User:Dominik92/Coaching

THIS IS DOMINIK92'S ADMIN COACHING PAGE, WELCOME!

Why I want to be an admin
I love Wikipedia, and I love contributing to it. That is what I have been doing for a while now without the mop, writing articles, reviewing GAs, fixing grammar, spelling and prose issues, finding sources and this is all fun and helpful to the encyclopedia. Then there is another side of the work here, the behind the scenes...ish work; tagging pages for speedy deletion, !voting in AfDs, vandalism reverting and warning and this is work that I have gotten into as well, but it is work that can be aided by other tools. Administrator tools would help me help Wikipedia, they would help me help other users, I'd like to help in places like WP:ANI, but the thing is that people who go there are searching for what the title implies, administrators. I've seen vandals vandalizing long after I gave them a last warning and by the time he is blocked at WP:AVI, I spend half an hour reverting the edits and the words "last warning" lose their impact, I've seen pages be vandalized into oblivion until someone could semi-protect, if I was allowed to wield the mop, I would never see such things again! So take my request as a request for additional tools to help me aid that behind the scenes struggle. If I gain adminiship, I shall serveth you Wikipedia, with honor and a brave heart until death due me part from thy. Sorry, that last part was part me and part Shakespeare. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Forsooth, that is lovely, my prodigy!


 * Sorry I couldn't get back sooner, but it's allergy season down here and I've spent the last two or three days in an antihistamine-induced haze. Still not 100%, but I'm closer than I've been in days, so here we go! :-)


 * No problem, I've been sick too (although to a lesser extent than you) and I think it might be my allergies kicking in also! The DominatorTalkEdits 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

=Introduction=

As I said earlier, this process has some structure. Basically, there are four phases:
 * Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
 * Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFAs.
 * Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
 * Phase four will be a mop up phase. We will work on whatever else you or I feel the need to cover.

After completing the four phases, I will nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one! - Krakatoa  Katie  12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

=Phase One=

I already know the answers to some of these questions, but please answer them here anyway.

Checklist
Take your time with answering. These may be questions with yes/no answers, but I'll almost always ask a follow-up if your response is only yes or no. Remember, it's not a race. It's a marathon. :-)

Have you ever:
 * !voted in an RFA?
 * I only started recently, but yes I've voted in a few RfAs.
 * Did these RFAs end with the conclusion you supported?
 * Did you ask any questions of any candidate? If so, who/what/why did you ask?
 * Most of my oppose !votes ended with an oppose result because usually the only times I've !voted oppose is when the candidate is obviously not ready and many we're snowballed. I've voted a few supports and they mostly did end successfully for the candidate. I've asked questions from Horologium about which group of editors he dislikes on Wikipedia (of bad faith editors I mean) to gain a wider picture of the candidate. I've asked CapitalR about what he would do if a vandal left a suicide note on an article, which is a situation that must be handled very seriously (no matter how ridiculous the message sounds) and I asked somebody Lady Aleena I think, about social networking on Wikipedia, as it is an issue. I've asked a few more, I asked one question that was purposefully rude and inappropriate as insight into a user's WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL tests, but it was deemed inappropriate, I guess it isn't right to put a user through all sorts of tests at RfA (EclipseSSD). I'd like to !vote on most of the RfAs but it takes a while to look through a user's contributions to make a good decision, so it does take quite a bit of time, so instead I like to wait until there are a few opposes to see if there are any points that opposers are bringing up (mostly problematic diffs) and if I see a user has been on Wikipedia long enough, makes good contributions and there aren't any major issues being raised, I generally trust them with the mop and give them my support. The DominatorTalkEdits 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay. There are lots of editors who participate at RFA in the same manner as you, and that's fine. I agree that the current trend of the literal 20 questions isn't that helpful. As I said earlier, I don't have a lot of time either so I tend to show up in the more controversial RFAs. When I do participate in the discussions, I tend to dig pretty deep because I want to see for myself. I think I'm harder on RFA candidates now than I was before I got the mop myself; OTOH, we're losing admins and ArbCom members right and left, so we need more help. We'll talk more about this in a few days. Krakatoa Katie  23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Yes I have, see my epic struggle with this guy, probably my nastiest vandal/POV pusher encounter.
 * That does look like an epic struggle, doesn't it? A brief summary of your interactions with this vandal would be helpful, both here and at RFA.
 * Well, this is actually the story of my block, so here goes: I started working on the article Czechs and soon an IP user with an address starting 71.99 removed the short Czech name from the article (Češi) and added the name (Čechové) which is not really correct, so I reverted and continued, but he reverted me again. I looked through the article history and saw that he had been doing that for months and was constantly reverted and blocked only to return with another IP address. I warned him and he started leaving obscene remarks on his talk page (usually in Czech), I noticed that his other modus operandi was to go to the Czech Republic page and remove the Czech short form (Česko) and replace it with (Čechy) which is incorrect as the latter term only refers to Bohemia a part of the Czech Republic, see the article Names of the Czech Republic for more details about the usage of the terms and the controversy associated with them. I tried to discuss with him first, but he just removed my comments or replied with vulgar personal attacks. So he continued to do what he was doing and furthermore, he began going through my contributions and reverting my edits at random, this was in January 2008 and I was not too experienced here, and had never handled a vandal or troll, I didn't even know about WP:AVI until another editor told me then. So I reported and reverted, I consulted Kubigula who helped me deal with this guy immensely. I reverted him on the Czechs, Czech Republic and Prague Spring articles since his edits were just strong POV pushing (the terms Česko and Češi are accepted and widely used by the media, the Czech Wikipedia articles are even titled that) and he started using false edit summaries like "rvv" or "revert of vandal" or "typo", often mimicking my edit summaries, I didn't even know about WP:3RR back then and I was shocked to find myself blocked for edit warring only about five minutes after the vandal was finally blocked.


 * A long discussion ensued on my talk page (see user talk:Dominik92/Archive 1) and it was explained (with the help of Kubigula) that I was in fact reverting vandalism (or stubborn POV-pushing with the help of socks at least) and I promised to avoid outright reverting in situations where the vandalism isn't obvious to anybody looking on. I looked through the guys history and he went back a long way, both here and on the Czech Wikipedia, accumulating many many blocks. He always returned from time to time, randomly undoing my edits and I had a few more encounters with him, though none as bad as the first, many users and admins got involved, he would come back, sometimes make a few constructive spelling fixes (usually with insulting edit summaries) and he would edit-war and add POV, I attempted to discuss (see talk:Czechs), and he would for a while, then he'd get bored and resort to more personal attacks. I believe that two rangeblocks have happened so far and he seems to have gotten bored of it a bit even though he did return about two weeks ago and contributed constructively for a while until eventually edit warring and getting blocked for a few months by a mad Dreadstar, but his IP is so dynamic that he casually switches IPs and all we can really do is block, ignore and possibly protect the pages.


 * The sad thing is that most people who start seeing his disruption don't recognize it because they don't know the history. I think it is inappropriate to start at a level one warning for a vandal who's been doing this for years. When I report him I would just cite the abuse report, but many times I would get turned down, asking to go to WP:ANI. This is actually what first pushed me to consider being an admin, where I wouldn't have to spend precious time explaining the situation to every new admin I encounter. If I were an admin I could just block every new IP accordingly and it would be much easier dealing with him. The DominatorTalkEdits 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)That's a good explanation. I understand your frustration. Be careful, though, when you say that you could block every new IP. You've got to be sure an IP is acting in bad faith, and you can't jump to conclusions. A new IP, even one from those ranges that have been blocked previously, deserves a warning first because we just don't know for sure that the person behind that IP is a new editor or your IP vandal until s/he ignores those warnings. I don't have a lot of patience with new IPs myself, but if I had a past conflict with someone I'd let someone else look and even block instead of doing it myself. That's what WP:ANI is for. :-)

Do you think your IP foe is really a vandal, or does s/he fall under WP:LTA? - Krakatoa  Katie  23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He definitely falls under WP:LTA, he's been active since 2006 and it's quite clearly the same person. Personally, just the fact that the IP is American yet speaks Czechs, always within the 71.99 and always does the exact same edit is really proof enough to block usually, but generally when he comes back I warn anyway. Only if it's a long night and he just comes back every two minutes after the last IP was blocked do I not warn. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * requested a page to WP:RPP?
 * A few times, especially when I started working on clearing out the fancruft and vandalism on Simpson episode articles, the newly aired episodes usually get an attack of IPs, I've also reported a few other pages that got vandalised (Mostly by my friend above).
 * Would you list two or three examples? The case listing at RPP would be great, but I can find it if you list the article(s).
 * I know two articles off the top of my head: E Pluribus Wiggum, That 90's Show (both Simpson episode articles like I said before). I can't really remember, but there have been a few more. Possibly Czechs... <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * had an editor review?
 * No
 * Well, RFA is an editor review on steroids, so you don't need one now. :-) (Actually, what we're doing now is the editor review. RFA makes sure we've dotted the Ts and crossed the Is.)


 * reviewed another editor at editor review?
 * Alas, no, but that has been on my unofficial checklist
 * I'd like you to do a couple of editor reviews. To see someone else's contributions and to give that person a neutral, honest assessment of their progress is a good way to start thinking like an admin. They have a big backlog, too; some have been waiting a couple of months or more. When you've done them, link to them here. No deadline, just when you have some time.
 * I shall do that, I'll try to start with an editor I'm a bit familiar with. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
 * No
 * It's a decent summary of weekly events, outside/MSM coverage of Wikipedia, admins/FAs/FPs promoted or demoted that week, the goings-on at WP:RFAB, bug reports, and more. If you're into podcasts, there are a couple of those too. I'm working on a 'tutorial' about copyright problems for the Signpost. I'm not saying to read the Signpost because I'm doing an article, 'cause that would be really vain and I don't have too much vanity.


 * use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
 * I've been using Twinkle for a while and also have Friendly installed though I've never had much of a chance to use it. I applied for Rollback (succesfully) about three days ago.
 * It goes without saying that abusing rollback is a big red flag, so be sure you use it only to revert vandalism. Only. Just that. :-) Have you had any complaints or difficulty using Twinkle or rollback?
 * I've been very careful. I had a small problem when I started using Twinkle with pages being added to my watchlist, but the folks at the talk page there were helpful. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll take it, then, that you're comfortable with your monobook.js and monobook.css pages? - Krakatoa  Katie  23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, I don't even properly know the difference between the two... :( PS: I like the messages bar though. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at least become a little familiar with Cascading Style Sheets, so you'll know what's happening when you see a user page with wild graphics on top of or instead of the Wikipedia globe upon the left. You don't have to know how to program them or diagnose problems - just learn about them. Krakatoa  Katie  02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
 * This is an area in which I do have some experience. Besides AfD, I've also contributed to RfD (redirects) and to a lesser degree TfD (templates), CfD (categories) and I think MfD (miscellany). <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you only participated in the discussions begun by others, or have you nominated pages yourself? Examples?
 * My first redirect contributions are here as a result of me nominating this (which was unambiguously deleted). I !voted at this TfD log. I !voted at this RfD and countless AfDs. I also have a number of nominations at AfD, and many many contributions there. I began nominating manually but it is much easier to do with Twinkle. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm going to go look at some of your noms and !votes later, but if you had to guesstimate, what percentage of your noms end with the community supporting your position? - Krakatoa  Katie  23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's tough, I've nominated a few more controversial ones, or even a few that I later withdrew, but I'd say that a solid 90% of the time, it ended in my preferred result (don't know if a "keep" !vote and "no consensus" result really counts).


 * Great! If the ratio was the other way around, only 10% of the time, that would be a problem. Our precedents for deletion are usually set through AFD, and the way to find out if a borderline article about someone who did X, or an event that was the first Y, is appropriate for the encyclopedia is to nominate it for AFD. I've done that a couple of times. When I do, I argue for deletion to start the discussion, 'cause it wouldn't be a good idea to nominate an AFD and argue for retention. You'll see one of those AFDs during the course of this process. :-)


 * Plus, there are some people who take an AFD way, way too personally, like some kind of attack or a battle for their very souls. Those people don't do too well as admins. Krakatoa  Katie  02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions Part II
Okay, more questions, again in the 'have you ever...' mode. If the answer is yes, it would help to provide a couple of examples.

. I was hoping to help out at the help desk more, but the folks over there seem to be doing a good job. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
 * I just had a big list of diffs and my computer screwed up, arghh! Here's a smaller list: My help desk edits:, , , , , here I needed help: . I asked a question at the reference desk about the copyright status of old classical music and recieved many helpful answers, but I can't seem to find the thread. I tried to help there a few times. I found one occurrence of me recommending articles to a new user asking a question:


 * Think about watching the category tracker, if you don't already. It's the easiest way to see the helpme requests. Just don't get too discouraged over the number of articles lacking sources or needing cleanup. :-) Krakatoa  Katie  02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * uploaded an image?
 * Yes and I had some trouble at points, but editors have been helpful. I uploaded Image:Lake Louise Alberta.JPG, which is a picture I took and found to be rather good considering it was taken with a cheap digital camera :-) I also uploaded [:Image:Bluevale Collegiate Institute, Main Entrance.JPG]], when I was looking up the article of a former high school of mine (Bluevale Collegiate Institute) I noticed it didn't have a picture, so I uploaded this one that was just sitting on my hard drive (though it's pretty blurry, it looks OK at lower resolution). I had a bit of trouble with it but User:Sasquatch4510 helped me out (see user talk:Dominik92/Archive 1). I also had a bit of trouble with Image:Verbir.jpg as this was a PD picture on the Czech Wikipedia, so I loaded it onto my computer and just reuploaded it and wasn't sure of the status, but I was helped there too. If you look at my current talk page, you'll see two bot notices of orphaned fair-use pictures, which I have orphaned a few days ago on the article Reservoir Dogs after deciding that the more comprehensive picture a bit higher is sufficient. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lake Louise image is wonderful! And I remember how proud I was of myself the first time I uploaded an image. I think it was an [Enya]] album cover or something (shut up!) - I thought I had tagged it sufficiently but I couldn't figure out why I kept getting these messages to put a license on it. I had one of those templates there, why did I need two? ;-) That was about the time I discovered all the people doing all these other things besides editing. I was a nerd.
 * Do you feel comfortable with images and the image policy? Do you understand WP:NFCC and the differences between the various licenses? Do you have questions? - Krakatoa  Katie  01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel comfortable, not exactly in a position to lecture other users on it but I'm not 100% positively confused either. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * welcomed a user?
 * Don't really do that, I've welcomed some IPs who I've seen making good contributions or welcoming potentially troublesome ones:, but I've only welcomed maybe 3 or 4 users. 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - lots of other people who do like to do that. The reason for the question is that some of those people will go down the user creation log and welcome _everybody_, regardless of any constructive edits or vandalism or any edits at all. I don't know why, really, but there they go a-welcoming. Actually, I do know - usually they are enthusiastic younger users who think they might like a key to the janitor's closet someday and that welcoming and being friendly is the way to success. It doesn't work. ;-)

, this is an issue over which he unfortunately decided to retire, always hate when we lose contributors. I have offered my two cents on a few occasions, but I've never officially mediated. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * One time, I was called upon by user:tulkolahten to help with a translating issue and to comment on his arbitration enforcment issue: see


 * Many of our worst POV problems occur over ethnic issues, and we desperately need admins who can understand the various parties' points of view without becoming emotionally involved in the disputes. Most of it is informal, not official mediation or even MedCab. If you don't have one already, start developing a thick skin.


 * Take a look at meta philosophies - I'm interested in knowing to what philosophies you believe you adhere and why.
 * Moderate immediatism- I usually revert edits that are very unconstructive and only occasionally I salvage anything meaningful. I believe that reverts are OK if they keep an article from being piled up by badly written or biased writing.
 * Moderate statusquoism- I sometimes find myself reminding people what we have talk pages for :)
 * Both Communityism and Encyclopedism- we are building an encyclopedia, but we need a strong community behind us to be able to do that.
 * Authorism somewhat- we can't deny that some articles have major contributors and they deserve to be thanked for their efforts, the encyclopedia as a whole, however, is a community work obviously.
 * Sysopism kind of- but I don't agree with point three (A former troll has a lot to prove if he/she wants to ever be allowed to contribute again.) there are vandals and trolls who eventually become good editors. I also agree with Rehabilism and am a strong believer in WP:AGF.
 * Wikipacifism- edit wars help nothing.
 * Adminship is somewhat important.- I mean, you do have potentially harmful tools like page protection and blocking, so an RfA candidate should be properly experienced and examined.
 * Elusive virtue- it's harder to write NPOV than it seems; everyone has opinions, but it is something that is worth learning.
 * Semi-Factionalism
 * I agree with both Vigilantism and Proceduralism- on one hand, vandalism is disruptive, but on the other hand, it brings to attention more subtle disruption. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree there's much to be gained from trying to rehab former trolls/vandals. Sometimes I think I assume too much good faith, but I'm not as quick with the block button as I thought I would be before my RFA. There are some things for which I'll block on sight but not many, probably because my ability to distinguish content disputes from vandalism or simple trolling has improved. New editors have a tough time telling the difference.


 * Pacifism, hmm? Is there a point at which the desire to get along conflict with the good of the encyclopedia? What do you consider to be an 'edit war'?
 * Well, there can be conflict sure, but I consider it to be an edit war when all is being done is reverting back and forth with no new thoughts coming in. That's what is unhelpful, I generally encourage discussion once WP:BOLD fails for the first time and someone reverts. I have some doubts about WP:3RR though, it seems to be different than other Wikipedia policies in that a) its enforcement is arbitrary (why 3 reverts in particular?) and b) it is not subject to common sense (i.e. once you revert 4 times, block no exceptions) I disagree with the concept that we are to be more lenient towards vandals with all the level warnings but block a 4 revert person on sight often without a warning. For example, with my second block, I got a warning but I don't believe I made any more reverts between the warning and my block. Anyways, my point is, that I think civilised discussion between editors often with heated arguments is what should be happening, but revert warring is pointless and I believe I have learned my lesson about it. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll talk more about 3RR soon. I watched WP:AN3 for a while before I jumped in myself to evaluate and bring the block hammer. You have to be very careful that you're not contributing or joining a potential ArbCom case by blocking someone.


 * Taking the above Wikiphilosophy discussion into consideration, along with your experience thus far as an editor, how would you interpret the classic Wikiphrase "Adminship is no big deal"? - Krakatoa  Katie  05:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it most certainly is ambiguous just like WP:IAR. My thought is that Jimbo didn't want to administrators to get to hung-up in the "I'm an admin" atmosphere and wanted everybody to just contribute to the encyclopedia. My personal opinion is that adminship is a big deal within Wikipedia. Not that I mean that Admins should be power-hungry or that their opinion should be weighed more than others. I am referring to the fact that many editors look up to admins, ask them for advice, consult them as a third opinion because they are considered very well respected users. Only people with a high-level of trust can pass an RfA giving more indication of how important the job really is. So if adminship is "no big deal" then we certainly made a big deal out of it. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a big deal too, because we're not the little project we were back in 2003. We're the 7th most visited site in the world but we've got the same governance system we had five years ago, and it's not sufficient (IMHO) for the challenges we're facing now, with BLP issues and the sheer size of the project. As we promote more admins, it seems like the more experienced admins leave, and that's no good either. Hence the analogy to the running gerbils.


 * What kind of editing habits do you have? For example, do you log on, check your watchlist, go to RC patrol, etc? Do you spend all your time during an editing session doing one thing, or do you move between tasks?
 * It depends on my mood. Lovely thing about Wikipedia is that you do what you feel like doing. Usually, I log on, check my watchlist (about 120 articles if you're wondering), revert and/or change any stuff that I see wrong and sometimes that's all I do these days, have been pretty busy in real life. When I'm sitting on my computer at night and have nothing better to do, I just go to recent changes or more commonly for me Special:Newpages. It depends, sometimes I actually do go on with a purpose other than to "waste" time. Sometimes I find articles and just fix minor things in them like spelling, grammar and MoS. Sometimes I do a little copyedit or cleanup of some articles I've been working on previous. Nowadays I don't have much time to actually write content so that is what I do. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you'll love Category:Administrative backlog. It's like gerbils running on a spinning wheel in a cage. In case you couldn't tell, we're the gerbils. ;-)


 * What percentage of your time do you spend on fighting vandalism compared to editing encyclopedic content?
 * Umm, I don't spend much time reverting vandalism, so maybe about 8:92 but I don't know if you count stuff like New Pages patrol as "Editing encyclopedic content". <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NPP counts a little of both. A better phrase could be, "what percentage of your time do you spend on NPP/RC patrol, RFA voting, XfD, RFC, and so on, compared to editing/copyediting/cleanup in the article space?" - Krakatoa  Katie  05:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late tonight - got held up. My once-mighty fantasy baseball team is managing to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Ugh.

We're nearing the end of this phase, just a bit more to go! Don't miss a couple of food-for-thought queries I left up above. - Krakatoa  Katie  05:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
 * I think I could sum it up with "it's wasting time, except it's not!" Wikipedia is more than an internet time-killer because I feel like I'm actually helping to build something. I like it because I like the community, I like the knowledge Wikipedia has to offer and I wanted to help build that. Plus, I always wanted my work visible to millions of people and this is easier than getting something published, anything is possible on the internet! I know it's a cliché, but I guess I could say that I wanted to make a difference. As for why I actually enjoy editing it, it's a phenomenon! Who would have said that editing a website could be so much fun. I guess I'm a bit of a nerd and I enjoy writing. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite fun, isn't it? I'll be in the middle of the WP:CP logs and 30 minutes later I'm working on expanding an article I found in there instead of working on the backlog.


 * What weaknesses do you see in yourself? I'm talking about character and personality in general, not necessarily weaknesses regarding Wikitasks.
 * I hate these questions :) Well, out of the things that matter here, I guess I don't always keep a cool head but I've been better lately. I do tend to be careless (sometimes I forget how badly humor and/or sarcasm translates through the internet) and curious (what does this button do?) I suppose I am also a bit insane, by staying up until one in the morning to answer these. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you hate these, you'd hate going to nursing school, that's for sure. ;-) Once I stayed up until 5am to finish an article overhaul I started. I think it was thalidomide, but I'm not sure. My personal style of communication is a little on the sarcastic side too, and I reread my talk contributions several times to ensure I won't hurt anyone's feelings. - Krakatoa  Katie  00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? What are your best contributions?
 * Well, the contributions that I am most proud of are definitely my 2 GAs, Prague Spring and Reservoir Dogs, I'm proud of those and I can say that I enjoyed contributing to them. I used to create a lot of articles but I soon, like Wikipedia, switched from quantity to quality, but I am still proud of creating articles on notable people, my favorites must be Ivan Mládek, Mikoláš Aleš and Martin Fenin. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you avoid completely?
 * If I became an admin I'd do a lot of reading in general, just trying hard to make sure I wouldn't screw anything up, I would probably make a mistake on my first move as an admin, but I'd read policy as much as I could. Specifically, I would work in New Pages and AfDs so I'd like to become an expert in that (i.e. deciding when a page should or shouldn't be deleted). After I'd be comfortable with that I would help out more at WP:AN and WP:AIV. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With what admin-type tasks have you not had experience?
 * Tough, it's kind of a paradox because if I hadn't had experience that usually means I don't know about them therefore can't write them here! I wouldn't say I'm too experienced in any admin-related task, but I also know a little bit from many (jack of all trades?). As an admin, I'd certainly like to help solve conflict so WP:ANI where people just seem to want an administrator (quite understandable since it is the Administrator's Noticeboard). There are certain areas in which I am not experienced, copyright for example, haven't had much experience with that task. <tt>The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)