From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 What to work on 2 Phase one 2.1 Checklist 2.2 More 2.3 Things to do 2.4 Questions on your AFD participation and other aspects 2.5 Advise 2.6 Nicely handled 2.7 When you become an admin 2.8 Evaluation 2.9 Assistant/co-coach 3 Phase 2 3.1 The basic RFA questions 3.2 Blocking 3.3 The more common extras 3.4 NPOV questioning 3.5 Page protection 3.6 Deletion 3.7 Miscellaneous 4 Phase 3 4.1 Is this Wikipedia? 4.2 Fun and Humorous? 4.3 Re-confirmation 4.4 The Power of the Admin 4.5 Ageism 4.6 Fail 4.7 Registration 5 Phase 4 5.1 Re-evaluating 5.2 Assuming good faith 5.3 Some block exercises... 5.4 AN—an admin's greatest resource 5.5 Reviewing your contribs

[edit] Introduction

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 consists of studying an RFA or two, and determining the candidates strengths and weaknesses. This will familiarize you with the process, and get you ready for your own RFA.

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! Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to work on

• Try to get your mainspace edit count to around 1500 (It's currently at 1049)
• Work on getting your projectspace edits up to 500 or so (currently at 360)
• Not really required, but try to write an article that makes it to good status at least.

[edit] Phase one

[edit] Checklist

This checklist will give me a better idea of what you have done. Malinaccier (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever:

• !voted in an RFA?

Yes, [here] is a recent one.

• listed a vandal at WP:AIV?

Yes here are three from the other day: [1], [2], [3]

• requested a page to WP:RPP?

I have [here]. Not something I do to often.

• had an editor review?

I have... Wikipedia:Editor review/Gtstricky

• reviewed another editor at editor review?

I have not done that yet. I will in the near future.

• signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?

Yes it is on my talk page.

• use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?

Yes I use most of those at some point during my day. I do not have VandalProof yet but I have requested it and I am awaiting approval. I use Lupin's tools also.

• contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).

I try to get in there everyday and contribute to a few. That tends to be the place I learn from the most. Reading other editors rational helps a lot. [Here] is one from just last week that I was educated on :)

• posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?

Yes, I have a couple of contribution on [this] page.

• uploaded an image?

When I first joined I sent an image but I did not state ownership and it was quickly deleted. I have not uploaded an image since.

• welcomed a user?

Yes, I try to do this if I am on a new talk page. I would say I do a few every day.

• mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?

I think this talk page would have my best example.

• participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?

Not too much. I think because those pages have "admin" in the title I have observed but not participated.

• taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.

I would say (as of today) I fall into:

• Moderate eventualism
• Moderate anti-statusquoism
• I think I lean towards Communityism (which is why I try to welcome people before I place the warning template)
• Rehabilism - I see (as every editor does) a lot of immature vandalism from school students. Although it is time consuming and annoying someday they will grow up and some will become amazing contributers.
• For edit wars I fall in the WikiPacifism side of things. In the long run these things get worked out, there is limited reasons why a revert war would ever be justified.
• Adminship is "no important thing" - If anything, admins should be help do a higher level of accountability (just a thought).
• Nuetrality: Elusive virtue - with a lean towards basic skill... I think maintaining a NPOV is easier as a group then as an individual. The hardest thing to see sometimes is your own POV and it is often best to step back and let others tackle it.

I took a look at your Editor Review, and I agree that you need to use an edit summary 100% of the time. The incident here also caught my attention. Their edit didn't appear to be an attempt to hurt Wikipedia, but an attempt to reach a person they admired. Having identified this, you should have tried {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead of{{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. This was two months ago, but don't forget to give progressive warnings. Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have turned on the option in my preferences that checks for a comment. I did that a week or so ago. For a while I have been good with comments except on my own user space I tended to never do one (I do now). I use to try to use my own judgement when it came to to the user warnings. That was stupid, now I just follow the progression for the most part. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question:

• Have you ever submitted an RFA before?

No, I have never been nominated and I am not someone who would self nominate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More

Here's a few more questions about articles you like to edit:

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?

A. For some reason this afd stands out. I spent a lot of time getting some references in the article to save it. That seemed to send me on a mission for a while where I was always trying to save AFD articles that were nominated because of notability reasons by doing my own research and trying to get some references on them. Most of the time the nominating editor has done that so it is really just verifying the nomination (which I think always should be done).

There must be something I have done here that I am proud of... I will keep looking over my history.

2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?

A. Not really. I tend to enjoy articles on US history and US politics/government and will assist in editing if needed. I also have an interest in firearms and have spent some time on the Glock page. I tend to bounce all over the place. I enjoy learning and might see an article in an AFD or in the new pages, read it and tweak it if needed, then I tend to follow the subject by seeing what pages link to it or what other pages the creator has worked on or created.

3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?

A. Most of my time is spent on the cleanup/vandal fight/ AFD issues. I probably work backwards on the content edit area. I tend to see something in the real world (news or other reference) and try to place the info in an existing article. Most times the information has been placed there by someone closer to the subject.

[edit] Things to do

• Read everything on WP:ARL if you haven't already.

• Then, after a few weeks, go back and read it again as a refresher. I still refer to items on the list when I’m unsure of something. —Travis^talk 16:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Participate in every RFA, and particpate in discussions at WT:RFA—this is important to help you understand what being an admin is all about, and to learn the RFA process thoroughly.
• Edit articles, and don't simply revert vandalism!
• Keep up the good work. I will add to this list later.

[edit] Questions on your AFD participation and other aspects

1. Would you consider yourself a regular WP:AFD contributor? Do you have a deletionist or an inclusionist philosophy?

A. Yes, I tend to jump in there every day or two and try to contribute to a few discussions. For the most part I lean to inclusionist with the exception of a few areas, computer games and TV shows. I have a hard time justifying the notability of individual TV episodes or a fictional character from a game. For this reason I tend to stay away from those discussions as I think it would easily lead me to become more of a deletionist.

2. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?

A. I am the worst speller. Spell check is my friend. Along those lines I tend to not be the best content contributer. My communication style tends to be conversational (I write like I talk). This is not the best style for encyclopedia content.

Even so, you can still work on things such as WP:DLP, etc.

3. 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. It changes every couple of weeks. Right now I check the watch list, check the help desk, take a quick look at new pages to see if there are some editors all ready handling them. If not I jump on for a while. If there are I will head over to AFD and spend some time there. Usually one of the discussions will lead me to start looking deeper into a category or a specific editors pages.

4. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?

A. This is an easy one. I have three young children that will be using this in 10 or so years. I want it to be the best place for them. I want them to be able to come here and soak up knowledge from around the globe. I feel that the time I put in here is for them.

A noble cause

[edit] Advise

For the second time in a week the help desk had a Rick Roll question. The question contains a link which takes you to a video. It is vandalism and some of the links take you to pages that are very disruptive to your browser (the one earlier in the week was that type). I removed the link and was going to report the user to WP:AIV however I noticed that was their only edit. I decided to use a warning but thought the level 1 warning was weak for such a blatant attack (this type of vandalism requires a little work not just hitting the edit button). I used {{uw-vandalism4im}} here. The last user User talk:DellorKcir that did this was blocked. So I understand that it is always best not to WP:BITE and to WP:AGF so when would that template be appropriate if not in this situation? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Really, it's up to you. lvl 4im usually is way too over the top to use. If I think the vandalism is really bad I will use a lvl 2 warning to avoid WP:BITE, but it is a little firmer than a lvl 1. I think you were just a little over-eager, and that was the only problem. The editors that crossed out your warning probably didn't help things either, reprimanding a small mistake right on the vandal's talk page. In the future, always start low if you can. Malinaccier (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicely handled

Good choice in just sticking with the warning here. Malinaccier (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When you become an admin

1. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?

A. I think I would have to read up on everything again and take it slow. As an example, WP:CSD... as an editor I can rely on the admin to check my reasoning, as an admin that responsibility falls on me. Reading the WP:AN3 page gives me a headache. I would probably stay away from that page unless a back log exists.

2. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?

A. WP:SSP I have only run into one sock puppet issue. WP:RM not much a non-admin can do there. I also have not participated in very many discussions at WP:IFD

It's not neccesary to have participated in WP:IFD, but you do need to know image policy. Even coming across one sockpuppet at WP:SSP is good enough, unless you want to work in that area as an admin. So not many weaknesses there.

3. What are your own personal standards for adminship?

A. I think I look at three things: are they civil, are they willing to learn (how do they handle criticism), do they have a history that supports their knowledge of policies and guidelines. Every editor makes mistakes. It is how it is handled afterwards that counts. I am sometimes surprised to see discussions in RFA that concentrate on one or two edits.

3a. Do you yet meet your own standards?

A. I believe I do but it is hard to self judge.

4. What are ways you can improve your editing skills? In what ways do you want me to help?

A. It think I am at the point where I don't know... what I don't know. Every once in a while someone will point out a project or a proposed guideline that I never knew existed. I would love to know where my weaknesses are and how to improve. I understand my tenure and my edit count are probably my biggest hurdles right now.

Phase 2 and 3 should handle this, as I ask just about every question in the books about every policy.

[edit] Evaluation

I'm creating an evaluation of the work you've done so far. I'll have to email it to you, as I'm making a table in Microsoft Word. In the meantime, just keep doing a good job editing! Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you give me a short list of editors you admire and why? Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am terrible at remembering users. So I will probably have a short list: User:Hersfold She goes over board helping newbies. This one might be surprising but User:Uncle G. He is not the best at communication but seems to know policy inside and out. I use to visit his talk pages every week or so to see his reasoning on things.User:Addhoc not for any one reason but we seem to bump into each other in AFD and seem to think alike. oh and User:Orangemike one of those editors that is always willing to help and his picture make me smile (laugh really). I know it is not a long list but if I do not run into a user every few days they fall right out of my brain.

[edit] Assistant/co-coach

TravisTX (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has offered to help coach you. I previously coached him and becuase he passed his RFA with a 98% approval rate, you can be sure that he obviously knows what he's doing! Unless you have any objections, he'll be joining us here. Just thought that I should let you know. I'm close to finishing my evaluation of you, so I'll get that to you. Malinaccier (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! (Thanks for the support for my RfA, by the way!) I’ve been kicking around on WP for a couple of years, but didn’t really start actively editing until a little over a year ago. From participating in many areas of the project, I have a pretty firm grasp of what it takes to be a good admin, so I hope I can offer some helpful advice here for you. Also, being way, way older than Malinaccier, I may be able to provide a slightly different perspective on things.

Anyway, feel free to drop me a note any time you have a question. —Travis^talk 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you two mind sharing the evaluation with me? —Travis^talk 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when I get home, I can email you. I'll send over a confirmation email from here though...Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could touch it up...Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

I feel that I've gathered enough information right now, so let's move on. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The basic RFA questions

We'll begin by asking the basics:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A.

• I think my natural response would be to stay in familiar territory. WP:AFD, Prods, Speedies, vandal fighting (as all good new admins should), and helping newbies (although tools are rarely needed there). Closing AFDs would allow me to be productive while I continue to sharpen my knowledge. Obviously by becoming an admin it does not create in me an enlighten knowledge of all things WP. I would only approach closure in discussions that I feel qualified and would allow the more experienced admins continue to handle the tricky decisions. My hope would be I would grow into an admin that would have the knowledge to take those on as well.
• WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP would be the next areas that would get my attention. These areas seem to be worked and tend not to get backlogged but I am sure I could be an asset there also.
• Then I would start branching into areas that are backlogged. WP:RM seems to usually need attention as well as WP:CP. These areas tend to be more time demanding so I think it is harder to make a visual dent in the workload but every closed case helps.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A. Helping new users, vandal fighting, and helping at WP:AFC. If I can be honest, I am not the best content editor but I feel that I am able to contribute to the project by helping new editors (that have talents that I might not posses) to navigate the complexities of WP. [User:Therese Dvir|Here]] is an user that came to WP and put up an article about herself on her talk page. I helped her move the page to a temp space and tried to work with her on the COI issues as well as the notability concerns. Unfortunatly I was unsuccesfull in getting the article to a version that would stand, but I think she appreciated the effort and had a much better understanding of WP when we were done.

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 have not had any huge conflicts. I have had some vandals that were not happy about warnings and a few AFDs that did not make people happy but those are expected. The hardest people to appease are the COI issues. They are so connected to the subject they take any criticism personally. I have learned to take the time to really try to explain WP to these editors and to try to help them in the process. I find that walking away from a conflict and getting a fresh perspective always helpful. I am willing to admit if I am wrong, always try to remain civil, and I always look for WP:CON. My humble opinion matters but the masses make the decisions.

• These are my gut responses. I want to review them in a day and tweak them. I also think I should have some specific examples and will need to find them. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you should provide specific examples and give longer, more detailed answers. I was criticized by a couple of users for giving too-short answers in my RfA. —Travis^talk 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Generally you should go almost overboard. For example, in question 1 you should explain why you want to go into these areas in more depth. Just go deeper in like Travis reccomended. You did well in saying that helping newbies doesn't neccesarily need the tools, as I've seen RFAs go sour because someone has stated that they would use their tools in a way that they cannot be used. Well, go and tweak away and we'll take a look at that. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like the updated responses. One error in spelling/grammar (since you stated this was your weakness I want to help--Don't think I'm being a mean stickler) was in your answer to the first question: you should say enlightened instead of enlighten. My only concern on content would have to be in your answer to the second question. If we could get a few more good contributions it would be a lot better. Otherwise they are much better in my opinion. We'll see what Travis has to say...Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• They are better, particularly the expanded answer to Q1. —Travis^talk 02:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?

A.

Check if the report is valid. (have warnings been issued? has a final been issued?)

Check the users contributions, warnings, and logs. Is a block necessary to prevent further damage to WP?

If the user is an IP, check the address using WhoIs and place the appropriate template "{{anonblock}}" or "{{schoolblock}}") on the talk page.

If blocking, use the block link or go to Special:Blockip making sure a clear reason is stated.

Very good. Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?

A. If the report was not valid meaning the appropriate warnings were not issued or it was not really vandalism (edit war). Also, if the user has been inactive for a few days. Maybe someone just found a vandalism entry and issued the report but did not notice the entry was from 3 weeks ago and the user has not edited since. There are also times when editors actually heed the warnings and stop vandalizing. If the discontinued their actions after the final warning action might not be needed.

Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?

A. Never per WP:CDB.

Of course. Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?

A. My answerresponse would be: "Except in extreme circumstances, self block requests are not honored per [WP:SELFBLOCK]]. However there is a user script that can be used to block yourself for a wikibreak. It is located here."

Good. Malinaccier (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?

A. I would contact the blocking admin to discuss. If we can not agree on a course of action (which I suspect would be rare) I would take it to WP:AN to get a consensus.

Good again. Malinaccier (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?

A. Well first I would clean up all the damage by rolling back the edits the bot did. If there were many edits (100s) I would contact a developer on the appropriate IRC channel since they have tools to do a quick mass cleanup. I would then enter a note at WP:AN to let the community know in case is starts up again.

Good

7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?

A. If I had any doubt on a block I would not do it. I would then look to get a second opinion. That might be as simple as asking a fellow admin to look at the situation or it might require consensus. For instance if it was a user name issue I would take it to WP:RFCN for discussion.

Good, maybe ask at WP:ANI

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 revert the vandalism and see how the editor responds to the block. Unless there was a reasonable explanation I would think it would end up at ARBCOM at for possible de-sysoping.

Don't forget to post on WP:ANI

9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia for article content. What action do you take?

A. I would have to look into the situation completely. Are the statements made in anger and are they meant to be disruptive? Then a block might be warranted per WP:LEGAL. There is also a possibility that the user has a legitimate concern. New users are less likely to know about WP:NLT. The dispute resolution process should resolve the issue but if it can not there is always Mike Godwin.

Let's hope it doesn't make it to Mike. =D

10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?

A. If they have made no edits nothing should be done. If they have, no immediate block. A warning and discussion should occur first explaining that the user name is confusing and not allowed per WP:U. The editor should be given the chance to change it.

10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"

A. (I hope this is not a trick question) But I would block that immediately as way to confusing. They could then change it.

11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?

A. If they have made no edits nothing should be done. If they have, and if it is being used to spam or market then an immidiate block would be appropriate. If the user is making non related edits then a discussion on the user name should occur on their talk page. Unless an amazing justification for the name is made, a request to change it would be appropriate. If the user disagrees it should be taken to WP:RFCN for consensus.

Good.

note: I have seen a trend for admins to quickly block business usernames and then let them change it. It seems to go against WP:AGF in some cases and in most I have seen lately the editors expresses ignorance and requests a name change.

12. A new user account is created with the name of "Addhoclol." Would you block the user? Why or why not?

Or "Gtstrickylol" for example.

A. I see no reason this violates WP:U (unless I am missing the meaning... Ad Hoc lol?).

Since user addhoc is no longer a valid user account I would allow it. If it seems like a disruptive user trying to imitate addhoc I would then block it and take it to WP:RFCN.

Sure.

13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock? (P.S. This relates directly to Q10a.)

A. A hardblock stops any editing from the IP, including from a registered account, a softblock only stops anonymous editing from an IP, registered accounts can still edit from the blocked IP address.

[edit] The more common extras

1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?

A. Yes. Consensus works everywhere in WP. If a group of users has lost faith in my abilities, I will gladly step down. There is always plenty of work for non-admins to do.

Good reply.

I agree, but there isn’t really any “correct” answer to this. —Travis^talk

2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A block is the technical method of stopping someone from editing. A ban is a community (or Arbcom, or the foundation, or Jimbo) decision to revoke editing privileges (usually by blocking them).

Sure

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. When replacing any content that was removed because of a BLP concern consensus is needed. It should be discussed with the deleting admin and taken to the talk page for consensus.

Yes.

4. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?

A. I am not sure I ever would. I view WP:IAR as a tool that is used mainly for new users. Essentially it kind of goes along with WP:BOLD. Also, if editors really think something improves WP but violates a rule then by all means improve WP. Someone will be along shortly to check your work. This is one of the few areas where admins are held to a higher standard. Their tools have a more dramatic affect and are not as easy to reverse (deleting an article or blocking). An admin should know the rules, understand their importance, and should understand where to find the resources to resolve unclear situations. Anywhere an Admin feels WP:IAR should apply should be taken somewhere (RFC, AN, Talk Page) for consensus.

Good argument. No right or wrong answer here. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

5. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?

A. Of those listed at WP:LOP, I can not see any that I would change. At one point I thought it might be a good idea to be able to place a limited block on IPs from making small (less then 5 char) changes or blanking pages. This semi block could be placed on school ranges to help curve vandalism but then I realized it made no sense as any one that wanted to vandalize would just add 6 characters or blank most of a page.

Stopping unregistered users from making contribs with less than 5 characters would also stop them from contributing by correcting spelling, grammar, etc. Page blanking is a pretty good one even though they could get around the loop. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

6. What did you do to prepare for this RfA?

A. A few months back I did a editor review to see where I could improve. I took what I learned there and applied it. Then in February I jumped into Admin Coaching. With that program I was able to let someone else really guide me through the policies and fine details of admin work that can be tricky to learn (or even find). I have taken part in many areas of WP trying to broaden my experience in different areas. What I have learned the most is where to find answers. I think that is one of the hardest aspects of WP. It is a place full of information but it is not always easy to find an answer.

threw → through - Otherwise, good answer. —Travis^talk

We are bombarding you with questions today =P. Malinaccier (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, one reminder: Be careful of the too-short answers. —Travis^talk

[edit] NPOV questioning

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?

A. A POV fork is when a second article on the same subject is created (in most cases) for the purpose of pushing a POV. Often it occurs when editors can not agree on content and one editor will go and start another article. I would first start a merge discussion on the talk pages of the two articles and probably to RFC.

2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.

A. In order to maintain a NPOV you should provide just the facts in articles which will help prevent POV from slipping in, keep the article balanced do not give undue weight to one perspective or another, and do your research and provide credible sources.

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..."erroneous" kicks this one out.

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...

Nuetral but needs good sources.

3 Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.

Not... really the whole sentence pushes a POV but "widely accepted" is the big red flag.

4 Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.

Nuetral enough. It could be argued that "much" is too strong. He did do a lot in his life so was much of it spent arguing. However, that is more of a semantics issue and does not really push a POV.

5 Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.

Not, it pushes a POV

Good answers! —Travis^talk

[edit] Page protection

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

A. If a page has had an ongoing edit war between an IP and a registered user, the semi protection would still leave the page open to editing form the registered user. A full protection would force the parties to reach consensus (in theory).

Good answer.

2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?

A. If a page has been continuously recreated after a valid deletion process and if there is no hope of the article being created in an acceptable state. Vandalism pages are the easiest to justify ("Jimmy is the hottest guy at school").

Sure.

3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.

A. Stolen from WP:PROT:

• Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism.
• Pages subject to a page name dispute.
• Visible pages which have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard.

Yes.

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. If there is a justifiable reason (vandalism) to protect their user page that is appropriate. The talk page should be left always open for editing.

Correct

5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?

A. Only admins can see deleted material so in order to allow non admins to see the previously deleted material the page would need to be restored. This allows for an informed discussion to take place in the deletion review.

Exactly.

[edit] Deletion

1. How would you close the following AFD's?

A 1

I would !vote for deletion as WP:NOT#GUIDE and leave this one for another admin to close :) But if I was forced to close it I would probably have to keep it based on the consensus. If I felt like I could justify it I would relist it since many people are using 'per other discussion' arguments which does not show that the editors have looked at the article to see if it can stand on its own merit.

Yeah, I probably would stay away from closing that. If you disagree with consensus, it is better to !vote and leave it to another admin.

B 2

Keep. Notability is a guideline not a policy. Leo has a number of medals that seem to warrant notability even though that is not included in the base guideline. I would base my decision on the rational in the 'strong keep' especially when it is the last !vote. It seems to me when a discussion has been open for a while and people see a strong case at the end of it they tend to pass over it and go on to the next one.

Good.

C 3

Relist for consensus. No strong arguments to delete or keep yet.

Good.

D Exercise 4

Consensus seems to be delete. There are no references in the article to help support WP:N and none have been added during the deletion process.

What about the on-duty police men and the "unusual backstory"?

Interesting but... no. The statement in the article is misleading. The mall does have its own security team. The police are contracted and assigned to deal with the criminal aspect of the security. Most larger malls have a police presence. My guess is that the local government felt that the mall would tax their police resources and required the owners to agree to pay for two officers as part of the building approval process. It does not support notability in my opinion.

Ok. Good deduction.

E Exercise 5

Delete. Consensus seems to be there. There are no sources or real world notability claims. Per WP:NOT#GUIDE comes to mind again.

Good

F Exercise 6

(Delete since it does not exist... ok I was cheating). Honestly, I would have kept it. No one said delete and yes places are usually notable and kept as it states in [WP:AFDP]]. I would have closed as keep and tagged it for references.

Yes, good.

2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments?

A. Bad faith comments from a suspected sock puppet or a SPA can be disregarded.

Yep.

3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?

A. They should be redirected to another page or deleted if non can be found.

Again, yes.

4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?

A. Any personal information or copyrighted material.

(sorry for the short answers... time is tight today) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Don't worry about it. They're all correct. Malinaccier (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)

A. My goal would be to stay consistant and maintain a balance between helping the project and helping new editors. I will probably be strict when it comes to persistanct vandals but realistically most vandals are young kids still in school. They will grow up one day and will probably be great editors. Their damage needs to be stopped but it never needs to get personal.

Reasonable.

2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.

A. Administers are help to a higher level of accountability and the abuse of an admin account will not be tolerated even if security breaches are suspected. That said maintaining password security (keeping it private, having a strong password, changing it a few times a year) is a must.

Beware shoulder surfers is another.

3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?\

A. Sometimes email is the only available (blocked) or appropriate (sensitive information) communication tool an editor can use. Admins must be available to meet those needs.

Good here.

I'm pretty sure that we're done with phase 2. If it's ok with Travis, we can move on. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven’t been that active lately, I’ve been pretty busy... Anyway, I agree about moving forward. —Travis^talk 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 3

[edit] Is this Wikipedia?

• What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

No I do not agree with the image. I think there is a lot more useful information on here. The issue is as a regular editor you get exposed to the problems more then the valued content. You tend to only see the vandal pages or the new pages more then the pages that have been around for years.

[edit] Fun and Humorous?

• 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?
  • What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed?
  • Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?

I do not mind humor in an article (where appropriate) or even on a user page. However that is about where I draw the philosophical line. I do not think there is a place for humor/fun to extend into its own non-encyclopedic world within Wikipedia. I have a hard time understanding why games even exists on WP. I probably fall into the same thinking on cabals and non useful userboxes. My rational on it stems from the fact that I imagine this project existing for decades. It is hard to believe that someone would want to see what a user looked like in his bathrobe 30 years from now.

I understand your viewpoint.

[edit] Re-confirmation

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

Well lets see... I doubt someone would go through the RFA process on a whim so it would mean there was an issue and the RFA was the result. I suppose if all the parties agree (consensus) that it is the best course of action so be it. I don't think it should be used because of admins having philosophical differences as diversity in thought is a good thing and we do not want all admins thinking alike. So it would stem from minor errors in admin duties I suppose. I say minor since anything major would be certainly taken to ArbCom. I am not a big fan of someone who was removed from admin status going back into an RFA in under 12 months.

[edit] The Power of the Admin

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?

I think the duties are a necessity for the project to succeed (maybe 'improve' would be a better word). I think there could be an unlimited number of admins strictly based on the workload. I feel that admins need to show a level of competence not the need for extra influence. Long term editors tend to have more influence then new admins anyway. I think the words 'power' and 'admin' should never be in the same sentence :)

[edit] Ageism

We're getting really close to finishing :) and now I'd like for you to give your opinion on a controversial subject:

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

No to all three. I think the system works the way it is. Maturity seems to be a unspoken requirement to Admin and Bureaucrat status and in most RFA's if there is a maturity issue the candidate is quickly dismissed. Editors should never be limited based on age. The project is self policing. Also, lets be honest, it could never be enforced. Would we require photo ID? Most 14 year olds do not have ID and who would want to be the ID checker? The extra work the limits created would greatly out weigh the beneficial (if any) results of age limits.

One small note: For privacy reasons, checkusers must be at least 18 years old. —Travis^talk

Good thought to tell him that. Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fail

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

I would like to dumb down both articles and state that in my very humble opinion I gauge the success of the project on the availability of useful information. In other words, can I find what I need. If so, it is working (for me) if not, well how can it be fixed? For the most part if I want to find factual information I have been able to do so. Now I am long past the days of writing research papers so the quality and depth of information is somewhat irrelevant to me. More often then not I am able to utilize the project and benefit from the contents. I would think that a majority of users agree that they find what they need. Using that basic criteria I would say it is not failing and can only improve with the addition of information.

Very well reasoned. One thing: gage→gauge.

 :P Another thing: More often then not→than —Travis^talk

[edit] Registration

This will be the last part of Phase 3 that I will give you to answer. We will be moving into the fourth phase where I will forego the RFA studies to do some general review and mop-up. If Travis agrees, we can move on after your answer...Anyways,

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

I have thought about this one over the past few months. Boy would that make the vandal fighting easier. However, with WP being a global project it is not feasible to require registration. Some countries do not allow access to editing WP and registration could put users at risk. To maintain global access and the freedom of the project we will have to tolerate the IP vandals.

Nice answer. And I agree with the proposal. —Travis^talk

[edit] Phase 4

Welcome to the final part of your coaching. Let's get with it, shall we? :)

[edit] Re-evaluating

I'm gonna update on your status. Give me a day or two to finalize things on the table I have set up. Feel free to list below any areas where you feel Travis or I could help you with further. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith

I'd like to continue with the coaching while you continue to edit. I'm beginning to format lessons to give to my coaches rather than simple lists of questions. So here goes:

(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?

Well it would get a speedy tag (and the script I use leaves a bitty message on the user talk page). So then I typically go to user page and add some more information informing the user to review WP:FAQ/Business, WP:COI (if it seems relevant) and a welcome message. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Don’t forget WP:CORP. —Travis^talk

and I always forget... every time. I need to put a sticky on my monitor :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some block exercises...

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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)

Vandalised 1 minute after uw-3 and then not again after uw-4... I could go either way on this one but would lean towards leaving it alone.

Example 2 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)

Nothing after final warning. I would leave it alone.

Example 3 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)

Too large of a gap between IP edits to warrant a block. I would leave it alone.

Example 4 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)

I would block for 6 months and make sure the talk page has the appropriate school headers on it.

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.

Indef block.

Example 6 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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.

Unless it was obvious it was the same person (same pages being vandalized in a similar fashion) I would issue uw-3 warning only. If it is obvious I would issue a 24 hr block.

• For what it’s worth, I think these examples would be more realistic if there was a block log to look at. —Travis^talk 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the content of the edits would weigh in also. What some people call vandalism might just me a misinformed new editor. Gtstricky^{Talk or C}

Yes, you're both right. Good answers, Gtstricky.

(e/c) lol True. It is very important to look at the diffs for exactly the reason you mentioned. Also, I have seen a lot of AIV reports that either shouldn’t have been reported at all, or reported at 3RR or elsewhere. Anyway, I think that it’s helpful to look at the block log to see if the user has a history of vandalism and to help decide on a block length. Your answers look ok, by the way. On ex 1, though, I would probably check the user’s contribs after an hour or so to make sure they really stopped. —Travis^talk

[edit] AN—an admin's greatest resource

As stated in the section header, WP:AN is one of the best tools that an administrator has access to. On this noticeboard, you can get other administrators to review blocks you are unsure about, inform you about a policy that you are looking into, and get other admins to help you out.

There is no shame in asking for help—even after you have become an administrator. You will generally find that almost any admin is open to questions from their peers. Accepting that you need help also makes you stronger in many's eyes, and I would not trust an RFA candidate who refused to ask for help.

You can also get general help from other admins including myself and Travis. Like I said, almost every admin is open to offering feedback, an opinion, advice, or whatever help you need.

Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that you should look through the noticeboard and comment on things, but you should utilize it for help and information. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you said that. I looked over it yesterday and was thinking some of that stuff is a real mess. I am sure if I every become an Admin I will look on there to stay up to date on things and to chime in once in a while, however I think I will tend to email or use talk pages for input from more experienced admins. Is there an Admin IRC channel? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You need to register a nick and get approved. It's #wikipedia-en-admins. Malinaccier Public (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it a helpful place to go as a newbie admin? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat. They get off track a lot, but it can be helpful. Here are some instructions for using the java-based client and registering a nick:

Ok:

First go here and join the channel en-wikipedia with your Nickname as "Gtstricky"

Next, add this message to the tab labeled "info":

/msg nickserv register [password]

(but don't forget to replace [password] with a password)

Alright, if you happen to use Firefox, you can use the Chatzilla addon if you like. Now, for the “They get off track a lot” remark. Note that Malinaccier neglected to emphasize the “a lot” bit. Just be forewarned. ;) —Travis^talk

I do use chatzilla and spend time helping on the help desk when I can. It tried to check out the admin board and it says I need to be invited. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to pass an RFA to get into #wikipedia-en-admins. It's basically the same, however, and doesn't matter if you can't get in. I would suggest taking a look at #wikipedia-en. Malinaccier (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is your opinion on Huggle? Several editors think it's a bad tool. Malinaccier (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing your contribs

I'm glad to see that your contributions have shifted from vandal-fighting to other areas. I noticed a lot of good work at WP:AFC, and CSD tagging. Another thing that I liked was your contributions made responding to helpme requests and help desk areasI would suggest that you comment on two or three XFD's a day so that you have more experience in that area. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)