User:Exir Kamalabadi/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Admin coaching

Hi Exir (I hope I can call you that...?). I'm Firsfron of Ronchester, but as that name is a bit difficult (and silly), feel free to call me Firs. I've read your userpage, and it says you're 13 and you live in China. What did you do while China was blocking Wikipedia? What do you hope to accomplish with Admin Coaching? Tell me everything! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do call me Exir. Much easier and snappier. And no, your ?first? name is nowhere nearly as silly as my last name, Kamalabadi. The period when China blocked Wikipedia was a hard time for me, as I was in the most enthusiastic phrase back then. At first I couldn't edit Wikipedia, even by Tor, because they don't allow open proxies. But then they softened, and I could edit Wikipedia by Tor, but at a great cost: Security. I have to keep my computer wide open to allow me to edit Wikipedia. The happy time only lasted for a month, though, because China found a way to BLOCK TOR! Unbelievable! But then, two weeks ago, they unblocked Wikipedia, so here I am, merrily editing Wikipedia. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope that I will one day become an admin, and that's my main motive to join admin coaching. I think I know everything I need to become an admin, but I would like to know anything I've missed. Perhaps you should start by telling me your daily routine as an admin? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Exir! I'll first start off with my introduction. I am Nishkid64, and I was promoted to adminship just about 5 weeks ago. I have been on Wikipedia for 4 months now (joined in January, but infrequently edited until July). As of late, I have come back to article-building, something that I had not been involved since I was usually helping clear daily admin backlogs and doing vandalism revertions. I am 16, and I live in New Jersey, USA, but I am originally from India. For more, see my user page (with my truncated life story hehe). Okay, now to my daily routine. I first get on Wikipedia usually at school, and I first go to my user talk page and look at new messages I received. I first try to respond to those before doing anything else, as I like to maintain my punctuality in responding to other users (Comments/Questions on my talk page are usually responded to within 12 hours at most). After that I usually go to WP:RfA to see new admin candidates and I vote in their RfA's. I get on again when I get home a few hours later. I go back and look at new messages and I respond, and then I go to WP:AIV and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. All the while, I'm doing my homework and other school-related work, so I am basically multitasking. I delete a bunch of articles per WP:CSD and block vandals at WP:AIV. I occasionally wander off to WP:AN/I or WP:RFPP. Like I said earlier, I have come back to article-building. I usually try to find some poorly written or non-NPOV articles to fix up. One such article that I was recently working on (I still am) is Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. It's really a hotspot because of the different viewpoints on this man. To start off, I would like you to examine the article and explain what you would do in such situation in which you are constantly being badgered by both sides of an edit war, and you cannot really seem to get any parties involved to cooperate with one another. Sorry if it's too early to do this, but give it a try anyway. =) Nishkid64 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We cannot guarantee that an Admin Coachee will successfully pass the WP:RFA process, as you know. You are free to pursue adminship at any time, and you are also free to end your association with Admin coaching if you find it unhelpful. The Admin Coaching is just supposed to give you some valuable advice and training for things you might need, should you decide to pursue an adminship.
My daily routine... Hm... I don't think I really have one. I've only been an administrator since July... Once I log in, I check my talk page messages; like Nishkid, I try to respond to those first, and check my e-mail to make sure a blocked user hasn't sent an e-mail request. I'm also on WP:AMA, which means I do get contacted by users who feel they have been blocked unjustly. I'm one of the few Admins involved in that program; it would be nice to simply unblock users who have been incorrectly blocked, but per WP:WW, that's a bad idea. I will never undo the administrative actions of another Admin, as that only causes more trouble than it's worth. Users do, from time to time, get blocked improperly, and I try to help, if I can.
I spend a great deal of time on CAT:SPEEDY, especially in the evenings. I check my watchlists; there was a time when I had around 7,600 pages on my watchlist, but I've removed quite a few recently. I use VandalProof occasionally, as I like that tool a lot. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia performing non-administration related activities, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, I had around 7,000 on my watchlist a week ago, but I cleared the list. Apparently, I am at 1100+ now. Anyway, as Firsfron said, if you haven't already, VandalProof is a great tool for vandal-fighting. I used it for a few months before I started using Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool which works in-browser and is coded for in your monobook.js. It's really effective and I think it's faster than VandalProof, but VandalProof is more user-friendly and all the tools you need are at the tip of your hand. I just basically memorized everything, so I basically don't mind doing everything manually when using javascripts. Anyway, use VandalProof if you haven't already. All you have to do is request use for it at WP:VPRF. Nishkid64 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, I just don't care very much for Lupin's Tool. I used it for a while, but I don't like it. Either you have to keep clicking the links constantly, or you use the "automatically show diffs" function, which means in minutes your page is huge. VandalProof is sooo nice, because you can revert and warn with one click. That's sweet. JMHO, of course... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's because the 1.3 version is too slow or what, but the Recent Change refreshes INCREDIBLY slowly. It even takes a lot of time to post messages. On the other hand, the Lupin's Vandal Tool has an element of "freshness" and "snappiness" in it. You just quickly scroll down at lightning speed (if you have the scroll button on your mouse). It just feels much more automatic.--¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 08:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've read all of the daily routine posts. Lets focus back to NishKid's question. First, if both sides are badgering me to let me use my admin powers to their advantage, I will warn them not to do so. If they continue, RfAr.

Second, if that's not the case, then I will research the cause of the edit war, make sure of both sides stance, and try to get them to an agreement. But you said, they won't cooperate. So I will first step back, and see what happens. Often, the dispute slowly fades away. If not, I will talk privately with each of them, asking their concerns on what makes them not want to cooperate. Based on their reasoning, I will convince them to cooperate, or in the rare case that they have a valid reason not to cooperate, I will not ask them to cooperate anymore. The key is to take time. Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow.

If they still don't cooperate, then I will kindly ask them to go through the RfC, and then RfM, and finally RfAr. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All of that's perfectly valid, Exir. Those are perfectly valid solutions. However, there's a less formal process that I like to use, whenever possible, which is to ask the feuding users to seek a larger consensus. For example, if they were arguing about a particular reference in an article, they could ask the other editors of that page what they thought, on the article's talk page. Seeking consensus on the article's talk page has several advantages:
1)The dispute resolution pages are swamped. It often takes days, weeks, occasionally months for the dispute to be resolved.
2)The people who are editing the article are likely to be more knowledgeable about the article, and thus may have ideas that an assigned mediator would never consider.
You can even solicit messages yourself, if you fear one or both of the feuding parties will try to sway the vote. Recent contributers to the article are almost always interested in weighing in. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good method. Never tried that before. Thanks for the advice. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Consensus

As I will anticipate to close AfD's a lot when I become an Admin, so I would like to hear some advice and some guideline on how is consensus decided. Any advice? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 04:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just be sure you've read and understood Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Watch out for "bad faith" votes or nominations, obvious sock voting (eg., a user's fifth edit on Wikipedia is an AFD vote), etc. Disregard such "votes" when determining a rough consensus. Most of all, if new evidence comes to light at the end of an AFD debate, after most people have weighed in, do give it due weight. Several times, I've seen an editor provide more than ample evidence justifying the keeping of an article, only to see the page deleted because this info didn't appear until late in the discussion. An administrator should always consider such situations at the end of the discussion, even if the original consensus is for delete, because the people who originally voted to delete the article may not check back, or even be aware of the new evidence. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Does the nomination count as a deletion vote? Also, when we consider consensus, do we consider weak keep and strong keep different? Lets say that 7 people say they want to delete an article, while 3 say keep. However, all 7 delete voters vote for extremely weak delete, while the 3 keep voters vote for Uber-strong Keep. Should this AfD be considered Delete or no consensus? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
A vote like that is probably no consensus, which means it defaults to keep. We do consider degrees of Keep or delete, but the actual reasoning for keeping or deleting need to be considered, too. If it's just "Strong Keep because I like this article." or "Weak delete because I hate the person this article is about.", that needs to be considered, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I also wanted to just mention that there are lots of times when users use sockpuppets or other people make single-purpose accounts to sway the AfD consensus. Usually this is taken note of, and admins have to take this into consideration when judging the AfD's consensus. Nishkid64 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RFA process

I have a question for you, Exir. Do you participate at all at WP:RFA? Do you !vote there regularly? Sometimes it's helpful to participate on RFA because you start to get the feel of what people there want to see in an RFA candidate. Also, if you are a regular there, it may give you a chance to see what to do (or not do) in case someone opposes. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a regular there, and I vote a lot --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then. You probably know that editors may oppose an RFA nominee for many things, such as a long signature, no featured articles, low edit count, many userboxes on the user's userpage, etc. You currently appear to have less than 2000 edits, quite a few userboxes, and have a fairly long signature. Have you helped get any articles up to Featured status? How would you respond to critics who objected for these other reasons? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do have less than 2000 edits, but my editcount is increasing quickly. I think I will reach 2000 by the end of the month, and reach 3000 by the end of the year. That will not be a problem. If a person opposes me for my excessive userboxes, then I will reply by stating that the number of userboxes does not make me unable to use the admin tools properly. It's a strange reason for opposition really. Same answer to the "signature is too long" oppose. And I'm planning to bring English Channel, Disaccharide and Maltose into at least good article status, and maybe Featured article. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to burst your bubble, but it would be hard for a 13-year-old to bring a biology/chemistry-related article to GA or FA status on his own. There are lots of details that you would need to know about Maltose and Disaccharide that you learn in college. Anyway, I can help out, as my background with my AP science classes (Chemistry, Biology, and Physics) can provide some help with your plans. Nishkid64 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, who said editors can't collaborate? Thanks for helping out. About the statement that I'm only 13 and can't really add much to science articles: I believe my scientific knowledge is even vaster than a lot of adults (sorry for my lack of humility), because I'm very very very very very very interested in it. (I've been trying to understand an scientific encyclopedia at the age of 5, obviously without any luck -- at the time.) And, BTW, you don't have to be very good at the subjects to be able to make them into FA status. You just need some moderate understanding of the key concepts. The rest of the information can come from various references. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, an editor need not bring an article up to GA or FA status on his own: most of the FAs I've worked on have been collaborations. Probably all of them, really. Much of the FA process is just finding reliable sources and citing them, complying with WP:MOS, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Adults don't remember anything about a subject they learned in school if they don't utilize it in their everyday workplace. Anyway, I'm just saying that bring science-related articles is quite difficult at times since there is so much material that has to be incorporated into the article. Anyway, those articles do really need to be polished up, and if you want to start a collaboration on it, I will be the first give a helping hand. =) Nishkid64 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to help. Perhaps we could get started next week, after the exams? I would be asking my science teacher more about the subject. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to volunteer to help, too, but Chemistry was never my strong suit in high school, and I never took it in college. My work on getting Science-related articles up to FA status has consisted entirely of dinosaurs. So I'm afraid I wouldn't be much of a helping hand. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What else?

Okay, lets see... we've been through dispute resolution, admin routines, AFD, RFA and FAs. What else do you guys think I should know? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall we practice some WP:CSD practices? I've found they are usually very helpful. Would you like to give it a try? No problem if you want to wait, of course. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course! Lets start! (BTW, my userpage has less userboxes now.) --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
About your userboxes: I personally don't care how many userboxes you have. You are free to have as many or as few as you want; for me, it's not even an issue. However, in the past, anti-userbox folks have opposed users on RFA for having many userboxes on their userpages. I just wanted you to be aware of the possibility that someone would oppose for a chiefly cosmetic reason. People oppose for a variety of reasons: I've seen opposes for "too many userboxes", "annoying signature", "not enough edits in X space", "too many AWB edits", "no featured articles", etc. The only oppose !vote on my RFA was someone who opposed because I didn't have "7/24ths of edits" in a certain type of Wikipedia space. When something like that happens, it's just really important to remain calm, just be zen about it. Although I'm sure you already know that. :)
I'll post some CFD practices shortly. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Firsfron is right about the RfA process. There are people who oppose for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. My RfA was running at 100% until some guy basically insulted my intelligence and said I was a girl, and I ended up losing my cool and as a result, my RfA finished at 60/9/4. Just for future ref in your own RfA, don't let things get out of hand. Remain calm and keep your cool. Those two problems have brought down some particularly excellent potential admins in the past. Nishkid64 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people who oppose for reasons such as "too many userboxes" or whatever don't have valid reasons for doing so. I believe the argument goes that someone who has a long signature might confuse a newbie editor because the signature takes up a lot of space (up to four lines of text on some browsers), making it difficult for a new editor to be able to tell where to begin editing on talk pages with multiple comments from several users. Similarly, the "too many userboxes" argument does have a basis: people don't want to see Wikipedia turned into MySpace, with ghastly userpages that violate the spirit of WP:OWN. Most users who oppose do have their reasons for opposing, even if I (we, whatever) aren't necessarily convinced by them. I never did find out the rationale for requiring exactly 7/24ths edits in X space, though, because no-one keeps that close of a watch on their edits, and if the did, they'd hardly be editing because they'd be spending so much time monitoring their edit levels. Luckily, that particular editor did change his mind, and my RFA passed with no opposition. What Nishkid says about keeping your cool is really important; people like to see an Administration candidate who can keep a level head, even if the other user is insulting or derogatory. Not that I have any worries: your contribs look clean to me; it just needs to be mentioned anyway. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

These WP:CSD practices were created by EWS23 for use in admin coaching. We're stealing them from him for the purposes of this practice. This a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases that EWS23 came across while clearing out CAT:CSD.

Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through deletion logs to see if it was deleted, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (they are being used for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.).

In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything, but remember that in real cases the page history is important.

Good luck! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 3 trailier

It has context. And the subject is certainly encyclopedic. Keep --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 08:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Even under that title? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not. Maybe we could merge it with Halo 3. But it certainly does not deserve speedying. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Many times you will see users mistakingly tag articles for speedy deletion. It's an admin job to judge whether an article should be deleted or kept. Merging to Halo 3 probably would be a good idea. Nishkid64 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union Millwright

This one should be deleted speedily. The page is nothing but links. See A1: No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. This is a textbook case of CSD A3. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webs

This one should be deleted too. First: It's patent nonsense. Second: It is incoherent. Third: It is completely non-notable. Fourth: It also looks like an advertisement --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Appears to be an advertisement (CSD G11). If it's not, it still doesn't assert notability (CSD A7). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Haverton Smith

No Google Hits. Non-notable. Delete--¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 08:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Qualifies under CSD A7. Might also qualify under G10. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Out Boy

This one should be kept. It IS notable. I found quite a few sources, like [1], [2], and [3]. 1400 GHits. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This article should never have been tagged for CSD. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Where'd you get 1400 Ghits from? "Fall Out Boy" gave me 2,800,000 Ghits. Nishkid64 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
He's in China. China filters Google content. Results may be different on the Chinese version. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

The article DOES provide meaningful content. It IS understandable, and the subject IS notable [4][5]

Yes. It does need some major clean-up and wikifying, but this is a perfectly valid subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation

OK, Exir, you state on your userpage that you are/want to be a peacemaker. We certainly need peacemakers on Wikipedia! Has there ever been any time when you've used your mediation skills to work out a situation between two disgruntled users? If so, could you provide relevant links? Knowing how to handle a dispute is important for any administrator, but particularly for someone who wants to mediate. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've just recently came into contact into the Mediation Committee, and the closest I got to mediating a case was this:Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Northern_Ireland. Hmmm... I've tried the Mediation Cabal too, but it's too messy, and I haven't found any cases suitable for me.--¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 09:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is a lofty goal, but it can be really difficult. I'm not sure I've ever successfully mediated a dispute, though I've worked on several cases. I wish you luck.
I want to ask you about that last line in the mediation: Otherwise, mediation will be continued on a secret Wikipage, with the adress sent by mail. It is impossible to keep anything secret on Wikipedia like that; anyone can check a user's contribution list to find out where the editing is taking place. How did you plan to keep the negotiations secret? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean a page on wikipedia... I could use other Wikis. BTW, have you ever done the Mediation Cabal?--¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Never have. Why? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article contributions

Besides the FA stuff we were talking about before, what area do you usually try to make article contributions in? If you are particularly good at one subject/area, go ahead and edit in that section for a while and obtain a good reputation as an article builder. It could potentially help your RfA in the future. Nishkid64 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)