User:Dfrg.msc/Admin coaching

This page is officially in Australia. Welcome to Australia.

Edit count

Just as a reference, see where you're most active! As at 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) using Interiots wannabe Kate tool:

Category talk:	1
Category:	83
Image talk:	6
Image:	        170
Mainspace	3484
Portal talk:	1
Portal:	        3
Talk:	        194
Template talk:	2
Template:	26
User talk:	2736
User:	        828
Wikipedia talk:	108
Wikipedia:	537
av edit/article 1.79
earliest	08:51, 27 May 2006
unique articles	4574
total	        8179

Update as of 12 May 2007

Category talk:	1
Category:	83
Image talk:	11
Image:	185
Mainspace	4198
Portal talk:	17
Portal:	145
Talk:	195
Template talk:	2
Template:	36
User talk:	3459
User:	930
Wikipedia talk:	122
Wikipedia:	638
avg edits per page	1.72
earliest	08:51, 27 May 2006
number of unique pages	5815
total	10022

RfA stock questions

I'll get you to answer these, not for practise but rather so I can see where you feel your strengths are (and subsequent weaknesses - if any :)

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: I regularly do RCP and vandalism patrolling. WP:AIAV always seems to be backlogged, and I look forward to helping there. The use of the blocking function and being able to protect pages that are under chronic attack, would be of great advantage to my vandal fighting efforts. I believe that every tool available to combat vandalism should be implemented, compassion and tolerance among them. I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them, especially TFD. Wikipedia backlog is an absolute mess, and sysop tools would help me to more effectively cut though it. I'd also like to help out with the Administrative backlog. A few users have come to me under the impression that I was a sysop, and it's situations like those that Admin tools would also show their value.

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

A: My edits are like my children, I can't pick one over the other; but if I had to play favorites... I have worked on articles like Rone, created and worked hard on every page in the Melbourne graffiti artists category, become coordinator and breathed life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti and have completely built Portal:Graffiti, which I'm working to get featured. I've also worked extensively with images and created Image:Wikipedia Editor Review.png and Image:DFRAMA.png. Although I am proud of these particular edits, reverting sneaky vandalism or re-instating whole pages can be equally as fulfilling, and just as important for the project.

• I'm quite proud of Alphabet Spaghetti, which I started ;) Dfrg.msc 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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: Oh, yes. Wikipedia is full of conflict, and I've been caught up in it a few times. Edits and confusion whilst new have dragged me down. Since, I have tried to prove myself against those reckless few months, to strive to be a force of good. But many of those edits were made over a year, and I would ask you to consider me for what I am now. I do make mistakes, I'm a human first and a editor second. I make and admit to my mistakes, and learn from them. The more I have worked though, the less conflict I encountered. I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies. Aside from trouble when I was new, I was a member of the AMA and closed four cases. I have gained experience though adversity and I know how to deal with, and better, avoid conflict. I have, and will apply these skills where necessary.

Optional questions

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

   A: Approachability, friendliness, dedication, experience, good knowledge of policy, respect and a good sense of humor.

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

   A: Admin powers will help me more effectively make this Encyclopedia better and better. With Wikipedia growing in popularity, vandalism, backlog and *fD is becoming a greater issue. Over time, the amount of Admins has become disproportionate to the number of users and work that needs to be done by Admins. More good people, not laxer standards.

3. 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: Assume good faith. There needs to be representation from more than two users, and the person in question needs to be given a chance to redeem themselves. Before any further action gets taken, all information needs to be presented and there needs to be a calm rational discussion as to their action and future.

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

   A: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Who better to decide the fate of Wikipedia than the users themselves? A democratic Wikipedia would no doubt be a better Wikipedia.

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

   A: Obvious Sockpuppet, or an aggressive vandal past 4th warning. I'd give a "cooling off (7 hour)" block without Arb com.

6. 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?

   A: Difficult question, too nonspecific. When in doubt, keep, and re-nominate later. If a user felt so strongly about the article, then they could take steps to improve it, given the extra time. However, violations to article requirements should be deleted. Difficult question.

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

   A: Political plays a part, but an Admin's role should be largely technical.

8. 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?

   A: It's so much easier to delete than create. Of course it is possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith. I've seen it done! An improvement is an improvement, no matter who it's done by. I'd let the imporvemt stay, or make appropriate modifycation to make a better article.

9. 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 very much dislike hardcore deletionists, and the bizarre attitude towards *fD's. If the same effort being expended to reach a consensus on whether they should be deleted or not, went into improving the articles, then they wouldn't be there at all. Seems some are just addicted to the drama. I very much doubt that becoming an admin would change any of this though. Although I don't like the hardcore deletionists, I feel they are necessary to balance things out, and deserve respect. I'm also on a mission to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get too serious. That would be a huge shame.

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

    A: I dislike that User's are judged sometimes solely by the number of edits they have. However, they can serve to give and indication of how much editing experience and editor has, and where their contributions lie. Whilst mainspace edits are important, Wikipedia edits like AIAV and XfD debates are probably more important than the others.

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

    A: Yes. I have a few standards.

• 2500+ edits
• A need for admin tools.
• 6 months minimum.
• Nominated by someone else.

1. 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: Probably not. Once you have become a an admin it is your responsibility to stay sharp, effective, and not fall into complacency. I would under go a re-nomination if it was generally felt that it is necessary, but it would be better if someone just told me to pick up my act.
• B: Difficult. There are users I know and respect, like Guy (talk · contribs) and Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) are Rouge. However, users like you, Riana, Husond (talk · contribs), Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs) ect aren't. I agree that while a 72 year block may sometimes be in order, it's not acceptable practice to behave that way all the time.
• C:Good policy that one. Simply, if rules and policy prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Use it whenever rules and policy prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.

The candidate may make an optional statement here

In the time I have been a member of Wikipedia, I have a developed a use for admin tools, and enough experience to use them correctly. I hope have earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, and would thank you for giving me chance to prove this.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I would be privileged to stand among them.

Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma Chameleon! You come and go, you come and go!

Speedy delete or not?

The following are examples of pages tagged by users and are sitting in the speedy deletion category. As an admin, can you tell me a) if the article should be deleted and b) under what criteria;

1. CSD1 Delete, CSD A7 and A1. Not notable enough, no real search hits.
2. CSD2 Keep blank page, then re-direct and/or merge. Subject is notable, page looks like an accident, should have serched first.
3. CSD3 Delete, CSD A1 and CSD G11. Looks shoddy, smells like Ad.
4. CSD4 Delete, CSD G1. Rubbish, not even original.
5. CSD5 Delete, CSD A7. At a glance, too many spelling mistakes and poor article quality. Externals' are Myspace ect. I'd check Google for notability.

Hey bud, see Q (band) - look forward to your thoughts there :) Glen 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism test

Vandalism or not??? Yay or nay and why:

1. [1] Difficult to discern. Check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.
2. [2] Vandalism. Out of place, and irrelevant.
3. [3] Vandalism. Obvious and unoriginal.
4. [4] Not Vandalism. Reversion by Highway Cello, a user I know.
5. [5] Test, borderline vandalism and an unhelpful edit. Test 1 and Welcome.
6. [6] Difficult to discern. Check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.

Questions you've got for me re any facets of adminship or the RfA itself?

1. What's the admin recall category? Dfrg.msc 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

   See WP:RECALL

2. Is there really a "good time" to run for Adminship?

   Yep definitely - as soon as you think you're ready!

3. Does a Strong/weak Support count more/less? What about Strong Oppose? What about Mega-Support or Tarragon Support? ?

   Hmm... yes. By the book, a crat should promote anyone over 75%, and not pass anyone under... however we both know this isnt the case and can vary from 'crat to 'crat/day to day/person to person depending on many factors. If it comes down to the wire, a strong oppose or strong suppport may make all the difference

4. Is the object, "reaching a consensus" mean 50%+ support and your in?

   See above; last I checked, consensus required at least 75% support

5. What was your RfA like?

   Seven brutal days! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GIen :)

6. I know the process can be hard, did it change you in any way?

   It definitely changed wiki-Glen... I realised that the smallest things (like using an I instead of an l can upset people, even if meant in very good faith and as such to always think long and hard before hitting Save page - though not sure this answer will help you much! Glen 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I've set my self a few goals to surpass before RfA(ing).

To achieve before RfA:

• One full year of editing experience
• 10,000 edits
• Work and experience across a large range of subjects/organizations.
• Help heavily in Anti-vandalism activities on Wikipedia.

Can you recommend anything else? Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc comments/additions

• These questions are so hard! Glen, your killing me! Dfrg.msc 07:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do you think this would put people off? :) Dfrg.msc 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wooo hooo!

This user enjoys contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes.

• Should we have laxer standards, or more nominations? Dfrg.msc 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1st RfA

• Can be seen here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc.

Reasons for Support

• Trustworthy nominators (thanks guys!}
• Overall contributions
• Surprise I'm not yet an admin
• Good answers to Q's
• Good Contribs
• "effective at dealing with vandals"
• "friendly, trustworthy and extremely communicative" (Thanks Husond :)
• "better reasons to support than there are to oppose"
• "reliability, dedication and will to help newly starting editors"

Cheers, guys. Dfrg.msc 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Oppose

• Answers to questions (interpretation??)
• "Pile-on's" in TfD's.
• Misinterpreted Comment(s)
• Lots of per's
• Not "handling conflict and criticism well"
• Myself failing to mention my past edits. "Candidate did not address past behavior"
• "does not instill the trust and confidence" (Am I gong to get hit with this anyway? -interpretation??)
• "wonder if you've got enough detachment to keep on an even keel as an admin"