User:Jza84/Admin coaching



I have recently taken it upon myself to coach and help prepare potential admins for their RFAs. To do so, I have developed a four phase system (described in the introduction section) that helps to cover all the aspects needed and to discover strengths and weaknesses more effectively.

I will use this page as a glossary of questions and to update/keep track of new methods. Feel free to make comments on the talk page about this, and to suggest changes and additions.

Generally, the phases should be given in chronological order. Questions in Phases 1 and 2 should be given three at a time, while questions in Phase 3 should be given one at a time. I will give suggestions on what to look for in the coachee's answers. The suggestions will be in italics.


 * Phase one deals with questions designed to let the coach know what the coachee's best contributions are, and what their general strengths and weaknesses are. This phase is also very important in developing a nomination statement.
 * Phase two is all about policy. The admin coach will ask several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.  They will then critique the coachee's responses and provide help in areas where the coachee needs it as shown by the responses
 * Phase three has to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). The coach will ask several questions about Wikiphilosophies and controversial areas of Wikipedia policy.
 * Phase four is a mop up phase. The coach and coachee will work on whatever weak areas still need to be addressed.

=Introduction= (To be put on coachee's admin coaching page) I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into 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 RFA's.
 * 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!

=Phase 1=

The checklist
(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this) Have you ever:
 * !voted in an RFA?
 * Yes.
 * listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Yes
 * requested a page to WP:RPP?
 * Yes
 * had an editor review?
 * Yes, at Editor_review/Jza84 (although I didn't find it incredibly useful!)
 * reviewed another editor at editor review?
 * Yes, I forget who though.
 * signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
 * Read it a few times. Doesn't "flick my switch"
 * use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
 * Yes. I believe my former account had rights to use AWB and VandalProof. I use Tools/Navigation popups.
 * contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
 * Yes. I don't patrol them as such, but if I nominate something, I tend to vote in other nominations.
 * posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
 * No.
 * uploaded an image?
 * Oh yes! I have a WikiCommons account and a gallery of my contributions there is at . For non-free material added to Wikipedia, I insist on a full frank rationale, such as that at Image:CanopusTower Salford.jpg.
 * welcomed a user?
 * Many. Everytime I see a red user talk page (including that of an ip), I use Template:Welcomemenu or Template:IP.
 * mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Yes, quite a few times. Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_12 comes to mind, but there have been others.
 * participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Yes. I've submitted a few queries and concerns at these pages, but generally find them under-staffed.
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * It appears I'm a Moderate immediatist, Centre-Statusquoist, Communitist, Communalist, Sysopist and Proceduralist! I'm also an Incrementalist. Make of that what you will!

More questions

 * 1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia?  Your best contributions?
 * A. I have many, and rather shamelessly display these on my userpage (and why not too I say!).
 * 2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
 * A. ...yes. I have a passion for learning about places in the United Kingdom; I love it's geography. I'm really proud of the region I'm from and how it's shaped my life - I want to shout about its heritage and tell the world what it has acheived.
 * 3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
 * A. Hard to put a figure on it really.
 * 4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
 * A. No.
 * 5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
 * A.
 * 6. What kind of editing habits do you have?  Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
 * A.
 * 7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
 * A.
 * 8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on?  What tasks would you totally avoid?
 * A.
 * 9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
 * A.

=Phase 2=

Basic RFA questions

 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A. I'm a content builder first and foremost. I enjoy writing articles, particularly collaborations (such as Peterloo Massacre). I don't "patrol" the more sexy or even (dare I say) trendy (but of course, vital) corners of Wikipedia, like say WP:AFD or WP:IFD. Instead, I'm a servant to the WikiProjects I work with, and I put myself at the disposal of those great teams.


 * Certainly, the authorisation to move and/or delete mistake or uncontrovertial pages would be a massive aid with the ongoing organisation, progress and expansion of my chosen WikiProjects. WP:GM and WP:UK barely have an admin amongst them, meaning some issues are left to fester way longer than they should. There's been many occations where we've had to fill out a form in a backlogged process to make amends to a minor disaster.


 * I also have around 160 pages on my watchlist, including some of the "biggies" (as I like to think): England, Scotland, United Kingdom, British people are amongst the most visited articles on the site (bringing with them regular unsavourary edits) which I have watchlisted and work with closely to keep in shape. Other, more regional articles I work with would also benefit from a closer eye by an admin, particuarly with regards to (occational) semi-protection.


 * All this said however, if sucessful, I intend to take part in any and all aspects of the role; there would be no part I'd shy away from. Certainly I feel WP:ANI and WP:3RR are not staffed as well as they should be and I'd begin to work with that much more so.
 * 2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. To the first question, no. I have to state categorically that (so far at least!), what happens on Wikipedia doesn't cause me stress. Few things do, luckily. Sure I get annoyed, and think to myself "what's wrong with these people?", but it's just not in my character to get upset about a debate or edit-skirmish on a website; it's generally "sticks and stones". On the flipside though, I do have passion for the project, and have no problem thrashing out a content issue on a talk page with robust debate. Simillarly, I have a distinct dislike for discrimination in comments, and insist on civility at all times.


 * I guess you're looking for evidence of my behaviours though. "Conflicts" I've been involved with have included episodes with, , and . How did I deal with them? Well, conflict is always a struggle, but I think I handled these as well as I could. The threads at User_talk:Bpeps/archive1, User_talk:Dmcm2008 and Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian respectively will probably show how I've reacted.


 * How will I react in the future? As an admin, I'd see myself as an ambassador for the website and would endevour to be impecably behaved. I believe dealling with conflict becomes easier and less stressful with more experience and exposure to the project and feel ready to serve with that extra level of composure.
 * 3. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A. I rather shamelessly list them on my userpage. Why are they my best? Well, you'd have to ask the guys at WP:FAC and such; I write for our readers and if they agree that some of it is amongst the "finest work", then I'm happy and honoured.

Blocking

 * 1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
 * A.


 * 2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
 * A.


 * 3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
 * A. Never, according to our policy, and, as it happens, according to my beliefs too. The policy makes total sense to me; being blocked to "cool down" is probably enough to enrage an already heated user, whilst being "heated up" in itself isn't a blockable offense. Recommending cool down periods are no problem by my account though. And, if I was asked to intervene in a dispute, and it looked feasible, I'd extend an opportunity for the "antagonist(s)" to read through an article I was working on, them ask them to suggest improvements. I realise that won't always work, but the opportunity would be there to take their mind off an issue for an evening or so.


 * 4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response?  Where do you direct them?
 * A.


 * 5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
 * A. I'd raise a query or objection with the admin. Its only fair that the other admin gets a chance to explain himself first as I may not be aware of all the elements contributing to the block. Sure, if I still disagree I would say so, and might ask for a third opinion, but I would not be unblocking the user based on personal perspective/preference alone.


 * 6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
 * A.


 * 7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
 * A.


 * 8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
 * A.


 * 9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
 * A.


 * 10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user?  Why or why not?
 * A.
 * 10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
 * A.


 * 11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user?  Why or why not?
 * A.


 * 12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user?  Why or why not?  What actions would you also take?
 * A.


 * 13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
 * A.

Common "optional" questions

 * 1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
 * A. Yes, I would, absolutely. I'm a communitist, and believe in the wisdom of the crowd. To me admins serve and protect Wikipedia and its edit community and so, to me at least, it can't be a bad thing to allow others to call you to account. That said, I'd have to set some time aside to draw up a basic criteria as to when and why I should be recalled, but I imagine it wouldn't be an extensive on impossible list of reasons.


 * 2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A.


 * 3. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A. I'd respond accordingly, probably with a query or concern, outlining my take on the issue. What I wouldn't do is restore the material without having discussed it first - the other admin may be aware of some issue(s) that I am not. I'm sure discussion would lead to an amicable solution.


 * 4. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?
 * A.


 * 5. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
 * A. Hard to say. I'm interested more in changing and updating content than policy. I supose I'd put more emphasis on the necessity for civility, and have a long deep think about making Wikipedia a "registered user" only site. But, other than those, I think we have a healthy and effective series of guidelines and policies.


 * 6. What are you doing to prepare for your upcoming RfA?
 * A.

NPOV

 * 1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
 * A.


 * 2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
 * A.


 * 3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
 * Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.


 * Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...


 * Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.


 * Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.


 * Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.

Page protection

 * 1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
 * A.


 * 2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
 * A.


 * 3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
 * A.


 * 4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page?  Both? Or neither?
 * A.


 * 5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
 * A.

Deletion

 * 1. How would you close the following AFD's?
 * A 1
 * B 2
 * C 3
 * D 4
 * E 5
 * F 6


 * 2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
 * A.


 * 3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
 * A.


 * 4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
 * A.

Miscellaneous

 * 1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
 * A. Depends on the nature of the vandalism. If it is indeed vandalism, and repeated, destructive vandalism then I would be strict and fast to issue a block. However, every user (including ips) should be given the full stretch of warnings first.


 * 2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
 * A.


 * 3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
 * A.

=Phase 3= ''Answers to these need to provide links to policy pages, have a good argument with solid reasoning, and be thorough. Follow up questions are suggested to stimulate a discussion.''

Is this Wikipedia?

 * What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it?  Why or why not?
 * Seems to be a bit of fun to me. Definately don't agree with it. Why? - I happen to think Wikipedia is a leading educational tool on the net, and is increasingly respected and respectable as a scholarly resource.

Fun and Humorous?

 * Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?
 * What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed?  I notice you don't have any userboxes.  Why?
 * Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?

Re-confirmation
What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)

The Power of the Admin
How important do you think administrator duties are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why? Furthermore, what extra influence do administrators have compared to other users?

Banned Users
In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead).

Ageism
Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

False Credentials
"I have a JD, so I should know the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan Laws, and how they should be used in the article"

Do you believe that this claim should need some kind of verification? I could say to you right now that I'm 23, live in Vermont, and have a Doctorate in Biochemistry, but this wouldn't be true whatsoever.

Also, should lying about an editor's real life situation have consequences?

Reward System
What is your opinion on a reward system for editing (besides the reward board)? This would be along the lines of gifts/cash per edits, gifts/cash per FA and GA, volunteer hours per edits, etc.

Fail
Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

Registration
In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain.

Pile-on RFA's
Do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? WP:BITE? Why or why not? Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this? Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?