User:Rgoodermote/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator Coaching
Coach (Administrator):User:Nishkid64
Student (User):User:Rgoodermote

Contents

[edit] Rgoodermote (student)

My name is Robert Edward Goodermote II, I was born in a small town in MA. Currently I am a high school graduate. I was taught in a Technical High School, my trade is Information Technology and my niche is Web Design, Web Programming and Programming in general. I am a bibliophile (book collector), I would say I have read almost 100+ books all in the Sci-Fi, Drama, Action, whatever genre Harry Potter is genres. I am also a movie addict, same genres as the books. As you have learned I an anti-vandal but contrary to popular belief I do have intentions to work on article but I was never able to find a niche to work in. This is why I went to anti-vandal work among other reasons. For more User:Rgoodermote/Bio Rgoodermote  17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a bit about me: I'm an 18 year old Indian-American student at George Washington University. I consider myself a philomath. From my editing history, you can see that I edit articles from a wide variety of topics. I first joined Wikipedia back in early 2006, but I did not start editing regularly until late June. I self-nommed myself for adminship in September 2006 and passed with a vote of 60/9/4. At the time, I was more of a vandal-fighter than anything. I did clean up, reference, and wikify articles, but they were all pretty minor. It wasn't until after I became an admin that I became involved in serious article writing. I'm very big on article writing and encyclopedia-building. I hope that I can get you more involved in article writing, as I feel it should be of vital importance to any editor on Wikipedia. It's not that I dislike vandal-fighting...I just feel that it's not that difficult to press a few buttons to revert and warn user. As your admin coach, I hope to prepare you for administrative tasks that await you (I will give you AIV, CSD, RFPP and other practices) and also help you find topics you might be interested in writing about in the future. Sound good to you? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds Good to me Rgoodermote  22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin activities

Alright, so what type of admin activities do you envision yourself doing in the future? Which one do you want to go over first? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I envision myself working on backlogs, at WP:AIV, WP:UAA and the various others related to vandalism. I have interest in working at WP:SSP working on the various cases that go rather unnoticed. I actually would like to work on the harder one. Which to my knowledge is WP:SSP. Rgoodermote  19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, sorry for the delay. SSP is something you really can't practice for. If you have good judgment, you should be fine there. I'll start with some AIV and UAA practices. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Practices

Here are some practice AIV reports that I have written down. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
A block is appropriate. The user was warned in a row with at least 3 warnings and was also given a final warning. Which is enough of a hint to stop.

24 hour block I personally do not like the idea of indef blocking unless it is a clear cut case of vandalism.

Yeah, don't indefblock IPs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Addition:I should be more observant. Rgoodermote  20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
This one is a little tougher but still a block would be right because the warnings were commissioned in a row. As well the user was warned 3 times and received the proper last warning.

Again 24 hour block I personally do not like the idea of indef blocking unless it is a clear cut case of vandalism.

No block. No evidence he vandalized after final (and last) warning at 20:00. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Not a chance in hell. A 4im would only be appropriate for cases of repeat vandals. This vandal clearly only vandalized 2 times prior. This is not a case of a repeat vandal yet, but getting there.

Action would be taken if the IP continues to vandalize. The 4im should be sufficient however to stop the vandal for that day. If not I would consider a 3-24 hour block.

Fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

It is a schoolIP a long time block is justified I would personally block the IP for another 3 months or maybe till the end of the school year.
Yes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Though I dislike indef blocking the account is clearly vandalism only and should be indef blocked.
Yes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 no final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

Conflicting...the IP is shared as so it is possible that the person doing the recent vandalism is unaware of the current warnings placed upon and as it has received no final warning. I would suggest waiting for the IP to vandalize again and warn it with the next level. This is because it is a SharedIP and I am unsure of who is vandalizing at the moment so I need to treat it as a separate person.
Correct. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Practices 2

Okay, I'm going to move away from vandalism to some other blocking situations (username violations and 3RR). For 3RR reports, just indicate what action you would take (if any). If you choose to block for username violations, differentiate between soft blocks and hard username blocks (account creation disabled). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 1

XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.

Depends on if the user reverted the page s/he was warned not to revert. If the user reverted that page again I would block for 24 hours.
Assuming the revert was on the same page as before, then a 24 hour block is appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 2

YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.

I am really unsure but because it still says revert it still counts as violation of 3RR and a block is needed. 24 hours.
Partial revert still counts as a revert in my book. 24h. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 3

ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.

The user reverted to avoid further confrontation. Some lenience should be taken. Though if the user continues to revert after I will issue a 24 hour block.
No block. 4 reverts minus self-revert = 3 reverts. Might want to give them a warning for edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was saying that after they self-reverted I would not bother issuing a block but if the person was still reverting later after a self-revert I would block. I didn't make it very clear did I? Rgoodermote  00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 4

3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.

If the reverts where on the same page and within the last 24 hours I would block the user for 24 hours.
3 consecutive reverts = 1 revert, as per policy. Warn for 3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 5

User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.

Well I would block the user for 24 hours just for number 2. The user would however have to go by this standard. 1 on day one 1 on day 2 and 4 on day Three. Number 1 would get ignored as it is clearly not a breach of 3RR number 3 is also not a breach of 3RR as it would be 2 on day 1 maybe 3 and then 2(1) on day 2. The last would get my attention but not a block as the user did not breach 3RR.
Edit warring is a blockable offense. I would issue a 24 hour block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 6

User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.

If I am doing the math right here that user had to have violated 3RR some where a long the line so a good week should be sufficient if the user of course has been warned.
Well, let's assume he didn't violate 3RR. In that case, we could either protect the article if multiple parties are involved, or we could get block the users for 24-48 hours for edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would lock the article down. Edit warring or not a discussion should be given a chance. If after the protection the party continues a 24-48 hour block would be needed. Rgoodermote  00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 7

Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?

Cool down blocks would be needed depending on the users and if they have been warned about it. I would most likely suggest every one get tea and take a break.
Ha, fat chance! I'd just fully protect the page, since I'm fairly certain edit warring will continue at some point. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thinking in a fantasy world on that one I know. Though I would bring everything to a halt by giving everyone a good 10 minute block then as you suggested lock down the article and make it clear they need to discuss the problem. Rgoodermote  00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames

Sorry I was slow with the block types. I didn't have time last night to read through WP:Block again. I am sorry to say that I probably will take it easy on people. I am also sorry to say I may have gotten confused as I tend to do. If need be explain hard and soft blocks to me. But I think I got the gist of it. Rgoodermote  22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 8

Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

Block Indef, clear advertisement Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|Allow a person to choose a good one
Yep. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 9

Username: RealTek, Inc.

Block indef. Simply because it would not be an accident for that name to be chosen. Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|Allow person to choose a good one
Yep. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 10

Username: Bitch78

Suggest name change, after 1 week no action is taken. I will block for inappropriate name. The reason for the name change is that Bitch is not overtly offensive. Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|I choose soft because I just do not consider bitch that offensive or worthy of account creation block
Yep. if the user has vandalized, then you can place a hard block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 11

Username: Iwannafkuup

indef block. Name is inappropriate Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|I do not consider it and attack but it is greatly offensive, but hard is going to far
As before; if there is vandalism, then hard block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 12

Username: Asswipeface

No thought needed on this one. Block Indef Block Type:hard|Blocked for username|Attack name
Fine by me. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 13

Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

Block indef. Username indicates a vandalism account. This is because the odds of remembering it are not. Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|Not attack and it isn't offensive enough to issue hard.
Username indicates a vandalism account? That seems a little farfetched. It looks like a confusing username. These type of blocks are still being debated; I would block soft block indef. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
On hindsight that truly would be a very dumb reason to block. Rgoodermote  00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 14

Username: CroatoanBot

Suggest name change unless user is saying they are a bot. Then it would be indef and then deletion of the user space (just to remove statements that indicate it is an official bot, do not want people going there thinking that is true)
If the user doesn't get a name change, you should probably block the account. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to sound rude...but I kinda saw that as an obvious. Rgoodermote  00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 15

Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Block as advertisement Block Type:Soft|Blocked for username|Allow person to choose a good one
Yep. If the person only uses the account to advertise, hardblock might be acceptable. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of school now, so I have more time to spend with admin coaching. What do you want to cover next? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD practices

I'll go with CSD practices first, and then AfD practices. I think the former will help you with the latter. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:EWS23/CSD. Indicate what sort of action you would take. Explain what your reasoning is. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] /CSD/Halo_3_trailier

Speedy delete on the selected grounds that it does not hold any value what so ever for Wikipedia. Though this is only as a separate article. The content can be included in the Halo 3 article. Though with an obvious typo...that page is going to go instead of redirect. CSDG1

Sorry bout that...I will pay better attention to the letters from now on.Rgoodermote  16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /CSD/Union_Milllwright

CSDA3 is appropriate as there is Little to No Content at all and it is just an article with links leading else where. I would wait however to see if the person who made it expanded upon the article. If after about 30-40 minutes they do not. Delete and then suggest to the editor that the make it in a subpage.

[edit] /CSD/Webs

Delete CSD G1. Just pure nonsense that has and will never have anything note worthy.

[edit] /CSD/Neil Haverton Smith

Delete under CSD G1. Blatant nonsense with no encyclopedic content period. G3 and G10 apply. More G10.

[edit] /CSD/Fall_Out_Boy

Keep and warn user who marked it. Fall Out Boy is a very notable band with plenty of sources around the web and many magazines.

I want to point out that I apparently reverted vandalism on this some time ago...kind of funny.
This might not have been a bad faith CSD tagging. It's best to first ask the user why they tagged it. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /CSD/Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

A quick Google search changed my mind on this one. Inform user of NPOV as s/he is taking it into their POV and recommend expanding with proper sources.

[edit] AfD practices

Well, I think the best way to handle this is to evaluate your participation at WP:AFD. Participate in 10–20 AfD discussions (I'd prefer it if you were the first commenter on the AfD...this makes it more challenging) and post a link to your contributions here. I'll evaluate them and tell you how I would have handled it. I'll also give you some pointers that I picked up during my AfD days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir. Rgoodermote  20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1

Trapped by History. Suggested Speedy Delete under CSDG1 as it is clearly a nonsense page as well as suggested G11 as it is also an advertisement for some one's book. Rgoodermote  20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Changed. Still speedy delete but I changed my reason. The article does not declare it's notability and is basically the summary from the back of a book. Rgoodermote  20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2

As We Were. I went with the noms suggestion. Also did a quick search and nothing appeared for the film so I also added that it failed Notability. Rgoodermote  23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)