Ready for the 3rd-degree? Okay, here goes...
This changes, from day to day, hour to hour. It's also changed as I've gained experience here. If you don't mind, I'll meld in the Why to this section, because I'm going to be awkward and give more than one answer.
Currently, I very much enjoy putting in quality spadework to get articles promoted to FA. I've done 2 and a third is close to FA status. I've worked in collaboration with some cricket WikiProject editors but my greatest partner in crime has been the indefatiguable Rambling Man, who (let's be fair about this) has done most of the work on the 3rd article.
From these activities, I derive considerable enjoyment. FA is the highest level of approval available in Wikipedia for an article's quality, as opposed to the merit of its topic.
I like to counter-point this (sometimes wearing) work with a mix of RC patrolling/Vandal bashing/Welcoming newbies/Conflict resolution and what I think of as "librarianship" at some of the ref desks. The first three are usually fairly easy to "get through" with a modicum of time invested, in other words, they're the exact opposite of the FA work - small investment for a small improvement here. Conflict resolution is something I find deeply satisfying. I like to do this from time to time. It takes a lot of time and effort and I try hard to be smart, so as not to antagonise situations further. My style is to be unilateral and make an effort to come out of left field. There are plenty of formal systems for this and currently, I'm not too interested in joining them. I hope I'm making a difference. Finally, the much-maligned Ref Desks. I think these are great. I dip in and out and make use of my own general (and specialist) knowledge and my Googling/WP-searching abilities. I spice it with a modicum of humour. I've learned not to make the first answer to a well-intentioned question too jokey.
I hope that just about covers What and why. Feel free to query me and point out where I'm outta line.
See above.
Ah. I'm rather low-tech. I've been using pop-ups for a while. I find it pretty useful, but it has some rather irritating aspects during editing, particularly when trying to cut and paste text that includes wikilinks. I had a comment from Glen that I should subst my warning messages. The ensuing debate (my atttidue here is slightly cocky, but I stand by it) led to him trying to boost my wikielbow by giving me "non admin tools". My monobook looked fabulous, the tools seemed brilliant... for the 0.3 seconds I could access Wikipedia before my humble laptop crashed. Again and again. Sadly, I've reverted back to simple pop-ups and I'm frankly reluctant to try out too much with my monobook. I am tempted to try downloading Firefox and give that a spin, but as I only own one of the machines I access WP from, I'll only tinker with that one. I occasionally make use of an edit counter (I placed a shortcut on my user page). I find this moderately interesting in an admittedly slightly self-absorbed manner, but I'm hardly obsessed with edit count etc. Mostly, I it's because at heart I'm a bit of a geek who likes stats. Recognise the cricket fan in me?
Glen's intervention was hugely welcome and disappointingly abortive. I recognise from pop-ups weedy abilities the utility of some of the tools that are out there, but I'm a little afraid of pushing my creaking kit too hard.
Policy, policy, policy. In answer to the next question, yes, I've read them, but reading em and absorbing em is two different fish. I recently was rightly upbraided for speedy tagging repost on a reposted article that hadn't been to AfD. I wasn't aware of the issue, though I've read the speedy criteria umpteen times... I must have just missed the detail, which is worrying. Interestingly, I then found it interesting that an admin can salt an article that's being reposted without having been to AfD. I find that contradictory. Ho hum. Anyway, my main point is that I was shocked to have made such a basic mistake.
I've been participating in XfD to hone my antennae. My modus operandi has been to find debates where I'm the first opinion, or at least an early one, so I'm unaffected by others' opinions, other than the nom. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was definitely inclusionist, but I now find myself more of an appropriatenessist.
Other than that, I think I'm pretty good on civility. I have had a very occasional aberration. I am very keen to reduce those to a nil level as an ongoing platform. Whether it's my fault or not, I pride myself on apologising for even an accusation of incivility and doing my best to redress the situation. In my opinion, if I've upset someone, my intentions at the time are irrelevant and at the least I'm guilty of clumsiness. This of course applies to good faith editors. I'm polite to vandals (I try to encourage them if I detect a chance of redemption... I quite like the {{silly}} tag, as it is less confrontational than others...
Interesting question. No. Many are not relevant to me. For example, I will never run a Bot and rarely participate in Bot related interaction.
Obviously, I've read the most relevant policies (3RR, Vandalism etc) which apply to work I do. But what I've found is that I read the policies as I uncover a need to use them. For example, I've recently discovered WP:RFCN and before I began interacting there (nice debating chamber) I read WP:U, as you'd hope (and expect!).
More to the point, if I might redirect the gist of your question, I find myself querying whether I really understand the policies and can apply them correctly. As I've already indicated, I have cause to question myself with these big questions. My best options, all of which I've undertaken, are:
Fortunately, I would modestly say that I respond well to constructive criticism and indeed welcome it (I seek it out - see 3, 4 and 5 above). I have learned tons since my first tentative steps here (check this for an embarrassing early edit, although in good faith of course) and I fully expect to continue learning, possibly by making mistakes and possibly after any successful RfA. I have heard that admins are human and occasionally get things wrong... -- Dweller 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's a start. More questions to come after you've answered those. The Transhumanist 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Some comments on the answers you posted above...
Understanding of policies lies in their context. Some ways to understand policies better are to:
To track down the cause of your laptop crashes, add one tool at a time to your monobook.js, and use it for awhile before adding the next one.
Some more questions for you:
The Transhumanist 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Question from Luckyluke:
Please provide the links to your FAs so we can learn from your activities and progress there. -TT
Hi there. Sure... I'm proud of them. All three (to-date) have been collaborations with User:The Rambling Man. Here they are, with some comments:
We're also close to taking Ipswich Town F.C. to WP:FAC. It's currently at peer review. We're waiting for a copyedit, as we dislike taking material to FAC until we're confident it's close to "approvable". Finally, we've just started work on our latest project, Norwich City F.C. -- Dweller 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What have you learned about getting articles through FA, that isn't covered in the instructions? -TT
Gosh. Lots. I'll try to distill it all. Some of this is in the instructions, but is worth picking out.
Might add more, as I think of it. -- Dweller 11:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Question from Luckyluke:
Given that we are all aspiring to be adminstrators and that you have participated in RfA discussions a fair bit, do you have a general criteria of what constitutes a successful RfA? This may sound like a stupid question given that if we all knew the criteria we wouldn't be here coaching each other. However, you are well experienced and I am interested in your views. I am most interested in the criteria you use to judge other editors - what do you look for, what pleases you, what doesn't, etc. Are there any special instances where an RfA can proceed successfully beyond the normal conventions (ex. would it be possible for a low edit count user to successfully pass an RfA, etc.)? Luke! 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a complex question and certain aspects are highly subjective. I'm going to break it down into the parts I perceive:
The following factors are a rough hierarchy. The higher up I've placed it, the more likely I am to oppose, if the candidate falls foul of it.
As I mentioned above, my third option is sometimes derided. However, a significant number of editors will usually oppose an inexperienced editor.
Bear in mind that this question is about the success of an RfA, not the likelihood of my support. Given that proviso...:
Hope that covers your interesting questions. Thanks! -- Dweller 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Until you're comfortable with policy and confident in your application of it, I recommend that you spend roughly half of your Wikipedia time on the following:
The other half of your time should be spent in the encyclopedia itself. After all, encyclopedia articles are the entire point.
The Transhumanist 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Update. I have now installed Firefox on one of the machines I use. I have installed a copy of your monobook and it's working (better than!) fine. I'm restricted to IE on other machines I use, so it remains to be seen if they'll tolerate the tools. Advice on "extensions" is welcomed. -- Dweller 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ready for the 3rd-degree? Okay, here goes...
This changes, from day to day, hour to hour. It's also changed as I've gained experience here. If you don't mind, I'll meld in the Why to this section, because I'm going to be awkward and give more than one answer.
Currently, I very much enjoy putting in quality spadework to get articles promoted to FA. I've done 2 and a third is close to FA status. I've worked in collaboration with some cricket WikiProject editors but my greatest partner in crime has been the indefatiguable Rambling Man, who (let's be fair about this) has done most of the work on the 3rd article.
From these activities, I derive considerable enjoyment. FA is the highest level of approval available in Wikipedia for an article's quality, as opposed to the merit of its topic.
I like to counter-point this (sometimes wearing) work with a mix of RC patrolling/Vandal bashing/Welcoming newbies/Conflict resolution and what I think of as "librarianship" at some of the ref desks. The first three are usually fairly easy to "get through" with a modicum of time invested, in other words, they're the exact opposite of the FA work - small investment for a small improvement here. Conflict resolution is something I find deeply satisfying. I like to do this from time to time. It takes a lot of time and effort and I try hard to be smart, so as not to antagonise situations further. My style is to be unilateral and make an effort to come out of left field. There are plenty of formal systems for this and currently, I'm not too interested in joining them. I hope I'm making a difference. Finally, the much-maligned Ref Desks. I think these are great. I dip in and out and make use of my own general (and specialist) knowledge and my Googling/WP-searching abilities. I spice it with a modicum of humour. I've learned not to make the first answer to a well-intentioned question too jokey.
I hope that just about covers What and why. Feel free to query me and point out where I'm outta line.
See above.
Ah. I'm rather low-tech. I've been using pop-ups for a while. I find it pretty useful, but it has some rather irritating aspects during editing, particularly when trying to cut and paste text that includes wikilinks. I had a comment from Glen that I should subst my warning messages. The ensuing debate (my atttidue here is slightly cocky, but I stand by it) led to him trying to boost my wikielbow by giving me "non admin tools". My monobook looked fabulous, the tools seemed brilliant... for the 0.3 seconds I could access Wikipedia before my humble laptop crashed. Again and again. Sadly, I've reverted back to simple pop-ups and I'm frankly reluctant to try out too much with my monobook. I am tempted to try downloading Firefox and give that a spin, but as I only own one of the machines I access WP from, I'll only tinker with that one. I occasionally make use of an edit counter (I placed a shortcut on my user page). I find this moderately interesting in an admittedly slightly self-absorbed manner, but I'm hardly obsessed with edit count etc. Mostly, I it's because at heart I'm a bit of a geek who likes stats. Recognise the cricket fan in me?
Glen's intervention was hugely welcome and disappointingly abortive. I recognise from pop-ups weedy abilities the utility of some of the tools that are out there, but I'm a little afraid of pushing my creaking kit too hard.
Policy, policy, policy. In answer to the next question, yes, I've read them, but reading em and absorbing em is two different fish. I recently was rightly upbraided for speedy tagging repost on a reposted article that hadn't been to AfD. I wasn't aware of the issue, though I've read the speedy criteria umpteen times... I must have just missed the detail, which is worrying. Interestingly, I then found it interesting that an admin can salt an article that's being reposted without having been to AfD. I find that contradictory. Ho hum. Anyway, my main point is that I was shocked to have made such a basic mistake.
I've been participating in XfD to hone my antennae. My modus operandi has been to find debates where I'm the first opinion, or at least an early one, so I'm unaffected by others' opinions, other than the nom. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was definitely inclusionist, but I now find myself more of an appropriatenessist.
Other than that, I think I'm pretty good on civility. I have had a very occasional aberration. I am very keen to reduce those to a nil level as an ongoing platform. Whether it's my fault or not, I pride myself on apologising for even an accusation of incivility and doing my best to redress the situation. In my opinion, if I've upset someone, my intentions at the time are irrelevant and at the least I'm guilty of clumsiness. This of course applies to good faith editors. I'm polite to vandals (I try to encourage them if I detect a chance of redemption... I quite like the {{silly}} tag, as it is less confrontational than others...
Interesting question. No. Many are not relevant to me. For example, I will never run a Bot and rarely participate in Bot related interaction.
Obviously, I've read the most relevant policies (3RR, Vandalism etc) which apply to work I do. But what I've found is that I read the policies as I uncover a need to use them. For example, I've recently discovered WP:RFCN and before I began interacting there (nice debating chamber) I read WP:U, as you'd hope (and expect!).
More to the point, if I might redirect the gist of your question, I find myself querying whether I really understand the policies and can apply them correctly. As I've already indicated, I have cause to question myself with these big questions. My best options, all of which I've undertaken, are:
Fortunately, I would modestly say that I respond well to constructive criticism and indeed welcome it (I seek it out - see 3, 4 and 5 above). I have learned tons since my first tentative steps here (check this for an embarrassing early edit, although in good faith of course) and I fully expect to continue learning, possibly by making mistakes and possibly after any successful RfA. I have heard that admins are human and occasionally get things wrong... -- Dweller 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's a start. More questions to come after you've answered those. The Transhumanist 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Some comments on the answers you posted above...
Understanding of policies lies in their context. Some ways to understand policies better are to:
To track down the cause of your laptop crashes, add one tool at a time to your monobook.js, and use it for awhile before adding the next one.
Some more questions for you:
The Transhumanist 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Question from Luckyluke:
Please provide the links to your FAs so we can learn from your activities and progress there. -TT
Hi there. Sure... I'm proud of them. All three (to-date) have been collaborations with User:The Rambling Man. Here they are, with some comments:
We're also close to taking Ipswich Town F.C. to WP:FAC. It's currently at peer review. We're waiting for a copyedit, as we dislike taking material to FAC until we're confident it's close to "approvable". Finally, we've just started work on our latest project, Norwich City F.C. -- Dweller 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What have you learned about getting articles through FA, that isn't covered in the instructions? -TT
Gosh. Lots. I'll try to distill it all. Some of this is in the instructions, but is worth picking out.
Might add more, as I think of it. -- Dweller 11:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Question from Luckyluke:
Given that we are all aspiring to be adminstrators and that you have participated in RfA discussions a fair bit, do you have a general criteria of what constitutes a successful RfA? This may sound like a stupid question given that if we all knew the criteria we wouldn't be here coaching each other. However, you are well experienced and I am interested in your views. I am most interested in the criteria you use to judge other editors - what do you look for, what pleases you, what doesn't, etc. Are there any special instances where an RfA can proceed successfully beyond the normal conventions (ex. would it be possible for a low edit count user to successfully pass an RfA, etc.)? Luke! 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a complex question and certain aspects are highly subjective. I'm going to break it down into the parts I perceive:
The following factors are a rough hierarchy. The higher up I've placed it, the more likely I am to oppose, if the candidate falls foul of it.
As I mentioned above, my third option is sometimes derided. However, a significant number of editors will usually oppose an inexperienced editor.
Bear in mind that this question is about the success of an RfA, not the likelihood of my support. Given that proviso...:
Hope that covers your interesting questions. Thanks! -- Dweller 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Until you're comfortable with policy and confident in your application of it, I recommend that you spend roughly half of your Wikipedia time on the following:
The other half of your time should be spent in the encyclopedia itself. After all, encyclopedia articles are the entire point.
The Transhumanist 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Update. I have now installed Firefox on one of the machines I use. I have installed a copy of your monobook and it's working (better than!) fine. I'm restricted to IE on other machines I use, so it remains to be seen if they'll tolerate the tools. Advice on "extensions" is welcomed. -- Dweller 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)