User:IMatthew/Admin coaching
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Traditional RFA questions
Admin coaching consists of mostly questions gauging your knowledge on Wikipedia and how well you can apply it to real-wiki-life scenarios. We'll start with the traditional RFA questions.
- What admin areas do you intend to work in?
- WP:AIV - I plan on working there to deal with vandals, blocking them if necessary or contacting them if there is a problem that can be fixed.
- WP:ANI - I plan on working here as well, trying to help solve issues that other editors bring to the table.
- WP:XFD - I will work in the deletion review, participating in the discussions as well as closing AfD's that have formed a clear consensus on whether to delete or keep the article.
- WP:RFPP - This is a big one I plan to work on. This page tends to have a large backlog at times, so I'd like to work there and help to reduce the backlog. I definitely will be working there to protect pages when there are large amounts of vandalism or edit conflicts, or denying the request if the vandalism is not to bad, and can be dealt with by a few reverts. (Without breaking WP:3RR of course.)
- WP:AN3 - I'll spend some time here, blocking any user/IP that breaks the Three revert rule, so long as they received a warning.
- I plan to work in a few other areas as well, including continuing my work with WP:PW.
- What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
- A conflict that constantly can cause me stress is having too always be on the lookout for User:Hornetman16's sockpuppets. This user has caused a lot of stress to WP:PW because he constantly returns to Wikipedia to vandalize articles and cause a distubance. The one time that I caught a sock of his, I reported it to two admins, User:Nikki311 and User:LAX. Nikki311 immediately approached the sock and had it blocked, [1] I learned from this experience that I did the right thing by informing an admin right away, and not try to deal with the situation myself, as it can cause problems. Other than that, I have not had any other major problems.
- What do you believe are your best contributions?
- I believe my best contributions are my work with WP:PW's PPV expansion, as I have written some pay-per-views with other editors, as well as giving almost ten articles pre-GA reviews.
-- iMatthew 2008 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to ask, how much experience have you had with the places you listed on question 1? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked a little bit with all of them. I've reported one or two users at AIV, I've not yet worked at ANI or AN3, but I will as an admin, I have experience with deletion reviews, as I've nominated articles and participated in plenty of discussions, and I've requested page protection for articles before. iMatthew 2008 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't very active in ANI before I became an admin, but it's in your best interest to keep the noticeboards watchlisted. It's good to be aware of the issues affecting our community in the present. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Checklist
Here's a checklist for you to check what you have and haven't done. Some of them aren't very essential, but they are good to help gain more experience. If you haven't done something, you should definitely check it out.
- Voted in an RFA?
- Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
- Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
- Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
- Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
- Had an editor review yourself?
- Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
- Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
- What XFD's have you participated in?
- Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
- Uploaded an image?
- Welcomed a user?
- Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
- Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
- Joined a WikiProject?
- Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
- Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
I will work on the other ones and leave a note in this section once I complete all of them. iMatthew 2008 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warmup
Let's start up with a few warmup questions. As we go on, the questions will start to get more challenging and more thought-provoking instead of cut-and-paste policy questions.
- What are your personal criteria for an admin?
- By this do you mean..what do I think are qualities and admin should have? iMatthew 2008 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- That could be part of it. Usually the question is taken to mean what you would look for in a user to support an RFA.
- I get it now. Ok, so generally when my criteria for an admin would come down to one word: trust. You need to trust them with the tools, and trust that they will not get into any edit wars or conflicts with another user, you need to trust that they will not abuse any policy or be uncivil to another user. You need to trust them to be a good administrator. iMatthew 2008 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That could be part of it. Usually the question is taken to mean what you would look for in a user to support an RFA.
- By this do you mean..what do I think are qualities and admin should have? iMatthew 2008 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is your area of expertise? What subjects do you feel you could contribute the most to? Have you ever joined a WikiProject based on your area of expertise?
- My area of expertise is Professional wrestling, which is what I contribute the most to. I have been a fan of pro-wrestling since I was 7 and I enjoy writing about it. I am currently a very active member in the WikiProject: Professional Wrestling. iMatthew 2008 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you active in any other Wikimedia projects, Wikias, or any other Wikis?
[edit] Typical questions
Here are some of the most common questions from RFAs.
- Would you place yourself on CAT:AOR? Why or why not?
- I would definately and immediately place myself into that category. I want the community to trust me, and if they need to put me on recall, I'll be happy to answer it! Again, I want the community to trust me. iMatthew 2008 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What would your recall terms be then? Would you do a reconfirmation RFA, or an RFC? Whether you relinquish the mop voluntarily is your own choice, you don't really "answer" recall.
- I would definately and immediately place myself into that category. I want the community to trust me, and if they need to put me on recall, I'll be happy to answer it! Again, I want the community to trust me. iMatthew 2008 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on WP:IAR? How do you apply it to your contributions? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
- I support IAR, so long as it is indeed being used to improve Wikipedia. I believe it was a few months ago, that I saw a user break 3RR, but they kept reverting page blanking, because it came right after the other, after the other. I almost reported both users, but I realized that IAR would probably come into play here with the user who almost broke 3RR. The vandal was indef blocked. After that incident I realized that IAR is good for those type of situations, but if you break 3RR in an edit war and tell me that you were ignoring all rules to keep the article together, I would discuss it with the user, or if need be, block the user because they were involved in an edit war. If I were an admin, I would only try not to use IAR, but if it was necessary such as the situation above, I would use it. iMatthew 2008 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have made an error here. A common misconception is that 3RR refers to any three reverts. In fact, 3RR does not refer to reversions of vandalism and page blanking. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions.
- I support IAR, so long as it is indeed being used to improve Wikipedia. I believe it was a few months ago, that I saw a user break 3RR, but they kept reverting page blanking, because it came right after the other, after the other. I almost reported both users, but I realized that IAR would probably come into play here with the user who almost broke 3RR. The vandal was indef blocked. After that incident I realized that IAR is good for those type of situations, but if you break 3RR in an edit war and tell me that you were ignoring all rules to keep the article together, I would discuss it with the user, or if need be, block the user because they were involved in an edit war. If I were an admin, I would only try not to use IAR, but if it was necessary such as the situation above, I would use it. iMatthew 2008 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
- Wheelwarring is a bad thing, because it just proves that an admin cannot be trusted in the community, since they do not know the proper way to deal with a situation. I can prevent wheelwarring by staying away from admins who will try to war with you. If an admin did something to an article I didn't like, I would discuss it with another admin and get their opinion on the matter before anything else. If the other admin agreed with me, I would calmly confront the other admin and try to work things out with them, but if the admin I asked disagreed with me, I would leave it alone and find something else to do! iMatthew 2008 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything else for this part? King iMatthew 2008 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Next questions
These questions are about protection.
- When should a page be SALTed? Why?
- A page should be SALTed if the page is being continuously re-created for either vandalism or edit war purposes because that protects the page from being re-created by IP's or newly registered users. If the page is still re-created, the user may be warned or block, according to the circumstances. King iMatthew 2008 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should you protect a Today's Featured Article? First state the correct policy, any extenuating circumstances, then state your view on the matter.
- I believe the correct policy is that you should not protect a TFA, unless it receives a mass amount of vandalism. I feel it should not be protected, as is, because if an IP or newly registered user would like to make a productive edit to the article, they should be able to. Minor vandalism can always be reverted. King iMatthew 2008 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be semi-protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
- It all depends on the circumstances. I doubt I would ever semi-protect a userpage, rather warn/block the user(s) vandalizing the page. If a dispute starts over a certain user, and their talk page is being trolled, I would probably semi-protect their talk page until the dispute ends. If the talk page was receiving vandalism, I would warn/block the vandal(s) again instead of protecting the page. King iMatthew 2008 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'll try to include more critical thinking questions along for you to get your brain moving. It's the best way to figure out how prepared you are and what you need to improve.
Bonus question: What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
-
- I've seen this picture on userpages before, and I believe it is supposed to represent "What Wikipedia Has Become." If that is the case, I do not agree with it, because I feel it is exaggerated. I do however agree that Wikipedia has filled up with citation needed tags. King iMatthew 2008 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you think mid-august would be too early to have an RfA? King iMatthew 2008 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- We'll see how our coaching goes. Generally, from my experience, when a user requests a semi on their userpage, they have a good reason for doing so. Since userpages aren't of much use to IPs or new users anyway, usually it is semi'd. User talks, on the other hand, need to be protected with caution. But yes, I agree with you that blocking and warning would be more appropriate in this case. I also presume that you agree with not protecting TFA, which is the policy stated issue. From my view, I really don't like this policy. We already have a bad reputation for being a place where people can dump any crap, opening up today's featured article only to see "PENIS" copy and pasted 500 times across the article doesn't help. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking
Blocking is the second tool in the admin's arsenal. It is probably the most effective with quashing vandalism directly.
- A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
- My response is not to block them, but instead direct them to: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer, which is a code that prevents you from logging in for a time period the user can choose. King iMatthew 2008 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
- What do you feel is an appropriate amount of time to block a final warned IP? What about subsequent violations?
- Per this, IP addresses should not be blocked for more than a few hours. If this was the first offense, even after the final warning, I would most likely block the IP for 1 day. If the IP comes back to vandalize more, I would block for 5 days, continuing on, I would block 1 week, then 1 month, then 6 months, and finally 1 year. I would never indefinitely block an IP unless there was an intense case of vandalism or other cases such as legal threats. King iMatthew 2008 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Bonus question: 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.)
- Yes, a ban is being completely dis-allowed to edit anywhere in the Wikipedia community. So the ban should transfer over. King iMatthew 2008 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Although it is your opinion, note that in Wikipedia:BAN#Scope_and_reciprocity, it is mentioned that bans on the en.wiki don't extend to other language Wikipedias, Meta-Wiki, or sister projects. In fact, I do think we have a banned user here who is a respectable member in the Commons. bibliomaniac15 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question time
I'd like to take this time now to allow you to ask me questions. Just give me any question about Wikipedia or related topics over here, and I'll attempt to answer them as best as I can. Don't hold back either. bibliomaniac15 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- How long have you been an administrator?
- Pretty much a year ago. I was promoted on May 1.
- I've never uploaded an image before, can you explain how to do that?
- Images are always a rather confusing aspect of Wikipedia and a constant source of consternation for the inexperienced user. Basically, you put in the source filename from your hard drive, give it a file name for use here on Wikipedia, tell the source (did you create it, or was it from a website?), and give it a proper copyright tag (or free license, including GFDL and several Creative Commons licenses). If the image is copyrighted, a fair use rationale MUST be added to justify its placement here. I haven't uploaded many images here, but I do dabble in image deletion in CAT:CSD when the need arises.
- How active are you? I ask because I don't know if I have to be on Wikipedia every day, or if it doesn't matter?
- I edit every day. Check WP:HAU/NA for more details. It doesn't matter how active you are. No one will block you just because you have a personal life (although we may miss you and spam your talk page and email with "come-back" notes).
- Why did you decide to coach me?
- I really don't know. I just have a sort of eye that I see who could benefit from coaching.
- What are some things that I need to improve on?
- The community, I've seen, is advocating a view of the "ideal" admin: someone who is a massive article writer, vandal fighter, deletion participant, ultracivil, noticeboard-frequenting extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the community fails to see that people specialize even past these lines, being primarily active in a certain subject. As a result, since nobody is perfect (save a few users that I've known), we see a lot of lost potential and a lot of repeated RFAs. So how does this apply to you? The best answer I can give you is aim for being an "ideal" user, but don't make it your top priority. You are not being paid to edit, not even being forced to edit. You should just enjoy your time here and be passionate about what you do. If you are, the community will notice you, and they will not hesitate to make sure that you receive what you and the encyclopedia are due. On the other hand, don't be immature. Be professional, but enjoy your time here! Try a little of everything and see what you like!
- That's really good advice, Thanks!
- The community, I've seen, is advocating a view of the "ideal" admin: someone who is a massive article writer, vandal fighter, deletion participant, ultracivil, noticeboard-frequenting extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the community fails to see that people specialize even past these lines, being primarily active in a certain subject. As a result, since nobody is perfect (save a few users that I've known), we see a lot of lost potential and a lot of repeated RFAs. So how does this apply to you? The best answer I can give you is aim for being an "ideal" user, but don't make it your top priority. You are not being paid to edit, not even being forced to edit. You should just enjoy your time here and be passionate about what you do. If you are, the community will notice you, and they will not hesitate to make sure that you receive what you and the encyclopedia are due. On the other hand, don't be immature. Be professional, but enjoy your time here! Try a little of everything and see what you like!
I'll have more, so I'll post them later. King iMatthew 2008 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So a few more questions before we move on.
- Do you see my mainspace edits as a problem?
- Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- Sorry, I was referring to the amount of mainspace edits I have. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to worry about that. I wouldn't worry about edit count at all. The only thing that I feel you should improve upon is socialization. You seem a trifle too social. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't expect you to change, but it has a tendency of tainting other's first impressions with you.
- Sorry, I was referring to the amount of mainspace edits I have. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- Does age generally come into play with adminship?
- No. I find that younger people tend to be less mature, but of course, there are some gems among us: Anonymous Dissident, Acalamari, Ilyanep, Master of Puppets, and several others. Maturity, not age, is the key word. I strongly resist those who believe all minors should be booted off Wikipedia, but I also don't believe that every adolescent is mature.
- What is one of the hardest vandals you've dealt with? Or should I say, how did you deal with it?
- I'm not really the type of tough admin who roughs up tough trolls and vandals. I think the most vexing vandal I faced were several User:Jon Awbrey socks. Jon Awbrey created a number of articles before he was banned and his socks blanked the articles he created and called for their deletion. I promptly blocked them and rollbacked their vandalism. Most of the vandals I've blocked didn't really put up a struggle.
[edit] Random questions
- Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
-
- 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 criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
- I'd say this is not neutral, so long as it's backed up with references.
- Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
- If it is backed up with a source, it is not neutral, otherwise it is neutral.
- Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
- Again, if it is backed up with a source, it's not neutral. If not source is provided, it is neutral.
- Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
- Absolutely NPOV.
- 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 criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
- In your opinion, should registration be required for editing?
- Yes, for internet safety reasons. The location of an IP address can be easily found, but if you are registered, your IP can only be found by those with the tools.
- 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?
- I've used "Strong oppose" before, but after a discussion on the RfA page, I believe that it is not acceptable. It is uncivil, and wrong.
Eh? Are you sure you know what the term "neutral" means? NPOV and the term "neutral" means that it's written fairly and without bias. Also, could you elaborate on how a strong oppose is necessarily wrong?
- Maybe I'm mistaking it with POV. I see my mistakes So then I would say that the first two points are neutral, and the last two are not. Also, strong oppose is uncivil, it can make somebody feel bad about themselves if in an RfA. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- What if the rationale for the strong oppose is valid? bibliomaniac15 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Let's look at the NPOV questions. Although it depends on opinion, most users say that 1, 2, and 3 are neutral, while 4 is not. What would be your rationale for claiming the opposite for 3? bibliomaniac15 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
