User:Firefoxman/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 To Courses / To bottom 
Please note: This shouldn't be used to simply gain adminship. The questions are designed to help you understand what being an admin is about, rather than how to answer optional RfA questions. Keep in mind that adminship is no big deal; if you edit purely to gain the tools, you will be sorely disappointed when you receive them, as they are nothing special.

Welcome to your admin coaching page,
Firefoxman (talk • message • contribs • page moves • deleted contribs • summary • count • total • logs • block log • block • email) !

Throughout the page, "we" refers to me, WBOSITG and "you" refers to, well, you. =P

Phase one deals with questions designed to let the coach know what the coachee's best contributions are, and what their general strengths and weaknesses are while editing. It could develop article writing skills, something look upon with importance.

Phase two is all about policy. The admin coach will ask several series of questions dealing with policies that will be used extensively in their role as administrator. The responses will be marked and built upon.

Phase three has to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, et al). The coach will ask several questions about Wikiphilosophies and controversial areas of Wikipedia policy.

Phase four is a mop up phase. The coach and coachee will work on whatever weak areas still need to be addressed.

[edit] Courses

Phase Portion Stats Result
Phase 1 Basic Checklist 78.57% (11/14) Complete!
Phase 1 Reasons for failure 100% (5/5) Complete!
Phase 1 Strengths and weaknesses N/A Complete!
Phase 1 Basic RfA questions N/A Complete!
Phase 2 Blocking 85.71% (24/28) Complete!
Phase 2 NPOV 100% (12/12) Complete!
Phase 2 Page protection 90% (9/10) Complete!
Phase 2 Deletion Complete!
Phase 2 Miscellaneous Complete!
Phase 3 Miscellany In progress...
Phase 4 Assuming good faith Not attempted
Phase 4 Administrator's Noticeboard Not attempted
Phase 4 More Miscellany Not attempted

After completing the four phases, we will nominate you for adminship. If we feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if we feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

Now, time for phase 1!

[edit] Phase 1

[edit] Basic Checklist

First, to sort out what you have and haven't done. All of these are smiled upon by experienced editors.

Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
    • Yes
  • listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
    • Yes, I have a barnstar for it.
  • requested a page to WP:RPP?
    • Not sure, doubtful.
  • had an editor review?
    • Yes
  • reviewed another editor at editor review?
    • No
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
    • Yes
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
    • Yes
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
    • Yes
  • posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
    • Yes
  • uploaded an image?
    • Yes
  • welcomed a user?
    • Yes
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    • Yes
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    • No
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to. We will cover this more later.
    • Yes
      • Total: 11/14: Right then, that's a decent amount. You might want to look at AN and ANI (although I can't blame you if you haven't already) just to get the gist of what goes on there and the differences between them. Editor review is a good way to show your ability to communicate with others and to study something at length. RPP isn't exactly necessary as an admin, especially if you don't plan to be active there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Failure

We will now look at why your previous RfA failed. Please mark if these have been remedied.

  • Low article edit count
  • Marking your RfA for a speedy (hmm)
  • Inexperience
    • I've been here since 04.
  • Low edit count in general
    • See above
  • Self nom
    • Well, no, I won't self nom.
      • Total: 5/5 Yeah, they all seem to have been remedied now. The fact that your RfA was over two years ago certainly helps things. I'm sure CSD'ing your RfA will be long forgotten now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Strengths and weaknesses

This is going to be primarily used by me (or co-noms) to draw up a nom statement for use in the RfA. There are nine questions, but you needn't answer them all at once.

1. What are your favourite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. I'm particullarly proud of what I've done to Open mail relay and Ubuntu.
You should be, they look really good.
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. I love Free software, and, more broadly, Technology.
Good, at least you have a preference.
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. Probabbly 60-75% is vandal-fighting.
That's good, but make sure you don't spend too much time vandal hunting.
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. Yes, User:Elaragirl gave me a barnstar for it.
That's a very good sign, in my opinion.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. I love editing too much </sarcasm>.
Heh. Any real weaknesses?  :P
Ok, I tend to get distracted and sometimes forget to get back to people.
6. 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. All of my favorite articles are listed in my feed reader so I can look over all the changes that have occured. Then I move along to my watchlist, then to WP:ERRORS, and Talk:Main Page.
Ok.
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. Because I'm insane. Seriously, it makes me feel like I am contributing to something bigger than myself.
Good reason.
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. I'd like to know more about WP:RPP, as I'd love to help, but have been in little conflicts myself. I'd avoid a lot of WP:DR, as I'm not quite well versed in that.
Fair enough, DR is incredibly confusing for me. I would suggest avoiding it to start with.
9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. WP:RPP.
Right then. You already said you'd read up on that, so, yeah.

[edit] Basic RfA questions

These are highly important during your RfA, considering you need to answer them. They essentially repeat some of what you've said above, just a case of reorganising it.

See this site ffm 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They seem alright to me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

This phase deals with policies on Wikipedia that you will be using as an admin. I will be assessing this as follows:

  • - Correct, 2 marks
  • - Partly correct, 1 mark
  • - Incorrect, 0 marks

The marks will be used to discover what we may need to cover again later on in the programme.

[edit] Blocking

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A. Verify that all four warnings have been given and the user has continued his/her abuse or that the user was recently unblocked and has resumed abuse, check that it isn't a sensitive IP, block the user, and apply the necessary template to his/her page.
Yes, but you can block after just one severe vandalistic edit, if they have had a {{uw-vandal4im}} or similar. If it a sensitive IP, you must report this to the Wikimedia Foundation before blocking per WP:SIP. You must also do a WHOIS on the IP. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. If the user has not been given sufficient warnings or has stopped after his/her final warning.
Correct. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Trick question, Cool down blocks should never be used, per WP:CDB. They do not actually allow the user to "cool down", and often inflame the situation.
Also correct. Well done for spotting that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Trick question, Cool down blocks should never be used, per WP:CDB. They do not actually allow the user to "cool down", and often inflame the situation.
Also correct. Well done for spotting that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. That is against WP:BLOCK. There is a javascript tool instead.
Indeed, the Wikibreak enforcer. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A. Contact the administrator and discuss it with him. If I still disagree, I take it to WP:AN. If it was obviously made in error, and the administrator is unavalible, I will unblock without discussion (again per WP:BLOCK)
Yes, yes and yes =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. Ask a bcrat to remove its bot flag if it has one, and revert all of its edits. Alert people on #wikipedia-en so they can take appropriate action and help with the reversion.
Yes, but report it at #wikipedia-tech or #wikipedia-en-admins (you would be an admin in this case, but I don't blame you if you didn't know about this because you obviously haven't been there before). You may also wish to use the Wdefcon to inform people, by turning it to level one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. I'd ask another administrator(s) in #wikipedia-en-admins.
Not really. Yes, tell other admins for a wider view, but if you're not sure, never make the block. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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 put a post up on WP:ANI, and contact the admin via email to see if the situation could be explained.
Sure.
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. The user will be blocked, and reported to WP:ANI.
Why? I assume per WP:LEGAL. You should sort out the dispute between the user and yourself individually, seeking advice if he begins threatening you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the question, it was stated that the user had already made legal threats.
Yes, I meant personal threats. Usually the user will say he's going to take legal action against Wikipedia as a whole. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I would not block them, as it is not misleading, unless there was an existing user called User:KLSOKMDJSA (per WP:IU. I might ask them to change their user name to something more memorable, however. After all, there may be a legitimate reason for this, such as an initialism WBOSITG for "we buried our secrets in the garden".
True. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A. Yes, it would be blocked, as it is unnecessarily long and disruptive (per WP:IU), see also Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116.
Nice reference there! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. Yes, again per WP:IU, as it is promotional.
It might be promotional, but it is best to wait and see if the user edits only cleaning-related articles or creates a Qwik Clean Inc. article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?
A. Well, assuming Ryan Posthelwaite is an existing user, I'd block RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo (per WP:IU as misleading), and ask Ryan Posthelwaite for clarification.
Perfect. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. A hardblock blocks all the IPs an account has used and disables account creation, and a softblock does not.
Yes, see also WP:HARDBLOCK. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Total: 24/28 (85.71%) -- That's very good. You appear to be very rehearsed in blocking of users.

[edit] NPOV

Now, we'll move on to neutral points of view. It is very important, especially for an administrator, to be neutral at all times. This can be used to advantage in disputes, writing articles or even deletion.

It's a pretty short section, so answer as fully as you can. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 12. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV fork would be a content fork created specifically to avoid the NPOV guidelines. POV forks should be merged back into the main article, and, if consesnus determines that it is patent nonsense or does not warrent inclusion, it shall not be put into the article.
Sure. But, you don't need consensus if it is very blatant vandalism or advertising.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A. Cite what you write, and give attribution. Rely on reliable sources. Use neutral language, and avoid WP:WEASEL words. Also, avoid accusations, and conflicts of interest.
That's five, but they're all right =P.
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 neutral, as it is a matter of opinion.
    Indeed.
  1. 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 criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
    Yes, assuming they cite it.
    Correct.
  1. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
    Yeah, as it is correct, but it would be best to make it more neutral, such as "Darwin's theory of natural selection has been accepted by a majority of scientists as a scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today." . (needs citation)
    Right.
  1. Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
    Neutral.
    Yeah. A citation would help this one.
  1. Some argue that Retro Classic is the best band from Reyfield.
    Not Neutral, violates WP:WEASEL to get around WP:NPOV.
    True.
  1. Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
    Not Neutral, because it contains an opinion that is placed as fact.
    Absolutely.

Total: 12/12 (100%) Congratulations, that's really good. You obviously have the hang of neutrality.

[edit] Page protection

Another important aspect of a janitor's job is protecting pages. This is done for a number of reasons, including edit wars and other disputes.

Another short section, so answer as fully as you can. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 10. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A. A registered user is in a dispute with an anonymous user, and semi-protection would unfairly advantage the registered user.
Absolutely, or if the editwar was involving two autoconfirmed users.
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. A page should be salted (deleted and protected from recreation) when it has been recreated in the past in violation of a AFD decision, or multiple speedies.
Yeah, like how HAGGER? is blacklisted. See also: Special:ProtectedTitles.
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A. When WoW has been abusing it, When there is a disagreement about where to name it (with move wars etc), and when it is a high visibility page that has no reason to be moved (like WP:V or T:MP
Yes, but remember, WoW isn't the only page move vandal.
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 the user had left or was banned, I would protect both. If they still were active, I would only protect his user page. If he was the target of substancial attacks by vandals on his talk, that would be semi-protected as long as he had a user subpage talk that was unprotected that could be edited.
Yeah, you only protect the userpage, and not the talk page, so that IPs can communicate with the user. Obviously, you shouldn't really fully protect either, because the user (assuming he's not an admin or he'd have done it himself) wouldn't be able to edit it.
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. That way reviewers who were not admins could look over the state of an article to decide on whether to approve the DR request.
Exactly.

Total: 9/10 (90%) -- Very good! I'd like for you to become more active in WP:RPP, as you seem to be good at it. Just suggest a couple of titles that are being vandalised, there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Deletion is probably the primary thing you'll be attending to as an admin, whether you're closing old AfDs or patrolling CSDs. It's useful to have a sound knowledge of CSD before even looking at a deletion candidate, and these questions will help hone that.

Another short section, so answer as fully as you can, giving reasons and policies. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 10. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. How would you close the following AFD's? Please note that these are probably the hardest you could possibly close as an admin.
A 1
No consensus, as "per my reasoning in the other nominations" is not a valid reason.
So, keep.
B 2
Keep
I'd delete, as this has more consensus. Even counting the strong keep twice, the K:D ratio is 5:3.
C 3
Relist
Yeah, nothing to act on there.
D 4
Keep
Yeah, I'd say so too.
E 5
Delete
Right.
F 6
Keep. Locations (cities etc) are notable.
Indeed, but remember to act on consensus.
Remind me to mark these later. =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A. You may disregard opinions and comments when you believe they are made in bad faith.
Yes.
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A. Delete under CSD R1.
Indeed.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A. Any infringing text or personal information.
I assume you mean copyright infringing text.
Yes. ffm 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
5. When patrolling C:CSD, you come across unreasoned CSD tags on the following articles. Under which speedy deletion criterion would each be deleted (if any)?

[edit] Miscellaneous

Some other stuff to cover in Phase 2...

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
A. I'd make sure to follow policy. 24 hours is appropriate for a small-time vandalism account, as users can reform, but if they continued to vandalize after their block expired they would be blocked indefinitely.
Yeah, I agree.
2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
A. If their account was comprimized, it could be used to delete the main page or place shock images on it, mass-ban via a bot, etc. A user should use a strong password, use a use another account on public computers, and tell no one their password. They may also opt to be able to verify their identity via a SHA-1 hashed string.

Yeah.

3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
A. That way they can be contacted quickly and easily when on wikibreak if a user contests a block or simillar.
Yes, exactly.

[edit] Phase 3

Some philosophy questions now. This is very important for editing the Wikipedia.

Answers to these need to provide links to policy pages, have a good argument with solid reasoning, and be thorough.

[edit] Is this Wikipedia?

  • What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
This is a parody of another image, it says that Wikipedia is big, but a majority of it is not useful. I don't agree, but I understand that wikipedia is not finished and could most definitely be improved.
Yeah, I suppose it does. I don't think that Stephen Colbert takes up that much space here, to be honest =P.
And where is the disinformation? TINC! ffm 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)