User:MyNameIsNotBob/Admin coaching

• This is for Esperanza's admin coaching of MyNameIsNotBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Intros

Place introductions here if you want.

User:Lar

My name is Larry Pieniazek. I've been doing things online for well over 20 years now, and am a keen student of communities and how they do things. There's some bio stuff on my talk page... I live in Michigan (in the US) with my wife and 2 kids and I like LEGO. I've been an administrator in other communities in the past. I have been an administrator here at en-wikipedia since mid May 2006. As it said in my RFA questions especially #1, my focus is on things other than vandal fighting. I've been trying my hand at just about everything that admins do, though. In real life I work for IBM as a system architect (figuring out how software projects and systems can best be organised and carried out). I think Wikipedia is the neatest and most important thing that has been done on the internet yet! (I cribbed this from a previous coaching page...) ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Petros471

I have a less impressive CV than Lar, being nearer to 20 years of age total (and no I wasn't online as a baby!). I live, work and study in North Wales.

I've been an admin here about as long as Lar (since April IIRC), and I tend to do fairly usual admin type stuff like blocking vandals, closing AFDs, speedy deletions, history merges etc. I also do a lot of work over at WP:RFI, which means dealing with some more complicated cases. Petros471 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MyNameIsNotBob

Okay, thought I'd take a stab at this. My name actually is not Bob. In reality it is Adrian. I am a Year 12 student (final year of High School) in New South Wales, Australia. I have dabbled with computers since I was about 6 or 7. The 386 days. So yes, I remember the internet before Yahoo! was a big thing.

I was introduced to wikipedia by my older brother who is also an editor here. My primary interest on Wikipedia is the Seventh-day Adventist Church related pages. It has been my long-standing aim to improve that article to featured status. Tied in with this aim, I have been largely responsible for WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Apart from that I have also dabbled in mediation, that was a failure unfortunately. I could see no way out of the dilemna I was assigned. I also spent a period of my editing on Vandal Patrol. That fell through when I became frustrated with the number of mistakes I was making. MyNameIsNotBob 10:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agenda/Checklist/what you want out of this

List of things we should try to achieve:

Okay, what I am looking for is to be able to optimise my editing time at wikipedia. I have had a number of attempts at trying to do various things on the project, but most of them have fallen on the way side as I have become frustrated with my errors, or the enormity of the task. I guess it would be ideal to look at setting some goals with my editing and look at where my skills are best applied. I would also like some tips on researching information and how to improve an article to featured status. I am sure there are other things that we can achieve out of this coaching, so let me know your thoughts. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RC patrol Q&A

The following are some scenarios that you might come across while doing RC patrol (or have your attention brought to via some other means). Have a go at saying what you would do and why. I've deliberately not given many help links at this stage, however don't worry if you can't answer any of them or get them 'wrong'- the whole point of this is learning! Some of these have been 'borrowed' from User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching, however I adapted them, and might post follow up situations based on how the hypothetical situations develop. Petros471 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (yep, these are recycled ;-) Petros471 10:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Please answer these questions as if you were an admin (i.e. have blocking, page protection, deletion etc available to you). After all this is admin coaching :)

Article 1

Situation: A page is receiving a large burst of vandalism, from different IP addresses. Each vandal edit is similar. The article does not have a history of heavy vandalism.

Response: I'm answering all these off the top of my head, without looking up the admin guidelines. I would probably give the page a semi-protection with a 6 hour expiry. In this case there is little way of dealing with the editor as the IP is changing. It is too risky to block an IP range as you are likely to block serious editors. Most vandals disappear after the task becomes difficult.

Comments by coaches: Good answer, just note that unfortunately you can't set page protection with an expiry time, so you have to go back and unprotect the page after a suitable amount of time yourself. Here I was looking for an understanding of use of semi-protection in vandal fighting. Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP has a confusing mix of manual and automated processes, with bots doing some routine things. There is a list of protected pages. Where is it? (or, how would you find it?). Do you, the proctector have to list it or is there a bot to do it for you? How would you tell? (a lot of my replies/comments have followup questions, I'm curious as to your answers to them) ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article 2

Situation: This article is a non-notable bio created by a newly registered user (User1). The user has no other edits.

Response: I would go and welcome the editor and thank them for joining the community. I would also add some notability advice regarding creating articles. I would then tag the page with {{db-bio}} tag. Every user deserves to be welcomed, regardless of their initial editing skills. I would tag the article for someone else to delete as deletion process needs to be transparent, and by allowing someone else to delete the article I have tagged it eradicates the question of me bearing an agenda. If the article was already tagged, I would delete it.

Comments by coaches: Again, a good answer. As an admin, you might find a few puzzled messages on your talk page asking why you didn't just delete it, but if you're not totally sure the article should be speedy deleted getting a second eye over it can be a good idea. Being friendly with the editor is important, hopefully they will contribute more. If the username of User1 indicates they are likely to be the subject of the article you could suggest they userfy it (i.e. the article is moved to their userpage, to a subpage in their userspace). Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good answer. Myself I never speedy things unless there's a tag there, even if I am totally sure, it doesn't take long to add a tag, and let a second pair of eyes take a look. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User 2

Situation: This user has inserted '''Bold text''' into an article, and blanked a section.

Response: Rollback the edit then go and place the {{test1a-n}} tag on the users talk page.

Comments by coaches: Ok, just checking you wouldn't have whacked a {{bv}} on their talk (I've seen far too much of that sort of thing on WP:AIV). Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Don't forget to check prior history to see if this is the user's first time though. Check the history of the talk page, as the user may have removed previous warnings (Is this against policy? Why or why not?) ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User 3

Situation: Registered user inserts obscene images into multiple articles. They have no previous warnings.

Response: Not too sure about this one. Probably comment out the images then go place the {{image2}} tag on the user's talk.

Comments by coaches: Assuming these were the users only edits, immediately block as a vandal only account. Someone who knows how to insert images is not new (i.e. this is just a new vandal account created by an existing vandal), and by posting obscene images in multiple articles (I'm working on the assumption that these are 'child safe' articles, not ones about the subject of the offending pictures) they are clearly showing bad faith, so I'd block it with no warning. If it's just one instance of image vandalism, and possibly some 'good' edits as well, then yes warnings should be issued before any block. Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What Petros said. It takes practice to recognise instant vandals from users who had a bad patch and need warning, but the user contribs log is your friend. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User 4

Situation: Shared IP address, long history of vandalism with many warnings given. However seems to avoid blocks by stopping after a few warnings are given.

Response: I would leave it. I believe there is a noticeboard somewhere for problematic IP addresses? List it there if there is. If the vandal is stopping after a few warnings, there isn't a big enough issue to block, especially at the risk of blocking potentially useful editors.

Comments by coaches: In this case I'd take a careful look at the contributions and the WHOIS. If the contributions suggest that it is the same user (e.g. by making the same type and style of vandalism) and the WHOIS doesn't suggest a mass shared IP (i.e. not AOL, not a school district) then I'd block (you can always use IP only block now). If the WHOIS shows a shared IP and/or the contributions look totally random then no block, as it is probably different users using the IP. I'm not quite sure what noticeboard you mean. There is WP:LTA but that isn't really suitable for this situation. You could list the user in the watchlist section of WP:RFI to have it added to the IRC bot blacklist (or do it yourself if you're familiar with the IRC vandalism channel). Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of types of blocks and even experienced admins get confused about the types. Where can you read about them? In general... Consider putting a handy template somewhere where you can get to it quickly with convenient links (there are templates that already exist to help you) ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User 5

Situation: A registered user or static IP has been reported to WP:AIV and has carried out a series of 'bad' vandal edits. However no edits since the final test4 warning. Do you block?

Response: No. If the vandal is a first time vandal they would be given a 6 hour block. If they have temporarily stopped vandalising for 6 hours they would never experience the disciplinary action. If they make another offence within 24 hours they would definitely be blocked. The vandal may have decided to start contributing seriously under a new user, which is something that shouldn't be restrained.

Comments by coaches: OK, though especially in the case of registered users (but also IPs if they were clearly static) if the next edit was more than 24 hours into the future but also vandalism I'd probably still block. Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Petros, again this is a judgement call. There may be no perfect answer. If in doubt, put it up on WP:AN/I and ask for review. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User 6

Situation: You reverted user 6 with the edit summary 'rv claims like this need to WP:CITE sources' (the edit was adding gossip style information to a article on a person without quoting any sources). User 6 posts on your talk page saying you censored them, were against free speech etc.

Response: Offer direction to WP:NOT and WP:NPOV in the style of Template:BlueHelmet.

Comments by coaches: Wow, another template :) Not seen that one. Also make sure both you and they are aware of the WP:3RR and WP:LIVING. Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Be wary of using too many different templates though, but also don't be afraid of developing your own style. We have bots, you don't have to be one. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

General comments

Overall, you seem to have a good grasp of the basics of RC patrol. You seem to understand the importance of not WP:BITEing the newcomer, which is good. I'd probably be a bit tougher than you in some cases, but if Lar comments on any of this you might find he disagrees with some of what I put :) I find admins have quite a large spread of views over issues like block length, and often quite a range is valid in a particular situation, as long as it's not too extreme. Petros471 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall I think you have a good grasp of the basics of RC patrol as well. I don't do it as much, I get more involved in disputes when asked, or when I see things on my watch list. You'll find you will develop your own style that you will be comfortable with and if it works, and is not too extreme, that's fine. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Contribution History

In response to Lar's question on the discussion page:

My contribution history is divided between working on Seventh-day Adventist Church related articles, RC patrol and user welcoming. My article name space edits are probably a little low for a prospective admin, and I intend to work on that. Apart from that, I dunno. Did you want me to say anything else? MyNameIsNotBob 09:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There will be those that say you have not enough articles. And those that say too much, and so forth. My own count in article space was well under 1K when I stood. It's just something to think about and be aware of. Do you agree or disagree with those that criticise based on counts? Why, or why not? ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin "reading list"

Here are a few things to read and think about.

• User:NoSeptember/The_NoSeptember_Admin_Project is an amazing array of resources on adminship. In that array I would look through a lot of things... browse around! but here is User:NoSeptember/RfA_talk_topical_archive_index a good list of things for further reading
• User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? one of my favorite essays, period. Think about what it means, think about adminship as merely one thing, one tool, one process that helps us do the overall goal.
• User:Mindspillage/admin one of my favorite essays on adminship. Could you be this good of an admin? I'm not sure I myself am, but it is something to strive for.
• User:Essjay/Neutrality Another take on how to be a good admin. Neutrality, impartiality, fairness. These are so important! Look within yourself and see if you really think you can do things this way. If not, perhaps adminship is not right for you (generic you, no comment on anyone in particular intended)

Out of left field:

• Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 8, 2006 What does this rule really mean? What is the spirit, not the letter? How do you enforce spirit when trolls and trouble makers are going to want the letter, and then want to twist it around on you and wikilawyer?

Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking... You may have read some of them already. You don't necessarily have to read every single one in the entire admin project (although if you want to, you'll be much better informed). What I am interested in is a discussion on what one or two of them meant to you, whether you agree or disagree, and why, and so forth. These can be a springboard for good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CSD Exersise

Here are some articles that were really up for deletion. Take a look at them and say if you would have deleted them and why. A word of warning, if you are doing a google search, the 'answers' appear- so be careful if you want to do this properly :) Exercise created by EWS23 for admin coaching purposes. Petros471 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases that I have come across while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through my deletion log to see if I deleted it, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (I plan on using these for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything (I'm the only contributor), but remember that in real cases the page history is important. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Halo 3 trailier

I would check if a Halo 3 trailer page exists as this page has a spelling mistake in the title. If that page did exist, I would create a simple redirect to that page. If that page does not exist I would move it there as a google search for "Halo 3 Trailer" -Wikipedia J Allard seems to produce a number of seemingly legitimate websites.

There's a policy page somewhere about spelling mistakes... typos that are obvious, and likely to be common, should have redirects set up, but the idea is to not have a redirect for every possible permutation of every word. It sounds like you think "trailier" is a common enough typo to be worth setting up. Yes? Why or why not? ... (PS don't forget to sign your work! can you name two templates to use if someone else forgets? Which ones would you use and why?) ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Union Millwright

This is much the same as the last example. The name is spelt wrong. From a basic search, Union Millwright seems to be a casual name of a group rather than the formal Millwright and Machinery Erectors Union, which would be the more appropriate name to use on an encyclopedia. I would probably delete the page for the spelling mistake and the reasons cited in the speedy tag. MyNameIsNotBob 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it a valid redirect though? Is redirecting something better than speedying? Why or why not? ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)