User:Ctjf83/Admin Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old sections archived to User:Ctjf83/Admin Coaching/Archive

Contents

[edit] Fair use/copyright

Copyright restrictions play an important role on Wikipedia. Since we are supposed to be a free encyclopedia, we are limited in what copyrighted content we can use. Copyrighted text (except for properly attributed, relevant quotes) is removed and pages that consist of only copyright violations are deleted. Images are different, copyrighted images are only deleted on sight if fair use is not asserted.

When it comes to copyright, we generally use a "copyrighted until proven free" approach. If the copyright status of something is questioned and it is not clearly under a free license or fair use, we generally assume that it is copyrighted and remove it.

With text, copyright violations are pretty much anything copied from a non-free source except relevant and attributed quotes. For images it gets complicated. Copyrighted images can be used under the doctrine of fair use. The Wikipedia restrictions are far tighter than the USA legal ones, so an image that does not meet our fair use rules is not automatically a copyvio. The full rules for using non-free content are WP:NFCC. To summarize:

  • There is no free equivalent and none could be obtained, even if the free version is of lower quality, which is often the case. Most of the living people on Wikipedia are somewhat in the public spotlight, so in most cases we assume that for living people, a free image could be obtained.
  • Minimal use - non-free images are used in a limited quantity per article and are sized no larger than necessary. The image must add significantly to the page (not just decorative) and non-free images can only be used in mainspace.
  • A non-free rationale is given for each usage of the image. It must say what article it is used in and why it needs to be used.

[edit] "Free"

"Free" on Wikipedia can mean a variety of things. Anything in the public domain is free. Free content licenses include the GFDL, various Creative Commons licenses, and others. Not all Creative Commons licenses are acceptable. We can't accept "non-commercial only" or images released only for use on Wikipedia. Ideally, free images should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons so they can be used on other projects. I'm not going to go into detail on the the GFDL and its restrictions because I'd probably get something wrong, and there are some changes pending to make it compatible with Creative Commons. If you have any specific questions on the GFDL or any copyright related topic I could answer them though.

[edit] Further reading

The following covers pretty much every aspect of copyright and image use on Wikipedia:

[edit] Lesson 2 (copyright)

For this lesson, I've provided some scenarios. Respond to each as if you were an admin and were trying to handle the situation.

1. While looking at articles in any random topic, you find a large article with a fair use image under each section header, totaling 9 for the entire article. None of the images are used in any other articles.

It probably would violate "minimal usage". If it did, I would have the user clean up some of the pics, and the pics that were removed, I'd delete it if unused for seven days
Y

2. A user is working on a new article in his userspace sandbox, it has a fair use image in it.

It would have to be removed, as they are not allowed on user pages, only name space articles
Y

3. An article is nominated for AFD for notability reasons. After 2 days of mostly "keep" votes, someone finds that the article (and all previous versions) are a copyvio.

Delete, obviously violates copyright laws
Y

4. A user has uploaded a few dozen images, claiming that he owns the copyright to all of them and that he releases them under the GFDL. It is later discovered that many of the images are copyright violations. The user insists the images were stolen from him and put on other websites.

this is kinda tough, not sure how you would prove if not they were actually stolen from him or not, but I'm gonna have to go with delete the images.
Y If the user can actually prove it, he could send the info to OTRS. But if we aren't sure, we generally assume copyrighted

5. Since he can't upload it to Wikipedia, a user links to a YouTube video of a music video for a song by a popular current artist.

Delete link. It violates copyright and external links policy
Y

6. A user uploads images from a source that allows images to be used "in an educational context."

Keep, as long as they have the rational
Y "educational only" or "non commercial" images must be treated as non-free.

7. An article about a city uses a non-free image to illustrate the city skyline.

keep, that is pretty necessary to use...but then again, assuming the user lives there (which is not always the case) they could take their own pic of it and upload under fairuse
N A city skyline would be considered a situation where it would not be unreasonable for a free image to be produced.

8. To illustrate an article about a cartoon character, a user takes a picture of a toy and uploads it under a free license.

I was told this still violates, and the toy manufacturer would own the copyright, so it would hav eto be uploaded under non-free
Y - Derivative works is a fairly complicated area.

[edit] Review

Overall, quite good. One of the things you will often have to do as an admin is to do actions that you may not necessarily agree with all the circumstances. Of course nobody will force you to work on images. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Use this area for any questions you might have about copyrights on Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Blocking

Blocking tends to be one of the more controversial admin tools because it most directly affects other people. I would suggest that new admins keep to blocking obvious vandals and username violations until they get the hang of the bit. Admins have gotten into trouble when they make bad blocks and for a new admin the issue can be magnified ("should they really be an admin?"). Remember that a block is usually a last resort for most situations and you should be fine. Any block or unblock that might be controversial should be discussed on WP:AN or with the blocking admin (in the case of unblocks). Unblocks tend to be more controversial as admins usually should try to stick to 0RR for admin actions.

[edit] Relevant rules/instructions

[edit] Exercises

Answer the following with: whether or not you would block, and if so, how long and what reason.

1. An anon user (IP) who has recently vandalized after a final warning with no previous blocks.

  • block 24 hrs for vand.
    • Y

2. A registered user who has recently vandalized after a final warning with no previous blocks.

  • block 24 hrs for vand....although i have seen admins block indef for user names, so not for sure
    • Y - though indef blocking as a vandal only account would work too

3. A new user who has broken 3RR with no warnings.

  • no block....but would warn the user about the 3RR policy
    • Y

4. A registered user posts someone's name and phone number in an article.

  • block indef as this could have harassment and safety issues for the person's whose number is being listed

5. An experienced user makes uncivil comments on a talk page.

  • no block, but warn on their talk page
    • Y

6. A new user is making edits at bot-like speed, some of which are breaking page formatting

  • no block, apparently no vandalism?
    • N Bots are supposed to be approved. People will generally look the other way for helpful non-approved bots, but if its breaking pages it should be blocked (blocks prevent damage)

7. A user repeatedly creates the same promotional article, receives the same standard {{Spam-warn}} each time.

  • block indef for violation of policy
    • Y

8. An anon user who vandalized after a final warning 12 hours ago with no previous blocks.

  • block 24 hrs for vand
    • N - Most IP addresses are dynamic and quite a lot are shared. A block hours after vandalism stops may affect innocent users (though it isn't that likely)

9. A new user who makes a legal threat on a talk page.

  • block indef for safety reasons of victim's page
    • Y

10. An anon user makes a threat of real world violence.

  • block one week
    • Y - you might also want to contact Mike Godwin, Cary Bass or local authorities if the threat could be real.

[edit] Other stuff

As I need to hurry this up a bit and I can't some up with many excercies for the following, I'm going to throw most of the rest of admin tools together:

  • Deletion
  • Using/granting rollback
  • Other stuff

[edit] Deletion

I covered image/copyright deletion in an above section, the rest of deletion is a lot easier. AFDs are closed based on consensus and speedy deletion/WP:prod are very straightforward. Feel free to ask if you have any questions though. As with other admin tasks it is recommended that you start with non-controversial things until you get used to it. I will post some sample AFD discussions later.

Undeletion is about as serious as deletion. Pages should generally only be undeleted after a discussion, especially if they were deleted for WP:BLP reasons, but you can view the content of a deleted revision without undeleting the page.


[edit] Rollback

Admins get access to the rollback tool, which reverts the most recent editor's edits to a page. Rollback links are available from Contributions pages, diffs and page history. Recently, admins have been given the ability to grant access to rollback to other editors - see WP:RFR. Since it uses a plain edit summary it's primary use is for reverting blatant vandalism and spam. If you'd like rollback, just ask on my talk page and I can grant it to you. There isn't much of an established set of rules for granting rollback. Basically, as long as the user has some experience, doesn't make bad reverts, and doesn't edit war, they can be trusted with it.

[edit] Other stuff

The admin bit also comes with a few other minor rights that aren't used very often:

  • Admins can edit the MediaWiki interface pages. The rules for editing protected pages apply to these.
  • Admins have access to Special:Unwatchedpages - its not very helpful and is often broken.
  • Admins are 'ipblock-exempt' meaning that hardblocks or autoblocks on their IP addresses will not affect them.
  • Admins and bots are autopatrolled, any new page you create will automatically be marked as patrolled on Special:Newpages.

[edit] RFA

Okay, I couldn't think of anything for deletion that wouldn't be either way too easy, way too much work for me, or too unrealistic, so we're going to go to RFA. How you answer the questions on your RFA is probably about as important as your past 2000 contributions. One bad answer can sink an RFA. Now, I can't tell you how to answer the questions, but I can give you some feedback that people might oppose for. We'll start with the first 3 "optional" questions:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an admin I intend to help clean up the admin backlog. I would also take care of AFDs and blocking repeat vandals. I like to help people, so I intend to get more involved with the Admin's noticeboard. I understand anyone can edit it to answer questions, but I feel that as it is an Admin's noticeboard, question askers are expecting admins to respond.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best contributions are my 8 GAs, and the article I am working on to get to GA status. GAs help to improve the overall quality of wikipedia, so I feel the more GAs, the better wikipedia as a whole is. My vandal fighting is also one of my best contributions. While it has been slightly lower than previous, I intend to pick it back up after the article I'm working on become GACs.
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: Of course I've had conflicts, who hasn't? I've had a few separate incident with a user in which we disagree with what should be added to an article. After two reverts by either of us, I just leave it how it is, and exit Wikipeida for a while, and relax for a while, and not get too stressed out by it. I usually talk to the user on one of our talk pages, to try and solve the conflict in the most civil manner. In the future I plan to do the same thing, and just leave Wikipedia for a few hours of someone is stressing me out.

[edit] First question

The questions are one of the best places to show that you understand what an admin does and how you'll actually help. Especially since non-admins can now use rollback, fighting vandlaism isn't really considered much of an admin task anymore. Mr.Z-man 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can put any questions here. Like I said, I can't really tell you how to answer. You can include blocking vandals, but people might see just that as a sign that you might not really know what being an admin is all about (and where most of the work is). Mr.Z-man 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

First question is pretty good. I would provide some links in question 2. Some people have a grudge against the GA process in general, but that shouldn't be a problem. Third question is also pretty good. I'll try to come up with some example "optional" questions soon. Mr.Z-man 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I was about to do the nomination, and I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series, where you commented: "Keep the article is useful." This shows a serious lack of understanding in deletion policy and how deletion debates work. The closing admin admits that he mostly discarded comments like that, as would I if I were closing it. I'm not sure where to go from here, but you might want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Its not a policy, but its very well known and often referenced in debates. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

moving discussion here

Well I think it is useful for game players...is that not a good enough reason to keep? Also, is one poor response to an AfD enough to lose an RfA? If I voted for those, that would hardly be a reason for me to oppose someone Ctjf83Talk 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reasoning in deletion debates should be based on policy/guideline, generally the same ones given by the nominator. WP:N (and sub-guidelines), WP:NOT, WP:NOR are common ones. There is no rule that says article have to be useful and there are many potentially useful topics that would not be appropriate for articles on Wikipedia. And yes, people will oppose for one bad action, especially one so recent. If you are really impatient and can't wait at all, you can self-nom. But I have a feeling you really don't know what you're getting yourself into. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is ridiculous to oppose on one thing....but what do you want me to do now? Vote on some AfD with better responses? Ctjf83Talk 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)