User:WikipedianMarlith/Admin coaching

Traditional RFA questions
Let's start with the traditional RFA questions.


 * What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * I intend to fight vandalisim with page protection and blocks. As well as deleting pages to clear CSD backlogs as well as Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Through this I hope to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. What I notice is that sometimes pages like AIV, UFAA and RFPP get backlogged and are not cleared for hours. I hope to sharply reduce the time it takes to respond to requests and questions. To do this, I will vigalently survey these pages as well as RC during the hours of the most activity. That means Monday and Tuesday afternoon according to the studies by Vandalism Studies. Already I am a dedicated and vilagent  RC patroller who dedicates his time on Wikipedia to the fight against vandalisim. I also intend to comment on AN and ANI.
 * What do you believe are your best contributions to Wikipedia?
 * I have not done much formal writing. However I have done quite a lot of maintenence work such as RC patrol, UFAA patrol, Newpages and deletion and so forth. I am proud of this maintenance work. In addition, I have worked on finding citations for articles and have written two original articles Cathedral School for Boys and Term paper.
 * What conflicts have you been in, and how have you handled them?
 * I have calmly abstained from edit wars and conflicts and calmly sealed the fates of problem users like vandals. Should I encounter any conflicts with other users, I will not get angry. I will say sorry as quickly as I can and try to do something for that user to alleviative what pain I have caused them.

Checklist
You're very enthusiastic, I can see, but try to avoid using the "politician" tone. It's a real turn-off for !voters, and caused you some problems in your former RFA. Now here's a checklist of things. Please tell whether you've done these things, and if you haven't, you should give it a try. Have you:


 * !Voted in an WP:RFA?
 * Yes, many times. However, I do not vote, I assess the candidate and make a judgment about how fit he is for the mop.


 * Listed a vandal at WP:AIV
 * Yes, many times


 * Request page protections at WP:RFPP?
 * Yes


 * Had an editor review?
 * Yes


 * Reviewed another editor at editor review?
 * I have reviewed three editors


 * Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * I read it often


 * Used automated tools (Twinkle, VandalProof, .js stuff, etc.)?
 * Yes I do


 * Contributed to XFD's?
 * I do argue at XFDs and nominate pages for deletion.


 * Posted or answered a question at the reference desk.
 * I have posted questions, but have not answered questions. However I do help with Editor Assistance/Requests


 * Uploaded an image?
 * Yes, most of them to commons.


 * Welcomed a user?
 * I have welcomed hundreds.


 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Not often, but I am interested in helping resolve a dispute.


 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Yes, but not that often.


 * Taken a look at Wikipedia philosophies? I'm interested in seeing which philosophies you fall under.
 * Moderate immediatism, Moderate anti-statusquoism, Communityism, Communalism (unless it is deleted by the author), Sysopism, WikiPacifism, Adminship is "no important thing", Elusive virtue, Factionalism. On the topic of deletions, I will place my self in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD


 * Joined a Wikiproject?
 * Yes, several


 * Wrote a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * No, but I want to.

This is really sort of a brief checklist of everything I can think of. Please tell me which ones you've done and which ones interest you.

More questions

 * Would you place yourself in Administrators open to recall? Why or why not? What do you think the criteria should be for recall if you were asked to do so?
 * Yes, since I want to know what people think of my editing and would like people to see if I am still trustable with the mop. However, I do not see any reason for me to do anything that will make others think me untrustworthy with the mop. If I was to be recalled, I would like those to note incivility, and
 * What is the importance of IAR, and under what circumstances should it be applied?
 * When a certain rule causes edit wars, incivility, fighting, disrupts the atmosphere so much that we cannot work on the encyclopedia and so forth. It should be ignored
 * Can you elaborate on an actual circumstance where you would apply or have applied it?
 * Say a certain rule, for example notability caused an edit war. It has escalated to the point where 5 RfCs numerous AN threads have been made about it. And now, a request for arbitration has been made. We are no longer an encyclopedia for those users, but a battleground. Several noted editors have decided to quit. They have done all types of dispute reselotuin and nothing happens. If they ignored that rule, there will be no controversy and many editors will go off happy, if not a little disappointed. I understand that people will object to the use of IAR here but still, we must retain editors to sustain quality.
 * What are your personal criteria for an admin?
 * I notice that standards here are either astronomically high, or far too low. When voting in an RfA I seek a healthy number of months and edits, as well as civility, WikiLove and calmness in conflicts. I also look for a dedication to vandal fighting and a knowledge of policy, especially deletion and conflict reseloution.

MOAR KWESHUN
Here's some tougher questions that pop up now and then.


 * What is the difference between banning and an indefinite block? How would you enforce them?
 * User:Blow of Light was banned from the project space so he can only edit the main, user and image spaces. This is an example of a ban. And indefinite block is a speedy reseloution to problems with a certain registered users editing style and his habits. In short, banning does not always result in an indefinite block and is used for non vandals who might not have given their best effort. Blocking is the blocking of a user from editing Wikipedia due to repeated vandalism.
 * How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who hasn't vandalized?
 * Create an ANI thread on them and discuss what to do with him. If consensus is made, then we will carry out the actions.
 * What actions? Please be more detailed.
 * Say should the discussion at ANI agree on a block, we will block him. If we are to send him to ARBcom then we will sent him to ARBcom.
 * Have or do you use alternate accounts?
 * Yes, I have. User:GreaterWikiholic and User:Marlith. Once I forgot the password for GreaterWikiholic and I had to create a new account, this one. Besides that, I have not used any alternate accounts.

To your reply to the first question, I'm a little uneasy by your wording "might not have given their best effort." If you read ArbCom cases, this is most certainly not the case. Also, dealing with an extreme POV-pusher is not something that can just be brushed off to ANI or ArbCom. It takes a lot more work to resolve a POV-pushing dispute.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will work on my wording and learn more about POV pushing.  Marlith  T / C  02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions
Do you have any questions about policy or community workings or my views about something? I would like you to ask until you have no more questions left.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, what other things should I dive into to make myself more desirable for adminship? What do you think I can do to satisfy the average user? What are my biggest flaws and my best successes? Thanks!  Marlith  T / C  00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should ask yourself not how to improve your image, but how to improve the encyclopedia. Likewise, you should not desire adminship. It's like growing up, you always wish you could grow up so you can do things that you couldn't do before, but at the end it turns out that they're a dreary, dreary existence exacerbated by stress and conflict. I truly think that you are a user with much potential (which is why I offered to coach you); you have great zeal and dedication for the encyclopedia, but I believe that you need more experiences to actualize that potential. Occasionally, (to be perfectly honest), I find that you may have some trouble with staying mature. This is a problem that you have largely overcome since your past username, but it's still something to watch for. I believe the best course of action for you is either: to build up an article to GA or even FA status, or to help mediate disputes, say at third opinion. It is only through passing through trials and tribulations that you can gain the trust of the community and the mop.
 * I see. Thanks!  Marlith  T / C  05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other questions?  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your interpretation of IAR and your criteria for an admin?  Marlith  T / C  05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, IAR is something to save time and bypass unneccessary complicating procedures as well as a formal statement that the rules are not set in stone. For example, say an AFD has a very strong consensus to keep. By IAR, we can avoid the hassle of waiting for 5 days and just speedily close it. In this way, WP:SNOW is a corollary of IAR. In addition, it serves to remind us that consensus and the encyclopedia can and will change. When Wikipedia opened, IAR was unanimously approved because they had no idea how Wikipedia would turn out. If we keep applying to the same antiquated rules, there is no way we can continue to grow as an encyclopedia. So I really think that IAR is important in that if something stops you from doing good, then ignore it. Just be bold and do it.

For me, the questions I ask myself when thinking about an admin are "Will they abuse the tools?" and "Will they benefit the encyclopedia if trusted with the tools?" I then look at their maturity, their outlook on things, their participation on project and mainspace. I usually like to support users I have had positive interactions with before. I don't mind Wikignome or almost exclusively vandal-fighting admins, unlike many, because at the end, they will continue to have a good effect on Wikipedia.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)