User:Lankiveil/Admin coaching

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Traditional RFA questions
Since the process is mostly asking questions to make sure that you know the workings of Wikipedia and to get you thinking, we'll start off with the RFA questions.
 * What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * Initially, I'd plan to work in the areas that I am most familiar with, most notably processing and closing XfD debates, and working with pages up for speedy deletion. As time progressed, I would probably be interested in working in other areas that looked interesting to me, or any admin tasks that developed a backlog.
 * What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
 * Anyone who has been on Wikipedia long enough has had some conflicts, but I'm pleased to say those that I have been in have been relatively minor. There has been the odd content dispute, but usually my approach has been to stay calm, look at the problem through the other party's eyes (to make sure that I am not the one at fault), attempt to talk the problem through rationally, and to bring in a neutral and mutually acceptable third party if that doesn't work.  I'm not a very incendiary sort of person, but if I feel myself getting a bit frustrated by a conflict, my usual reaction is to step back and cool off rather than heat the situation up any further.
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * I've created what I feel are useful articles on a couple of fairly obscure topics (such as Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and Carl Wilhelm Schmidt). I've been a major contributor to Brisbane and Nundah, Queensland.  In addition to this, I've worked on backlogs cleaning up poor markup, sifting articles into categories, and doing other miscellaneous Wikignome edits, each of which is valuable in its own way.

Checklist
Here's a checklist for you to analyze what you've done and should do. If you haven't tried something on the list, you've got nothing to lose but experience to gain.


 * ✅ !voted in an RFA?
 * ✅ Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
 * ✅ Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
 * ✅ Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
 * Had an editor review yourself? (Editor review/Lankiveil).
 * ✅ Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * ✅ Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * ✅ What XFD's have you participated in? (AfD, CfD, MfD)
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * ✅ Uploaded an image? (on commons)
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * ✅ Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * ✅ Joined a WikiProject?
 * ✅ Written a DYK, GA, or FA? (DYK)
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * ✅ Uploaded an image? (on commons)
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * ✅ Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * ✅ Joined a WikiProject?
 * ✅ Written a DYK, GA, or FA? (DYK)
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * ✅ Joined a WikiProject?
 * ✅ Written a DYK, GA, or FA? (DYK)
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Written a DYK, GA, or FA? (DYK)
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?

Some questions to start with
Two of these are very common questions, and the other is one that I simply like to ask to get to know people.


 * Would you place yourself on CAT:AOR? Why or why not?
 * Yes. I think it's very important that users are accountable to the community, and doubly-so when they're holding tools that can potentially do a lot of damage.  Adding myself to that category will make me more accountable to the community as a whole, which is a good thing.  I am aware that there is some controversy over the whole process, but I think that AOR is the least worst system proposed so far for keeping admins accountable.
 * What are your personal criteria for an admin?
 * When I vote in RfA, my general criteria is that the user has a basic level of experience, has not shown themselves to be quick to anger, irresposible, or immature, and hasn't made any unproductive edits in bad faith. I tend to also take a dim view of incivility in the past, but I can overlook it (and my other criteria) for a quality candidate if it was long enough ago.
 * 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?
 * My interpretation of WP:IAR is that if a straightforward application of the rules would produce a negative or ridiculous result, you should not apply them! I put this into practice by applying basic common sense to my edits, which means that most of them fall within the rules anyway.  Understanding IAR is an essay that basically sums up my approach to WP:IAR.

Sorry for forgetting about you for such a long time. My house has had floorboards installed and I haven't been very active. I've given you questions that are very typical for RFAs, and you answered them just as I expected. That is not a bad thing at all, it shows that you know what you are doing, but if you have some amazingly brilliant plan or answer deviant from the mainstream, bring it out! It is through the new thought of others that we continue to move forward.

Atypical questions
Now, I'd like you to answer these questions that probably won't be asked to you otherwise. I want you to display all your thoughts on each question. Since you have been here for a long time (even longer than me), I think you could even answer these better than I would.


 * Do you think Esperanza was a good thing? Do you agree with its disbanding?
 * To be honest, I never really saw the point of Esperanza, and didn't have all that much to do with it while it was active. I don't think it was actively doing any harm, and some of its programmes that were spun off as a result of the MfD continue to be valuable and useful (such as this very admin coaching programme), so it can't be judged too harshly.  I think it was a concept that was good at the time of its founding, but became less relevant as the site grew and changed.
 * Generally, do you feel younger editors are less, equally, or more mature than older editors? Are they as able as older editors?
 * "Maturity" is a really difficult concept to define. In my general life experiences, I've found that age is no great indicator of maturity, and I can think of at least half a dozen 'younger' Wikipedians off of the top of my head that I would define as "mature".  As for whether they are able, young people tend to have different interests to old gits like me, which helps combat systematic bias, so I think their participation should be strongly encouraged.  And again, I can think of a whole bunch of 'younger' Wikipedians who probably aren't old enough to purchase a beer, but have contributed really positively to this project.
 * What do you believe is the most pressing issue that Wikipedia has right now blocking its progress?
 * This is a tough one, you'll need to give me some time to come up with a good answer for this!
 * Board elections are coming up. I hope that you'll participate in them, although I don't mind if you don't. What would you look for in a candidate? How do you feel about Jimbo's leadership of the Wikimedia projects?
 * I haven't voted yet, or even made up my mind who to vote for, although I certainly intend to vote (I briefly considered running myself, but I don't think I've got enough of a profile yet to stand a chance). I'll be looking for "outsider" candidates, especially those who show a commitment to fiscal propriety and transparency in the way the foundation is run.  Without wishing to cast a stone in a glass house, I think that the existing board (Jimbo included) has done its job quite poorly, in that audits were not performed on time, question marks were raised over some spending by board members, and the whole Carolyn Doran thing should not have been allowed to happen.  For this reason, I'll probably be giving low preferences to "the usual suspects", although if a presentation by them is particularly insightful or impressive I may still bump them up the order a little.


 * One perhaps controversial observation I made was that the candidates seem to be exclusively are with one exception white males, which I think was a little disappointing, and reflects the problem I think we have with systematic bias.
 * Maybe it's just me, but I only noticed a few "usual suspects"... perhaps I'm not as attentive to other projects as I am to this one. How would you define these sort of people (without naming names unless you feel comfortable doing so)? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I noticed too, although I think you're misrepresenting the number. I would definitely like to see more participation for the board from other types of people other than our usual white liberal males.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question was directed at Lankiveil. ;-) giggy (O) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in my tuppence.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biblio here, even though I am a white liberal male! I ended up voting, and it was a pretty "shallow" vote, with my preferences only going up to the number 6 (I split my 4th and 5th preference many ways, however).  I found the answers to this question quite illuminating, and it guided my vote to a large degree.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Reversal
Alright, I would now like to turn it around. Now, you ask me any questions that might be bugging you or that you would like answered, and I will answer them to the best of my ability. Ask me as many as you want, I can answer as many as you give me.
 * Firstly, I don't have to think of these all at once, do I? =)


 * No, take your time.
 * I suppose the first question would be what do you see as my weaknesses, in terms of being a prospective admin? Given my answers above, do you think that there is any particular field or area that is likely to trip me up?


 * I honestly don't see any major weaknesses. The only thing that I perceive might trip you up is dispute resolution. It takes a special kind of nerve and experience to be very successful at dispute resolution, and I haven't found great success myself in the area to be honest. Experience can be gained by article writing and WP:3O. I really do recommend 3O as a way of testing yourself to see how well you would do. Some may find issue with your use of Huggle, but I don't find it an issue at all. If anything, I applaud you for reverting so much vandalism.
 * Good suggestion with the 3O; I'll take a look at it over the next couple of days and see if I can chip in. I've only been using Huggle for a couple of days, if you go back to pre-June 9, the vandalism reverting drops off significantly.  However, I've observed that there are usually a lot less vandalism reverters about during Australian prime-time, so if you have the right tools vandal-fighting is a pretty target-rich environment.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Yeah, I agree. I think that vandal-fighting is looked down upon too much these days, which is why we don't have someone of the likes of RickK or so.  bibliomaniac 1  5  16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the non-vandal fighting contribs, I would assess my article-building skills as probably my own biggest weakness. I'm great at starting articles, but I don't think I'm so good at finishing them.  There is a brief list of articles that I've either started or contributed to in a big way on my user page, do you think this is a good idea and reflects positively on me?  Have you any suggestions on ways I can beef up my article writing?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
 * It sounds to me from your own description that you would be much better being a collaborative writer instead of going solo. I do remember that those Aussies over in the Aussie Wikiproject/cabal do a lot of this collaboration. Try it out! You may also consider doing peer review of articles, or participating at GA or FA noms. They are both ways to gain experience with writing articles.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ACOTF needs someone to compensate for my slackness! giggy (O) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! I would love to contribute more to ACOTF, but often the topics are ones with which I am not familiar and I don't really know where to start.  I've suggested a couple of times that there should be a "Things to do" list attached to the article so that those who are happy to do the legwork can do so, but to no avail, unfortunately.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC).

More questions

 * Suppose that you were made an admin, and then desysopped later due to some controversial event. Would you continue to edit after such an event?
 * It would depend on the nature of the 'controversial event', I suppose. In general, I'd like to think "yes" though.
 * What is your view on IRC? Should administrative decisions be made on admin IRC?
 * What about #wikipedia-en-admins specifically? giggy (O) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The WMAU crew is probably familiar with occasional bleating in the wikimedia-au IRC channel about how I hate IRC. I've never liked the medium at all, and I generally only use it when I absolutely have to.  That said, I'm sure its a legitimate communication channel, and I have no problem with minor uncontroversial decisions being made on there.  I would probably not partake in IRC discussions unless specifically asked to contribute on a particular issue.  That said, I would keep other communication channels open (talk page, email, MSN messenger, etc) so that I am easily contactable.
 * What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.) How long would you block an anonymous vandal? A registered user?
 * In accordance with the blocking policy, really. It's pretty clear on what the acceptable limits are for dealing with different types of editor.  There is a temptation there to run as a "law-and-order" candidate, but I'd probably be quite conservative to start off with in regards to blocks.  Also, with that said, I do not anticipate that issuing blocks to users will be a core part of my administrative duties if I were to get the tools.

Apology
I'm sorry for being so lax about your coaching. I seem to have been afflicted with the loathsome habit of navelgazing us oldtimers seem to have a lot. I've been focusing much on another user who needs the coaching help more than you do, so that has also affected my time with you. I'll try to be more regular now, if it's not too late.  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * The stress of Wiki is nothing compared to that of my real-life career. So I don't feel that this is a problem.  The beauty of Wikipedia is that if it does get too much, I can always turn the computer off and go for a walk or something.
 * How is the RFA atmosphere at the present? Do you feel that you could stand up to the current atmostphere?
 * It's not as good as it could be, to be honest. That said, the vast majority of RFAs are fine, really noxious ones like the Giggy one are thankfully still a rarity.  I don't see myself as a controversial figure at all, so I'm not anticipating any nastiness if I should go there.
 * Do you ever feel there was a Golden Age of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia failing, or is it becoming greater?
 * At another site I contribute to a lot, it's become a running joke that the site was always at its peak at (current date - two years). The atmosphere at Wikipedia was different a few years ago, but on the whole I don't think it's any better or worse now than it was at any point in the past.  There are challenges, mainly brought about by our much larger size, but there are many, many issues that used to be real downers which have been solved and are no longer really problems.  So no, I don't think there was really ever a "Golden Age".  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

More questions
One of the things I don't like about the current RFA questions is that there is a tendency to assume that new admins need to know positively everything, leading to minutiae and questions basically testing how well one can copy paste. I assume, when coaching you, that you are experienced and know what you are talking about. As a result, my questions to you have been somewhat atypical. For this section, I'll be giving you a few questions about admin related topics just to make sure you don't have anything way out of whack in your mind.


 * 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?
 * I don't think there's a hard and fast number. If the XfD is a straight open-and-shut case, and the first reply makes a brilliant post explaining why it should be deleted, citing policy where available and demonstrating how it applies to the case, then why not?  The murkier and more uncertain a particular case is, the more people I would want to weigh in on it before I would feel comfortable closing it.
 * How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
 * Generally speaking, I'd revert or remove the POV material (attempting to salvage anything useful that I could from the edit), and leave a note on the user's page explaining why I removed the material, and directing them to our NPOV guidelines. I would also offer my assistance in helping them to add neutral information to the articles in their field of interest.  I've done this for a couple of editors who have come in with hard POV edits, and converted them to making far more useful and productive edits.
 * If the user continued re-adding the clearly POV material even after being asked to stop, I'd view that at vandalism and deal with it accordingly. If that still didn't work, I would consider asking for a third opinion or filing an RfC to get the wider community to give their opinions.
 * Importantly, none of the above requires admin tools and could be done by anybody, not just an admin.
 * What votes would you disregard when closing an AFD?
 * Is this a trick question? AFD is explicitly not a vote!  I would disregard opinions by known sockpuppets or banned users.  I would also attach significantly less weight to throwaway "per nom" responses, although these can still be useful to gauge consensus for a particular course of action.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Why is account security so important to administrators? Is your password secure?
 * Because while most of the damage an admin can do with the aid of the tools is reversible, it's a lot harder to fix up than if someone without the tools goes on a rampage. My password is a mixture of upper case letters, lower case letters, digits, and special characters.  I'm not going to say it's hack-proof, but someone would have to go to a fair bit of effort to crack it.