User:Adolphus79/Admin coaching

__NEWSECTIONLINK__



Since admin coaching often consists of asking questions and what-if scenarios, we'll just start with the traditional RFA questions.

Traditional RFA questions

 * What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * Most of my experience so far has been with RC and New Pages patrolling, so I think most of my admin work will be in these general areas also (CSD, AfD, AIV, UAA, etc.)... I would also probably wander around onto the other noticeboards, on occasion, just to see if any help is needed...
 * What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
 * There aren't too many that I can think of... most of the time if stress starts showing it's ugly head, I remind myself of two different mantras. The first is the common (although everyone has their own wording) "It's just the internet, no big deal, just walk away for a little bit...", and the second is "Fighting online is like racing in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard..." (sorry if I offend anyone with that one...)
 * The few occasions that caused me more than average stress were just taken to one of the noticeboards, and/or brought to the attention of an admin. These were generally personal trolls that went over the line, and/or were persistantly harassing me for one reason or another.
 * What I have learned from these experiences is simple... everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, even the kids/punks/bored vandals... there's really not much we as constructive editors can do about it, other than get over it and move on.
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * Wow, that's like asking a parent which of their kids is the best. I don't know, and really wouldn't feel comfortable pointing out just one thing.  I suppose the areas that I feel I have made some better contributions would be WikiProject The Simpsons (when I first joined 2 years ago), and (more recently) RC/NP patrolling, AfD nominations, Micronation and Piracy related articles, and writing a few new articles...

Heh. Nice quotes...but you should probably leave the Special Olympics one at home.

Checklist
Next is a staple of mine: the checklist. I daresay I was the one who introduced this hulking list. Please tell me what you've done and what you haven't done. If you haven't done something on the list, I would recommend that you give it a whirl. Some, like editor review or the Reference desk aren't directly useful, but they are still very positive forces and very active forces here in Wikipedia.


 * !voted in an RFA?
 * Not that I can remember, see User:Adolphus79/Adminship, #4...
 * Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Quite a few...
 * Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
 * Quite a few...
 * Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
 * over 1000 deleted edits, probably 90% in these categories...
 * Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
 * Not yet, but I've helped and critiqued quite a few new (and some experienced) editors directly on their talk pages...
 * Had an editor review yourself?
 * Had one up for a while, no reviews yet though...
 * Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * Been subscribed for a couple months, read it whenever it is delivered...
 * Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * Nope, all old school work here... (MSIE user)
 * What XFD's have you participated in?
 * I have voted on and/or nominated several, do you want a complete list?
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * I think I've answered a few questions on help desk, but mostly helped users directly either on their talk page or mine...
 * Uploaded an image?
 * Quite a few...
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Quite a few...
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * A couple times...
 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * And AN/K, and AN/X...
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * Several...
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * I did nominate one of the articles I created for DYK, but was denied (for reasons I still don't completely understand)...
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * Quite a few... mostly cleaning up and helping build new articles through NP patrols...
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * I don't really have any experience on meta...
 * After reading the linked page, I believe my philosophies would be...
 * Moderate (leaning towards extreme sometimes) immediatism,
 * Moderate statusquoism,
 * about halfway between Communityism and Encyclopedyism,
 * Communalism (WP:OWN),
 * Rehabilism (sometimes leaning towards Sysopism with the more blatant trolls/disruptive editors),
 * WikiPacifism (except for #3 from WikiWarrior),
 * Adminship #3,
 * Basic skill (with a little lean towards Elusive virtue),
 * Semi-factionalism,
 * Proceduralism...
 * hope that helps some...
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * Never even heard of that until just now...

Discussion
Your adminship subpage was quite enlightening...yes it was. In Uncyclopedia they have a very special way of doing things. At the beginning of every month, the admins get together and have a vote on whether the place needs more admins. If the consensus is yes, then they nominate and vote, with the top users getting promoted. Only admins may participate in "RFAs." I find this type of adminship process very intriguing. I was reminded of that when I read your position that only admins should participate in RFAs. I can certainly think why you would think that; I once debated myself about it. The conclusion I came up to was that there are plenty of contributive users who are not admins, who do not want to be admins, or would probably never become one even if they wanted. With the current atmosphere at RFA, I see quite a few users in this situation. Judging from your meta philosophies, your thought seems to be mainstream. Before I start with the main questions, I'd like to ask you what areas you feel are your weakest points, and we'll focus on those.


 * Thank you, that was just scribbled down one night in a fit of boredom, but I still feel that way... as far as my weakest points are, I really don't know... I'm sure a number of people would say talk pages and policy discussions, but I just can't bring myself to jump into a conversation if someone else already has it under control. I suppose another weak point would be any kind of scripting or advanced coding, only because I don't care for it.  I've been a geek for 20+ years, I've purposely forgotten most of the coding/programming aspects of it, and I refuse to learn another language.  After 2 years, I think I know my way around Wikipedia pretty well, and while not active on making or deciding upon them, I have tried to keep up on policies, etc.  Feel free to let me know if you see a weak point, and I would be more than happy to work on that area.

Questions
All right then! We'll start with some rather popular questions. Since you read RFAs, you have probably run into these questions before, but I ask for your own interpretation. Personally, I find that the RFA "cheatsheet" defeats the original purpose of the questions and stifles alternative views.


 * What is your opinion on WP:IAR? How do you apply it to your contributions? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
 * I feel very strongly about WP:COMMON, IAR should not be used as an excuse to do whatever you want... I believe the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are there for a reason, just as the laws and statutes of the real world are... but every once in a while, you might have to sort of "bend" a particular law to do the right thing...
 * Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
 * It's just edit warring amongst admins... admins just happen to have slightly bigger guns than the average user. Prevention should be easy, follow the same rules you do as a normal editor (no editwarring, talk it out on the talk page, WP:DBAD, WP:AGF, 3RR, etc.), and you should be okay... If it's particularly bad, take it to AN...
 * Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an XfD? If so, what is that number? What about an RFA?
 * Regarding XfD and early closures, I don't really think there is a minimum... but I think there should definately be enough votes one way or another to invoke WP:SNOW. I think the number of votes should not be counted, but instead, the usefulness (and... "Wikipedianess"?...) of those votes... there have been a few that closed that if I had closed I would have decided differently...
 * I guess I feel almost the same regarding RFA... maybe allowing the number of votes to have a little bit more weight in the final decision. But then again, there really isn't as much policy/guideline deletionist/inclusionist babble discussion involved there... read the nom, the user's answers, research the user on your own, and vote... per my essay, I've read RFAs, but purposely not gotten involved in them...

You mentioned a few AFDs where you would have closed differently. Could you give an example or two of these AFDs?


 * Sure... as I look back through my contribs...
 * Articles for deletion/Harry Greenberg... I think No Consensus is a pretty lame closure, instead, it should have been relisted to gain more of a consensus...
 * Articles for deletion/Rainer Maria Latzke is another that should have been relisted to gain more of a consensus... several socks/meatpuppets turned it into a bit of a clusterfuck, and it would have been nice to gain more of a consensus from the rest of the community...
 * Those are just a couple out of the first thousand of my contribs... I've seen a couple others lately that I was not involved in (hence not in my contribs, hence can't remember them) that I also thought should have closed differently or been relisted...


 * I think for Harry Greenman I would have closed as keep instead of no consensus because there was clearly a consensus to keep. As for Rainer, I would have relisted seeing how many single-purpose accounts there were, although they did manage to come up with more sources. I really don't like no consensus that much unless there really is a mixed opinion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Break (just to break...)
BTW, should I remove myself from Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching now?
 * Whoops! I forgot that part. I removed you as soon as you mentioned it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving along
I'd have to say that you are one of the most proactive editors I've ever coached. Whenever I lay the question down, you just shoot towards it like a bullet. :) Now as of late there's been much agitation over the RFA process and some recent !voting trends. I'd like to discuss it with you, so I'll start with a few questions for you to answer.
 * Read the discussion here. Do you think that this is the case?
 * By case, I assume you mean the original comment regarding CSDs being given so much weight at RfA, not the entire rest of the off-track discussion regarding CSDs being over used and/or misused?
 * Regarding CSDs being given too much weight at RfA, that's the voter's fault. There is no policy or guideline that says what a person should look for sepcifically when considering a nom at RfA, if one person (or a few) give more weight to CSDs than other contributions, that's their own personal decision.  That doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same.  Everyone should have their own ideals when considering a user for adminship, and not be a sheep...
 * Maybe it's the anti-social punk in me speaking up for a moment, but trends are just that, trends. Sooner or later (hopefully), it will get back to a normal consensus vote where everyone researches on their own, and doesn't just follow suit.  I really dislike "per nom" or "per User:Joe" votes on anything, RfA, XfD, etc.
 * Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship? Are younger users less, equally, or more mature than adult users?
 * I certainly hope not. That would involve releasing personal information online.  I don't care how old someone is, I care about how old they act... In my time on this planet, I've known many people who were more mature than other people who were older.  If there is a 12 or 13 year old user who is mature, helpful, knowledgeable, and experienced in the ways of the Wiki, and he/she/it runs for adminship, there is absolutely no reason that they should be shut out just because everyone on the internet just found out they were only 12.

I do hope that RFA will return to its normal state. I've found in my time at RFA that sentiments and trends are cyclical. Maybe for around three months you'll have some smooth-going RFAs with good, able candidates, then someone posts something on the talk or makes a questioned oppose and the whole thing just blows up. It's like economics, there are times of recession and times of prosperity. Lately, though, the talk has gotten so passionate and pumped up I wonder if it might break the cycle.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, hopefully... you kinda threw me off there for a sec, because I was trying to figure out if the "case" you were pointing at was the misuse of CSD. Then I came back here and re-read your opening comment... that discussion had very little to do with RfA, and was mostly a discussion of CSD and new article creation... ;)


 * I was primarily referring to the section opening: "Bite the newbies and get rewarded with adminship." To the current discussion, it has little connection, but I wanted to see how you felt about the impact of CSD on new users.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I guess I'm a little on the fence there... So long as its not done rudely (as in tag the article and move on), I don't really mind... I've always made sure to add a welcome template (if not already there) and the proper warning template to the users talk page whenever I've tagged something for CSD. Sometimes the user gets pissy "Why'd you delete my article, you suck!", but other times, the user and I have wound up discussing the situation, and I help them build the article properly, or help them understand why their company/band/dog is not yet notable... I do see some misuse of CSD, mistagging something with G1 or G3, when it should be another category... Generally, if there is any hint of notability, I try not to tag CSD, but PROD instead... this give the creator (as well as others) a chance to improve the article before it's deleted...
 * I definitely agree. As an admin, when I review CSD, I tend to play devil's advocate. I look to do something besides delete the article, such as redirect, PROD, or cleanup. A CSD tag doesn't mean the end of the world, it really is up to the admin's discretion to delete or not.

Deletion
Since we're at the subject, I figure I might transition into deletion. Deletion is one of the most powerful and dangerous tools that a given wiki has to offer, besides blocking and sysopping. As a result, it must be wielded very carefully, in line with both consensus and the admin's careful discretion. I find that IAR gets put into deletion the most, because notability guidelines and such can only go so far, there are bound to be articles that slip over the sieve.
 * Yes, but IAR should not be used as a catchall for editors/admins doing whatever they want regardless of consensus. I try very hard to stay away from IAR unless there is no other choice...
 * I agree. When closing XFD's, it's best to go along with consensus.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

closing an XfD or not, there is no reason to be libelous...
 * What rationales would you disregard when closing an AFD?
 * I've read WP:ATA & WP:NOTHING, if that's where you're going with this... But I suppose it's not so much what I would disregard, as what I would pay attention to. The voters that themselves have carefully considered policys and/or guidelines, and have made a meaningful arguement.
 * When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
 * Opinion... The edit summary should be a short simple summary of the reason for closure ("non-admin closure due to CSD", "discussion closed, consensus was delete", etc.)
 * When you press the delete tab as an admin, the "delete this page" page has a "reason for deletion" bar that acts like an edit summary bar. By default it says "content was: 'blah blah blah'." When closing a G10 attack page CSD, it is imperative that there be no libel in this bar. Your answer is certainly correct, but I just wanted to let you know of the "by-the-book" answer.
 * I meant the content of the article. By default the deletion summary gives the content of the deleted article. If the article was deleted for attacks, it should be replaced by something else.
 * What do you do when assessing a page for speedy deletion?
 * First, I would see if it even qualified for CSD (per discussion above), if there is any sign of hope for the article, then I would decline the speedy, and probably add new article tags in it's place (, , {advert}}, etc. ). It all depends on the reason it is tagged (G1, A7, T2, etc.), and if it fails said category...

AFDs
I'd like to test your AFD sense. How would you close these AFD's?
 * GDI technology of Command & Conquer
 * A toughie... I personally would probably relist to gain more of a consensus...
 * But... with all of the discussion on the other nom's page, that other nom would probably be closed as delete, and therefore, this one would follow suit...
 * Denver police officer shooting (2005)
 * Closed as Keep, I personally feel that it should be transwiki'd to Wikinews, as it's a single news event, with no real ongoing story, but the consensus is to keep...
 * Vanderbilt, the Netherlands2
 * Another toughie... there really isn't enough to claim consensus... I'm torn on this one because on one hand you have WP:NGL, and on the other hand you have WP:V... After a search on Google came up empty, I would have to delete as non-verifiable, possibly a hoax...

These were all rather difficult AFDs to close, so I definitely understand your struggles. For the first, I probably would have first sent the technology pages to StrategyWiki, merge any applicable information to the Nod and GDI articles, and then delete both of them. Both serve little more than game guides. For the Denver police officer shooting, I would also have closed as keep, but leave a note stating that the article should have more sources, in which case the article only has sources from two distinct publishers. Vanderbilt is a toughie. I would have relisted, because geographical location notability is one of the most contentious policies out there; in fact, it has not been firmly decided upon yet. My impression, though, is that the article does not cite any secondary source or coordinates confirming the location. I would have voted delete in this discussion as a result.  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the person who came up with the excercise, I should note: 1) The Denver Police shooting lead to national legislation, this IMO makes the shooting notable. 2) In the DVR excercises, Vanderbilt is revisited.  Apparently it was a complete hoax/fraud.  The place doesn't exist.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversal
I'd like to call a break right now and do a reversal of roles. This time, you can ask me questions about anything Wiki-related. If there's something that you have trouble with or that you'd like to get another perspective on, now's the time. You can ask me as many questions as you like, and we'll only move on when you feel that you've had your questions answered.


 * Honestly, I don't really have any questions. I mean other than how do you think I'm holding up?, do you see any weak points yet? etc. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From my admin coaching experience, you're the type of user who already knows everything, but wants that extra boost of confidence to succeed. Just continue to keep up the good work, and you will be fine. If you feel like pulling some work, I feel that writing even a GA is a worthwhile experience as an editor. Article building is something that seems like a lot of hard work, but once you get the hang of it, it's pretty fun.


 * Thank you...

Antandrus
Now, I don't know about you, but Antandrus is one of the finest essay writers I've ever read. There are four essays of his that I highly recommend you read.


 * Bureaucratic Slime: On IAR
 * Thoughts
 * Ignore all dramas
 * Observations on Wikipedia behavior

The first three are quite short, but the last is a long list of maxims. I don't expect you to read all of the maxims; after all, we are all very busy. I would like you to write your thoughts on one or two of his thoughts or maxims on the following four pages. You can comment about whichever one you want. Have you ever had an experience related to one of these thoughts? Do you disagree with one? Do you have any thoughts, observations, or maxims of your own? I would like to hear your thoughts about it.


 * I've read the first and second before, and think both were great, especially the dealing with jerks and Rouge admins sections (Note the "Rouge non-admin" userbox I created for myself a couple years ago...). I like "Ignore all dramas", it fits in well with my general editing style.
 * The observations essay got quite a few giggles out of me, some of those are quite spot on. I can't say I disagree with anything he says in those essays.

Resuming
You didn't respond to the last one, but I hope you did read them. There isn't a rule that says one must answer the question, and in fact all questions here are optional. I haven't updated for a long time, so I apologize for that. These next questions deal with admin communication and security.


 * Sorry, I've been busy with work and sick the last week or so, haven't had much time for Wiki... I completely missed that you had added more, I will answer all now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your view on IRC? Should administrative decisions be made on admin IRC?
 * I have been on IRC for a long time, but not for Wikipedia. I'm not sure what decisions should be made there though, as not all users can gain access (or even know what it is).  I think important decisions and consensus should be made on Wiki, where everyone can read and contribute to the discussions.  I would understand admins using IRC for chat and "housekeeping", but not for making big decisions regarding the Wiki.
 * Why is account security so important to administrators? Is your password secure?
 * Account security is important to admins on Wikipedia, just as it is for anyone else online. There isn't any personal information gained through our accounts here, but with admin tools available, there is just as much at stake.  Some random vandal gaining access to these tools could do a lot more damage than the average vandal.  Yes, my password is secure.
 * Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail? Or is it not important?
 * I dunno, I think it's up to personal preference. I have had email active for a while myself, and have emailed admins in the past regarding subjects that I did not want plastered for the whole world to read.  I personally would leave my email up for the exact same reasons, sometimes (as with my personal information troll) the information being relayed is just too private to tell everyone.
 * As a follow-up, I'd like you to read this arbitration regarding IRC. Should ArbCom be able to make decisions regarding IRC? Is IRC a completely separate realm from Wikipedia and thus not subject to Wikipedian policy? (Like Wikipedia Review)
 * There's a toughie... I've been on IRC longer than Wikipedia has been around, so my first reaction is no. IRC is simply a chatroom, so policies from a website have no relationship.  On the other hand, it is a Wikipedia related (and run) channel on IRC that we are discussing, so (again, the IRC oldbie in me talking) it's completely up to the channel owner or manager.
 * The RfAR that you pointed too seems to be regarding an arguement on IRC that led to some bad faith edits on Wikipedia. In this case, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are valid, because the bulk of events took place on the Wikipedia website (even if the initial event was on IRC).
 * So yes and no... IRC is a seperate realm from Wikipedia, but as soon as the drama bled over onto Wikipedia, the situation was fully subject to Wikipedian policy.
 * Further continuing the question, should immature behavior at IRC have any effect on RFA arguments about maturity?
 * No not really, so long as it doesn't break policy (AGF, BITE, DBAD, etc.)... so long as it's just immature sillyness (even I can be immature and silly sometimes) on IRC, that should have nothing to with RfA... now if (as in the case above) it leads to on-Wiki drama, then that is a different story. After reading up on all of this yesterday, and having some time to think about it, I feel that until there are regularly posted, publicly available, logs (posted on Wiki preferably), anything said or done on IRC should be taken with a grain of salt.  Since not all of the admins are using IRC, that means there will always be a limited ability to gain consensus.  If people start using events from IRC as an argument for or against anything here on Wiki (where documentation is a large part of any discussion), then how long will it be before a person's MySpace page is used for the same argument?  As I said in the first sentence, grievous misconduct outstanding...