User:Dgw/admin coaching
< User:Dgw
(Redirected from User:Voyagerfan5761/admin coaching)Checklist
[edit]Heh Heh! - Here's some questions (there mostly copied from Malinaccier's admin coaching programme by the way :D) Rudget. 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever:
- !voted in an RFA? Yep
- listed a vandal at AIV? Many, more recently with the help of huggle
- requested a page to be protected? I think so... once or twice
- had an editor review? Been open since last year
- had a name change? Nope
- reviewed an editor at editor review? Indeed I have
- signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it? Been on the spamlist for a few weeks, and read it occasionally before that
- use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.? TW, AWB, VP, NPW, MWiki-Browser, VandalFighter, WikiMonitor, huggle. I've at least downloaded and run every one of these.
- contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before). I've done some MfD, IfD, and I think TfD work
- posted or answered a question at the reference desk? Posted a question about copyright a few months ago
- uploaded an image? Yep
- welcomed a user? Affirmative
- mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute? Uhh... Can't recall one off the top of my head...
- participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI? Do you want me to review my contribs? I know I've done stuff on the village pump...
Traditional request for adminship questions
[edit]Seeing as you don't have a previous RFA, lets start with the RFA questions and we'll proceed from there. It appears that Avruch is adding three additional questions to the RFAs before any votes are cast to get a better perspective of the candidate. They are added at the bottom. :) Rudget. 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Initially, I'll probably start out patrolling AIV and blocking the blatant vandals reported there. The next likely progression is to CSD, then UAA, then AfD and related discussions. Vandalism is the thing I dislike the most on Wikipedia, and I sometimes see definite, blatant vandals go unblocked for hours, sitting on the AIV page. The next thing is CSD, where obvious cases sometimes go for hours in the queue. CSD U1s are the ones I see a lot of.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm rather torn between my vandal-fighting efforts and my article creations. I haven't started too many articles, but my first one was on Thargola's sword (a philosophy from Nightfall (Asimov short story)). It was too short to be its own article, and was integrated into the story's article. I make various convenience and anti-confusion redirects, and have been working on Tzofei Tel Aviv for a while, an Israeli band which has interestingly very little information on them. I'm surprised, given the lack of available information, that the article hasn't been deletion-tagged yet. I hope mentioning it here doesn't garner too much attention. :D
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: The event that sticks out the most in my mind was my disagreement with Igorberger a while back. Igor's editing style seemed kind of troll-ish, and I'm not entirely sure what led up to the conflict, but we started trading accusations and I just had to throw up my hands and take the issue to a neutral user, VirtualSteve, who analyzed our situation and made his own recommendations. That tends to be my reaction to conflict, is to ask the opinion of other uninvolved parties.
- Follow up - You're right, and I've just seen this last edit to the thread where you and Igorberger where engaging in discussion. It's probably just a mistake, and you are likely to know not to let that occur again. It turned, from what I see a civil start, to an unfriendly sight towards the end with accusations of stalk going left, right and centre. You seem to understand that community consensus has a prominent place here on en.wp, and permanent links like this and this would seem to prove that. Igor doesn't seem the user who is likely to respond civil-ly to warnings, just look at this! - So I'd say you're alright regarding this matter. Rudget. 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A: The event that sticks out the most in my mind was my disagreement with Igorberger a while back. Igor's editing style seemed kind of troll-ish, and I'm not entirely sure what led up to the conflict, but we started trading accusations and I just had to throw up my hands and take the issue to a neutral user, VirtualSteve, who analyzed our situation and made his own recommendations. That tends to be my reaction to conflict, is to ask the opinion of other uninvolved parties.
- 4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
- A: As I understand it, a block is a technical measure used to prevent a specified user or IP address from editing the site. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, which can be applies to all or part of the project. Blocks can be used as a technical means to enforce bans, as well as community vigilance and attentiveness to the behavior of other users who may be sock puppets of banned users. Banned users are not necessarily blocked.
- Follow up - (Copied from Rlevse's comment at my admincoaching a few weeks back, he's pretty good when it comes to this sort of stuff. :))
- An indef block is not a ban, though "banned" is often misused that way. A user that's indef blocked can be unblocked and readmitted to the community. A banned user has used all their chances and good will up and can't be readmitted (barring special dispensation from Jimbo or ArbCom--very very rare). A sock of a banned user is indef blockable on sight. Pretty much the same for an indef blocked user that is not banned. See WP:BANNED for more. Rudget. 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Follow up - (Copied from Rlevse's comment at my admincoaching a few weeks back, he's pretty good when it comes to this sort of stuff. :))
- A: As I understand it, a block is a technical measure used to prevent a specified user or IP address from editing the site. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, which can be applies to all or part of the project. Blocks can be used as a technical means to enforce bans, as well as community vigilance and attentiveness to the behavior of other users who may be sock puppets of banned users. Banned users are not necessarily blocked.
- 5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
- A: My first step would likely be to simply re-insert the material with an explanatory edit or undeletion summary. If the material is removed again, by either the same or a different administrator, I would then start a discussion somewhere about the issue. Preferably on the article's talk page, if the article itself has not been deleted, but otherwise I'd have to find another venue. ANI or RfC would be my first choices.
- 6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
- A: "Administrators open to recall"? Why should we need that? In democratic communities such as the United States, political figures (which is what administrators are, after all) who violate policies or otherwise infringe upon the community's trust are open to impeachment or removal from office whether or not they have added themselves to a list of politicians open to impeachment. I will probably add myself to the category, but all administrators should be included automatically in my opinion. If this process is ever made into such an automatic thing, there should be some pretty stringent criteria for the recall, though. Requiring a minimum number of other administrators to agree, invalidating the opinions of editors who have gotten into personal disputes with the administrator up for recall, that sort of thing.
- To answer this question and get some endorsements of it, I suggest not using the likeness of Presidential offices, and try to make your own criteria (if you want to be added, unlike me). If you don't want to be added to the recall list, make sure you argue your point across strongly taking into consideration both sides of the argument and then making an accurate conclusion/response like here for example. However, if you do, you can get some ideas from here. Rudget. 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A: "Administrators open to recall"? Why should we need that? In democratic communities such as the United States, political figures (which is what administrators are, after all) who violate policies or otherwise infringe upon the community's trust are open to impeachment or removal from office whether or not they have added themselves to a list of politicians open to impeachment. I will probably add myself to the category, but all administrators should be included automatically in my opinion. If this process is ever made into such an automatic thing, there should be some pretty stringent criteria for the recall, though. Requiring a minimum number of other administrators to agree, invalidating the opinions of editors who have gotten into personal disputes with the administrator up for recall, that sort of thing.