User:Riana/Admin coaching

Sorry, thought ^^ that was cute :)

Okay, exams are done let's get this show on the road!
Righteo, being the laid back people that we are we can just play this by ear - but here's a basic format I threw together

Edit count
Just as a reference, see where you're most busy! As at 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) using Interiots wannabe Kate tool: Category talk:	4 Category:	12 Image talk:	14 Image:	       12 Mainspace	3588 Portal talk:	74 Portal:	       300 Talk:	       235 Template talk:	9 Template:	21 User talk:	2730 User:	       549 Wikipedia talk:	57 Wikipedia:	686 edits/article	1.60 earliest	12:10, 17 May 2006 unique articles	5190 total	       8291

2006/5 	       98 	2006/6 	        479 	2006/7 	        1664 	2006/8 	        922 	2006/9 	        1020 	2006/10 	1869 	2006/11 	2239

RfA stock questions
I'll get you to answer these, not for practise but rather so I can see where you feel your strengths are (and subsequent weaknesses - if any :)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I don't tend to participate in a lot of behind-the-scenes, policy-making type stuff. My main admin-like interests lie in recent changes patrolling, new page patrolling, XfDs, etc. I realise that a lot of this is made very easy for non-admin users via semi-automated tools like Godmode and anything Lupin puts his hands on. However, AIV and CSD backlogs annoy me... If I am given sysop privs, I anticipate spending time reverting vandalism, deleting spurious content, closing XfDs, stomping vandals, and trying to be useful wherever I am needed.


 * Also, while I know that admin status doesn't technically give me any political weight, I would also try my best to mediate in disputes and incivility situations. Administrators are usually in a good position to smooth out these issues. I intend to be as active as possible at AN/I and PAIN.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have begun two articles, Katherine Knight and dioxathion, and I'm reasonably proud of both. I intend to fix a redlink a week on this list, but seeing as this resolution was made last week, I've only got as far as one article ;) I also rewrote 4,4-biphenol and divinylbenzene, adding structure diagrams and information, and formatting them correctly, which has completely turned them around. I've also been working on Portal:Chemistry, along with Rfrisbie, and it's now a featured portal candidate. I'm also just generally happy with my recent changes and new pages patrolling - I think I've rarely reverted/tagged in error (I can think of maybe 5 isolated incidents), I take the time to warn users adequately, and report to AIV in extreme cases.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Oh boy. Apart from the usual antagonism that any vandalfighter is bound to face at some point, I can think of one issue that particularly stressed me out. I had been "mentoring" for some weeks, who seemed to be a perfectly valid contributor, albeit with a much higher interest in RfAs and adminship than is usually seen in a new user. One day I got a message from him, stating that he had been blocked by freakofnurture. I asked freakofnurture to explain what was going on, and eventually found out from Choess that People Powered had been suspected for a while of being a sockpuppet of . A lot of back and forth conversation between myself, People Powered and Choess ensued, which ended with People Powered leaving this message on my talk-page. I replied with this, but he seemingly gave up.
 * I was mildly frustrated by the whole situation - I was never given enough proof that People Powered was indeed a sockpuppet (although now I have little doubt that if not a sockpuppet, he was certainly a disruptive user). I asked freakofnurture whether a CheckUser would be appropriate - in fact, I asked him several questions (even one by e-mail), none of which received any replies. Of course, now I realise that he was probably attempting to keep more people out of the situation than necessary, but at the time I was a little bothered that my reasonable requests were being ignored. I understand now where he was coming from, though.
 * Another, perhaps more minor event was this RfC, fueled by a comment (a careless one, in hindsight) I made on this AfD. Nunh-huh was accused of misuse of admin rollback and incivility, and Chacor decided to file an RfC against him. The issue seems to have been resolved, but I think I behaved well, didn't lose my temper, and honestly treated it as a request for comment, not a request for a snivelling apology.
 * As for how I intend to deal with disputes and conflicts in the future - I think there should be a gentler slope between talking on one's talkpage to filing an RfC. The fact that there's been an "official" record of one's misdeeds is likely to make one even more antagonistic. I will attempt to resolve disputes by talking to a user on their talk page as much as possible. Only if this turns out to be completely futile, will I consider taking the next step (after consultation with any others involved).
 * Boy, that was a long answer - honestly, though, if you look through my interactions with other users, they are overwhelmingly positive. I enjoy being a part of this community far too much to actively seek out disputes :)

Optional questions

 * 1) In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
 * A: Intelligence and good judgement are foremost, along with good communication. Politeness and civility are definite bonuses - admins are largely the public face of the site. Then again, civility shouldn't mean a willingness to suffer fools gladly - admins should be firm, but not stubborn. It's important that an admin candidate is requesting for the right reasons.  What about knowledge of policy perhaps? 
 * I can't believe I missed that one out. Must be all the good RfA candidates lately. Policy comes first, obviously, I'd hope someone who hadn't participated in a single AfD would talk about closing them in Q1...
 * 1) Why do you want to be an admin? (Personally, as opposed to the technical aspects in required question 1)
 * A: I like to think I would be able to help out. I really do enjoy working here, and I enjoy helping out where I can. I think I'm approachable enough, but at the same time, responsible enough, to be a good admin. And, of course, there's my burning desire to take over the world. [[Image:Yes check.svg|13px]][[Image:Yes check.svg|13px]][[Image:Yes check.svg|13px]]Exxxxxcellent!!! ;) (Just a quick comment as I read :)
 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A: Talk to them about it, try to find out a little more about what's going on. File an RCU, and if the result is conclusive, I would discuss with other admins, and take it to the arbcom.
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A: I think there's a general tendency towards red tape and policy-making - instruction creep - which I can find stifling at times. However, at the same time, I realise that WP will always be a work in progress (that's the point), and policies are really our way of filing things we've never seen under categories we can refer to later on.
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block an established user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A: Accounts which are being used only for blatant vandalism. I can honestly think of no other reason why I would want to make such a drastic decision independently. Definitely not for personal disagreements and so on.
 * An established user? Under extreme circumstances - constant edit warring, vicious personal attacks, continually ignoring rules and policies, trolling - I might consider it, but I would never do so without consultation with other experienced admins.
 * 1) Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A: If the RCU is inconclusive, I would close the AfD as no consensus. I'm willing to acknowledge a mistake. However, I would keep an eye on the article and the users, and would consider re-nominating at a later date, after consultation with other administrators.
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A: Technical. The political aspect of adminship really depends on the person's nature. Some admins do their job very well without ever sticking their neck into politics - some can't keep out of it. I personally prefer an admin's actions to be largely technical than largely political.
 * 1) We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?
 * A: Hmmm. Now my relative inexperience in the mainspace is revealed :) I suppose edits made in bad faith could generate discussion between editors, and they could attempt to neutralise the situation, see if the bad edits could be countered by better additions and citations (citations, in my mind, are a way of waterproofing the article to make sure the bad stuff is noticed quickly!)
 * 1) What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
 * A: I can't say there's any one rule, user or restriction which frustrates me. The thing I find most annoying is probably a growing 'us against them' mentality among users calling themselves deletionists, particularly noticeable at recent MfDs regarding Esperanza and 'fun' stuff. It seems to me to be a harmful trend, when all parties - deletionists, inclusionists, AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTDists - should realise that the goal is to improve the encyclopedia.
 * 1) Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
 * A: I know there are many RfA-goers who have some pretty rough standards regarding the 'spaces' - 100 XfDs in a month, 5000 mainspace contributions, otherwise no soup for you. However, I try to look at each space differently and see whether the contributions made to each have been helpful. If one wants to be an admin, WP-space is probably the most important, as I like to see some evidence of discussion in this area. Mainspace is the next most important (obviously), followed by user talk (communication is the key). However, quality, rather than statistics, matter the most.
 * 1) Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
 * A: My somewhat dodgy and ill-thought-out criteria are here - please note that I'm not very strict with these! I try to judge people by their work, not by some arbitrary criteria I try to force onto each candidate.


 * 1) Bonus Question Three parts; a) If successful, will you consider the admin recall category? b) Take a look at Category:Rouge admins - would you see yourself there? c) What is WP:IAR and what situations do you feel its application is warranted?
 * (a) Admin recall is, in my opinion, absolutely great - looking at some admins (just a very few), I wonder if it shouldn't be mandatory. I understand some of the opposition to admin recall, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Admin actions should be transparent and reviewable, and they should be culpable for said actions. If enough people believe an admin isn't doing well with the tools, s/he should consider revoking them. I would definitely add myself to that category.
 * (b) Heh, I can see myself between green and yellow :) I see rouge admins as users who are willing to IAR if policy is standing in the way of the right thing to do; block users out of process if it is obvious they will cause nothing but harm. I have never had any problems with admins in that category, and any so-called 'out of process' actions by them have been justifiable. But mainly, it's just a bit of fun, isn't it?
 * (c) IAR is using common sense. If an article is an obvious hoax, there's not much point sticking it at AfD for a week. If a user is never going to be anything more than a troll, there's not much point treating them with too much leniency. And if a user with nine edits is going to request adminship, I don't see the point in letting it run the whole seven days. That said, process is important too. I guess it comes down to a person's common sense and intelligence.
 * Okay, this is where I'll be able to help you (yay, I feel useful!) Your answers are great, but I specialize in marketing, so we'll market you a little more. Couple of things, can you just answer the amended question above, and tell me if you'll use "The candidate may make an optional statement here" section in your RfA, and if so, complete it below. Great work!

The candidate may make an optional statement here


Oh wow, this is so much trickier than I thought it could be! Hmmm. Well, I just know that something will come up about being too social (extremely high user talk edits - 80% vandal/deletion warnings, 20%, er, not accounted for). I've also noticed some RfAs can be adversely affected by an editor's affiliations, particularly Esperanza (example) and IRC buddyism. I guess I'd like to say that people shouldn't vote based on that one joke I made in the coffee lounge (OK, just an example there... I don't think I actually made any *sigh*), or the fact that I don't spend hours playing up in #wikipedia. I don't really want to be supported because I gave someone a barnstar or reverted their userpage that one time. I'd prefer to be judged solely on the basis of my editing in other areas; whether people think that I possess a mindset suitable for an admin, whether people think I exhibit sound knowledge of policy, etc.

I know it sounds a little ranty, and probably unfair of me to assume that people might vote (support, oppose, neutral, whatever) for the wrong reasons, but I've been told by 3 people off-wiki that they think my RfA might be a so-called 'social RfA'. I'm probably just looking for evidence to the contrary.

Vandalism test
Vandalism or not??? Yay or nay and why:


 * 1)  Hmmm. POV, unreferenced, poorly phrased and hanging off the end of a paragraph awkwardly - I know a lot of recent changes patrollers would probably revert this. I'd try to do some research, as I just did, and if Google tells me it's not true, I believe it :) At least until it's properly referenced. I'd likely remove this, not revert this, and drop the editor a note to cite his sources.
 * 2)  Vandalism - obviously unhelpful and untrue.
 * 3)  Ah, my favourite sort of vandalism. I tend to revert 'ya mama's, 'poo's, etc as vandalism, and drop the editor a vw or higher test warning.
 * 4)  Not vandalism, if there's an ongoing discussion to remove it and keep it out of the article. Although it's worrying to see that Highway is the only one who wants to keep it out... hope they can sort that out!
 * 5)  Considering that was the user's first contribution, I'd say he was just testing. Or maybe that's what he calls it. If I had seen that immediately, I might have directed him to the WP:PCP's manual of style, if they have one - yep, they do. Even if that's not entirely relevant to his change, it might have interested him in contributing further.
 * 6)  Not vandalism. I'm unsure of how deeply Pokemon articles have to be sourced, and it seems a little POV, but it's not vandalism. I'm a bit alarmed that Steel was the only one to point out WP:NOT to him, and Highway started him on the test warnings immediately afterwards, because none of his contributions seem to have been vandalism the way I see it. A little crufty, maybe, but not useless.

Geek! Awesome effort :)  Glen 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete or not?
The following are examples of pages tagged by users and are sitting in the speedy deletion category. As an admin, can you tell me a) if the article should be deleted and b) under what criteria;

'''Perfect score... again!'''  Glen 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) CSD1 Well, his name's Dan Morris, not Morrow (I Google, I don't watch...) And I doubt Eton Road has achieved enough independent notability (outside of being on the TV show) to warrant having articles for each member. I'd db-bio it.
 * Yep clearly fails WP:MUSIC - and, we're NOT a crystal ball :)
 * 1) CSD2 Hmmmm. A7 as an unremarkable company, or G11 as advertising.
 * Smartie
 * 1) CSD3 Easy G11.
 * *sigh* Hmmm.. Not sure Im needed! Im starting to think I may be here just for me looks... :)
 * 1) CSD4 :p G1.
 * What??! That was poetry! ;) (and, was real too!}
 * So defensive, Glen - did you write it yourself? :p
 * 1) CSD5 fails most of the criteria over at WP:MUSIC, so I might speedy under A7 if I were feeling vicious, but I'd probably take it to AfD. Sometimes AfDs can cause sources and information to pop up, so I might take a chance with it.
 * Well, maybe Ive been hardened somewhat but I'd delete it under A7 as to me it fails every criteria at WP:MUSIC... Their only album was a self made 1000 LPs; so, you probably scored better on this than me! ;P

Questions you've got for me re any facets of adminship or the RfA itself?

 * Hmm, well, to be honest, it'd be interesting to hear your answers to some of the questions above! Particularly #7, #9, and #10. You don't have to, of course :)
 * 7. Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts. :) Obviously its both, and, a lot more political that most would believe. Those 3 extra buttons do cause a political heirarchy whether we like it or not. I think most would agree, when you're a nonadmin, that you check twice before/when edit warring with someone - just incase they can put an abrupt stop to it. Those buttons also mean users come to you for dispute resolution first; And, finally, much like a politician, as the face of wikipedia - you must always be kissing babies. :)
 * 8. It can happen, (I'll cite examples a bit later), but regardless I'd act the same way (bad faith = warning or out)
 * 9. I'd make registration compulsary. Anons do good stuff, but they do (literally) 4-5 times that in damage.
 * 10. For an RfA Wikispace edits are most important. Yes, knowing how to write an article is great, but once you have the tools 9/10 that will plummet, and all your time will be on policy (which you must know)
 * 1) Probably only tangentially related to adminship, but I notice that you hand out test4im a lot. This and bv are 2 templates I try to never use, for fear of biting, so I'm wondering whether I'm too much of a wuss? Since test4im means one more strike and you're out, and I would have the power to block someone should I become an admin, I'm wondering what situations you consider using this in.
 * Ive got a low threshold for solely vandal only IPs, and my pet hate is admins that block IPs where there have been no good faith edits - yet as they are an IP they block them for 2 hours. If an IP has a history of vandalism, and its clear that the edit wasnt a test (a test may be poop, or hi or bill was here lolz - a vandal blanks the page and writes WHITE POWER FU@K YOU!) - That gets one warning, or, just a block off the rank from me. We aint gonna turn that clown into a valuable contributor that day for sure.
 * In terms of you using it? Go hard. It's DEFINITELY the most effective in actually stopping the vandal. Hope that passes!