User:Mastrchf91/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?
 * While continuing to improve all articles, specifically the articles related to The Office (U.S. TV series), I would spend a great deal of time in the areas of WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I most frequently patrol the New Pages earlier in the mornings, where I usually find a great deal of CSD A7 candidates, and being able to use admin tools to delete these articles would greatly help my efforts.
 * What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
 * For the benefit of the other party involved, I'll go ahead and not name him or her, but the only real conflict in which I have faced true stress was a minor one that I faced in early 2007. While going through the Recent Changes log, I saw an edit, in which the user had reverted around 6 paragraphs of information, or at that time over three quarters of the article, and had only given an edit summary of "rv copy".  I, being the new user that I was, was instantly suspicious of this.  While I tried to assume good faith, upon viewing the user's talk page, I saw that a few other users had spoken to this user about massive deletions, and so I decided that the user's edit was probably not out of good faith.  I reverted it, and soon received a rather rude set of messages from the user, leading to my stress.  Through a few messages between myself and the user about the nature of his revert, he was able to show me that what he reverted was almost verbatim from another website, with only a few words changed.  I realized that I was in the wrong, and after that, I went about merrily on my way.  After this experience, I have learned to always investigate all of the possible reasons that a user has done what he or she has done, and no matter how bad the initial situation looks in respect to another user, treat whatever suspicion I had with a clean slate that wasn't influenced by the user's disputes with others.
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia have been throughout areas related to The Office (U.S. TV series). As of today, I have two Office episodes which I have been the primary author of which have attained Good Article status, these being Pilot (The Office), and Diversity Day, and I have also authored one Featured List, The Office (U.S. season 3).  As of now, I have another Good Article and another Featured list up as nominations.

Checklist
Here's a checklist. Please indicate which actions you have or haven't done. If you haven't done something on the list, maybe you should consider trying it out.


 * !voted in an RFA?
 * Yes, I've voted in a couple.
 * Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Yes, just over a dozen.
 * Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
 * No, this is one area I definitely need to research and learn more about.
 * Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, AFD?
 * A large amount of speedies, and a few AfDs.
 * Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
 * No, I haven't.
 * Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * I don't receive it, but whenever I'm speaking to a user on their talk page and I realize they have it, I'll usually take a few moments to check over what's going on.
 * Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * A happy Twinkle user.
 * What XFD's have you participated in?
 * I've done a fair share of AfD, and I have also commented in a CfD or two.
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * No, but I have looked through it many a time.
 * Uploaded an image?
 * Yes.
 * Welcomed a user?
 * A good amount.
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * No, I haven't.
 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * No, I haven't.
 * Taken a look at Wikipedia philosophies? Which philosophies do you hold to?
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * Joined three, and am currently directing WikiProject The Office (US), as well as writing the monthly newsletter.
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * One DYK, two GAs, and an FL. Currently have 1 GA and an FL up as noms.
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * Yes, and I'd have to say that this is one of the tasks that I most enjoy.

You definitely have experience in the mainspace. I think it would be best if you would start focusing on more Wiki related stuff to get you ready. You should familiarize yourself with the protection policy. Protection is a very important tool in combating vandalism and disputes. Remember, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Midway upon life's journey... 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * What's the difference between a ban and a block? Under what circumstances should they be used?
 * A ban is a social restriction placed on a user or IP by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, or the community in which the banning party effectively revokes the welcome that Wikipedia gives to a user to edit all pages. Many bans are made through the resolution of disputes.  A block is the technical way in which either a user or an unregistered IP may be prevented from editing on Wikipedia, but is not meant to be a form of punishment.  Cases in which one or more parties are engaging in Vandalism, edit wars, or harassing others are just a few of the cases in which a block would be applicable.
 * What is your view on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to it if you were sysopped?
 * As the community gives the mop, I believe that they fully have the power to revoke the mop at any time in which they feel that I have behaved in a manner that is unfitting of an administrator. If sysopped, I would add myself to the category, with the only qualification for this being that any want for me to stand for reconfirmation would need the backing of at least two administrators who would have a longer administrator tenure than I would have.
 * Let's say an administrator removes a chunk of information from an article you've been working on, citing BLP concerns, but you feel that it doesn't violate BLP policy. What would you do?
 * First, I would consult with the administrator on his or her talk page about the concerns that they have with the article. If I feel that his or her concerns have merit and the information that I or someone else added violated BLP policy, I would keep the article as the other administrator left it.  If, after consulting with the administrator, I feel that the article still doesn't violate BLP policy, I would consult a third party to attempt to take a look at the situation and give a view from the outside.  If there is still a dispute after this has happened, I would most likely leave the situation alone, as I supremely dislike any type of confrontation, and anything such as a BLP concern that couldn't be solved by a third party is most likely too much of a confrontational article.  I'd much rather spend my time helping an article than arguing over another.

Mastrchf91 (t/c) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Random stuff
Your answers are very developed and articulate. Keep it up!


 * What are your personal criteria for an admin candidate?
 * My personal criteria for an admin candidate are pretty low in comparison to others. First and foremost, the ability to trust the candidate with the tools outranks all other criteria.  If there is any doubt, no matter how insignificant it is, that the candidate would always use the tools with the best interests of both the community and the project in mind, such a candidate is unlikely to gain support from me.  Edit count is an almost non-factor for me in voting on a candidate.  While many would easily choose a candidate with 10,000 votes over a candidate with 2,000, I'd much rather one well thought out and project-improving edit than eight minor edits, one mistake, and another edit to fix that mistake.  I also like most admins to have good experience in fighting vandalism, and I like a candidate to have at least one GA or some form of featured content, as I believe that article writing is vital to admins.
 * What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what would you need to read up on? What tasks do you believe you would totally avoid?
 * My weaknesses are definitely in the areas of page protection, and closing debates and deletion discussions. If I were made an admin, I would definitely have to read up in page protection, as it is a vital admin task.  As for closing debates and deletion discussions, I would most likely stay away from these areas, as there are many people more qualified than me in them, and I think that I could put the best use of my time and resources by sticking to the areas that I already am confidant in.
 * Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
 * Wheelwarring is a bad thing because it not only creates conflict between two or more people who are in a position of power in the project, but it also makes the article that they are warring over suffer. Although I am confidant that my supreme dislike for conflict would prevent myself from engaging in a wheelwar with another, if somehow I did engage in one, I would just have to remember to keep the best interests of the project over any wishes I have, and stop the war, so as to help the project.  If the question is meant for myself to be a third party in a wheelwar between two people, I would try to resolve the dispute between them, and try to find a way that the two parties can meet and that whatever they choose to concede on can be mutually beneficial to the project.

Some questions I got off User:Dlohcierekim/questions

 * You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * I would treat them like any other editor that used sockpuppets. No matter how well-known or liked in the community that they were, the use of a sock puppet would instantly make them lose all credibility with me.  If not already reported, I would report them at Suspected sock puppets, giving the evidence that proves of what they've done.
 * If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia without any opposition, what would it be?
 * Most likely the process that deals with promotion of Good Articles. As of now, one user has the ability to pass or fail an article, and I've seen many cases where, because of the standards of one user, articles that shouldn't have been passed have been, and articles that should have been passed haven't been.  To change it, I would go about promotions as it is done in Featured Content, where multiple users review and post suggestions for the article, through a group effort either passing or failing the article.  By doing this, I think that the average GA would be of a higher quality than it is now.
 * Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * If there is reasonable proof that the article should/shouldn't stay, there isn't a minimum number that would need to vote to close any type of deletion discussion. For any article which doesn't express this proof obviously, I do like for at least 8-10 votes, in order to get a good amount of rationale as to whether the article should be kept or deleted.
 * 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?
 * If I felt that at any time stress was affecting my ability to keep a level-head, I would simply step away from the computer. Only when I was at ease would I step back to the computer and deal with whatever issue was at hand.

Hey, just wanted to say that I'll be unable to log on Thursday and most of Friday, so I will most likely have the next set of questions completed Saturday-ish. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll be waiting until then.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that these were a few days late. I was out of town the last two days, and I thought that attempting to type while driving might not be the best idea :D.  Mastrchf91 (t/c) 14:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Have any questions?
Do you have any questions about policy or community workings you would like to ask me, or want to know my opinion of something? I'll answer any questions or queries you might have as best as I can. Ask as many as you'd like.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None that I know of right now. I'll ask if I think of something.  Mastrchf91 (t/c) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've been checking out the protection policy, and I've developed a pretty good understanding of it. I only have one real question that deals with it, which involves the statement "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred...". If say, a famous person died in a situation which would be very likely to attract vandals (just using an example, Steve Irwin's death), would it not be appropriate to protect that page before vandalism takes place, or would vandalism have to have taken place, and then a protection would be applicable? Mastrchf91 (t/c) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would usually be after a large amount of vandalism has taken place, then protected. Unless the situation is uber-exceptional, it is better to wait for an amount of vandalism and block rather than potentially excluding constructive editors. If the vandalism is extending to BLP issues, full protection may have to be used instead.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now here's some questions from me to you

 * 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 think that WP:IAR is a great policy, because as we are here to create an encyclopedia, it would be nonconstructive to explicitly follow rules that prevent the encyclopedia from attaining its highest possible potential. Although these rules are of great importance in many other areas, the ability to be able to use common sense should be used to its fullest, and following a rule that would inevitably not help the project wouldn't be a use of this common sense.  In my contributions, especially ones that relate to summaries in TV show episodes, there are a few rules such as a 10 word per minute limit that, under normal circumstances are great.  It prevents people from detailing every minor plot point, disregarding its significance, in the summary.  But there are a few times when the summary would be incoherent if the summary was limited to 10 words per minute, and in this situation, I have applied IAR.  If I were made an admin, I would apply it to situations that I am sure that ignoring a rule would be in the best interests of all involved, as well as the project.
 * Suppose that you were made an admin, and then desysopped later due to some controversial event. Would such an impact like this still lead you to edit Wikipedia?
 * If I were sysopped and then desysopped later, I would most likely continue to contribute on Wikipedia. I'm here because I enjoy doing something where my contributions assist others, and I don't think any situation could occur which would take away that enjoyment from me.
 * Nudge....nudge....I'm ready for the next round of questions! Mastrchf91 (t/c) 16:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

 * What is your area of expertise? What subjects do you feel you could contribute the most to? Have you ever joined a WikiProject based on your area of expertise?
 * Right now, areas that pertain to The Office. I've been working on the articles that pertain to the show for some time now, and am an avid watcher of the show.  I also feel that I am knowledgeable in the areas that involve the Arkansas Razorbacks.  I feel like I could contribute the most to both of these subjects.  As for WikiProjects, I was a pretty active member in the College Football WikiProject, and I occasionally check in on it.  I'm also "leading" The Office WikiProject, as I've began updating the page and publishing the newsletter after it was originally declared inactive.
 * Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? Do you believe that editors matter? How should a balance be struck between "fun" and "serious" activities?
 * Undoubtedly yes to the first two questions. To the third, I believe that the balance is kept by the Wikipedia community and its members remembering that we are here first and foremost to create an encyclopedia, and that the people that come to Wikipedia in the first place realize this.
 * As a second part to the next question, I'd like you to take a look at Requests for comment/Cabals. What is your opinion on these user "cabals"?
 * My view is most similar to that presented by Master of Puppets. Cabals should be used for enjoyment, but should also help out both the community as well as the project, and they shouldn't be exclusive in any way.

What-if scenarios
What would you do?


 * How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
 * The best way to handle this would be to try to talk with the user, and try to have a settlement in which we can keep a NPOV. If the other user refuses to cooperate, I would most likely submit it to RFC, and get an outside look on the situation.
 * An administrator speedy deleted an article under G11. Later, you notice that an anonymous user has recreated the article. Should you delete the article under G1, G4, both, or do something else?
 * Assuming that the advertising isn't a type of nonsense, G1 wouldn't apply in the situation, and because the article was originally deleted due to a speedy deletion, G4 also wouldn't apply in this situation. After a quick review of the article to make sure that it satisfied the conditions to be speedy deleted, I would most likely delete the article under G11 once again.
 * Do you think banned editors should be given a chance at a different language Wikipedia or sister project to redeem themselves?
 * Sure, everybody deserves a second chance. Although most likely only a minute portion of the editors would actually redeem themselves with productive contributions, gaining one good and trustworthy editor would be worth doing a few quick reverts.
 * When should you decline a request at WP:AIV?
 * If the user hasn't yet been warned, that would be an obvious reason in which to decline the request. Except in cases of extreme vandalism, personal threats, etc., I would most likely wait to take action against a user until they have committed vandalism after being given a final warning.
 * A user requests semi-protection of an article, but you fully protect it. Why?
 * The most common reason for this would most likely be that the article is the staging ground of an edit war that involves multiple parties. This would give the users a chance to talk the situation out without simply warring.

Miscellaneous

 * How is biting the newcomers a bad thing, and what can you do to avoid it?
 * When someone new visits Wikipedia, they have the ability to turn into one of two things, a great contributor, or a vandal. Now, of course I'm only mentioning two sides of the spectrum, and there are a great number of things that they could do involving Wikipedia and the various levels in which they interact with it, but for this question, I'll go ahead and use it in that manner.  If any newcomer is treated kindly, instructed how to help the project, and has the want to improve an already great project, there is a good chance that they will turn into a contributor, and help the project.  But if the newcomer is treated harshly after their actions were made only out of ignorance, they are more likely to leave, or worse, turn into a vandal.  This second way is bad in two ways; not only has a vandal been created that causes detriment to the project, but a potential editor that could've helped the project will probably never be.  So, it is much better to be kind to newcomers than to bite them, no matter their actions.
 * Have you used, or do you currently use alternate accounts?
 * I have never used an alternate account, nor do I plan to ever have one.
 * Where do you see Wikipedia in the next three years?
 * Most likely, lot of the minor technical matters would be handled quicker, as the number of Wiki-Gnomes will most likely increase. I also feel that WikiProjects will be more coordinated, with a larger number of editors being able to assist in specific sections of expertise, and thus all of the articles under their scope will have improved.  I also feel that bots will be more efficient, thus giving people who would normally engage in reverting vandalism more time to focus their efforts on improving articles.  Overall, no matter what happens in the next three years, I believe that the project can do nothing but get better, and that's something we should all strive for.