sincerely believe that conflicts will no doubt crop up in the future, such is the nature of the project, but as long as they are to improve the article, they benefit us and should be dealt with patiently.

After a block for 3RR, what has that taught you about how administrators should approach their actions? For example, Michaelas unblocked you upon discussion. Should administrative actions be rigid in order to enforce policy, should they be relaxed and easy to undo, or should there be a middle path? How would you approach such a situation as an administrator?

Firstly, I believe the block was deserved, as I did break 3RR, albeit unintentionally. I mean to say, an admin should follow policy, and then look closer at a situation, as Michaelas did. Both rigidity and an over-relaxed way of going about it would be wrong. I believe extremes are always harmful. Here the middle path is the best, we must follow policy but leave room for situations which are different from what they appear. Of course, no-one is perfect, so if someone makes a mistake in good faith and shows zie will do zir best to improve, then the person's mistakes shouldn't be held against them, I feel. For this reason I believe the middle route is the best. xC | ☎

[edit] Optional questions - many of these are working under the assumption that you want to be an admin. If so, answer. If not, or not right now, leave them out :)

4. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?

A good knowledge of policy, no doubt, is useful. Kindness and politeness can only help. Being willing to help others, and being humble enough to accept their mistakes can go a long way in making an administrator the role model that they should be.

5. Why do you want to be an admin? (Personally, as opposed to the technical aspects in required question 1)

I would like to help out in whatever way I can. I enjoy editing, and admire the spirit of the community, that Wikipedia is still standing in the face of armies of vandals. I'm friendly, and like helping out new editors and experienced users alike. Lastly, I believe I can shoulder the responsibility that comes with the job.

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

I would be very careful in the situation. Its very rare for an an experienced editor to use sockpuppets, and it wouldn't be right to make allegations without proof. If possible, I would discuss it with the editor. I would discuss the matter with more experienced admins and file an RCU, and if the CU results are clear about abuse, then definitely take the matter to ArbCom.

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

Theres not much I would like to change, except one. Theres a general tendency of leniency towards vandals, which is counter-productive. I've seen vandals making half a dozen vandalistic edits, get the respective warnings, to then get a final warning, and after that get blocked. Blocks are preventive in nature, so once it is clear that an IP or user is intent on vandalising, we must be quicker in applying them. That does not make us trigger happy, the fact remains that playing laser-tag with vandals will not help the project. We should do our best to allow the editors and well-meaning anons to contribute, without having pages replaced with poop or LOLZ HAHA KING KONG WAS HERE or other such disruption. That is perhaps the only thing that I feel might need a look at.

For a vandal-fighting admin, that sounds good :) However, not everyone will agree with that sentiment. For example, how would you approach accounts which are obviously vandalism-only? Indefinite blocks without the full set of warnings? Run the full set of warnings and then block indefinitely? Run the full set of warnings, and then block for a short time?

Most definitely there are people that disagree with what I said. For example, an admin once told me I don't have the right temperament for vandal-fighting, when I suggested the same thing on the talk page of WP:AIV.

• An account which is clearly vandalism-only still deserves one final warning, in hopes that the person has a change of heart. There are several reformed vandals out there, in fact theres even a userbox for the same. At the very next instance of vandalism, an indefinite block will be well warranted, I believe.
• An indefinite block without the full set of warnings seems harsh to me, if the account/IP recieved no warnings at all. At the very least, a single (and final) warning must be given to the vandal. In case of vandalism with racist, orientation, nationality,etc any such overtones, I believe a single final warning is enough, after which a block is appropriate.
• Before answering the last two questions, I would just like to say that I am aware that only accounts are blocked indefinitely, to prevent large scale disruption due to an IP block. However in the case of shared IPs of schools, colleges, etc a long-term block is reasonable if there has been continous vandalism from that IP.
• I believe running the full set of warnings and then blocking indefinitely is suitable for persistant vandals. Whether the block is short-term, long-term or indefinite, the account/IP has the option of requesting an unblock. If the individual realises zir mistake and wants to contribute constructively, zie can always create a new account. Wikipedia loses nothing by blocking vandals and editors with an intent to disrupt the encyclopedia, in fact we are only allowing the genuine contributors to work peacefully. In a perfect world, warnings and blocks are unneccessary. In this one, however, preventive measures like blocks are an unfortunate neccessity. xC | ☎

8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block an established user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

This would be a difficult situation. If the user is extremely disruptive, such as continous personal attacks, edit warring, etc then I would immediately request some other more experienced admins to also look through the user's edits. No doubt, if the user is in the wrong, then zie will be found out by zir edits, and can be indef blocked, by me or by any other admin who understands the situation.

9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

I think it would be best to close as no consensus. Watching over the article for a few days, and staying in touch with the editors and other admins would make it clearer, to decide what should be done with the article.

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

I believe its both, considering the sort of responsibility that it is. Although, it could be considered more technical, and less political. It is possible to be a good admin without being political, but the technical responsibility cannot be ignored.

What makes you believe the position is political? (I'm not disagreeing with your answer, but I'd like to hear your thoughts)

WP is not a country or a political site or a democracy/parliament/any other form of a political system. Therefore I strongly believe that an admin should focus more on the technical and less on the political side.

No doubt, an admin is treated differently within the community. An admin is held up to a higher standard, and is expected to be a role model for the other editors. However an admin's responsibility turns political when disputes arise, questions on how articles are shaping up or problems between two users. As the face of the community, and as members most trusted within the community, the position of admin ends up becoming political in some ways.xC | ☎

11. We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?

Edits made in bad faith are sometimes the wake-up call the article needs. If the bad faith edits can spark discussion, debate and finally consensus, then their bad intentions can also yield good results. In fact I would like to point out that all edits need to be looked at, and no edit is above scrutiny.

12. 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?

I believe users that treat the encyclopedia as their own personal playground are the worst problem that WP has to overcome. Whether it be POV-pushers who refuse to acknowledge other views or NPOV, or trolls intent on disruption, or vandals getting their fifteen second kicks, I believe these are the only characters that frustrate me. It hurts to see well-meaning editors being harassed, or articles being twisted by such groups. It works against WP and its volunteers, and that is the only thing that frustrates me.

13. Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?

Editcountitis is a fatal disease, yes? :) I think the edits can indicate how involved the editor is in WP, and the spread of the edits can show that. But it is wise to value quality over quantity. Surely, someone with a significant number of edits in WP space shows experience in this area. Mainspace contributions might also a good indicator of how serious the individual is as an editor. Talk page edits show how willing the editor is to discuss things and share ideas. I think by far, this is the most important, as it can have a direct impact on how best the articles can be improved.

14. Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.

I belive in looking at a candidate's merit. Therefore, I look at the editor's contributions rather than a fixed criteria. A good number of mainspace and WP-space edits are plus, I believe, as is some experience in AfDs and dispute resolution.

15.Bonus Question Three parts; a) If successful, will you consider the admin recall category? b) Take a look at Category:Rouge admins - would you see yourself there? c) What is WP:IAR and what situations do you feel its application is warranted?

a)Absolutely.

b)Well, other than out and out Rouge, depending on the situation, I would be somewhere about yellow I think. Rules should guide us in the right direction, but I'm no stickler. Out and out rougism by me is very difficult for me to imagine.

c)IAR is what lets us step around redtape. If an AfD is obvious in its conclusion, might as well close it. A vandalism-only account shouldn't be treated with kid gloves. Things of that sort, I believe its just a fancy name for common sense :) Sorry, mixed up with WP:SNOW. Been reading up a lot more. Changed my answer to this in part 3

[edit] The candidate may make an optional statement here