User:MrFish/Admin Coaching



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

Traditional RFA questions

 * 1) What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * Well, I have experience on vandalism patrolling, and I don't intend to stop doing that, but I intend to try hanging around the administrator's noticeboard, a page that I currently don't visit too often (not being an administrator) and I therefore don't really know how many relevant issues come up there every day, but if they come hard and fast, that would be a good place to be.
 * 1) What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * I think that my best contributions are the quiet ones; the articles I've created and the stubs I've expanded, most of them on obscure and/or rail-related topics. That work is quiet, almost wikignome-like, but it is the real encyclopedia-building and will always be more valuable than maintenance tasks that draw more attention.
 * 1) What conflicts have you been in and how have you handled them?
 * Most of my conflicts with other users have involved articles that I created that were deemed non-notable. I acknowledge that I am an inclusionist, and I can and have gotten carried away.  However, I have never participated in a real edit war--the most drastic things I've done is removing prod notices, once without notifying the editor who posted it (I later apologized for that).  When things do get hot, as in a long-running dispute over the article on the Walt Disney World Monorail System (I was the lead editor to the Monorail task force of the Trains WikiProject at the time), I have a habit (and perhaps not a totally desirable one) of standing aloof and allowing the more aggressive editors to beat out a consensus.

Go ahead and answer those three questions, then we'll go from there. Useight (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.--MrFishGo Fish 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty good answers. A couple ways to improve them, I think, would be to include some wikilinks in your answer to Q1 to some areas that you plan to work in, such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP, or wherever else. I think people usually like to see that you can speak the lingo (on the other hand, too much alphabet soup is discouraged). I would also include a link to an article or two that you started in your answer to Q2 (lots of editors like to see article creation, especially if it got to GA or FA status). Useight (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential Questions
Here's a couple questions that are likely to be asked of you during RFA.


 * 1) Would you place yourself on Category:Administrators open to recall?
 * Yes, definitely. If the consensus doesn't want it, it shouldn't be, whether it's an article or an administrator.
 * 1) How would you apply IAR to your contributions?
 * That's a difficult question. There's a reason why the page about this policy is so short--because it is hard to define.  Basicly, it means to use common sense (common=everyone has it).  This difficulty, however, does not diminish the beauty of this rule, which could only appear in Wikipedia.  In short, IAR doesn't come up everyday, and it is difficult to argue for or against its application in a given situation, but when it does apply, everyone should be able to see it.
 * 1) What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?
 * Hmm, well...
 * At least 4,000 edits, distributed realisticly across the namespaces, and being around for at least a year. Also, the editor must dabble in more than just one or two topics.  It's okay to have an expertise, but if that's the only topic you edit, that tells me you aren't dedicated Wikipedia as a whole.
 * At least a couple DYKs, or a good article (or an FA).
 * Some participation in debates, simply so that we can see an ability to understand and apply policies.
 * Very, very limited cases of incivility can be tolerated. Nothing says "rouge administrator" more than incivility.

Those were good answers, I especially liked how you handled Q2. I presume you believe you meet your own admin criteria? Useight (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but barely. ;-) MrFishGo Fish 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Experience
Just a few questions concerning what you've done before.

Have you ever...
 * 1) Voiced your opinion at WP:AFD?
 * 2) Tagged articles for speedy deletion?
 * 3) Listed a vandal for WP:AIV?
 * 4) Listed a page for protection?
 * 5) Participated in WP:AN or WP:ANI discussion?
 * 6) Acted as a neutral party in dispute?
 * 7) Used any .js tools or installed any editing helpers (popups, TWINKLE, VandalSniper, special navbars, etc.)?
 * 8) !Voted in an WP:RFA?
 * 9) Contributed to the Reference desk?
 * 10) Read the Signpost?

If there are some of those that you haven't done, you may want to try them. They could help round out your experience in admin-like areas. Useight (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are good tips. I have not done numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, or 9.--MrFishGo Fish 02:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've never participated at WP:RFA? You should fix that. Useight (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What-if scenarios and other questions
Sorry for the long delay. We're almost through coaching.

Another way !voters like to test your knowledge is through what-if scenarios. Due to the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia, you'll rarely find a time when you have such a scenario thrust upon you, but it's good to already have a "game plan" set up.


 * What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks do you feel you would totally avoid?
 * Well, I don't know that I have a lot of weaknesses. I am an inclusionist, and I realize it, but that's easy to solve--you just ignore your own opinion and look at the consensus.  Of course, I am not totally read up on recommended lengths of blocks and such, but that shouldn't be hard to learn.


 * If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
 * Well, I think the policy that I am least fond of is the one that demands that all images be universally free for derivative works and commercial use. I think that one should be allowed to give Wikipedia exclusive permission to use a particular image; and I would like Wikipedia to use images released for non-profit, educational use.

that way. Really, a user should be given plenty, usually at least four, chances to respond to warnings, and blocks are meant to be an almost desperate measure.
 * When do you feel it is appropriate to decline a request in WP:AIV?
 * I think it is often that a user posted on AIV has not been given ample warning. Sometimes posters can make mistakes


 * A user requests semi-protection of an article, but you fully protect it. Why?
 * This is a difficult question to answer with any creativity, because the factors differentiating the choice between full and semi-protection are well stated at WP:PROT.


 * Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia?
 * I'm not really too sure. I'm going to lean toward the side of "no", as they use up bandwith and distract people from more useful endeavors, but I have no strong opinion on the matter.  I hope that someday a consensus will be reached by the people who care more, as the debate itself is distracting people from more useful endeavors.


 * 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?
 * My main area of expertise is railroading. In real life, I am a lifelong railfan, railroad photographer, and I worked for a railroad museum at one time.  I also have a liberal arts degree, and I know a lot of history and I have a taste for historic sites.  I am a longtime member of the Trains WikiProject.

Last set
Here are the last questions I have for you. We also need to figure out when the best time for your RFA will be.


 * 1) What's the difference between blocking and banning?
 * A ban is a bigger deal than a block. A block is a sadly routine measure to keep vandalism and other harmful edits under control.  A ban, however, is when a particular user is not allowed to edit the encyclopedia (or some part of the encyclopedia) because of extremely harmful behavior.  In other words, a ban is more personal.  Bans are enforced by blocks (usually).
 * 1) What is the purpose of a block? Is it ever punitive?
 * A block is a preventative measure, when it is obvious that much harm is coming from an IP address or user account. It is never punitive, it is merely preventative.
 * 1) How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
 * This should be treated more or less like vandalism, giving the user warnings like Uw-npov1 (and up to level 4), trying to reason with the user, and the user should probably be given a little more patience than the ordinary vandal, but if the user does indeed ignore the about 4 warnings, (s)he should be given a block, vandalism or no.
 * 1) Why is wheel warring a bad thing and how can you avoid it?
 * It's bad enough when ordinary users conflict, but when two administrators go at it, it's like two superheroes duking it out above a city--whoever wins, the city will be destroyed, and it is obviously difficult to stop a wheel war. I don't see myself ever reverting an admin more than once (except in an extreme case, like a clear vandal-admin), and if I ever find that I wish to revert an administrator twice, I will put something on the AN and let someone else decide.
 * Good answers, I like the superhero analogy. However, I do want to point out that you should almost never undo another admin's administrative actions (like unblocking) without first attempting to contact that admin. Useight (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
We now need to figure out the best time for you to run at RFA. You've never had an RFA before, so we shouldn't have to wait for any set amount of time to elapse. I can write up a nomination in the next few days or whenever you prefer. Useight (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)