User:Adolphus79/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

What admin areas do you intend to work in?
- Most of my experience so far has been with RC and New Pages patrolling, so I think most of my admin work will be in these general areas also (CSD, AfD, AIV, UAA, etc.)... I would also probably wander around onto the other noticeboards, on occasion, just to see if any help is needed...
What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
- There aren't too many that I can think of... most of the time if stress starts showing it's ugly head, I remind myself of two different mantras. The first is the common (although everyone has their own wording) "It's just the internet, no big deal, just walk away for a little bit...", and the second is "Fighting online is like racing in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard..." (sorry if I offend anyone with that one...)
- The few occasions that caused me more than average stress were just taken to one of the noticeboards, and/or brought to the attention of an admin. These were generally personal trolls that went over the line, and/or were persistantly harassing me for one reason or another.
- What I have learned from these experiences is simple... everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, even the kids/punks/bored vandals... there's really not much we as constructive editors can do about it, other than get over it and move on.
What do you believe are your best contributions?
- Wow, that's like asking a parent which of their kids is the best. I don't know, and really wouldn't feel comfortable pointing out just one thing. I suppose the areas that I feel I have made some better contributions would be Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons (when I first joined 2 years ago), and (more recently) RC/NP patrolling, AfD nominations, Micronation and Piracy related articles, and writing a few new articles...

Heh. Nice quotes...but you should probably leave the Special Olympics one at home.

Checklist

Next is a staple of mine: the checklist. I daresay I was the one who introduced this hulking list. Please tell me what you've done and what you haven't done. If you haven't done something on the list, I would recommend that you give it a whirl. Some, like editor review or the Reference desk aren't directly useful, but they are still very positive forces and very active forces here in Wikipedia.

!voted in an RFA?
- Not that I can remember, see User:Adolphus79/Adminship, #4...
Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
- Quite a few...
Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
- Quite a few...
Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
- over 1000 deleted edits, probably 90% in these categories...
Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
- Not yet, but I've helped and critiqued quite a few new (and some experienced) editors directly on their talk pages...
Had an editor review yourself?
- Had one up for a while, no reviews yet though...
Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
- Been subscribed for a couple months, read it whenever it is delivered...
Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
- Nope, all old school work here... (MSIE user)
What XFD's have you participated in?
- I have voted on and/or nominated several, do you want a complete list?
Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
- I think I've answered a few questions on help desk, but mostly helped users directly either on their talk page or mine...
Uploaded an image?
- Quite a few...
Welcomed a user?
- Quite a few...
Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
- A couple times...
Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
- And AN/K, and AN/X...
Joined a WikiProject?
- Several...
Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
- I did nominate one of the articles I created for DYK, but was denied (for reasons I still don't completely understand)...
Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
- Quite a few... mostly cleaning up and helping build new articles through NP patrols...
taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
- I don't really have any experience on meta...
- After reading the linked page, I believe my philosophies would be...
  - Moderate (leaning towards extreme sometimes) immediatism,
  - Moderate statusquoism,
  - about halfway between Communityism and Encyclopedyism,
  - Communalism (WP:OWN),
  - Rehabilism (sometimes leaning towards Sysopism with the more blatant trolls/disruptive editors),
  - WikiPacifism (except for #3 from WikiWarrior),
  - Adminship #3,
  - Basic skill (with a little lean towards Elusive virtue),
  - Semi-factionalism,
  - Proceduralism...
- hope that helps some...
helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
- Never even heard of that until just now...

Discussion

Your adminship subpage was quite enlightening...yes it was. In Uncyclopedia they have a very special way of doing things. At the beginning of every month, the admins get together and have a vote on whether the place needs more admins. If the consensus is yes, then they nominate and vote, with the top users getting promoted. Only admins may participate in "RFAs." I find this type of adminship process very intriguing. I was reminded of that when I read your position that only admins should participate in RFAs. I can certainly think why you would think that; I once debated myself about it. The conclusion I came up to was that there are plenty of contributive users who are not admins, who do not want to be admins, or would probably never become one even if they wanted. With the current atmosphere at RFA, I see quite a few users in this situation. Judging from your meta philosophies, your thought seems to be mainstream. Before I start with the main questions, I'd like to ask you what areas you feel are your weakest points, and we'll focus on those.

Thank you, that was just scribbled down one night in a fit of boredom, but I still feel that way... as far as my weakest points are, I really don't know... I'm sure a number of people would say talk pages and policy discussions, but I just can't bring myself to jump into a conversation if someone else already has it under control. I suppose another weak point would be any kind of scripting or advanced coding, only because I don't care for it. I've been a geek for 20+ years, I've purposely forgotten most of the coding/programming aspects of it, and I refuse to learn another language. After 2 years, I think I know my way around Wikipedia pretty well, and while not active on making or deciding upon them, I have tried to keep up on policies, etc. Feel free to let me know if you see a weak point, and I would be more than happy to work on that area.

Questions

All right then! We'll start with some rather popular questions. Since you read RFAs, you have probably run into these questions before, but I ask for your own interpretation. Personally, I find that the RFA "cheatsheet" defeats the original purpose of the questions and stifles alternative views.

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 feel very strongly about WP:COMMON, IAR should not be used as an excuse to do whatever you want... I believe the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are there for a reason, just as the laws and statutes of the real world are... but every once in a while, you might have to sort of "bend" a particular law to do the right thing...
Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
- It's just edit warring amongst admins... admins just happen to have slightly bigger guns than the average user. Prevention should be easy, follow the same rules you do as a normal editor (no editwarring, talk it out on the talk page, WP:DBAD, WP:AGF, 3RR, etc.), and you should be okay... If it's particularly bad, take it to AN...
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? What about an RFA?
- Regarding XfD and early closures, I don't really think there is a minimum... but I think there should definately be enough votes one way or another to invoke WP:SNOW. I think the number of votes should not be counted, but instead, the usefulness (and... "Wikipedianess"?...) of those votes... there have been a few that closed that if I had closed I would have decided differently...
- I guess I feel almost the same regarding RFA... maybe allowing the number of votes to have a little bit more weight in the final decision. But then again, there really isn't as much policy/guideline deletionist/inclusionist ~~babble~~ discussion involved there... read the nom, the user's answers, research the user on your own, and vote... per my essay, I've read RFAs, but purposely not gotten involved in them...

You mentioned a few AFDs where you would have closed differently. Could you give an example or two of these AFDs?

Sure... as I look back through my contribs...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Greenberg... I think No Consensus is a pretty lame closure, instead, it should have been relisted to gain more of a consensus...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Maria Latzke is another that should have been relisted to gain more of a consensus... several socks/meatpuppets turned it into a bit of a clusterfuck, and it would have been nice to gain more of a consensus from the rest of the community...

Those are just a couple out of the first thousand of my contribs... I've seen a couple others lately that I was not involved in (hence not in my contribs, hence can't remember them) that I also thought should have closed differently or been relisted...

I think for Harry Greenman I would have closed as keep instead of no consensus because there was clearly a consensus to keep. As for Rainer, I would have relisted seeing how many single-purpose accounts there were, although they did manage to come up with more sources. I really don't like no consensus that much unless there really is a mixed opinion. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]