User:ZooPro/Coaching

Generally speaking, coaching consists of Q&A sessions as well as "What Would You Do" scenarios. Depending on what you know and what you don't know, we might spend more or less time focusing on some sections over others.

Traditional RFA questions

I start off with your traditional RFA questions, but I rephrase them so that they're simpler to understand.

• What admin areas would you be most qualified to work in? What admin areas would you be most interested to work in?
  • At this point in time I believe I would be most qualified in article protection, non controversial deletion requests/moves and vandal blocking. The areas I am interested in are ANI, Article protection, Vandal fighting, Article deletion (this is an area I know I need to become more familiar with), Conflict resolution and backlogs requiring admin attention. ZooPro
• What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
  • I have had only a few conflicts on wikipedia that have caused me stress I generally take things with a grain of salt, Mainly differences of opinion, I do sometimes get into heated debates with users that don't follow correct policies or who just don't understand stuff. I was for a week or so in conflict with a user who was convinced that an image of a tiger in the article was a male named B2 walking with a cub, as I work in a zoo with carnivores i was well aware that male tigers do not interact with cubs let alone allow one to walk with it. I asked the user to provide me with sources to confirm this fact, something they failed to do. In the end myself and other users looked for real images of B2 to compare strip patterns the animal was discovered not to be B2. It did get some what heated however I don't believe it ever became a major issue and was resolved within a week.ZooPro
• What do you believe are your best contributions?
  • I feel my best contributions to the project are with the Wikiprojects and Zoo/Animal related articles. I enjoy the administrative work with wikiproject zoo and wikiproject animals, it allows other editors to be less concerned with maintaining the project and allows them more time to work on articles. I enjoy rating articles as it gives the editors of those articles a sense of worth to know they are making a difference.ZooPro 08:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is there anything you would like to specifically learn or go over in this coaching session?
  • I would like to know what areas I should improve on and what areas I should focus on to know what is required to make a good admin. I understand this may take some time and am willing to put in the hard yards for as long as it takes to learn what is expected of me and what is required to become a decent admin.ZooPro

Checklist

The second diagnostic I do is the checklist, which is a list of things to do around Wikipedia. Feel free to provide diffs and examples if you like. Perhaps you may see something on this list that you haven't done before and would like to try. If that's the case, I encourage you to do so.

• !voted in an RFA?
  • Yes, here.
• Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
  • Yes multiple times. See here,here and here. I have done a few more but they are from a few months ago.
• Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
  • Yes on a few articles, see here and here.
• Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
  • Yes see, here, here, [1], here and here. I have listed a few for speedy deletion also.
• Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
  • Yes though I didnt go into much detail., see here, here, here and here.
• Had an editor review yourself?
  • Yes some time ago see here, was not much of a review though.
• Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
  • I have read it but i do not recieve it, I have also been featured in it for WikiProject Zoo and WikiProject Animals.
• Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
  • Yes I use Twinkle
• What XFD's have you participated in?
  • A few, here and here.
• Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
  • I have answered questions that have been left at the reference desk that were redirected to WikiProject Animals.
• Uploaded an image?
  • Many, see here
• Welcomed a user?
  • Yes, here, here and here Generally when I create an account for ACC I welcome the user manually.
• Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
  • Yes recently infact, here and here This ultimately went to ANI and I also commented there.
• Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
  • Yes here and here.
• Joined a WikiProject?
  • Yes multiple, WikiProject Zoo, WikiProject Animal, WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and a few others, I am most active on the ones I have listed.
• Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
  • No however have assisted others in doing so.
• Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
  • Yes, Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve, Billabong Koala Park, Zoo and Aquarium Association. I also cleaned up WikiProject Zoo and WikiProject Animals.
• taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
  • After looking through them all, and considering each one, I dont feel I strictly adhere to any of them, I leant towards Semi-factionalism but reconsidered as I don't think joining anything is for fun. My position and views on wikipedia and the like constantly change, something I considered appropriate 6, 12 or 18 months ago may not be how I feel now. I would like to to think I can take a piece of each of philosophies and combine them into my own "ZooProism". I vary greatly on my positions at times, delete everything one day keep it all the next. I don't believe we should treat each article the same way as they are not all the same, nor is every situation. For example "Authorism vs. Communalism" I would be in between this, Yes editors who do a great deal of work on an article should be recognised for doing so, but not at the expense of improving the article or treating it as his or her own (we do after all list articles "we" have brought up to GA or FA standards on our user pages"). If I personally was going to change an article that I know another editor has poured his or her soul into I would run my suggestions past them, if they disagreed then I would take the issue to the talk page and gather additional opinion. I also have different views on adminship, it was once considered "no big deal" but now RfA's are a blood sport, and that in itself raises admins above other users because not everyone will pass an RfA, it became its own worst enemy on one hand telling everyone its no special position yet on the other hand ripping users to shreds just to be considered "worthy" of the tool. I give a great deal more respect to admins because of knowing what it takes to pass and how much crap needs to be endured to achieve the tools. My general philosophies on wikipedia are simple in the end "Treat others how you wish to be treated".
• helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
  • Yes I am a user there, I was recently re-activated after a period of inactivity and generally check in whilst I am editing on wikipedia.

IAR: The most important policy

From my experience here, I have to say that the whole of editing/administrating can be boiled down to one statement: IAR. It is the most important item our encyclopedia has, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Ideally, being an admin only entails two skills: Knowing the rules, and knowing when to ignore them. That's it. IAR covers all parts of the wiki, whether it be article writing, or maintenance, or working with other users (definitely in the latter). It is of prime importance in the "borderline case," which our RFA !voters love to refer to, and which I will try to refer to despite my dislike of such questions.

Whenever we have a problem--a wheel war, a bad block, edit wars, vandalism, and all those shenanigans--the problem really only comes from two sources: Not knowing the rules, or ignoring them improperly. Now in this coaching, I can really only tell you what the rules are and reinforce them in your mind. However, I encourage you to think beyond the rules and consider the causes and effects of going through with an action. You may find after doing this that what you had in mind isn't the best way of action.

• Which rules would be more likely to be ignored? Which would be least likely to be ignored?
  • Well first the least likely rules to be ignored is anything to do with BLP or anything relating to personal attacks thats pretty much common sense as it is a part of every society. The rules most likely to be ignored are ones that prevent you from making the project better or any rule/guideline that you think is just there to make life difficult. I have used IAR without even knowing it. I "hijacked" (declared myself the coordinator) WikiProject Animals, changed pretty much everything about it even down to the colour scheme, I didnt gain consensus, nor did I even mention anything about the changes on the talk page, Granted I was a new user and didnt really understand the rules and as it turned out I didnt need to. I performed a bold action that bettered the project and in doing so ignored a few rules and guidelines. I didnt even know about the WikiProject Council or its guidelines on WikiProjects and how you become a coordinator. I spammed editors with requests asking if they were active or not and eventually enough editors started editing with the project again to consider it active. It was at that point I requested an official vote of who should be coordinator and was elected by approval and am in my 3rd term. It just goes to show you dont need to know the rules to improve the project. I will ignore any rule that I personally think does no good to anyone or hinders someone from doing something good.

• If someone performs an action invoking IAR, but you disagree with it, how would you approach the situation? Can you think of a situation in which this is likely to happen?
  • I would ask them for a reason why they ignored the rule, IAR is not a get out of gaol (jail) free card and you must always be willing to back up your actions with a common sense reason. The only situation I have come across where a user has invoked IAR was on the ACC interface, A user went against guidelines and created an account (I am afraid I dont recall the details) I discussed the matter with the user on IRC and e-mail and there reason was that they personally believed the creation of the account was going to help the project, for some time I stalked the account in question and it turns out the user who invoked IAR was completely correct, the account that was created went on to edit wikipedia without incident.