User:Steve Crossin/AC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia's principles
Five pillars Simplified ruleset List of policies Foundation issues Statement of principles

Overview of our foundation

Synopsis of our conventions

Full list of official policies

Wikimedia Foundation issues

Historic beginnings


Contents

[edit] Lesson 1

Please find for me the template that lists the principles of the project and subst it at the top of this page.Y Done

The reason I asked you to put the principles on top is that far too often, users, especially admins, cite personal essays as reasons something must be done. It is important to remember that at the end of the day, WP:NPOV is a core belief, while WP:MOS is a guideline that a lot of people agree on. MBisanz talk 05:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 2

Please state why you want to be an administrator. Also, please answer the standard admin questions as best as you can. The answers will probably change as you experience more areas.

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

Places like AIV, where I've been rather active as a non admin. Also SSP, and clearing the CSD backlog, and other places like RFPP, and closing discussions at XFD.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Bringing Martha Logan to Good Article status, is probably my best article contribution on WIkipedia. Additionally, I've done quite a few cases for the Mediation Cabal, I'm particularly pleased with how I handled the Spore mediation. Also, the template I helped make, {{AIV}}, I'm quite happy with. Other than that, my contributions to the 24 Wikiproject is probably the thing I'm most happy with. I've also adopted RyRy5, and I feel I'm helping him improve as a Wikipedian.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Other than the conflicts I've mediated, I've only been in one conflict, it was just when I was a new wikipedian. They were an editor who merged a lot of 24 articles into one big article, at the time, that article was a huge mess at the time. About a month later, I extended a truce to her, [1], and now, I strongly defend them from other's attacking them. I also insist on civility and no personal attacks in MedCab cases I mediate.

[edit] Lesson 3

You have an interest in the television show 24. According to my research, most of your article creations have been in that area and some of them have since been redirected to the main article. Can you tell me why this happened redirecting television related articles requires extra care (I know why, but I'm looking for you to see the backroom politics) such as checking if its the recreation of a deleted article or thinking if it could be a new stub? What Arbcom cases generally apply to anyone editing in this field?

I'm looking for the arbcom politics here and the larger issue of notability of pop culture. Really its the debate of inclusionism (everything down to the most minor character and episode) and deletionism (only things proven, lasting, widespread notability). After the Arbcom case, what are the odds that involved parties will nom for deletion? of an Admin closing a deletion debate on an episode without a lengthy rationale? I'd say their slim, no one wants a TTN-like ban. I'm glad your following Arbcom. All too frequently, users ignore it and then do something that someone else already got called on. MBisanz talk 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you ask questions. Admins who just spout whatever crosses their mind usually end up saying something they regret. Feel free to be open (within reason) in the coaching process, since its a learning thing. If you wanted to just name the sides Favor and Oppose that would be good or Person A and Person B. Outside of TTN, I haven't followed the individuals in the case, so I really won't know who your talking about. In any event it more about the theoretical outlook I'm interested in your opinion of. Should we have articles on every episode and character ever on television? I'm working with Blofeld to add more location stubs from Africa, do we really need an article on a village of 150 people in Uganda? MBisanz talk 07:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

  • Okay, the main debate here is the conflict between Mergists/Deletionist VS Inclusionists. The mergists/deletionists state that policy must be upheld, and have cited policies/guidelines in order to benefit their argument, mainly WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, and many others, however have ignored other policies, such as Person A, who has largely ignored WP:CONSENSUS, and in the past, has merged articles without a consensus, or when consensus was against them. While others who believe the articles in question should be kept, some have given little or no reasoning as to why they should be kept. As the guideline states, in WP:FICT, in a nutshell, "Articles on a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources." If following strict policies and guidelines, most of the 24 articles should be merged/deleted, as they violate these policies. However, common sense also plays a role. And, even though common sense is not an official policy that I am aware of, every admin, when making a decision, would use their common sense, their judgment, when making a decision. I believe that both sides of an argument need to be weighed, and the relevant policies considered, before making a decision. Real world notability needs to be established for a fictitious article/subject, in-universe notability is not enough to meet the criteria of WP:FICT. However, if that article/character/tv show has clear real-world notability, then it should be retained, see the Nadia Yassir article, which I helped improve. Real-world notability has been established, and in addition, the plot summary has been removed.
  • So, in closing, notability needs to be established for inclusion, as noted by several editors in this discussion, the Opposing side (to the merging) does not believe every character/episode should have their own article, the issue here is finding the median, between too much excessive information, and between too many articles deleted/merged. In regards to the village in Uganda, that would depend. If the location is notable, and has references to back up the claims, then yes, it may deserve its own article. If not, then no, it wouldn't warrant an article of it's own.
  • And, for the record, the ArbCom case that you mentioned currently affects users editing in this field, is [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 here], and the injunction which I have had to notify one person of violating the injunction, so I am quite aware of the injunction, and it's effects. I hope I have answered this question as thoroughly as possible. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Good answer. You show you understand the policies that affect this field, that both sides have reasonable arguments, and that Arbcom has issued rules that editors need to be aware of. This is the sort of optional question you could get at an RfA and answering thoroughly and quickly usually prevents a pile-on of opposes. Additionally, Admins are usually expected to be better behaved than non-Admins. So its important as you note, that they try to find a median in content disputes (much like WP:MEDCAB). Adminship isn't a club to go and enforce one's point of view. I had a Medcab last month where one side kept demanding I use the Tools against the other side. Eventually I just closed the case since it was obvious that mediation by an Admin would only result in further Drama.
  • Take a look at my RfA and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gp75motorsports. Lots of editors base their vote only on answers to questions. If you get in the position where your dueling with each Oppose over their interpretation of your response, it gets bad quickly.
  • Also, as an aside, physical locations such as villages and towns, are given de-facto notability. Its almost impossible to build a consensus to delete an actual location. Another idea is frequently overlooked in FICT related issues is how much of the article is written in-universe. If its a Star-trek related article and 95% of it is about how the Warp drive works from Scotty's perspective, and only 2 sentences mention real-world analysis of the idea, then its probably not as notable as say an article on a character that describes how he developed over various seasons (ie. how the writer changed him from an enemy to an ally). Good and thorough work!. MBisanz talk 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 4

List all the tools admins have (note I have a short list hidden in my userspace). Describe a circumstance where an admin should not use them, despite a valid issue existing.

Lets pretend lesson 3 doesn't impact lesson 4. There are several answers depending on which tool you pick. Some are obvious and some I wouldn't expect you to get at this point. Don't worry, I'll list all the examples I'm thinking of in time. MBisanz talk 07:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

  • Blocking shouldn't be used to block a user you have a dispute with, even if there's a valid issue with, as this could be a conflict of interest. Also care should be taken when a block of a user or an IP could cause collateral damage.

Unblocking

  • You shouldn't unblock yourself, or a friend, its a serious conflict of interest. You should avoid unblocking another administrator's block if it was made in good faith, and if it wasn't a clear mistake block.

Page Protection

  • Shouldn't generally be used on articles that you have a conflict of interest in, you should ask another admin about protection. You shouldn't use it if other measures, such as blocking users, could solve the issue.

All deletion- and undeletion-related tasks

  • Deleting pages that you have a conflict of interest in, and possibly hold on deletion on articles tagged with {{rescue}}. {{inuse}} new pages should possibly be waited on. (I can't think of anything else right now).

Granting, removing, and performing Rollback

  • You shouldn't give rollback to someone with a history of misusing rollback, or using it for edits other than vandalism reversion. You would remove rollback if this were to occur, and you could use rollback to revert user's edits. You shouldn't use rollback, if there appears to be constructive edits mixed with bad ones, say 3 good edits and one bad, you wouldn't click "revert all" there.

Ipblock exemption

  • An administrator should generally avoid granting this flag if they have a conflict of interest with the user, or if the flag is not needed in the first place.

MediaWiki namespace editing You shouldn't edit MediaWiki pages if there is no consensus for an edit to be made, you should also take care as editing these pages badly could cause site wide issues.

Viewing special:unwatchedpages

  • I can't think of a reason why this page couldn't be used.
Pretty good. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 5

Look over the deletion debates page. Summarize which ones you've participated in as a nominator and an !voter. Do you consider yourself a deletionist or inclusionist?

Nah, not to many questions yet. I was thinking more like 20ish AfDs with 5ish as nom, 5 DRVs, no noms, a couple of IfDs and a UCFD or two. No need to bother with links, more just the breadth and depth of participation. MBisanz talk 03:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
10 AfDs is a good start and a good answer. Generally, I'd say RfA looks for at least 50 AfD's commented on over several months and a dozen or so nominations also over time. A strong candidate has also commented in at least half a dozen WP:DRVs and a dozen or more contributions in other WP:XFDs (noms or meaningful comments). MBisanz talk 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 6

How are Good Articles different than Feature Articles? Where does Peer Review fit into the article life-span process?

  • Well, Good articles, simply put, aren't as high a quality as featured articles. Obviously, that's not all :). Good articles are generally useful to most people, they have a good quality coverage of the topic, and they aren't missing any significant portions of information. Good articles are also generally reviewed by one user.

Featured articles, on the other hand, are the highest quality article we have. They are useful to all people, and they have an extensive coverage on the topic. They're not missing anything, although new information can be added if it comes to light. Featured articles are promoted by a !vote, as opposed to a single reviewer.

Peer reviews can be used when a wider input is required, say, for an article that has had major work done to it, and more input is requested for improvement to an article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing one key difference in GA and FA, what is it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, (hopes this is right), Good articles don't appear on the Main Page, whereas Featured Articles do appear on the main page? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FAs are actually a formal approved part of wiki, whereas GA's are just people who got together to make better articles, so for example (and this occurs from time to time) you try to make a 'GA star' to go in the upper right of an article, you'll get trouted big time. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 7

What is cascading protection? Can it be set by an Admin? A user comes to Request for Page Protection saying an IP-vandal has been attacking a page and requests semi-protection. You see that IP 256.256.256.256 is vandalizing the page. When should you not semi-protect the page.

  • You can insert any IP, I just figured a number was better than xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. Yep, there is a trick question to cascading protection. It occurs only when a page is transcluded onto a protected page. For instance, the Main Page is transcluded on pages Main Page/2 through Main Page/10 (all fully protected) so that a vandal admin would have to unprotect all 10 pages before the Main Page would be exposed. So the short answer is that no Admins can't set it in the normal sense. The long answer is that an Admin can set it by protecting and transcluding pages. MBisanz talk 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, well the reason I questioned 256.256.256.256 is because it is not actually a valid IP address, thats just something I learned in Uni, in my networking class, so, I thought it was a trick question. I didn't think admins could set cascading protection, that is, without transcluding a page onto a protected page. Am I still required to answer this question? Steve Crossin (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You only need to answer the non-trick part of it:

A user comes to Request for Page Protection saying an IP-vandal has been attacking a page and requests semi-protection. You see that IP 256.256.256.256 is vandalizing the page. When should you not semi-protect the page.

Don't worry though if you can't, its not a trick, but its also not an obvious answer. MBisanz talk 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection should not be applied to a page, in most circumstances, if
  1. It is a user talk page (unless it is very severe and persistent)
  2. The negative impact on protecting the page from anonomous users would outweigh the positive effect of protecting the article. Eg, If there are other anonomous users making positive edits, then the negative effect of them not being able to edit must also be considered.
  3. Where the vandalism could possibly be seen as a content dispute (eg, changing facts, the facts may be disputed, but appear to be vandalism.
  • Sorry, thats the best answer I can think of. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. 2 is the right one. I said article, so talk page wouldn't apply. If its only 1 IP doing the vandalism, and its not a gateway IP (like User talk:157.150.192.237) then its better to block the IP for say 72 hours (escalating as appropriate) than protect the page. Another one I see frequently is semi-protect request where the vandal is a registered, auto-confirmed user, semi-protection does nothing in that case. MBisanz talk 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 8

Is the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents on your watchlist? It should be. Despite the name, non-admins are welcome to contribute to discussions they understand.

Y Done I've had those on my watchlist ever since I have been fighting vandalism. However, I've never actually resolved an issue on the noticeboards, however I have offered myself as an informal mediator before, as seen here, and I continued to mediate this on the talk page. It's something I'm glad I could help with, and it may help me in the future. Steve Crossin (talk)

[edit] Lesson 9

One thing I've taken an interest in is Template:Editabuselinks. Do you use any of the noticeboards regularly? Most of them do not require admin tool to work on. Some like Reliable Sources and Fringe Theories can require lengthy investigations. Others like 3RR are more fastpaced. Its all about finding the right fit for you.

  • The noticeboard I use reguarly is the WP:AIV. I also have used WP:UAA, WP:RPP, WP:HD, and WP:3RRN. I mostly use the AIV notice board to report vandalism, and I have helped out at the help desk once or twice, but it's something I should do more often. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 10

Who can warn an administrator? Who can block an admin? What editing policies may admins violate?

  • Who can warn an admin? On that, I have two opposing answers. On one side, I think that any user should be able to warn an administrator, as adminship is not an immunity given to administrators, and are held accountable for their actions, and are subject to the same rules as everyone else. However, on the other hand, there is another process for Administrator misconduct, WP:RFC/ADMIN, however, that would only addresses the misuse of admin tools, not general conduct. As admins are subject to the same rules as everyone, they can be warned as well, for standard misconduct. Administrative misconduct should be dealt with in a different process.
  • Who can block an admin? An admin cannot be blocked by another admin for the abuse of admin tools. Other processes should be followed, such as discussion with the admin in question, an RfC, which can be reviewed by ArbCom. However, general misconduct (such as vandalism, violating 3RR), is an instance when another admin can block the admin in question.
  • And, finally, what editing policies can admins violate? None. Adminship does not grant an immunity to admins, they must follow all policies, just as regular users do. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Good, you've identified that Admin is not a special status and must abide by all the usual rules. Infact, some Admins abide by a WP:0RR in using the tools to avoid the appearance of a Wheel War.
    • Any user can warn an admin whose violated a policy. The WP:RFC/ADMIN process is usually reserved for admins who violate a policy multiple times or attempt to justify their misuse of tools. On a technical level, any admin can block another admin. Practically though, an Admin can unblock themselves and can still do most Admin-y things through a block. Discussion with the Admin is good, but you shouldn't be afraid to take the issue to WP:AN, especially if it involves the use of admin tools. MBisanz talk 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 11

Skim over the Durova Arbcom. Why was she right in checking with others off-wiki before acting? Why does a confirmation bias make even off-wiki double-checks risky? Even though others did not oppose her off-wiki, who was ultimately responsible?

  • One very quick question. Is Durova an arbitrator? I looked in the list of current Arbitrators, and I couldn't find a "Durova". I'll keep looking, just wondering if it is a case or a user? Steve Crossin (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the arbcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova. Usually an RFAR or ARBCOM refers to a case and an ARB refers to an arbitrator, although sometimes their used out of context. MBisanz talk 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I give Steve bonus points for asking this question at the source; it's a straightforward approach I respect. I've always assumed full responsibility for my mistake. DurovaCharge! 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have and I greatly respect you for that (and will support your RFA whenever you decide to file it), I was asking the question to have Steve think about how he would address difficult situations, and of course, seeking the advice of someone whose been in a similar situation is always a good idea when faced with a new and difficult problem. MBisanz talk 04:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 12

Do you use IRC or the Mailing Lists? Do you have EmailUser enabled? Do you realize that sending an email through the EmailUser interface discloses your email? Your user name looks like a real life name, are you aware of this incident? It did happen in real life as described. (Basic privacy questions)

  • Yes, I use IRC, and I have EmailUser enabled. And, yes, I knew sending an email through that interface will disclose my email to the recipitant. My username was my real name, up till about a week ago. But, I understand the risks. And, I didn't know of that case, but I know now. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 13

Your already a rollbacker which is good. Please go and apply, download, or script enable: Twinkle, NewPageWatcher, AutoWikiBrowser, and VandalProof. If you don't use Firefox, I reccommend downloading it just for Wiki-work. Editing with Twinkle through Firefox saves dozens of clicks per operation.

Y Done I already have all of these tools, and I've had them for a while. However, I primarialy use Huggle, and thats what I'll always use for fighting vandalism, unless it's not on, then I use Twinkle, or popups+rollback. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 14

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Newpages&hidepatrolled=1&hidebots=1&limit=500&offset=0 and in the sequence 400-500 find 3 articles that appear to be a conflict of interest. A big clue is a user name that is nearly the same as the article title. List the articles here and the timestamp of article #500 (so I can check).

The standard format (from WP:COIN) is:
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}}
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~

And example that I just found on Special:Newpages is:

Those are the type of pages that I'm talking about. As you see, a patent conflict of interest page (like username = article title), usually has other major problems like being nonsense, spam, attack page, etc. Using a rough filter like that can help identify speedy deletion candidates. MBisanz talk 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 15

What is an open proxy? They are banned by the Foundation. What commonsense technical reason are they banned for?

  • An open proxy is an internet server that is accessibe on the internet. Basically, it allows a user to conceal their true IP address, and also, gives users the ability to rapidly change their IP address. This causes problems, and is banned, for the reason that, if allowed, vandals or malicious users would not be able to be stopped from vandalising/causing harm to Wikipedia, as they can change their IP address rapidly, and for this reason, open proxys are banned. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your correct, open proxies can be used to evade autoblocks of vandals. I've had one vandal I just had to give up on an semi-protect a page, because he managed to jump every other minute.
I would have also accepted that open proxies make Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser impossible. This makes tying sockpuppets together difficult, and basically crippled this Arbcom from having a definitive result. MBisanz talk 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 16

Please go to Special:Newpages and welcome ~75 users who have red-linked usernames using Friendly. This exercise has two purposes. One, a lot of admining is doing repetitive tasks that no one ever notices. Two, when you welcome a user, their likely to come to you if they need help or have a problem. Its a great way to help out and build experience. MBisanz talk 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

[edit] Lesson 17

Go visit the Help desk. Try and find an unanswered issue that you know the answer to, jump in and solve a problem.

✓ Done. It's here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 18

Review Wikipedia:Autoblock. This is one of the most common mistakes an admin makes. In our haste to block an obvious vandal, we may kill off a corporate gateway or a dynamic IP. If you need to block quickly, remember to leave enough of an explanation that another Admin can figure out if its a real Autoblock issue or just a user trying to evade a block.

✓ Done. Read it and noted. Reading WP:AUTOBLOCK gave me some details I didn't know of before. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 19

Read Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. You will get this question at an RfA. You will need to give a yes or no answer. You will be judged on your answer, regardless of which way you go. Its unfair that you will get an Oppose regardless of your answer, but its part of the process.

  • I would definetly add myself to WP:AOR. The reason I see it, adminship is not a diplomatic immunity. Administrators should also be accountable for their mistakes, and the other alternative is desysopping via the Arbitration Committee, which can leave people hurt, and generally gives everyone involved a sour feeling. By being open to recall, it allows a simple process for administrative misconduct to be handled.

[edit] Lesson 20

Review our policy on Office Actions. Pay close attention to who can perform Office Actions. If you feel the need to undo any admin action by someone on that list, its almost always better to ask at AN than to do it yourself. Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370. There was no wheel war here by the conventional definition. It was more of an action by Jimbo in his role as founder. Just like I wouldn't do an unblock of a user Raul654 did without checking AN, there is something to the idea that we don't always know the whole story and others who do things like checkuser, OTRS, oversight, etc, probably do. At the same time, remember WP:IAR and that admins aren't always perfect.

Y Read it. Just never marked this lesson as such. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finish up

Finish up the above and get back to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks really good. You still need to work on 6/11/17/18. What areas do you feel you need to work in before an RFA? Would you mind emailing me your old user name? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to use my talk page, you can use this one as I have a watch set. If this Steve Crossin is your real name, you should change it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's not my real name, however everyone believes it is ;) Which, I suppose is a good thing. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For now, finish the other questions, work on the areas you mentioned on my talk page, let me know if you have questions or need guidance. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I know I haven't done much with this at the moment, I have reasons though, I've been mediating quite a bit recently, and I've been busyish with the 24 Wikiproject. I'll get to this when I can, but right now, I think me contributing in areas I'm of use is best. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. What is this "24" wikiproject? Just let me know when you are ready to proceed on the admin stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A wikilink always helps, doesn't it? :) It's all at WP:24. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You never answered q6. Admins can't be doing incomplete work. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done question 6. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

question 4, never answered that either. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Done that one too. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)