User:GrooveDog/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Process: Material is placed and developed here. There may be exercises, things to read, questions posed and answers given, etc. Use the talk page for more ephemeral stuff like process related questions, comments, concerns, and so forth

Contents

[edit] Intros

Place introductions here please.

[edit] Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

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, and a Checkuser since August 2007. I am also an admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser on commons, and an admin and checkuser on Meta and I unsuccessfully stood for Steward in 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 mostly cribbed this from a previous coaching page... still true) ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Hi, I am John. I have been editing here since January 2006 and have over 34 000 edits. I've been an administrator since August 2006. I have made around 600 blocks and around 2000 deletions since then. I like to edit articles on aerospace, history, geography, football, punk music and popular music in general.

I generally copyedit articles and format them to wiki norms; it's amazing how many articles still misuse capitals in section headings for instance. I have a bee in my bonnet currently about the misuse and overuse of national and state flags in infoboxes (here's an example of what I mean). Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags is an essay I have helped work on which aspires one day to be a policy on the subject, or more likely a sub-page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Controversies I am currently slightly involved in are:

  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Vintagekits where I am named as an involved party in the case. I probably won't contribute anything much as there are 30 people involved and I have little to add that others haven't already stated.
  • Talk:Factory farming, where I protected an article to prevent a bitter and long-term edit war. I have done little actual work on this recently; it may be that wider involvement is needed to resolve the situation.

In real life I am a 42-year-old male chemistry teacher from Scotland living in northern California. I'll try to add some questions and exercises for you soon. ----John 05:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GrooveDog (talk · contribs)

I've been on Wikipedia for about 4 months now, and have approximately 3000 edits. I've done RC patrol, commented on Afd, Rfd, Mfd, Tfd, and even Efd. I created Wikiproject Manitoba, and am an active contributor to Wikiproject Canada, Wikiproject Food and Drink, and Wikiproject Articles for Creation. I do some work at WP:ACC, which would be a place where Admin powers would be helpful. At WP:RFCU, I am a clerk, as Lar knows, and it would be helpful to be able to block users who have been confirmed as sockpuppets. I constantly see backlogs which can usually only be helped by admin access. I see other "holes-in-a-wall" which require admin assistance, yet who do not have very many administrators to help out. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda/Checklist/what you want out of this

List of things we should try to achieve: (let's jointly develop this list together but here are a few things to think about, we three will restructure this as needed... Please also answer some of these below)

  • Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?
  • What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?
  • Some reading to get you started is often helpful.
  • exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?

[edit] Agenda/Checklist discussion

  • Answer to question 1: Being an admin is usually referred to as being handed the mop. As a mop-holder, I would be similar to a janitor, cleaning up people's messes (deletions), putting up wet floor signs (protections) and stopping people from tracking muddy shoes on the carpet (blocks). There's no real place that I would specifically help out with, most likely wherever is needed that day. I'd like to be an admin for the simple reason of improving Wikipedia. I see many, many backlogs which require administrator powers to complete, whether it be deletion debates, RFPP work, or opening and closing cases at AIV and UAA. Admin powers would also be nice at RFCU, so that I can block confirmed sockpuppets. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Pat answer... it is more about the how than the why. It won't annoy voters but what do you REALLY think? Why on earth would you want to be a janitor? ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Why would I want to be a janitor? Simply because if there are not enough janitors to do a proper cleaning, then the area that they are cleaning will remain messy. I don't believe that there are enough administrators at present, because there are many areas of the wiki that are not very clean, or have been completely forgotten. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer to question 2: An admin does janitorial work. To me, blocks and protections are more interesting than deletions. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What's the least favourite part of the job to you and why? ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hm... I would have to say receiving the yelling when a newer contributor finds out that I've deleted their favorite page. I have no problem being criticised by these people, as those conflicts have never caused me much stres, but it has never been pleasant for me to see people unhappy, even if they didn't really understand why the page was deleted. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Reading list

To get you started... Here are a few things to read and think about from Lar (John may add more)

  • 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. How does it fit?
  • 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) It is really a shame that this page was deleted, it's really very good. I placed it on a user page for a previous coachee, Akradecki, see User:Akradecki/Admin coaching/Essjay neutrality ... That stance is not necessarily for everyone, but it's a thought provoking read.

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 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading list discussion

Pick any one, and discuss it. Let's see how and what you think about things. Then pick another one. We'll know when to stop.

Essjay Neutrality-I think that his idea is a good way to operate. Although sometimes, taking a side in controversial issues can be a dangerous thing, it is usually better to stay neutral in my opinion. Although sometimes, I do give my position out, I do also read a lot and keep my opinions to my self, avoiding a conflict of interest. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Give an example of a situation where you could not avoid taking a side. In that situation, what would you do? ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"ARBCOM!!". :P Anyways, I would have to take a side in discussions which have many arguments, but not my specific point, so I would have to comment on those. Decisions which involve something serious, such as banning a very established user, I would probably give my input. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scenarios

These are a bit more concrete but not as mechanical as some of the "exercises" that we may ask you to do as well.

[edit] Scenario 1

I just love Kat's essay... Here's the very first sentence from that essay:

"Many people on Wikipedia seem too block-happy, calling for blocks for every garden-variety vandal who walks into the wiki."

What do you think of that? Is it true? If it is, how would you avoid giving out blocks unnecessarily? How do you deal with vandals? How persistent is too persistant? When IS a block justified? Give us some general comments. Now... Take a look at my block log: [1] That first user Juppiter.. review his contribs, review what was said on AN/I at the time... (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#User:Juppiter_blocked_for_24_hours_seven_days) There is also some background on Juppiter's dislike of OrphanBot in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive84, look for his userid. It was suggested I was too lenient given his page move vandalism and multiple warnings in the past (however they were WAY in the past, not that day). What would you have done differently, and why? Was there another way to handle that user? Was 24 hours too short? too long? why? ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, not to be a suck-up, but that was a very good decision on your part. You had been well commended for giving him a smaller block, allowing him a second chance.
To answer the questions, I believe that Kat was correct in that statement. ArbCom said it best when "Blocking is a serious measure, and should only be used when necessary", -from some case a while ago. That pretty much answers the next question:Only block when necessary; if there is another way to convince them to stop, then use that until blocking would be the last resort. Dealing with vandals is simple:For users, it's a simple matter of history. When dealing with IP addresses, history is a bit more difficult, because the IP made be shared, whether it is across a network, or even in a household with more than one member. IPs should usually be dealed with a bit more strictly than users. By that, I mean that we are slightly more lenient. Of course, I would do a WHOIS lookup just to verify whether I'm dealing with an IP shared over an ISP, because first time users to Wikipedia in one household can be affected by a block which has been placed on the IP that is now there's. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scenario 2

You block an edit warrior (not a vandal, long time contributor who just is a bit nasty) and he uses apparent socks (checkuser is inconclusive though) and IP address edits to evade the block. What should you do, and why? What if he said the sock policy doesn't explicitly prevent IP address edits and that you're a bad admin? Do you take an incident to AN/I? Why or why not? What other things would you do first? When and why? ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack, checkuser is inconclusive, I've seen those cases and they're hard to figure out. Anyways, if it APPEARS that he's using an IP address to evade the block, I would first do a quick WHOIS to get a rough idea on whether the IP may be shared. The IP should never be blocked indefinitely, says the Sock Puppetry policy. I would probably bbring it to AN/I to get a few other opinions on whether I had done the right thing. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What if AN/I didn't reveal a consensus? Does that mean you were wrong? Why or why not? ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because AN/I doesn't reveal a consensus, doesn't mean that my judgement is wrong. I used my common sense to determine whether I thiught that person deserved a block, or punishment that was of a certain length. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scenario 3

Again from Kat's essay:

"As a personal guideline, I prefer to follow WP:1RR, as many others have."

Do you follow 1RR or 3RR? Why? If you are a 1RR follower, as I am, what do you say to someone who's on the cusp of violating 3RR? Assume you're not personally involved in the article, someone messaged you for help (you'll get a lot of that). How would you get them to stop without blocking them? ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I follow 1RR all of the time, except of course in cases of simple vandalism. I actually give {{uw-3rr}} templates to users who appear to be edit warring. The template explains that they have not yet violated 3RR, but they should cease and desist then and there and bring it to the talk page. Getting them to stop without blocking them seems to usually only be if the other person stops as well, so I think that the template that I mentioned above is appropriate. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 11:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad template, as templates go. What do you think of the line of thinking that holds that one should NEVER use templates with established editors? Is the extra time to write out a message by hand worth it? Or just a waste of time? Discuss. (I'll tell you what I think, if you want to know, later) ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the "NEVER use templates" thinking is a bit wacky. A few templates are okay because of course, they were all written by different users, but most are a bit to robotic-sounding for established users. I personally, when I've seen an editor around, usually would like to write a message to them instead of giving them a template; more casual, such as "Hey. I noticed that you are in a sort of edit war on <insert article here>. Watch out for 3RR. :P". GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought provoking questions

[edit] IAR

  • Question from John All right, this is an old chestnut you will likely be asked a version of in RfA. Here it comes. "Describe a) a legitimate and b) an illegitimate use of WP:IAR. You may use real or hypothetical examples." --John 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that IAR should be taken at face value, with no extra consideration needed. If the rules prevent you from improving, or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Vandalising with an edit summary of WP:IAR, such as in the case of Sev Snape and the Hogwarts sockpuppet gang, is inappropriate and should not be allowed. However, breaking a rule because it may be outdated, or incomplete is a legitimate use of the policy. I personally liked the very, very first revision of IAR, which stated "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." This explained it perfectly to a new contributor. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. As far as administrative actions are concerned, what would be a good and a less good use of the rule. (I agree with you about that revision being the best by the way.) --John 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Bonus question... Do you know where that very first version came from? Why is that important? ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer Lar's question, the first revision came from a list called "Rules to consider" when Wikipedia was in the very first stages of being created. It was actually quite near the top of the list, because it was one of the most important ones. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 11:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
hehe... Maybe I am being too obscure. It came from another wiki originally. Do you know what wiki? Here's a clue, there is a link to that wiki on both our user pages. How good of a researcher are you? :) (researching things is a skill some admins use a lot in tracking down patterns and so forth, or external disruption) ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be from Meta. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Naaa.... this wiki predates wikipedia. By a lot. It doesn't even run MediaWiki. Meta is much newer than that quote. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's MeatBallWiki, then. Not running MediaWiki, it looks all weird. :P GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Very good. We reserve the right to give you reading assignments from it. :) For example Meatball:DefendEachOther is a great essay, short and to the point... ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
While I was researching, I actually came across that one...linked from Meta somewhere. It's really a good point of view. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
John: A less good use would be a full protection of the Main Page Featured Article because of an autoconfirmed edit war. Although this may be necessary because there may be many users warring, I would probably block, instead of protect because protection of the main page is a last resort. A better use would probably be deleting a page against consensus from AfD, MfD. Those discussions are intended to be to have a discussion to hear all sides of the argument and gauge consensus, but if there are any reasons in the argument which are quite weak, such as I like it voting for keep, then it is sometimes better to ignore those comments and take only more valid reasons. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DefendEachOther

OK so you like DefendEachOther. (so do I)... but like any finite essay, it doesn't match our infinite reality exactly... Where does it fall down? Where is it wrong? Discuss. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict)Hmm...I can't really see much of a problem with it at the moment, but that's premature...GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's one possible area. Cliques. Are there cliques on WP? Why or why not? Give examples. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? As an admin, how would you deal with a clique, busily defending each other? They are, after all, acting in the spirit of DefendEachOther! Or are they? Discuss. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I definitely think that there are certain cliques on Wikipedia, such as most of the folk at EfD, and a few admins who seem to be in some sort of cabal. Otherwise, not too many. Second answer: Defending your friends is not necessarily a bad thing. It may not be defend each other, so much as defend your friends. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • How do you tell the difference between defending your friends because they're right, and defending your friends because they're your friends? Discuss. THAT is the danger of cliques. Agree/disagree? Discuss. Note as a data point, I opposed John's RfA. Yet he and I defend each other all the time. Discuss. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • To be perfectly honest, I believe that I have no problem distinguishing what's right, between my friends. I am fairly social with other Wikipedians, but I don't think that I would ever have a problem defending people even if they aren't my friends. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counts

OK below we discussed how some people might think your edit count is light... Please advocate why that position is right. Then advocate why that position is wrong. ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad admins

Please give a definition of what you think a "bad admin" would be. How should we avoid getting bad admins? What should we do about bad admins if they are discovered? ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

Is it ever OK to call someone a troll? Discuss how WP:SPADE and WP:AGF can co-exist on the same project. --John 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exercises

[edit] Exercise 1

Another editor draws this article to your attention. (Let's pretend it is in the mainspace!) What, if anything, do you do? --John 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I would speedy delete per criterion A7, no assertion of notability. The article is unsourced, about an apparently non-notable band, and has some NPOV problems. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you message the creator of the article first, afterwards, or not at all? --John 03:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would message the creator before I deleted the article, to have a last minute opinion on whether they would add a hangon template, and why I should not delete the article. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In my experience they are likely to defend it by saying that it is an "up-and-coming" band, and that there are (even) worse articles out there. How would you respond to this? You haven't mentioned doing a Google test, presumably you have done this by this stage. --John 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have indeed done a Google test by this time, forgot to mention it. Although Google is not always accurate, as GoogleBot only crawls the web for caches every so often. "Even worse articles" does not give your article an exemption, as bad articles are constantly being looked at to determine whether they should be deleted. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How close am I?

How close am I to having a chance at Rfa? What should I improve, editingwise? Should I begin contributing to a specific area? Questions, questions, questions..... GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

eh... if you're worried about editcountitis I'm not the guy to ask, I don't keep track of the latest fashions in that regard, I'm probing you for soundness of thinking and whether you "get the wiki way". That's more something that has to be there inside you from experience than something that can be directly practiced on, so it's not a matter of where you should edit exactly, as how far your mind has been stretched. I'd like John to chime in on this too. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay...That makes sense. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 11:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
PS I have an "ideal admin" in mind... you're not it. :) But neither am I, nor is John. :) There are some behaviours, some thought patterns, that instantly signal "not suitable for adminship"... some that instantly signal "wow, awesome, why didn't I think of that" and a lot that might be different than me, even different than I might prefer, but aren't wrong. Just different. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not what you want to hear, but your edit count is definitely on the low side. 451 mainspace edits will be too low for some people, especially compared to your 632 user page edits. Once you deduct your 256 edits to GrooveDog/Status, you have made a total of 2875 edits to all the areas of Wikipedia. (I got these data here.) This is not an absolute show-stopper for me but it is only realistic to acknowledge that it is for some people. --John 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this seems to be where we stopped... just to elaborate on this point, what John was pointing out was that some people may find your edit count low. Some of us do not subscribe to precise edit counts but you should be prepared for that objection. What we have seen so far of your answers to the thought starters and questions is encouraging, but there does seem to me to be a sense, perhaps incorrectly, that sometimes you are answering what you think the right answer is rather than what you yourself think.

I think as far as the blocking and tackling operational stuff, you are fine. It's the deeper stuff about what really is the right thing to do and when, and why, that possibly may come with more experience. As I said on someone's RFA, long long ago: "We need admins that can make snap judgements, and then go back and gracefully change what they did if it turns out wrong (that is very important, this is a wiki and we are making it all up as we go along), and at the same time admins who can think long and hard about complicated things and make the right decision on the first try, and admins who can tell which approach is needed in which case"... I opposed that someone because I thought at the time that he didn't get it, and I was wrong. I have since been very pleasantly surprised at how well he in fact DOES get it, he is in my view one of our best admins.

So it's not an easy thing to judge from a few questions, which is maybe why some voters use many criteria to try to choose good candidates. You yourself need to look within and see what you think of yourself, and of the task, and see if you want to try. Because... adminship is a thankless job. There is no glory in it, only work. If you think there is glory or prestige in it to be had, you are not yet ready to be an admin.

Also, more time has went by. It is up to you to decide how long you want to wait and whether there are more things you want us to do to help you decide if adminship is for you, and when. As coaches, there is nothing we can bottle that makes you an instant admin. All we can do is ask and probe and perhaps guide. The right answers have to come from within. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)