User:Computerjoe/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is for Esperanza's admin coaching of Computerjoe (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Contents 1 Intros 1.1 User:Lar 1.2 Computerjoe 1.3 User:Petros471 2 Agenda/Checklist/what you want out of this 3 Advice 4 Scenarios 4.1 Scenario 1 4.2 Scenario 2 4.3 Scenario 3 5 Questions 5.1 Q1 5.2 Q2 5.3 Q3 5.4 Q4 6 Conclusion

[edit] Intros

Place introductions here if you want.

[edit] User:Lar

My name is Larry Pieniazek. I've been doing things online for well over 20 years now, and am a keen student of communities and how they do things. There's some bio stuff on my talk page... I live in Michigan (in the US) with my wife and 2 kids and I like LEGO. I've been an administrator in other communities in the past. I have been an administrator here at en-wikipedia for about a month. As it said in my RFA questions especially #1, my focus is on things other than vandal fighting. I've been trying my hand at just about everything that admins do, though. In real life I work for IBM as a system architect (figuring out how software projects and systems can best be organised and carried out). I think Wikipedia is the neatest and most important thing that has been done on the internet yet! (I cribbed this from a previous coaching page...) ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computerjoe

My name is Joe Anderson, and I see this as a way to gather feedback. I'm British, and until recently chaired WP:CCD. Computerjoe's talk 20:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Petros471

I have a less impressive CV than Lar, being nearer to 20 years of age total (and no I wasn't online as a baby!). I'm in North Wales, where I live, work and study (at three different locations, so I know the coastal train line very well!).

I've been an admin here for around 2 months, and I tend do fairly usual admin type stuff like blocking vandals (the opposite of Lar, hence the pairing of the two of use so we can cover different aspects better). I do a lot of work over at WP:RFI, which means dealing with complicated cases. I also do some speedy deletions, and other 'mop' type admin work like history merges etc. Petros471 08:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from previous AC page)

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

List of things we should try to achieve:

• Why do you want to be an admin? You are going to be asked this question and you should have a good answer that makes sense to you personally. More than just "it's neat" or "I want to help". (added by Lar, remove if you disagree, this is your coaching, so it's just a suggestion)

  I want to be an admin for numerous reasons. It'd aid me to deal with more backlogs, having to stop bothering other admins to do trivial things, and also at times you just need it (to correct a typo on a protected page, for instance). Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• How to proceed as a user

  Which areas to expand in etc. Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• How to proceed with CCD

  See talk. Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

• What should I do on the WP? WikiGnome, WikiFairy, FA/GA, backlogs, RC patrol or everything?
• How should I proceed with CCD?

[edit] Scenarios

[edit] Scenario 1

Here's the very first sentence from Mindspillage's 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 and I'll give you a scenario afterwards... Heck here's one now. Take a look at my block log: [1] That first user Juppiter.. review the contribs, review what was said on AN/I at the time... Was there another way to handle that user? Was 24 hours too short? too long? why? ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are justified, as a precautionary measure, to users (and IPs) which aim to disrupt the Wikipedia. In most cases, I would like 1-2 warnings on that day before giving a block. A block was justified (I haven't looked at ANI regarding this yet, link please?), as he aimed to disrupt the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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? ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AN/I was the wrong place for his problem with the bot. It'd be better to go to a RfC or BRFA. 24 hours was a bit too leniant, as he knew what he was doing. Computerjoe's talk 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My (rather late) thoughts on this: I've often commented that blocking durations are more of an art than a science. Sure there can (and are) guidelines, but ultimately different admins have different styles, and within reason quite a wide range can be appropriate. In this particular case I think 24 hours is justifiable, as the first block. If the user continued the behaviour after the block expired a longer block could have been applied (of course this user then made personal attacks which justified the extension of the block). On the other hand I would have also supported an initial longer block, as a way to sent a strong signal that vandalism (and encouraging vandalism) is totally unacceptable. I might have well have blocked for 48 hours as a compromise between these positions, or maybe 24 for the first block reason... :)

As for warnings: Someone should be warned up to {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{bv}} or equivalent level- How many warnings come before that depends on the situation. Usually warnings should go along the lines of 'this is wrong, you might not have known so, but here's how to fix it', 'please stop doing that, it is bad', 'stop doing that or you will be blocked', 'blocked'. Of course exactly what form those warnings take depends on the situation (simple test templates for vandalism, more personal messages for various types of disruption etc). Warnings don't have to be on the same day with registered accounts/obviously static IPs as the user has read the previous ones already.

A more general point is that you have to be sure as to why you are blocking someone- what are you trying to achieve? Is it simple damage prevention? (sometimes effective, sometimes not due to sockpuppets etc), or are you trying to educate the user as to what is acceptable and why? Petros471 13:23, 16 August 2006 (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? When and why? ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I'd informally ask for another admin's advice. I would probably block the IP, and simply ignore his criticism per WP:TROLL. Computerjoe's talk 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cases involving sockpuppets are often the most messy and complicated things you will come across as an admin. Having someone else reply to the criticism (assuming it is not justified, and in this case it wouldn't be) can be effective- it both shows yourself and the edit warrior that you have support for your position. If the contribution evidence is pretty clear, and the suspected sock accounts are pretty new and/or haven't been used to edit much other than what the edit warrior does, I'd probably block them anyway (remember checkuser is for additional evidence, it shouldn't be relied upon exclusively). Asking for advice is rarely a bad thing though, and better to be a bit on the safe side as to when to posts to ANI (you'll soon get comments of 'you don't need to bring that here' to help you learn if something is too trivial for ANI). Petros471 14:09, 16 August 2006 (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 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I follow 1RR, reverting instead of (civilly) debating the issue, and seeking mediation when required is unproductive per my logic at WP:DBE. I'd tell them not to breach it, if not for their own sake for the sake of not creating disruption. I'd point them to WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Computerjoe's talk 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Here are some questions to try and probe your attitudes to different things, as opposed to simply 'what to do in a particular situation' scenarios. Try be as detailed as possible on your answers. Petros471 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've added some comments and follow up questions below. Petros471 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q1

Do you think being an admin is a technical or political position? Or both? In what way and why is this the case?

No admin should see themselves as a politician, as the Wikipedia is not a parliament/bureaucacy/democracy. However, it could be argued that it's an admin's duty to try to settle disputes, which sometimes may be political. However, if I was an admin the majority of my duty's would be clearing backlogs (and therefore probably technical). An administrator's role is a mix of political and technical duties, and I'd feel uneasy if an admin dedicated himself to either being a politician or technician. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with this (the main exception being that I don't really mind too much if an admin dedicates themselves to being a technician, although not all admins can have the luxury of this). Petros471 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q2

What is your idea of a good admin? Who do you admire as admins and why? What qualities do you think are important in an admin, and how do you think you meet those?

I think an admin should be bold, civil, helpful, patient and hard-working. I admire any admin who makes other users happy, may that be by helping to end disputes or by clearing backlogs. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of any examples when an admin has made other users happy? How did they accomplish this? It should also be noted that you very rarely get thanked (or even noticed) clearing backlogs... Petros471 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because many of this work goes unnoticed :) Admins like Curps and FireFox made users happy by fighting vandalism, and they often got thanked. Also, users like Mailer Diablo close lots of AfDs, and they earn my respect - and I think I've thanked him :) . Computerjoe's talk 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q3

Do you think adminship earned? If so how? Can some people deserve to become admins?

Adminship is not something which is earned. It could be argued that if you get through a RfA, you have the community's trust - which itself is earned. Adminship is not a reward, it is simply having more permissions given to your account. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst I'm sure some RFA's have passed because that user has done something 'good', without a huge amount of thought from a lot of voters (I user the term voters, not !voters in this context because those sort of RFA's usually end up basically as a vote...) about how suitable the person actually is to be an admin, it certainly shouldn't be like that. Petros471 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q4

A recurring issue among admins is the process vs result debate. Where do you stand on this? What is your opinion of WP:IAR, and in what situations should it be/not be used? Should policy ever be ignored (when, why)?

Policy is important. If people follow policy and process, uncivil disruptive disputes on WP:AN and WP:DRV don't follow. However, at times process must be ignored for the greater good of the Wikipedia. I cannot think of any scenarios, nor can I explain why. However, process is not evil but at times it must be ignored. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

More later but check this one out: User_talk:JoanneB#netball_article this sort of thing happens all the time. You should be able to easily think of several scenarios without too much prompting or maybe you haven't quite internalised the right balance and need to think about the deeper meaning a bit more. This is not something you can coach in, it requires introspection... ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising that Lar picked up that example, we both noticed it and thought a similar thing. I believe policy is important because the project is based on consensus. Policy reflects consensus (if it doesn't, it is changed). There should be a good reason for a policy existing, so usually there is a good reason for it to be followed. However, policy can't cover every situation explicitly, and the above example is one of those. Often following policy prevent unnecessary argument and bad feelings. Petros471 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

This admin coaching has been concluded as of 15 September, 2006. ComputerJoe has agreed to provide feedback on what went well and what did not, with a view to improving things for future coaches and coachees... ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole process went very slowly (late June 2006 - September 2006), with not a lot of questions/answers going back and forth. However, some of the questions (although somewhat cliché) made me think if I needed, or even wanted, adminship.

I have personally decided that I won't be going for it in a while, if at all. I feel as if both Petros and Lar, as well as numerous other users, aided me in making this decision.

During the process, I probably had most contact with Petros. Lar was extremely useful when he was around, however.

Perhaps my case was somewhat different to the majority of coaching: having failed 3 RfAs, being an established users & understanding WP policy. Computerjoe's talk 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)