User:Fox/Admin coaching/WBOSITG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introduction[edit]

I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into four phases:

  • Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
  • Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.
  • Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
  • Phase four will be a mop up phase. We will work on whatever else you or I feel the need to cover.

After completing the four phases, I will nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one!

Phase 1[edit]

The checklist[edit]

Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
    • Yes, quite regularly.
  • listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
    • I think it's about 70 now, not certain though.
  • requested a page to WP:RPP?
    • Yes, the article was Tank. It was protected for a week.
  • had an editor review?
  • reviewed another editor at editor review?
    • No, but I was going to. It's a very difficult thing to do. Yes, I now have.
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
    • I've read parts of it. It doesn't really interest me.
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
  • posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
    • Yes, I regularly help out there.
  • uploaded an image?
    • Yes.
  • welcomed a user?
    • Yes.
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    • No, not to date.
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    • Yes, I got edit-conflicted seven times (!)
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
    • I hadn't before, but I have now. Of the philosophies listed, I would say the most important is the eventualism vs. immediatism one - I'd say I was the latter.

Your RFA[edit]

We must now take a look at your first RFA here.

Reasons for Failure[edit]

The Following are what I can see from a cursory look over. Feel free to add anything I've missed, or respond to any of them.

  • Low edit count
    • Fixed now
  • Poor knowledge of policy
    • To be remedied
  • Lack of experience in admin-related tasks
    • Your XFD work as stated above and anti-vandalism work seems good.
  • Poor answers to questions
    • To be remedied
  • SIP knowledge
    • fixed now, I looked up the page after the RfA.

Questions[edit]

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. Definitely without a doubt the portal I created and effectively run (although I don't due to WP:OWN :P ), which will hopefully be promoted to featured status in the near future.
Update: It is now featured. Hooray!
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. Not really. I filter between many different kinds of articles, from James Bond to schools in Aberdeen.
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. I don't spend too much time fighting vandalism, it merely contributes a great deal to ones edit count :P I have spent a lot more time writing articles in the long run, but now I don't have much of a focus and so I would say I spend roughly 50% vandal fighting and perhaps 50% article/portal writing.
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. Not particularly, I really should more often. I do voice my opinion on occasion and nominate a few things as well, when I see them.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. Interesting question. I would say that Huggle is a big weakness, or rather is a cause of weakness. It is very easy to make mistakes with the software, but I am getting more and more used to it as I use it more.
6. What kind of editing habits do you have? Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
A. When I go on, I check my messages (if I have any), I check any discussions I'm involved in (WP:FPOC, WP:AfD etc) and then either use Huggle or fix a few portals. I need to change my watchlist as it currently unmanageable...
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. I enjoy editing Wikipedia because I believe I am a part of a large community, one who are all working together to form a comprehensive encyclopedia, which is always updated, and will help the world in so many ways. Call me crazy, but...
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. I would read up on closing AfDs and, possibly, blocking users/IPs, solely because these actions, if done wrongly, can send future editors away from the website. I would avoid closing RfAs per WP:SNOW because I do not feel this is fair, even if it makes sense.
9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. Being an admin on another Wikipedia there are many features of adminship I have had experience with. However there is bound to have been something I've missed, for instance, granting rollback.
Oh gosh that is hard to understand =P. But then again I don't live in Scotland...

Phase 2[edit]

Blocking[edit]

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A. Should I copy and paste, or what?  ;)
  1. Check the user contributions to see if the report is valid.
    If it isn't, use {{uw-aiv}} on the reporters page.
  2. Check the talk page to see if they have been given a final warning.
  3. Check the deleted contribs to determine the length of the block.
    An indef block if the account is only for vandalism.
    Don't forget to check the WHOIS if it is an IP address.
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. If the user/IP has not been given a final warning, or have not vandalised for a long time.
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Never. They only stir the situation.
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. I'd decline the request. It gives the user a block - effectively a scar on future contribution. I would tell them about the WikiBreak Enforcer.
Good answer
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A. Taking great care not to start a wheel war I would notify the administrator with my concern and take action on his response. I might file a check user request if necessary.
Why would you need a check user? Do you mean to say Request for comment?
Oh right. Sorry.
Perfectly fine.
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. No idea
(I read these over so I'll see no matter what) After blocking a Vandalbot, you should first contact other administrators at WP:AN and WP:ANI. Then begins the tedious task of reverting all the vandalism caused by the vandalbot. You should also warn the community (In my opinion, a good way would be to update Template:Vandalism information to a level one) of further attacks. If the vandalism is too extensive to normally cleanup, a developer should be contacted on the IRC channels #mediawiki or #wikimedia-tech. It may also be helpful to notify a STEWARD.
Also take a look at this page for more detailed and concise information.
Ok, thanks for that, I'll remember it.
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. I would check that the user has received a final warning, see if they violated 3RR and perhaps bring it up on WP:AN or WP:ANI.
Simply don't make the block. Then contact another administrator (through WP:AN or WP:ANI as you stated, or on their talk page).
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A. I would email him/her to inform them of the incident and bring it up on WP:AN.
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. Block them per WP:LEGAL and and resolve the dispute through consensus and talking to the user.
  • Notice: Try to have longer responses. Many an RFA has been opposed over this.
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. No, I wouldn't block the user. The username could well be an acronym for a longer phrase, like my username for example is an acronym for "WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden".
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A. Now that is a random, illogical sequence of letters. I would definitely block the user.
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I wouldn't block to start with. If they began editing solely on an article called Qwik Clean Inc or similar, then I would block.
12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?
A. I would probably block the user under the misleading usernames portion of the username policy, and inform RyanPosthelwaite of the incident.
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. From hovering my mouse over the links at Template:User-uaa I see that a hardblock is used to prevent account prevention from the same IP and a soft block is when only the username is blocked and another account can be made.

Common "optional" questions[edit]

1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
A. Yes, I probably will, but I most likely won't need to. I don't think six well established editors will desire for me to stand down and give up the tools, but if they do I would be happy to and try and right my wrongs in time.
2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. I would not have the power to ban users. A block is a temporary prevention of a certain vandal or spammer's editing to prevent further abuse of the editing tools. A ban is imposed by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales or an admin and is in essence the removal of editing rights.
or an admin → or the community
3. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A. I'd first and foremost question the administrator and ask him why exactly he removed the content. I would, if this doesn't give a resolution, bring it up on WP:AN. I wold not start a wheel war.
In this case it would be an edit war, as no administrative tools are being used.
Oh yeah, of course...
4. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?
A. I have never had to use this rule, and I don't really see how it can benefit me in any way besides WikiLawyering which I wouldn't do anyway. Thus I don't believe it can help an admin any more than a user without the tools and has a minimal effect in all but the most extreme cases.
5. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
A. To be perfectly honest, I believe the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are as good now as they will ever be. I can't thing of one thing I would do to make them any better than they currently are, especially without strong opposition.
6. What are you doing to prepare for your upcoming RfA?
A. I am becoming more active in the article writing side of the job of the editor, and cutting back slightly on the vandal fighting for the time being. I really want to get at least a GA under my belt, if not an FA, as this gives great satisfaction (I know from the featured portal) and makes all the effort seem worthwhile. I am also reading discussions at WP:ANI to get a feel for the process.
And your wonderful admin coach =P.
Ho hum... I thought you meant other than that >.>

NPOV[edit]

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV fork is an article that covers the exact same topic as another, with a completely different viewpoint. They are created by editors who disagree with the views on the article, instead of resolving this through consensus. For example, "Film such and such" could have a POV fork of "Criticism of Film such and such" - although this may not be POV, necessarily. They are disapproved of, and if I see one I would check the creation date (the newest one is probably the POV fork) and, assuming good faith, merge useful information into the main article, and delete the fork.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A.
  • Editing articles on which you have no opinion. For instance, a Manchester United supporter would not be best suited to edit the clubs article, whereas a person with no opinion on football, maybe living somewhere other than the UK, would definitely have a more neutral POV.
  • Using third party sources. Sources like a games official website are bound to promote the game rather than give both sides of the matter (usually missing out the negative side). However, a website like bbc.co.uk is much more likely to have a neutral focus when reporting on the game.
  • If few people think that way, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. For example, not many people think that Watford F.C. are the most successful association football team on the planet, but there are more who think that way about Manchester United. From the WP:NPOV page:
    • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
    • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
    • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Note: Sorry about all the football examples :P.
3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
1 Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.
Not neutral. Who exactly said it was erroneous?
2 Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticized by notable cell-biologists such as...
Neutral. Good choice of words there to get the point across without bias.
3 Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
Not neutral. According to who? Sourced, it's neutral.
4 Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
Neutral. It has no bias, although worded badly.
5 Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
Non neutral, obvious religious bias there.

Good for all answers. American football is better =P. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A. If the page is a canvas for an edit war, fully protecting the page for a week or so forces the concerns to the talk page of the article, and should help aid consensus to form - instead of simply stopping IPs and socks from editing. This is especially useful if the users edit-warring are able to edit semi-protected pages.
Also know that if an anonymous user and a registered user were edit warring, it would prevent simply locking out the anon and allowing the registered user to edit.
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. A page should be SALTed to prevent vandalism to Wikipedia, or to prevent accidental creation of articles. An example of using SALT against vandalism would be the "on wheels" epidemic. Protected titles are listed at Special:ProtectedTitles.
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A. It is appropriate when:
    • There is persistent page-move vandalism,
    • There is a pagenaming dispute,
    • When there is no reason to move the page, i.e. WP:AfD or WP:ANI.
Sure.
A good thing? Or sarcasm? :D
Sarcasm. That answer was horrible! >:O.<-----Now that's sarcasm. =P
4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
A. I would not protect the talk page at all as this prevents IP addresses and new account from complaining (which most of the times they have every right to do) or just talking. I would only protect the userpage (semi) if there is apparent and persistent vandalism. I wouldn't fully protect it, because (assuming the user is not an admin) they would not be able to edit it, which is a little stupid.
Yeah, you want to only protect their userpage, but not the talkpage.
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. You would do so to keep the last version before the deletion, and to avoid future edits made to the article - essentially a "hard-copy" of what it looked like before the deletion.
Yep.

Deletion[edit]

1. How would you close the following AFD's?
A 1
Merge. There is some useful information there, but on its own it is simply a manual for the game.
Only one person !voted for merge. What led you to "act" against consensus?
Sorry, I think that's how I would have voted. There is no clear consensus there. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 20:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
B 2
Keep, plenty of reliable sources and has notability.
C 3
Reopen (no consensus) or if I had to choose, Keep. Eight sources are more than enough to establish notability.
Note: These are incredibly difficult decisions. Not a good sign... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 12:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
These are about the hardest discussions you could possibly get. If you're unsure about closure when you're looking at real debates, you shouldn't do anything. Maybe !vote, but don't close it if you're unsure. Malinaccier (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
D 4
Keep. The keep arguments are specific (except one which is a WP:NOHARM) and the deletes are WP:APATHY (essentially), WP:NOEFFORT and one seems to contradict themselves.
E 5
Deja Vu? Delete, Keeps are WP:PROBLEM and WP:NOTAGAIN.
F 6
Keep per consensus, no points for deletion. The nom is a blatant WP:INN.
Note: I'm basing this on WP:ATA. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see that...Your answers went slightly against consensus in several cases, but they were rooted in policy. The deductions were good, and I'm guessing you removed !votes that went against policy or had no basis (?). We'll look at this area closer. Malinaccier (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok.
I'd like you to skim over WP:DGFA for now and see how that goes.
I've had a read over that. '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A. Comments and !votes may be disregarded if they are useless in deciding what to do. For example, giving no explanation whatsoever for a delete vote. (I'm not sure, but can WP:ATA violations be ignored?)
Actually, looking more closely at your last reply, I'm guessing you strike !votes that go against policy or had no basis? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoted from WP:DGFA: "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." You can't fully discount !votes made outside of policy or with no basis for argument. These !votes just detract from the argument of the side they are advocating.
Note: why !vote, and not points of information?
Not sure. Any wiki-vote is called a not-vote, and is so named !vote. A name change for this has been suggested in the past many many times, but I don't think it's worth it. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A. They should be speedily deleted according to WP:CSD#R1.
Yes.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A. For what? Articles in general, of just R1s?
Articles in general. Speedy deletion candidates in particular.
The username of the creator? Well, Efrain Vargas-Martinez was deleted a few minutes ago and the deletion summary basically stated CSD#A7. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:DGFA lists Any copyright infringing text, and personal information, e.g. content was: '{{delete}} XYZ smells bad and his home phone # is (123) 456-7890. When you delete a page, the automatic reason for deletion is the first "x" amount of characters on the page. This question was kind of unfair, because you obviously haven't deleted something before.
Oh, right, I see it now ^^;

Assignment: OK. I'd like for you to participate in at least 10 deletion discussions, and provide links to them below.

AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
TfDs: 1, 2
MfDs: 1, 2
CfDs: 1
UCfDs: 1

Good job in participating in multiple types of deletion discussions. The only thing that I thought was wrong was your reason here. Generally you want a reason for deletion other than "useless" (though in this case it didn't matter). You could have said "Not needed anymore, orphaned." Or something of the like. Other editors may take offense at this, but in this case I don't think it mattered. Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
A. Very much like the British police system, if you know what I mean - as in, everyone gets a second chance. I wouldn't go blocking willynilly for minor offenses, or even for major - a short(ish in some cases) block to begin with - a day or three perhaps - and if the vandalism persists, then clamp down.
2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
A. So as no-one can gain your password and have access to all of the functions which have the potential to severely damage Wikipedia. There are several ways to avoid this.
  • Having a secure password. Obviously, "hello" is not a good password, the same with "1234". A better password would be "!t4rcc3$23" or similar - something random that is not likely to be guessed.
  • Don't use public computers. Obvious really, as if you forget to log out someone else will have access to the deletion tools, etc. It's also easy to find out your password with autocomplete.
  • Ensure you are on the Wikipedia login page as this will avoid phishing of your password.
3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
A. So they can be contacted about personal issues that cannot be publicly displayed on a talk page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And so that blocked users can contact you for possible unblock. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Phase 3[edit]

Is this Wikipedia?[edit]

  • What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
    • It symbolises the wide variety of content on Wikipedia and how some of it only appeals to a cerrtain crowd, if you will. I personally disagree with it, as I have never encountered Stephen Colbert on Wikipedia. =P

Fun and Humorous?[edit]

  • Do you believe that "fun" and "humorous" items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?
    • Yes. For many years now Wikipedia has established itself not only as an encyclopedia, but as a collective gathering of many different people with many different interests and cultures. There is no reason to stop these people having a bit of a laugh, especially considering the amount of sceptics over Wikipedia due to its seriousness. I know how they feel. Some articles are written so formally (and rightly so) we can hardly understand them, so it is a relief to know that people are willing to unwind by having a little giggle at policies or vandalism. On a side note, I can't make head nor tail of that link. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What is your opinion on the april fool's jokes to the Media-Wiki space. I see that you helped to write the article in the signpost about this.
        • Really quite stupid. April Fools', in my opinion, should be kept only on the main page, as consensus was reached for everything on that page. For the record, Ral wrote the adminy stuff for that article =D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-confirmation[edit]

What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)

I don't agree with them. I think that if an admin is worried about community trust they should add themselves to CAT:AOR instead of the long process of RfA, giving other, new candidates more chance.

The Power of the Admin[edit]

How important do you think administrator duties are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why? Furthermore, what extra influence do administrators have compared to other users?

We can never have too many admins. If it were possible, everyone should have a delete button - but this is obviously not the case. Unfortunately, admins seem to have an aura of power - most new users see them as gods, which is a shame as they are really the same but with more tools. I saw one user apologise for failing a GAN and realising that an admin nominated it - and offered to pass it for this. This is not how they should be treated - we are all the same, just some can do more than others.
I fully agree with you.

Banned Users[edit]

In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead).

No, they should not. For a start, people get second chances for a reason, and there should only be exceptions in very severe circumstances. Also, two users could have the same username on two Wikipedias; they could be two different people, and if one was banned on en.wp, if the other account was left on and began vandalising (public computers, etc.) they would be banned on the other Wikipedia for doing very little.

Ageism[edit]

Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

Definitely not. It is amazing how many users can be paranoid about letting a teenager (or even a student) become an administrator. I mean, users like Anonymous (who is always cited) and Nousernamesleft were both preteen, and if they hadn't have said, we would all have assumed they were 25 or something. I've seen numerous editors under the age of 10, and they are all mature going about it. I've also seen many RfAs fail (NASCARfan comes to mind there) because they said they were teenagers. Also, in my first RfA, Rudget wisely suggested I remove my age from my userpage (I was 14 at the time). It is absurd. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree.

False Credentials[edit]

"I have a JD, so I should know the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan Laws, and how they should be used in the article"

Do you believe that this claim should need some kind of verification? I could say to you right now that I'm 23, live in Vermont, and have a Doctorate in Biochemistry, but this wouldn't be true whatsoever.

Also, should lying about an editor's real life situation have consequences on Wikipedia?

I think (I'm not sure because when this happened I was pretty distant from Wikipedia) this happened with Essjay, who was banned from the site for giving out false information about himself. I don't think this should matter one iota (unless there was an allegation of paedophilic grooming, or something) because Wikipedia's OR policy prevents that person with a JD from publishing their own research. So, yes, the claim would need sourcing to be put in, but for goodness sake, you don't need a passport to edit here! Also, I think it was Rudget who left Wikipedia for a week after false information was posted about him by his cousin or something. I personally don't think anything should be done unless this is extreme or asking for money to help a cause or similar. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reward System[edit]

What is your opinion on a reward system for editing (besides the reward board)? This would be along the lines of gifts/cash per edits, gifts/cash per FA and GA, volunteer hours per edits, etc.

No way. I would not accept money from volunteering to edit; simply gifting knowledge to the world is enough.
So you would adhere to the "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", correct? Furthermore, would you support adding advertisements to Wikipedia? Malinaccier (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would adhere to that as Wikipedia should only have free content, free to use without copyright (except album covers, etc.). I would not support ads on Wikipedia; donations are good enough and seem to work fine.

Fail[edit]

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

Definitely not. There is an unlimited amount of time to improve everything; just because we have 1.1% FA/GA doesn't mean that there is no reason to continue. There is an article on virtually everything on Wikipedia; that to me is better than only 20,000 or so FAs. All we need is people to improve the articles we have; and thus we are succeeding.

Registration[edit]

In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain.

No, but it would save so much hassle. It would save having to semi-protect anything (but increase the amount of fully protected pages), and it would avoid people labelling them as vandals (which happens on a regular basis, unfortunately). However, it would not be in my best interest for Wikipedia to enforce this rule - that's one of the beauties of the website - anyone can edit it without any restriction (within reason) - and having to create an account to edit would damage this feature of the website.

Pile-on RFA's[edit]

Do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? WP:BITE? Why or why not? Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this? Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?

It is a little uncivil, but for the same reason Kurt posts that selfnom oppose, it should be allowed. I would not do that to anyone, as it makes a second RfA less likely, dents confidence, etc. It can't violate BITE as, IMHO, that's for newbies to Wikipedia and if you're in an RfA you are not a newbie - far from it, hopefully. AGF is also a little out of the way here, as you are really asking for it going into an RfA, methinks. These opposes should (if they aren't already) be frowned upon, but no guideline is necessary.

Phase 4[edit]

Alright, you're done with almost all of the questions. It's time now for the mop up part. Do you have any questions? Concerns? Areas you would like to further explore? Malinaccier (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Past RfA (again)[edit]

It may be beneficial to look at concerns that stalled my first RfA again.

The Following are what I can see from a cursory look over. Feel free to add anything I've missed, or respond to any of them.

  • Low edit count
    • Fixed now - understatement if ever I saw one, but hey, lets not go editcountitical. =P
  • Poor knowledge of policy
    • To be remedied Remedied, phase 2
  • Lack of experience in admin-related tasks
    • Your XFD work as stated above and anti-vandalism work seems good.
  • Poor answers to questions
    • To be remedied Remedied, phases 1 and 2
      • When answering questions on your RFA, make sure to go above and beyond what they ask for. Provide key references to policy and make sure you look the answer to every question up. Malinaccier (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's answer...[edit]

...the general RFA questions.

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A. I intend to do many things during my time as an administrator. First of all, I will attend the new administrator school - I can't afford to make massive mistakes by avoiding this. After that, I will visit CAT:SPEEDY, as this is never empty and help is at times required. I will probably begin with just the really obvious deletions and move on as I get used to the tools. Thirdly, I aim to also visit WP:AIV to help out there - again, easy decisions to start with, moving to harder ones in time. Among other things, I will also update T:DYK, as this is occasionally left for 8+ hours (I stress occasionally).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A. Probably the work I've done with Portal:English football, which went from an MfD to featured in under two months, and was my first featured - well, anything really. I also love how Aberdeen F.C. came along - it was my first GA, and is now an FAC. That will be my first FA if it passes. I also have written or contributed to many lists - some of which could be featured in time.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I try to keep away from conflicts as much as possible, but sometimes being bold conflicts with this. If something comes up, which it occasionally does, I try to talk about it on the talk page or on the user talk page, asking why the conflict occurred and try to get a compromise. I'm not a fan of Wikidrama but it is, unfortunately, a regular occurrance here. On a side note, if the other user was an admin and the conflict may involve admin tools, I would definitely work this out with them and would not undo their action until that understanding is obtained.

Questions in current RfAs (ec)[edit]

I am a bit worried about these questions being asked in current RfAs. I have answered them with my own answers.

From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg[edit]

  • A new editor, user:wiwiwejd992728, has made 23 contributions to WP. 10 of those are vandalism, the rest are things like typo or spelling corrections. What do you do?
    • Unless the user has had a final warning, take him to WP:UAA, otherwise, block.
      • You may also wish to give the user a temporary block because it wouldn't be a vandalism only account. You should also know that confusing usernames are no longer blockable except in extreme cases. Malinaccier (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MilborneOne[edit]

  • There has been a minor aircrash in a country you have never heard of (until now). A newly registered editor has created an article for it. And now lots of anon IP editors are adding unsourced information to it. What, as an administrator, would you do?
    • Perhaps look for sources for it, if it looks like good faith, or leave the edits and wait for sources - granted the article is not speedy-deletable. but if it looks like vandalism, consider semi-protection.
      Assuming it's notable, try to discuss the importance of adding sources to the IPs. You should also open a thread on the talk page about this. WP:NOT#News should also be taken into consideration. If the unsourced material is continually added, then consider semi protection. (of course your answer would be phrased better and less choppy, but I tried to submit something longer than this a few minutes ago and I got "database locked" =) ). Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you regestered on IRC? We could answer questions there much faster and I could give you more direct feedback. Malinaccier (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about deletion[edit]

I'd like for you to do several things regarding deletion. It's your main weakness, and before we go to RFA and give you the delete button, I would like to go over some things.

I'd like you to judge whether these articles should be speedily deleted, taken to AFD, or have no action taken against them and tell me your reasoning below. Assume they are in the mainspace, and even though these don't have a page history, remember that it's always important to check the history of articles about to be speedily deleted. Props to User:EWS23 for the following:

All done over IRC... =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith[edit]

(Don't worry, this isn't in response to anything you did.) Although it is very important to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE now, it will be even more so when/if you become an administrator. Every action that you take will represent the project itself. Your behavior will become synonymous with how Wikipedia is in the eyes of New Editors. Therefore, the utmost care must be given to deletion and blocking when regarding these people.

Keeping the above in mind...

A new user creates the article "John's Auto Shop." Assume that it is written in perfect prose, with a neutral point of view, and with adequate sources. But the one problem is the subject is not notable whatsoever. In what way would you deal with this that would leave the writer with a positive view of Wikipedia?

Right, firstly, I've seen these AGF questions on RfAs all over the place, and that's probably why you've given me one. To actually answer your question, I would first take the article to AfD. After that, I would explain to the user exactly why I have done so - explaining concisely Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations and why exactly that article did not meet said guidelines. I would then thank the user for their work, and direct them to any existing articles they might like to edit. Hopefully this would be enough to keep their flair for contributing going and hopefully reap some good work from them in the future, whilst helping them achieve a positive outlook on Wikipedia and its policies. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would probably start out by contacting the user in a non-templated way, asking if there was some reason they could think of that would make the store notable. And only if he couldn't respond would I continue with your line of reasoning. Apart from this, you're ok. Malinaccier (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't use templates for good faith, they really should be kept to obvious bad faith. And he would probably try and find a way to make it notable after I told him about the guidelines. Apart from that, you're right ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion some more[edit]

I had you do an assignment where you participated in 10 deletion discussions. We will now evaluate your choices together.

AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1. Your stance was to merge and the discussion ended with a result of Redirect The only thing I would like to say is to beware of sheep voting, but this is fine.
2. Your stance was to delete and the article was Speedily deleted by Faithlessthewonderboy. Why did you disagree with a speedy deletion?
It did not meet the criteria; it had a clear claim of notability which is enough to avoid that.
3. Deleted like your stance suggested it to be. No problem here.
4. Merge and redirect was your stance and it was merged by Neil. Once again, no problems.
5. You suggested a possible merge, but it was closed as Delete. If you can remember, what content of the article was salvageable?
Maybe just a sentence saying "He released a demo in 1992, entitled 1992 Demo or something. But I suppose, it didn't have sources.
Ok.
TfDs: 1, 2
1. You said delete, and the result was delete. Pretty straightforward decision here.
2. You said to delete because it is orphaned, but the rest of the commenters thought it was just unuseful. Did you not agree with this?
Well, I generally agree with the nom by saying Delete. (P.S. Want to IRC for a while? We're both online.)
Alright. (To both IRC and your response).
MfDs: 1, 2
CfDs: 1
UCfDs: 1

Done over IRC. :) Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with disputes[edit]

Take a look at this, please.

Well, also done over IRC. I'll leave the link for reference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While we have time...[edit]

Why don't we do a blocking exercise?

Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck!

Example 1 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

  • 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
  • 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
  • 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)
No vandalism after final warning. No block there.

Example 2 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

  • 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
  • 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
  • 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)
Once again, no vandalism after final warning. No block there either.

Example 3 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

  • 20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
  • 19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
  • 19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)
Block for 48 hours for vandalism after final warning.

Example 4 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings: 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4) 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3) 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Block for 3 months for vandalism after final warning, tag page if not already tagged as schoolip

Example 5 XX (talk · contribs) Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Block for 48 hours for vandalism after final warning.
I would indef block. 6 vandalistic edits and no good edits usually means vandalism only account.
I suppose so..

Example 6 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shared IP last received a vandalism warning (uw-4) at 19:00 UTC on March 11. Someone from the IP has made 4 vandalism edits at around 12:00 UTC on March 12, but has not received any final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

No vandalism after final warning. No block here.
You may want to give a final warning.

These were good. Only #5 had any real problems.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fox/Admin_coaching/WBOSITG&oldid=1142425361"