User:Fetofs/coaching

This page will be used for my admin coaching, with DakotaKahn and Friday.

RFA

I think I'm an overall good user. I have contributed to WP:AFD and even closed some debates where the articles had been speedied by another user. I revert vandalism frequently, and have tagged a lot of new pages for speedy deletion in new pages patrol. I also have quite an experience with helping newbies out at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and at the Help Desk. This has led me into finding many policies I didn't even know that existed, and proves that I try to be always patient and ready to help (I looked out for the answer of one user for an hour). For those who care about edit counts, I have over 2000 edits, of those 556 are in the project namespace and 73 in project talk. Although I don't edit much per day, I spend 99% of my time online at the encyclopedia (5 hours or so), mostly reading and looking for minor and/or formatting errors. What I stated above are the reasons by which I think I should be a Wikipedia admin.

RFA questions

Guided by Friday, I'm putting the questions here. If you want to aadd more to the bottom, feel free to do so!

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.

I plan on helping with the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AFD debates and RC patrolling with the rollback tool and the blocking tools, maybe checking WP:AIV as well.

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

My strong point is surely not contributing to articles, and I haven't done any contributions I could really satisfy myself with. I don't write much, because I think that I don't have the skills required to write a good article, nor do I have the knowledge to, and that's why I want to help the community anyway I can. My main contributions are at Tietê River, Baillie-PSW primality test and Laura Z. Hobson.

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?

I don't think I've ever been in any conflicts regarding editing. However, I can do say what I've learned from experience and hope to follow in the future, that conflicts are much better solved if you keep yourself cool and analyse both sides of the argument.

4. (suggested question from Friday) What do you think of the "process versus product" issue? When do you think it's appropriate to ignore standard procedures in favor of doing something else?

Every case is different, and I would only ignore standard procedures when I've already asked for the opinion of the community on that and I feel we have nothing to lose and some to win with that attitude.

5. (another suggestion) Do you feel you've made any mistakes while editing? If so, what did you do upon realizing your mistake? Is there anything you've done that other editors appeared to have considered a mistake, whether you thought it was or not?

I feel I've made lots of mistakes in my beginning at Wikipedia, but I was too new to go back and check what others thought of that mistake. The only mistake I got warned of was mistaking good faith edits by an anon for vandalism and reverting it. He reverted me back and I learnt not to put myself editing content I do not know nothing about.

6. In your own words, tell us what you think the most important traditions and/or rules are at Wikipedia, and why they're important. These can be things that may or may not be official policy- I'm asking for your own personal opinions as well as your interpretation of policies. What are your thoughts on the role of admins in enforcing policy?

The most important traditions and/or rules at Wikipedia, for me, are the key principles, to which we hold on into building an encyclopedia and everyone knows by heart. That would probably be WP:NPOV, WP:BB, WP:NOT, WP:8W (consequently, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) and, something which every editor on this site finds quite important - the third pillar of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I find that consensus is only a bit different(because everybody gets to interact, support and oppose) and, therefore, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are very important in those interactions (that would be [WP:5P|the fourth pillar]]).

I personally don't like the WP:IAR thing, as it can be used to justify unilateral (read not consensual) actions without any need for discussion by trolls.

An admin should enforce the policy wholeheartedly, just like a normal editor would - warning users about disrespect to policy and trying to avoid being warned by that, in extreme cases blocking. Admins shouldn't disrespect policy, but if they disagree with it, they should propose changes (as they probably have a reason to disagree that should be heard). After that, if users still disagree, and the old policy is consensual even with the reasons transparent, the admin should follow it even if he disagrees.

7. If you're doing RC patrol and looking at things that have been tagged as speedies, deletion will obviously be part of your work. Deletions can, of course, be controversial. How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd? How do you typically deal with an article that's been tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied? What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria? Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content apart from the various deletion methods? Ideally I'd like examples, but I realize this is less practical because things that have been actually deleted are harder to look at.

Wow, those are a lot of questions into one! Therefore, I'll answer it into sections:

How do you typically deal with an article that's been tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied?

First and foremost principle of speedy deletion - they should not be controversial. If it meets WP:CSD it's deleted, if it doesn't (and I would have a reason to think so), I'd remove the speedy tag, probably explaining on the talk page; if I think it should be deleted anyway, I'd have PROD'ed it (as an article that looked like a speedy wouldn't have any controversy); if I think it should be kept but it's not clearly a keep, I'd let the community decide. If the speedy request was of an article that shouldn't be deleted at all (probably not knowing policy or in bad faith), I'd just have removed the tag. Of course, I'd explain my rationale to the original tagger in all of those alternatives.

How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd?

Speedy deletion is just for articles that meet WP:CSD, avoiding to have to follow the process when the article obviously wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to achieve success. PROD is for obvious deletions that are not so obvious to be speedies but aren't likely to be contested. Although they "aren't likely" to be contested, some are. They avoid unnecessary discussion on WP:AFD. WP:AFD should only be used for articles that the nom think have a chance to be kept on the community discussion. That is good, as it can normally define the community consensus on controversial deletions.

What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria?

Well, if "borderline" means meeting WP:CSD, I'd probably be on the safe side and tag it instead of deleting, that way I have two admin's opinions on the subject. If the second admin contests it, it's a sign that the speedy is not so obvious, but then there's no problem, as a PROD after that would be extremely likely to achieve success without any controversy that my speedy would cause. Anyway, trying for the speedy gives less problems than trying a PROD.

Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content apart from the various deletion methods?

Well, past revisions can always be restored and the undesirable content can always be substituted (even a stub is good), without needing to go through actual deletion. But when the title and/or subject of the article is something that doesn't merit having an article (i.e. Vanity, nn articles or just plain nonsense) deletion is the only alternative.

To do

Mainspace--Article talk edits: Much much too low at this time (6) . This needs to increase at the very least to 100 preferably over 200+. Edit more articles, typo, clean up, wikify and always explain or suggest changes on the article talk page. Comment on articles that you are interested in.

User talk needs to increase this will happen when you begin spreading edits out more.

Wikipedia edits: At 440 right now. Participate in WP:RFA ,

Suggestions--Participate in WP:RFA , AfD, CfC, IfD, TfD

WP:AIV when you list there be sure that test have been placed on the talk page.

Always leave edit summaries. If you need it there is a user script to force that.

Your edit history is good but work just a bit more on article talk edits.

I am not especially concerned with edit count but rather the scope of the edits. So far you have 29 talk edits. You can comment on articles you have interest in and new articles and the talk edits will build. Please look at the Rfa comments to see the importance that is attached to it.--Dakota ~ 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 29 is very low, I hadn't realized that. Finding articles that need help (content disputes, POV issues, OR issues) and giving input on the talk page is a great way to demonstrate your depth of experience as an editor (and it helps the articles, too). Friday (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is that how can I contribute to a content dispute that I know nothing about? And how could I find a POV issue that needs people commenting? F e tofs ^Hello! 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, sometimes you can't. But, anyone who understands WP:V and WP:NOR may be able to help in some situations, regardless of knowledge of the specific topic of the article. I sometimes find articles that are in dispute by looking at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, recent changes, or people's talk pages. If you find edit warring or other problems, try to help resolve the issue on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my first try at trying to solve an issue is at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Elo_rating_system. I'd never think solving disputes would be so remarkably hard, and it's a very simple one. F e tofs ^Hello! 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)