User:NativeForeigner/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Traditional RFA questions[edit]

I like to start off with these questions because they act as a good summary of your goals and accomplishments.

  • What admin areas are you most interested in working in?
    • At this point, I would like to work with speedy deletions, AIV, and anything where the backlog is long. I have already worked quite a bit against vandalism, and done a decent
  • What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
    • Up to this point, only a few vandalizations of my page after vandal work have really caused stress. I have not participated in many controversial topics at all.
  • What do you believe are your best contributions?
    • I am primarily proud of my anti vandal work. However I did a large amount of manually editing and fixing templates when the old template was deprecated for WP:AIR. Though not difficult, I feel that it really helped the project.

The above is very concise: what I have done is simple, and not of high controversiality. I would like to get more involved in article writing, but am not sure exactly how to proceed. NativeForeigner (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any fields of personal interest? That's usually the best place to start. bibliomaniac15 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Korean culture, military history, and medical issues regarding spinal fusion and congenital defects are probably my areas of interest. In all of these areas though although I am interested i don't hold that much information. I suppose researching these topics would be a good place to start. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only those, but there are also WikiProjects related to fixing up articles: WikiProjects Red Link Recovery, Wikify, Dead-end pages, Wanted articles, Articles requested for more than 1 year, and Missing articles. If cleanup and rehabilitation is more of your forte instead of hard research, then that's the way to go. bibliomaniac15 00:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, and happy new year. I'll be off wiki for a couple days, but I'll resume on Sunday. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on Lac_Doré_Vanadium_Deposit. What needs to be done and how does it look so far. (I know that it is far from good.) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting topic in a field that needs a lot more expansion, as evidenced by the redlinks. The redlinks seem to be the main problem to me. bibliomaniac15 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

The next step is what I call the checklist. Wikipedia is a very broad place, with a lot of places to exercise your interests. Please fill out the checklist. While I don't require you to do everything here, if you haven't tried something out, I encourage you to take a look over there; you never know if it's right for you.

  • !voted in an RFA?
    •  Done
  • Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
    •  Done
  • Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
    •  Done
  • Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
    •  Done
  • Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
    •  Not done
  • Had an editor review yourself?
    •  Done
  • Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
    •  Done
  • Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
    •  Done
  • What XFD's have you participated in? I think only AfD, and maybe one or two CfD and a FfD
    • Not sure
  • Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
    •  Done and  Done
  • Uploaded an image?
    •  Done
  • Welcomed a user?
    •  Done
  • Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    •  Done
  • Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    •  Not done  Done &  Done
  • Joined a WikiProject?
    •  Done
  • Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
  • Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
    •  Doing... Done
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
    • I follow the philosophies of:
      • Moderate immediatism
      • Moderate anti-statusquoism
      • In between Communityism and Encyclopedyism
      • Mild Communalism
      • Rehabilism
      • Wikipacifist, although I dislike how passive they portray it, in some cases a couple reverts seem to be appropriate
      • admins are janitors, but assuming a somewhat higher level of knowledge of policy is not unreasonable
      • Neutrality: elusive virtue
      • semifactionalism
      • proceduarlism, but keep in mind that it may have to be repeated to keep whatever breaches you note from being buried.
    •  Done
  • helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
    •  Done

I'm looking into writing an article on Apella Resources Inc. and Donner Ski Ranch, so that's what's on my plate right now. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated as of 03:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The role of adminship[edit]

Throughout Wikipedia's history, the role of the administrator has changed vastly throughout the years. When I first started editing, up until I underwent RFA, the admin role was relatively based on, well, administration. While today a vandal-fighter would be very hard pressed to pass RFA, back then one could probably guess that they were the most common. Much more stock was placed on the processes that maintained the encyclopedia in a stable environment. For this reason, adminship was not seen as such a big deal.

The role of the administrator has shifted now, for several reasons. The advent of very high-speed reverters such as WP:HUGGLE decreased the threat of vandalism; while Willy on Wheels made us sweat five years ago, today we have faced off Grawp and his minions without a sweat. Increased media attention has certainly made us put more emphasis on notability and WP:BLP issues than we did in the past. Long-term grudges have also gone on, and enough time has passed so that we can see the effects of these. It's issues like these that have added up to a more proactive role of adminship, demanding a well-roundedness that by my view is not particularly practical.

  1. Are admins capable of sanctioning under the name of the community? If so, should they be allowed to do so?
    Admins are capable of sanctioning under the name of the community when it comes down to WP:AN and all of the subcategories when there is a consensus. Admins, in these categories must do so. It's more debatable in areas such as WP:AIV but in any case, it's implied that they are sanctioning in the name of the community. One would hope that sanctions do reflect the wishes of the community.
  2. Is adminship a big deal?
    Adminship is really only as big a deal as one makes it. Adminship is simply giving a trusted user more janitorial tools. However, on this project, as mentioned above it has gone far beyond that into a user who can lead other users by example, write FAs, resolve disputes, and be God. I've noticed that in recent RfAs some people see adminship as a trophy, and in other cases accuse users as seeing it as such. Certainly, in my mind adminship is simply the ability to
  3. How well-rounded do you feel an admin hopeful's experience should be?
    Because of the new expectations, an admin should at least know what's going on in almost all administrative areas. They should participate in a lot of them at least a few times, and should know a couple well. In non administrative areas, image areas, categories etc aren't terribly important if you don't plan dealing there, especially if you have common sense. Article writing is debatable, but some sort of cleanup in article space would be good to have, as opposed to pure vandal work.

Totally unrelated, I noticed your two automated edits. :P NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin behavior[edit]

As a subset of what I like to call "admin thought" is the study of admin behavior. I believe that we could always use administrators, but at the time being we have quite a few. It should come as no surprise, then, that much of the community's focus is on recall and aspects relating to existing admins as opposed to potential admins.

  • Which is the higher standard for an admin: ability or behavior? Is a very skilled admin or an admin who acts as a role model the better one?
    • Admins were never set out to be role models, and although general an admin can be looked up to as a role model, it is not their primary concern. A functional administrator who may not be considered to have amazing content contributions, is (in the admin arena) better than an admin who has tools, but is not as capable at using them.
  • Do you believe admins should be open to recall? If so, why should they be able to be recalled? Feel free to discuss possible mechanisms of recall that you have in your mind.
    • Administrators should be open to recall. Recall should probably fall under misuse of admin tools, poor general performance, or sever incivility. I've noticed that many users say 'I'll resign if 5 users in good standing approach me'. I'm not very enthusiastic about this, because it does have potential for a group of users to take out another user (real cynical) I'm more open to a 'five user nom, greater than fifty percent of users in good standing wish for desysopping'approve of method.
  • Admins (and even a crat) have had their tools revoked for incidents that did not regard their use of administrative tools. Do you believe in this practice?
    • This is a fine line. If sanctions would not have been placed on a user without admin tools, in an area entirely separate than admin tools this seems reasonable. However, admins are (non-officially) held to a higher standard, and in cases of major problems, poor judgement without the usage of tools could give adequate reason to believe that they will make poor choices with the tools. However, when a user without admin tools would not be punished, and community trust is not lost, admin tools should not be lost. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you do in this specific (and real-life example)? A bureaucrat was found to have edited articles of corporations for pay. With this discovery he was stripped of his tools. Was it justified?
        • This is a gray area, seeing as there is no policy per se, on pay. People are strongly encouraged against it, and if the editor introduced COI/denied what he did, it seems a blatant enough offense to warrant the removal of tools, if only because it severely impacts the trust the community has. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Wikipedia is an ever-changing resource, which has had a lot to do with its successes. This month I came into the third year that I have been a sysop here, and even just among the tools a lot has changed, not to mention the people, the standards, and the technical resources. I'd like to know what you think the future of Wikipedia should be.

  • First, just as a curiosity question. Are you using the new Vector skin right now, the former Monobook, or the skin of your own preference besides either of the two?
    • At the moment I'm using vector, although because of my fairly frequent use of DYKchecker, unless if it is written for vector I'll probably switch back. I've only been on vector for a couple days now.
  • What do you feel is the general atmosphere of Wikipedia as a community? For the time you've stayed here, do you believe that its atmosphere is generally positive or negative to collaboration?
    • For better or for worse Wikipedia has microcosms. Although I won't be specific there are some groups of individuals that tend to dramatize and/or bureaucratize matters when they don't need to be, and are not very forgiving of past mistakes. However, the general atmosphere that I have seen is generally positive. One must keep in mind that although there are numerous arbcom cases, that many editors simply stay in their areas writing articles and never cause problems. At this moment, however, ANI and AN seem to have calmed down, and as content disputes are resolved and precedents are set, Wikipedia is generally positive to collaboration.
  • What do you believe Wikipedia should expand into from a technical viewpoint to augment the editing experience?
    • From a technical viewpoint, a more graphical editor would be nice for new editors. Now, although there is a graph editor, some of the syntax seems a little strange to somebody looking in, and so it becomes difficult for newer editors to fix formatting errors. Also, the issues of the server getting backed up is a problem, and of course more bandwidth is always welcome, but having dealt with IT systems some, I'm aware at how difficult it would be to get enough bandwidth/server capacity given the number of visits. In terms of cross wiki integration, I would like to see it made easier to tell when files are on other projects. As of current they need to be tagged, and then deleted, and as I've done a fairly large number of file transfers, and it is now one of the areas where I would use the mop, it would simplify it to be able to know for sure when duplicates exist. An improvement of the search feature couldn't hurt as well, I often find myself using Google search to find articles on Wikipedia. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NativeForeigner/Admin_coaching&oldid=1078973605"