Admin coaching now in session!

For GlassCobra

Edit count[edit]

Just as a reference, see where you're most active! As of Fri Oct 12 21:35:52 2007 GMT using Interiots wannabe Kate tool:

Image:	7
Mainspace	1048
Talk:	42
Template talk:	4
Template:	20
User talk:	1406
User:	310
Wikipedia talk:	19
Wikipedia:	571
avg edits per page	2.11
earliest	06:02, 30 April 2007
number of unique pages	1626
total	3427

RfA stock questions[edit]

I'll get you to answer these, not for practise but rather so I can see where you feel your strengths are (and subsequent weaknesses - if any :)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The number one task I would use the tools for would be to fight vandalism, plain and simple. Upholding the quality of articles is paramount. Being given the extra buttons will certainly speed things up, especially at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, where I'm already pretty active, as well as Newpages and Recentchanges patrol. As an admin, I'd be able to more efficiently deal with persistent vandals and spammers with blocks, as well as help out at WP:RFPP. I'm not terribly active at WP:ANI at the moment, though that and WP:AN would certainly go up were I to get the mop. I could also delete pages at AfD as consented by the community. I've got over a thousand mainspace edits, and I only predict that going up. What I'd really like to try my hand at is going through the massive amount of backlogs, both regular and administrative, that we've accumulated. We have thousands upon thousands of pages of CSDs and PRODs to be deleted, articles to be cleaned up and referenced, neutralized and categorized. I'd also like to get more involved with policy discussions.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Some people who require an FA from an admin candidate will object to my lack of fulfillment in this particular criteria; however, this isn't for lack of knowledge of our writing standards. Rather, I feel that while it is very important that we improve as many articles as we can to a level on par with the professional paper encyclopedias, it is also our duty as an online encyclopedia to have as many articles as possible at even a readable level, a level that will make it at least useful to someone trying to do research on a particular subject. We have a host of editors dedicated to the task of improving articles to FA status, and I trust their judgement. While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up, I don't really think any of those are worth bragging about. I do have one GA that I wrote and got promoted almost entirely by myself, Manila Hotel. You can see that I was the one that tagged it with a CSD almost immediately after it was created as a one sentence stub that said "Built in 1919." Indeed, if I hadn't done some quick research, this article probably would have been lost. I spent about a day researching and writing the article, and got a great rush when it was awarded GA status. I'm very proud of my contributions to the Redwall WikiProject, including making all of the articles in Category:Redwall characters consistent. I'm also proud of my defense against vandalism, particularly on Spells in Harry Potter, The End's Not Near, It's Here, and List of gay and bisexual persons in film, radio, and TV fiction, among others.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: To date, I haven't been in any truly major conflicts, though I've been involved in some very heavy edit warring on vandalism on various articles, especially Spells in Harry Potter, and brushed against the 3RR rule, also on the aforementioned article. I am sometimes frustrated by our policies, but I know that they are vitally important to keep us from descending into chaos. I am not afraid to ask for help when I need it, or to solicit third, fourth, or fiftieth opinions on matters. I'm confident that I can keep my cool as an admin; I can comfortably stand by my positions if I'm confident in their basis, but I'm not so stubborn that I'm unwilling to yield in the face of good arguments. I am perfectly aware that being an administrator inherently comes with more controversy and more conflicts, as many decisions are not black-and-white and are bound to create discord. I await the challenge. The editing conflicts that occasionally arise here are a very small downside to the benefits of having a free enycylopedia which is built by thousands of volunteers from all corners of the planet. Wikipedia's open sourced nature, the concept of "anyone can edit", will inevitably lead to people who are overenthusiastic or have differing opinions on what should be included or what should not, and this is truly what makes it great.

Optional questions[edit]

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?

   A: Patience. Lots and lots of patience. That's first and foremost. An admin has to deal with a broad range of users, from blatant vandals to fledgling newbies to seasoned veterans, on a regular basis, and must be prepared to deal with them all effectively. As we all know, adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal, and I think that a good admin should be able to admit mistakes. It will happen; we're all human. At the same time, an admin should also be able to stand by his or her decisions and actions if necessary as well.

2. Why do you want to be an admin? (Personally, as opposed to the technical aspects in required question 1)

   A: To be honest, my personal reasons are greatly intertwined with the technical reasons. I think that having the extra tools would allow me to serve Wikipedia better. Being an admin will allow me to do more and help more in a better capacity than I could as a regular editor.

3. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   A: This question is a little ambiguous. If a CheckUser has come back with undeniable evidence, then the user will have to be blocked, no matter how well-known they are. However, if only I personally suspect the user of sockpuppetry, I'd use the proper avenues (WP:SSP, etc.) to find out, but only after I've discussed it at length with the user.

4. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

   A: I guess removing vandalism, though we wouldn't really need admins much if that happened. :) If we're talking realistically, though, I'm always staggered by how many policies and guidelines that we have here. For example, just the other day I asked a question here and consequently was informed about WP:NOPRO, which I had no idea existed. It must be tough even for administators to keep them all straight, and to ask regular editors to know them all is even harder. I'm sure that a lot of people skim over them or just skip reading them altogether. Maybe we could re-organize things or shorten them a bit to increase accessibility to new users.

5. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

   A: Indefinite blocks only come from obvious recurrent vandalism, failure to compromise with other editors on content disputes after smaller cooldown blocks don't solve the problem(yow -- just read WP:CDB, I guess you learn something new every day!), and other serious infractions of that nature.

6. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

   A: Since AfD isn't a vote, it would have to depend on the points that were made. If the arguments are in favor of deletion, the result would be delete. However, if the arguments are valid, even if they're made by potential sock/meatpuppets, the result would be keep.

7. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   A: The position of administator is and must be both technical and political. While we say that adminship isn't a big deal, the fact remains that administrators have capabilities that regular editors do not, and that can lead to conflicts, as every admin knows. Whether its deleting articles or protecting pages or any other duty that can lead to a confrontation with an angry editor, admins must be representatives of the Wikipedia community as a whole, and must conduct themselves as such.

8. We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?

   A: I suppose it could be possible for an article to be improved by a bad faith edit; I've personally never seen it and don't really expect to, but it's certainly a possibility. If a bad faith edit were made that had some potential to increase the article overall, I would step up and make whatever changes as were necessary to complete the improvement, or help other editors to do so.

9. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

   A: The most frustrating thing on Wikipedia, for me, is being on Newpages and seeing the floods of articles about ridiculous games made up in school, bands made by 8th graders, and of course the classic "JOANY LUVS DANI!!!!1" As a regular editor, I can only tag them with CSDs and wait for an admin to come around and delete it, while more edits are made and more pages are created. As an admin, I could deal with these more efficiently and effectively.

10. Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?

    A: All areas of editing are important; as I observe in almost every RfA that I participate in or read, editors look for a wide spread of edits over many namespaces. Anyone that looks at my edit count can see that the majority of my edits are in the user talkspace. I'm very diligent about warning users whose vandalism I revert or pages that I tag with CSDs. Additionally, talkspace is particularly important in communicating with users when dealing with content conflicts.

11. Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.

    A: I try not to have stock criteria when voting in an RfA. I do consider edit count, but it's not fair to automatically fail someone simply because they haven't met some magic number of edits. It's not as if the candidate will suddenly be ready to be an admin at 3000 edits when they weren't at 2999. Other things that I consider are my previous interactions with the editor, if any, and their general WikiAttitude. It's important to get a feel for candidate's general outlook and feel about what they do here.

12. Bonus Question Three parts; a) If successful, will you consider the admin recall category? b) Take a look at Category:Rouge admins - would you see yourself there? c) What is WP:IAR and what situations do you feel its application is warranted?

    A: a) Absolutely; I said in my optional statement that I would most definitely add myself (different than being willing to add myself) to the category. Just because I pass an RfA once should not mean that I'm set for life. This is actually similar to a belief that I hold about driver's licenses; it seems to me that a lot of bad driving could be solved by occasionally requiring drivers to re-take the test. Now, this is not to say that I want to be recalled a whole bunch of times; but I do want to get the message across that I will hold myself to a very high standard, and expect others to do the same, not only of me, but of themselves.

    b) To be honest, I don't see myself as that "rouge"-y an admin. Wikipedia has its guidelines and policies for a reason. On the Rouge-o-meter, I'd place myself somewhere around...yellowish, most likely. I have a lot of respect for precedent and policy, but I'm not afraid to be bold on occasion, either.

    c) IAR is the last resort if policy is impeding the improvement of an article. I've never seen it cited (properly), aside from exceptions to policies. Indeed, since it is a final measure, it should only be used in the direst of circumstances.

The candidate may make an optional statement here[edit]

• I've been with the project since late April of this year, but I dove right in, getting myself involved in as many places as I could find, trying to learn everything I could. My most passionate involvement here is and probably always will be combating vandalism. There's a discrepancy of some 900 edits between my WannabeKate and my actual edit count, from edits on deleted articles. I'm active at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:UAA, the Help Desk (and I keep an eye on various other help forums), and am relatively active here at RfA as well. I'm very proud of my contributions at WikiProject Redwall, including reviving it after it had been tagged as inactive. We're currently working on developing a quality scale to judge articles, as well as creating a Redwall portal. If sysopped, I'd immediately place myself into Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall; I want to remain as open as I possibly can. I'm not going to pretend that I know every nook and cranny of this place, especially the minutia of image copyright policy. If I get the tools, I will start out very slow to get a feel for them, but I am an eager and quick learner. I see being an admin as an area of learning and building up knowledge through practical experience. However, it is also my belief that Wikipedia is a perpetual learning experience; as the project grows and evolves, so must we all. I want to help Wikipedia run smoothly as possible. I can already do this on some level without being an admin, but I can do more by being one.

Vandalism test[edit]

Vandalism or not??? Yay or nay and why:

1. [1] - Obvious vandalism; addition of a clearly non-notable figure
2. [2] - Vandalism; insertion of unrelated math formula
3. [3] - Vandalism; insult/attack
4. [4] - This is vandalism removal. Was the question supposed to be about the previous edit? If so, I'd probably revert it as being unsourced, but it's not straight vandalism
5. [5] - Not vandalism, but I'd revert it in the interest of coherency for the article
6. [6] - Again, not straight vandalism, but it's sort of redundant and doesn't add anything of importance to the article

Speedy delete or not?[edit]

The following are examples of pages tagged by users and are sitting in the speedy deletion category. As an admin, can you tell me a) if the article should be deleted and b) under what criteria;

1. CSD1 - The band is notable, the single member not so much. I'd probably redirect it to The X Factor (UK series 3), which Eton Road redirects to.
2. CSD2 - Google News returns a few hits; I'd probably add what I could and/or tag it with {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}
3. CSD3 - Only 600 Google hits, many of which aren't even about the company. I'd say it's close, but this would be speedied per A7
4. CSD4 - Speedy per G1
5. CSD5 - This one's tough, they did shows around London and had an album. I'd take it to AfD to get a consensus

Questions you've got for me re any facets of adminship or the RfA itself?[edit]

Misc comments/additions[edit]