User:Tbo 157/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Process: Material is placed and developed here. There may be exercises, things to read, questions posed and answers given, etc. Use the talk page for more ephemeral stuff like process related questions, comments, concerns, and so forth

Contents

[edit] Intros

Place introductions here please.

[edit] Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

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 since mid May 2006, and a Checkuser since August 2007. I am also an admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser on commons, and an admin and checkuser on Meta and I unsuccessfully stood for Steward in 2006. 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 mostly cribbed this from a previous coaching page... still true) ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Hi, I am John. I have been editing here since January 2006 and have over 34 000 edits. I've been an administrator since August 2006. I have made around 600 blocks and around 2000 deletions since then. I like to edit articles on aerospace, history, geography, football, punk music and popular music in general.

I generally copyedit articles and format them to wiki norms; it's amazing how many articles still misuse capitals in section headings for instance. I have a bee in my bonnet currently about the misuse and overuse of national and state flags in infoboxes (here's an example of what I mean). Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags is an essay I have helped work on which aspires one day to be a policy on the subject, or more likely a sub-page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Controversies I am currently slightly involved in are:

  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Vintagekits where I am named as an involved party in the case. I probably won't contribute anything much as there are 30 people involved and I have little to add that others haven't already stated.
  • Talk:Factory farming, where I protected an article to prevent a bitter and long-term edit war. I have done little actual work on this recently; it may be that wider involvement is needed to resolve the situation.

In real life I am a 42-year-old male chemistry teacher from Scotland living in northern California. I'll try to add some questions and exercises for you soon. --John 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tbo 157 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Hi. First of all Id like to thank you both for agreeing to be my coach. Im fairly new in the web 2.0 world but have in the past been playing around with aspects of computing such as HTML and gaming. I have been a registered user on WIkipedia since April 2006, although I had been editing as various ip addresses before that. Wikipedia is something I enjoy very much and spend alot of my free time on it. I feel that Wikipedia can be a great encyclopedia, if as many people as possible can contribute to it. I enjoy working with Wikiprojects very much as they help in improving articles related to it. Id rather not go into too much detail about my real life but I can tell you that I am currently a student in the United Kingdom and hope to be studying engineering in the near future.Tbo 157talk 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

List of things we should try to achieve: (let's jointly develop this list together but here are a few things to think about, we three will restructure this as needed... Please also answer some of these below)

  • Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?
  • What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?
  • Some reading to get you started is often helpful.
  • exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?

[edit] Agenda/Checklist discussion

I believe the job of an admin is to carry out essential maintenance or house keeping work on Wikipedia. It is a role in Wikipedia just like editing articles or recent changes patrolling. Techinically, adminship is just a few extra buttons but im aware that alot of thinking is needed to go into the use of these functions. I believe that an admin should have a strong grip on all policies and also be able to follow consensus gained by the community. However policies are simply a guideline, along with common sense, that should be used to establish consensus. What is interesting for me in adminship is the fact that I can assist better with Wikiprojects. Adminship gives the ability to protect Wikiprojects which are often being vandalised and also to edit protected articles within the scope. I am also a vandal fighter and may use some admin functions in this process. In my opinion, I don't think any areas of Wikipedia should be taken as seriously as real life. I am not suggesting that the whole project should be considered a joke but I am more referring to the fact that putting too much effort into online work can damage the community itself. This is something some users refer to as wikistress. Wikipedia is something that users should enjoy and work with during free time, following the spirit of the community. I dont believe that it should be a commitment. I apologies if my comments are a bit vague. Tbo 157talk 11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You say you want to help wikiprojects, a great goal, but you don't have to be an admin for it... that's the what but I don't see the why yet. Why do you want to be one? What's in it for you? Adminship is a lot of work and it can get a lot of people quite mad at you, even if you are careful to be even handed. It can get vandals after you, and lots of other bad stuff too. Are you ready for that? What are you going to get out of being an admin? (feel free to use bullets to format things into points if you want) ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen many admins being abused by vandals. I believe that any vandal should be dealt with following WP:Civility and in the best interest of Wikipedia. Like I said before an admin's job is to maintain and protect it. I have dealt with conflicts in the past and user's aggressing at me wouldn't really bother me. Everything comes with risks. Like I said before, Wikipedia is not something to be taken too seriously or somethig that a user should commit to. Tbo 157talk 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Reading list

To get you started... Here are a few things to read and think about from Lar (Guinnog may add more)

  • User:NoSeptember/The_NoSeptember_Admin_Project is an amazing array of resources on adminship. In that array I would look through a lot of things... browse around! but here is User:NoSeptember/RfA_talk_topical_archive_index a good list of things for further reading
  • User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? one of my favorite essays, period. Think about what it means, think about adminship as merely one thing, one tool, one process that helps us do the overall goal. How does it fit?
  • User:Mindspillage/admin one of my favorite essays on adminship. Could you be this good of an admin? I'm not sure I myself am, but it is something to strive for.
  • User:Essjay/Neutrality Another take on how to be a good admin. Neutrality, impartiality, fairness. These are so important! Look within yourself and see if you really think you can do things this way. If not, perhaps adminship is not right for you (generic you, no comment on anyone in particular intended) It is really a shame that this page was deleted, it's really very good. I placed it on a user page for a previous coachee, Akradecki, see User:Akradecki/Admin coaching/Essjay neutrality ... That stance is not necessarily for everyone, but it's a thought provoking read.

Out of left field:

  • Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 8, 2006 What does this rule really mean? What is the spirit, not the letter? How do you enforce spirit when trolls and trouble makers are going to want the letter, and then want to twist it around on you and wikilawyer?

Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking... You may have read some of them already. You don't necessarily have to read every single one in the entire admin project (although if you want to, you'll be much better informed). What I am interested in is a discussion on what one or two of them meant to you, whether you agree or disagree, and why, and so forth. These can be a springboard for good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading list discussion

I agree very much with User:Mindspillage/admin. I believe that adminship is not a glorified position or status as some users seem to think. Although adminship does come with tools which are necessary for enforcement, I don't believe that adminship is about enforcing at all. I believe everything an admin does, should be for the maintenance and protection of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have rules and rule enforcers. It has policies, which are guidelines for discussions to establish a consensus. Admins should also participate normally in these discussions. An admin may then implement the consensus, such as deleting an article. An admin is a volunteer who has agreed to help with maintaining Wikipedia, just like a user who has agreed to volunteer with recent changes patrolling. However it is a role that requires more trust and knowledge of policies. Admin tools should always be used following a Neutral point of view. It should be kept separate from a user's work in editing articles. It should not be used following your opinion or personal biases. In my opinion, it is not a good idea to use admin tools on an article which you have contributed to significantly to avoid biases, unless a user is dealing with blatant vandalism. regarding vandalism, I believe that any vandal, no matter how blatant, should be warned at least once. Like I mentioned before, an admin's job is not to enforce rules but to maintain and protect Wikipedia's articles and its community. During vandal fighting, I very rarely issue blatant vandalism notices. I have seen many vandal fighters, who bite newcomers by issuing blatant vandalism notices unnecessarily. Blatant vandalism is vandalism where a user is blantantly directing offensive messages at someone or attempting to cause mass disruption to Wikipedia. Consensus is always important, no matter how you contribute to Wikipedia. Any admin has the right to revert another admin's decision but I believe this should only be done after discussion. When using admin tools I believe the interest of Wikipedia as a whole should come first. I also believe that WP:Civility always applies to any situation. Being civil is very important. It is important for the community spirit and to keep Wikipedia, a friendly and constructive environment for everyone. The most important part of Wikipedia are the articles and this should gain priority. Every aspect of Wikipedia is to maintain and improve articles and achieve the aim of the free encyclopedia. For this reason I believe that discussion should always be used to maintain the encyclopedia including in resolving disputes. Tools such as blocking or taking disputes to the WP:Arbitration Committee are a last resort, in order to protect Wikipedia and not to enforce rules or to punish anyone. I also believe that WP:NPOV should always be put into practice in any discussion as well as article writing to avoid unnecessary conflicts and discuss for the best interest of the encyclopedia, using policy and common sense as guidelines. Tbo 157talk 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which vandalfighting tools, if any, do you use? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of a tool? Are there any dangers in using tools a lot? ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I primarily use Twinkle as other tools don't seem to work on my PC. There are dangers in using any tool alot, in particular abusing tools. Tools can sometimes easily be used to sway people's opinions to your personal biases or even making disruptive changed to Wikipedia. Tools should always be used from a Neutral Point of View. In my opinion, it is not a good idea to stick with one task on WIkipedia for too long as this is when your personal biases can show and you may start violating WP:NPOV. It is a good idea to ocassionally change to performing other tasks. Tbo 157talk 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought provoking questions

Question from John:

  • What do you think of WP:BADSITES? Should it be policy? --John 00:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Although, it would be a good idea to prevent such sites from being linked to Wikipedia, there are a few concerns which may arise from such proposed policies. One such problem is that it is not easy to determine which websites are attack sites. It is true that the majority of the WIkipedia community itself would be biased on such subjects. Therefore any user may accuse another user of linking attack sites to Wikipedia, when in actual fact it may just be a site criticising Wikipedia. It is also easy to abuse the policy as the Wikipedia community would be biased about Wikipedia itself. Trolls may take advantage of this sensetive and controversial matter. The site involved may be an unrelated site or it may simply be a site which criticises Wikipedia, many of which Im sure exists. Therefore I think it is better for each matter in these cases to be dealt with separately, looking at the scenario and getting as much user input as possible from a Neutral point of View. Making this policy is likely to cause problems for the reasons I gave above. Tbo 157talk 09:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't quite follow "It is true that the majority of the Wikipedia community itself would be biased on such subjects." Could you explain that another way? Also, what do you think of "outing" users? Is the promise of privacy valid? You're anon. I'm not. What are the comparative advantages to an admin of each of those? ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the vague wording. What I mean is that if someone links a perfectly legitimate site which criticises Wikipedia to a relevant article and someone removes it, then alot of the community are probably biased on the subject. The reason is that everyone who edits Wikipedia is part of the community. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However alot of Wikipedians can edit from a Neutral Point of View so this probably wouldn't be my main concern. The main reason why I would reject the proposal is that such policies can easily be abused by trolls. A similar issue is mentioned on the talk page of Criticisms of Wikipedia, where the ip address who started the conversation looks like a troll. Regarding "outing users", im not sure what you mean but I believe that every Wikipedian has the right to remain anonymous. I don't believe that giving out your personal details helps Wikipedia very much. This is an encyclopedia where everyone collaborates to help in improving. It is not a social networking site. I can understand that checkusers or employees of Wikimedia would need to give details.Tbo 157talk 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Good answer if a bit rambly :) The followup below digs a bit deeper into some aspects of this... ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :). Sorry for the rambling. Ill try and be a bit more concise in my answers. Tbo 157talk 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK followup on the same general theme as John's initial question. First, some research for you.
    • What is current policy on evaluating user behaviour? Are contributions from other wikis within WMF something that can be used to evaluate? (for example if someone is shown to be a sock on another WMF wiki, or shown to have disruptively attacked others on another WMF wiki) Is the policy explicit or implicit? Provide cites to the relevant policy pages, and if implicit, show your derivation. What about contributions on other, non WMF sites? (for example if someone repeatedly outs en:wp users on wikipedia review, or calls for disruptive en:wp behaviour on ED) Again provide cites to relevant policy, and if implicit, show your derivation. Note that BADSITES is not currently policy.
All the policies which are for user behaviour can be found at Wikipedia:List of policies#Behavioral. These suggest how Wikipedians should behave as editors. Most policies on Wikipedia are independent from other Wikimedia projects as other wikimedia projects have their own policies. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that these are for Wikipedia. Although checkusers have access to the Wikimedia server logs, in general Wikipedia incidents are dealt separately from other Wikimedia projects. These policies apply to all Wikimedia projects. However the policies do not deal with incidents such as sockpuppetry or vandalism on local projects. There is nothing in the privacy policy or other policies which states that checkusers may use other Wikimedia projects as evidence. In general local projects are independent in dealing with unconstructive or vandal users. Tbo 157talk 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • With that as a background, what do you PERSONALLY think. Do you agree or disagree with the policy as written? If you disagree with policy, how will that affect your admining activity if, for example, you encounter someone that fits the first class (disruptive elsewhere on WMF) or the second class (an ED admin, for example)? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the policies. Most unconstructive edits are easily dealt with using only the evidence gained from Wikipedia. It is only in the case of serious vandalism across Wikimedia projects that evidence from other Wikimedia projects may be useful. However since every Wikimedia project has a different process for these kinds of matters, I don't think it can be done. I also agree that incidents on different wikimedia projects should be dealt with entirely separately. They are different projects with different editors and admins etc. Tbo 157talk 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another from me: Is it ever OK to call someone a troll? Discuss how WP:SPADE and WP:AGF can co-exist on the same project. --John 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its ok to immediately call someone a troll. I have seen this many times on Wikipedia and often users who aren't trolls are mistakenly referred to as trolls, simply due to their behaviour which may seem disruptive. To call someone a troll, I believe clear evidence is needed and until then users should assume good faith. Alot of new users may not understand policy very well and it is important to take this into consideration. Often new users are easier to accuse of trolling as they are new and don't understand policy. There are users who don't assume good faith with new users and don't seem to appreciate the fact that they may not have a good understanding of policy and the ways of wikipedia as they do. Obviously if a any user, new or old, is only making clear disruptive comments or edits then they can be dealt with as a troll. This is why it is important to review contributions before taking any action against or accusing users of anything. WP:Bite is an important policy in my opinion. If an experienced user made the same apparently trolling comment as a new user, the experienced user may not be accused of trolling. I have seen this before. If there is clear evidence then users may be called a troll. Assuming good faith with obvious trolls will simply provoke them further and may encourage more users to troll. However I believe WP:Civility always applies in any situation. This is necessary to keep a good community spirit and to prevent bureaucracy. Force is pointless on Wikipedia and users should always be civil to anyone including disruptive users. Attacking or being harsh with disruptive users may simply provoke them further. For this reason I don't agree with WP:SPADE. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You know that we always like to ask you things in response to your answers that are of the form "but what if..." so here you go :). Are you SURE you don't agree with WP:SPADE? I challenge you to come up with a scenario where it's the right thing to do. Stretch your mind a bit, if you would. Trying to see things from the other side is a valuable skill for the successful admin. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned above that sometimes WP:SPADE should be applied when the user is clearly a troll or a vandal. Trolls may take advantage of the fact that they are not being accused of anything and troll further. Some trolls may be discrete but may persist for a long time. Such a user could also be accused of trolling. You may have meant something else in your question here to how I answered it or I may have phrased my answer in the previous question badly, so you couldn't grasp the point I made about what I mentioned here, so Im not sure if this is the kind of answer you wanted. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I think I misunderstood the question. Here is a scenario I have thought of as you challenged me to think of one. There may be times on wikipedia don't realise what they are actualy doing wrong. One thing new users, with a lack of knowledge in policies, can have trouble with is POV pushing. The user may be a civil and good editor may not realise that users should stick to WP:NPOV and provide reliable sources for any controversial information inserted into articles. New users may be confused by simple notes on talk pages and so it may be a good idea to state that what he is doing can be seen as POV pushing and direct the user to the relevant policy or guide page. This may also apply to editors who are making unconstructive edits but not realising it. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are many scenarios on wikipedia and I am sure that admins encounter new scenarios often. Each scenario is likely to require a different action and so it is important to be able to think flexibly. As you mentioned, the right solution to a problem may be WP:SPADE at certain times. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Below is a question I asked you which edit conflicted with the question you asked above:
(Edit conflict)Trolling is one of many things on wikipedia where user discretions vary. Some users may call a comment trolling while others may not. Just out of interest can I ask how you would define a troll on Wikipedia? How would you determine if a user is trolling and would it differ based on the level of experience?

Question from Lar

When using admin tools, WP:NPOV should always apply as this is essential for maintaining wikipedia and keeping it running smoothly. However regarding other things, I don't think WP:NPOV can always apply with everything. An example is an AFD. Sometimes the community may decide against policy to keep an article. This can be thought of as POV pushing but policies aren't perfect. They may not cover all situations. I think sometimes WP:IAR or follow the spirit, not the letter, needs to apply in order to improve the encyclopedia and keep the community for improving the encyclopedia. This is also true when writing articles, although I think the majority of wikipedians have accpeted that all articles should be written to a neutral point of view and that this is non negotiable. Community acceptance is always key as the community is likely to accept what is best for Wikipedia. In most cases policies are used as a guideline to be able to do this. For example in determining the WP:NC(CN) of something, wikipedians may be the best source as google tests can be unreliable. Policies themselves are something wikipedians themselves have created and accepted for the best interest of the encyclopedia. What is right is determined as a community and policies are created along this. If there is no policy for something, community discussion is important. This is a community run encyclopedia. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ive just realised that Ive focused mroe on the exceptions of WP:NPOV and less on the question. I think WP:NPOV is an important policy and should be applied most of the time. As I said, I mentioned some exceptions above. An ideal encyclopedia shouldn't contain unsourced POVs of editors. It is essential to people using the encyclopedia that the encyclopedia is unbiased. Biases are something which do happen especialy in a large community like Wikipedia and so we should try and follow WP:NPOV. In article discussions, users should try and discuss controversial matters and to try and make and keep the article unbiased. In the case of using admin tools, I believe it is very important that admins use their tools from a WP:NPOV. Consensus judging in such processes as WP:XFDs need to be done from a WP:NPOV to be accurate. Ideally, in my opinion, an admin shouldn't use their tools with matters they have been involved in. There may be exceptions in the case where the consensus in a process such as WP:XFD is clear and obvious or when any comments made in the process by an admin has been neautral and the user is sure he/she is not biased there. However I believe it is better to let a uninvolved admin judge the consensus even in such cases. WP:NPOV is also very as important when protecting articles and blocking users. Using these tools in a topic area where an admin is strongly involved may cause some controversies such as whether the admin may be POV pushing or violating WP:Point etc. I think it is best for an admin to use their tools where they are capable of being able to use them from a WP:NPOV. There may be some exceptions to this such as where a certain action is obviously the correct move. For example pure vandalism page creations. In topic areas where a admin is heavily involved or where they know they are biased, it is probably better to ask for another uninvolved admins help. Admins can function in this way as all admins have topic areas where they are heavily involved and maybe biased and others where they are not involved much. Tbo 157(talk) 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question from Lar

This one spurred by John's pointers back to our respective RfAs.... OK, you just had your RfA... it passed and you're a shiny new admin. As with just about any RfA, you had some opposes. One of the opposers is now involved in something you are, something where (for whatever reason, assume it's true for the sake of this question) it seems pretty crucial that you yourself act as an admin, rather than stepping aside... What are you going to do? How are you going to handle it? ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would not have anything against someone who votes against my RFA. After all RFA is about trying to gain a community consensus on whether a user should be given admin tools. If someone is not happy about me having admin tools, then so be it. If a user who opposed me does get involved with something that requires my action as an admin, I would probably ask another admin to handle the case and ask that user to use their discretion from a neutral point of view to do what is best. This would be to avoid any conflicts which may arise or possible accusations that I used admin tools against this user because the user opposed my RFA. There may be more controversial cases, where I would seek the opinion of more users at places such as WP:AN/I. If the user was involved with blatant disruption such as constant vandalism which required immediate attention, then I probably would use admin tools but I would ask the move to be reviewed by other users who are not involved at WP:AN/I. However I will always be just as civil and helpful to anyone who opposed me as I will to anyone who supported me. I will discuss any issues with them as I usually do, seeking more input if the issue does start to turn intoa conflict. Tbo 157(talk) 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question from John

I was interested in your comments here and here. What made you change your mind? --John 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Question. There have been times on Wikipedia when I have thought that it is overly bureaucratic but after giving it some thought I concluded that it is a good community to work with. I originally suggested that more of the official work should be done by office staff to make it less bureaucratic but one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is a community run organisation which requires few office staff. Letting office staff do more of the processes will in itself end up being bureaucratic. There are users throughout Wikipedia who volunteer in different areas of the project. This is helpful as it helps to strengthen the community which is necessary for building the encyclopedia and also requires less office staff. If too many things were done by office staff, then Wikipedia may lose some of its sense of community. Alot of the article writing process and the article talk page discussions do have a sense of making decisions as a community. Wikipedia itself can be seen as bureaucratic in some ways, depending on how you look at it, but Wikipedia does function well as a community. When I gave this some thought, I realised that it is not so bureaucratic as everyone is equal in this project and there are no real strict standardised processes as these can be reformed. Some processes may also only appear bureaucratic. For example a user suggested that RfA seems like a vote but it is actually a discussion which turns out to be like a vote. Looking at past RfAs crats do look at the comments and use their discretion absed on this. Policies are used as guidelines for discussions and actions and not as strict rules which have to be followed. Policies themselves are something that have gained wide community acceptance. Community acceptance is an important factor in Wikipedia. Overall Wikipedia is something that should be enjoyed by everyone who contributes here in whatever way. It shouldn't be taken too seriously as this can cause wikistress. Tbo 157(talk) 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scenarios

These are a bit more concrete but not as mechanical as some of the "exercises" that we may ask you to do as well.

[edit] Scenario 1

Since you chose Kat's essay as the first thing to comment on... Here's the very first sentence from that 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. Now... Take a look at my block log: [1] That first user Juppiter.. review his contribs, review what was said on AN/I at the time... (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? Was there another way to handle that user? Was 24 hours too short? too long? why? ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that alot of admins block users too easily. As I said before, blocks including the length of the block, should be determined for the best interest of Wikipedia. A person's block length should be determined on how likely the user is to vandalise again and not the severity of the user's vandalism. There are some exceptions to this such as confirmed sockpuppets, clear vandal only accounts and various others. In the case of the block you issued, other users clearly felt that you were too lenient. Opinions would differ amongst different users. I agree that the user should have been blocked longer due to the history of vandalism edits the user has. But in the case of long term edits which may be controversial, this should probably be discussed first. However it is important that personal feelings don't come into these discussions. There are different types of vandals. Some may be bored, others may just be young children playing around. Any vandal should always be warned first. The determination of how to deal with the vandal lies with the likelihood of the user to vandalise again. In any case WP:NPOV should apply even if the user has directed a personal attack at you. Although in these cases, it may be better to ask for help from other admins. Tbo 157talk 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the argument that some vandalism is easier to clean up than others? Does that have any bearing? What do you think about hardblocking IP addresses? How long is appropriate? Explain your answers but try to be concise, or even, use bullet points. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some vandalism is easier to clean up than others. Some vandalism is just a one off outburst of vandalising a few pages. Others may be vandalism using various sockpuppets. However when blocking any user, I think it is appropriate to think about Wikipedia itself first. If a registered user starts vandalising pages, it is appropriate for the user to be blocked depending on how likely they are to vandalise again. They may simply be need a cooling off period of 24 hours or so. In the case of registered users committing blatant vandalism, then the user should receive earnings and if that doesn't work a slightly longer block, maybe around a week or longer, depending on each case. If after the registered user is unblocked, the user starts blatantly vandalising again and it is clear that the account is a vandalism only account, it is probably appropriate for the user to be blocked indefinitely. Regarding ip addresses, alot of ip addresses are dynamic and blocking for long periods may affect more users than the vandal. Most admins, I have noticed block ip addresses for around 24 hours or longer unless it is clear that the ip address is registered to an oprganisation or is a static ip address, in which case longer blocks or school blocks may be issued. If they are dynamic ip address, they most probably will not start vandalsiing again as soon as they are unblocked. However each case is different and determining the length of block and the type of block requires thinking on how much of a threat they are to Wikipedia and its community. Tbo 157talk 09:24, 30 August 2007 (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? Why or why not? What other things would you do first? When and why? ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If evidence is inconclusive, it is a good idea, in my opinion, to get other users involved and start a discussion by taking it to WP:AN/I but only after you have tried to discuss the situation yourself with the user. The best course of action should be discussed without causing any conflicts. Edit warring itself is a situation when blocks can be implemented and so it can be taken to WP:AN/I. Also discussion and consensus is important. Tbo 157talk 20:05, 28 August 2007 (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 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If a user is reverting edits for no particular reason or in controversial circumstances, I would prefer to discuss the situation with the user, after the first revert of such nature. If someone is on the verge of violating 3rr, I believe they should be warned for this. This is something accepted widely by the Wikipedia community. However I would not block without at least discussing the matter with the user. If it is an article that I am heavily involved with or a user I am very familiar with, I may ask another admin to get involved so that I do not violate WP:NPOV. Tbo 157talk 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exercises

[edit] Exercise 1

Another editor draws this article to your attention. (Let's pretend it is in the mainspace!) What, if anything, do you do? --John 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting any article, I would first perform a google test and use common sense to see if the subject of the article is noteable, unnoteable or just pure vandalism. There may be cases where the subject is noteable but the editor simply has not completed the article yet. In such cases, I would inform the editor and maybe advise him to move the article to his user space until the article is complete to avoid further inconvenience. If the subject of the article is clearly not noteable and does not assert notability or is pure vandalism, I would speedy delete the article and inform the creator of the article. In the case of the article mentioned in the question, I would speedy delete it for no assertion of noteability (A7) and contact the user, explaining why the article was deleted. However personally, I prefer non admins tagging such articles and and admins reviewing the article later. This gives some time for the editor to give any valid objections to the deletion and more than 1 person is involved in the process. An exception to this would be pure vandalism article creations. If I think deleting an article may be controversial, I would put it up on AFD instead. Tbo 157talk 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
But they're an up-and-coming band! In all seriousness I thought that was an excellent answer, really well thought out and complete. --John 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol, im sure they are a great band. I have seen many comments like that being made on articles tagged for speedy deletion but the user objecting the deletion often doesn't provided a source for the subject of the article or assert the notability of the subject and subsequently such articles are normally deleted. Thanks for the comment about my answer :). Tbo 157talk 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, that was more of an exercise than a scenario :) But good answer nonetheless. I've plenty more exercises I can share if we're to that point. Tbo, do you have more questions or commments on things that you'd like to dig into? It's OK for YOU to ask US questions about why we did things the way we did too... ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of any questions at the moment but one may arise while doing exercises, so Ill remember to ask if I do think of one. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The toughest RfA question

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

You may want to read mine, Lar's, or browse some of the successful and unsuccessful ones from the past. Take your time and remember that it is (probably) worse to neglect to mention something that others may consider important, than to talk about even the most egregious errors or disputes, as long as some time has passed and you can show evidence of having learned from it. --John 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This will be one I'll have to think about. I have already been thinking about it but it is a hard question as it is not easy to determine what other users will define as "conflicts over editing". To start with I'll simply bullet point anything below as I think of them and Ill also make general comments below the list. I'll say when I think the list is complete. It would be helpful if you could comment on how important you think the situations are to mention although I will think about it too. Once Im happy with the list, Ill comment on the relevant ones about how I would avoid such problems in the future.

[edit] Modelling an answer

  • To start with I recently questioned a WP:UAA report as I hadn't heard of a particular offensive term, [2]. However User:Rjd0060 and User:ArielGold kindly advsied me of the situation and I withdrew my comment which questioned the report, [3]. A discussion which was started on my talk page from this incident can be found here, [4]. Being based in the UK, there are some offensive terms used mainly in other countries which I have not heard of. This seems to be a common situation in username concerns as offensive words themselves and defitions of offensive words can vary betwwen countries. For this reason, I will not remove reports, as no need to block, from WP:UAA unless it is a blatantly unnecessary report. If I do work in WP:UAA, I will only block blatantly offensive or inappropriate usernames.
  • I once caused User:Miranda stress by asking her to make an ad for a wikiproject as the user seemed to be experienced with them. This can be seen by this diff,[5] and the response, [6] and [7] I had already asked the user beforehand , what software the user uses to make them as shown by this diff, [8] but it was a very hard software to use. However I did not realise that the user didn't like making them. I did apologise as shown here, [9] and the user seemed to have understood my apology, [10], but I would like to apologise again for this incident. I should have asked on the talk page of the ad banner page or asked a user who appears as being able to make ads on the page and this is what I will do from now on.
  • A few months ago, I didn't think about policy when commenting in this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events at The O2 as it was an article I had made quite a few contributions to, [11]. At that time, I didn't have a solid understanding of policy. However I know what mistake I have made now and I have learnt from it. In any AFD I will always try to reach a consensus using policies and discussion. Since this incident, I have participated in numerous AFDs and I feel quite confident with AFDs now. When closing AFDs, I will always close the AFD from a neutral point of view, looking at the discussion carefully to see where the consensus seems to lie.

Note: This list is not yet complete as it may take me a while to answer it fully. However your comments, if any, will be appreciated. When I am happy with what I have above, I will put down a full answer below. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) To be honest, I can't think of anything other than the ones Ive listed above. I don't think Ive been in any serious conflicts with anyone. As I said above, it is not easy to determine what other users consider "conflicts over editing" but I honestly can't think of much else regarding what I think other users will consider "conflicts over editing, from looking at past RFAs. However I will give myself a bit more time to think about this. However comments, if any, will be appreciated.

Regarding how I will avoid conflicts in the future, I will always follow WP:Civility and I will try to follow WP:Bite. I will be welcoming to new users who make constructive edits and I will help them out however I can. When using admin tools, I will think about the best interest of Wikipedia and its community. I will think before using the tools as each situation is likely to require a different action. For example, I will try to review contributions and the user's talk page before blocking a user. Some situations, such as mass vandalism, may require a quick response but I will always think about what I am doing. If I am not sure about something I will gain more input. I will always try to reach a consensus in any discussion. I will always discuss potentially controversial matters including for the use of admin tools in controversial situations. I will try to understand everyone's opinions and I will try to reach a compromise. If I do make mistakes, I will ensure I learn from them. I will also always keep up a good community spirit which I think is important for creating a good encyclopedia as a community. In any conflicts I will respond in a calm and civil way. If I do ever get stressed in the future, I will probably take a wikibreak as Wikipedia is something that should be enjoyed and not something to get stressed over. I will also add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and I will voluntarily desysop myself, if the community does not see me as fit to serve as an admin. I think it is important that the community get a say on whether an existing admin should keep their adminship. If I do get a recall request, I will ask an uninvolved user to determine the consensus of the discussion which will follow the recall request. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I will place a full answer here when I am happy with what I have above.Tbo 157(talk) (review) 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of incidents or conflicts, I have been involved in, which I would like to mention. If there are other incidents I haven't mentioned, then feel free to mention them and I will comment about them as appropriate.

  • To start with I recently questioned a WP:UAA report as I hadn't heard of a particular offensive term, [12]. However User:Rjd0060 and User:ArielGold kindly advsied me of the situation and I withdrew my comment which questioned the report, [13]. A discussion which was started on my talk page from this incident can be found here, [14]. Being based in the UK, there are some offensive terms used mainly in other countries which I have not heard of. This seems to be a common situation in username concerns as offensive words themselves and defitions of offensive words can vary betwwen countries. For this reason, I will not remove reports, as no need to block, from WP:UAA unless it is a blatantly unnecessary report. If I do work in WP:UAA, I will only block blatantly offensive or inappropriate usernames.
  • I once caused User:Miranda stress by asking her to make an ad for a wikiproject as the user seemed to be experienced with them. This can be seen by this diff,[15] and the response, [16] and [17] I had already asked the user beforehand , what software the user uses to make them as shown by this diff, [18] but it was a very hard software to use. However I did not realise that the user didn't like making them. I did apologise as shown here, [19] and the user seemed to have understood my apology, [20], but I would like to apologise again for this incident. I should have asked on the talk page of the ad banner page or asked a user who appears as being able to make ads on the page and this is what I will do from now on.
  • A few months ago, I didn't think about policy when commenting in this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events at The O2 as it was an article I had made quite a few contributions to, [21]. At that time, I didn't have a solid understanding of policy. However I know what mistake I have made now and I have learnt from it. In any AFD I will always try to reach a consensus using policies and discussion. Since this incident, I have participated in numerous AFDs and I feel quite confident with AFDs now. When closing AFDs, I will always close the AFD from a neutral point of view, looking at the discussion carefully to see where the consensus seems to lie.

Regarding how I will avoid conflicts in the future, I will always follow WP:Civility and I will try to follow WP:Bite. I will be welcoming to new users who make constructive edits and I will help them out however I can. When using admin tools, I will think about the best interest of Wikipedia and its community. I will think before using the tools as each situation is likely to require a different action. For example, I will try to review contributions and the user's talk page before blocking a user. Some situations, such as mass vandalism, may require a quick response but I will always think about what I am doing. If I am not sure about something I will gain more input. I will always try to reach a consensus in any discussion. I will always discuss potentially controversial matters including for the use of admin tools in controversial situations. I will try to understand everyone's opinions and I will try to reach a compromise. If I do make mistakes, I will ensure I learn from them. I will also always keep up a good community spirit which I think is important for creating a good encyclopedia as a community. I belive it is important to follow the spirit and not the letter. Community consensus is an important part of Wikipedia. In any conflicts I will respond in a calm and civil way. If I do ever get stressed in the future, I will probably take a wikibreak as Wikipedia is something that should be enjoyed and not something to get stressed over. I will also add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and I will voluntarily desysop myself, if the community does not see me as fit to serve as an admin. I think it is important that the community get a say on whether an existing admin should keep their adminship. If I do get a recall request, I will ask an uninvolved user to determine the consensus of the discussion which will follow the recall request. Tbo 157(talk) 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

It would be helpful if you could provide diffs for these incidents, when you have time. --John 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment John. I have provided some diffs above. Are these sufficient enough for someone reviewing the incident? Tbo 157(talk) 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that is really useful as it lets me have a proper look at what you were referring to. It may take a little time to properly review these but not more than 24 hours. --John 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. If you are busy with other things, then I won't mind if you put this off until a bit later. I look forward to your response. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. If these are really the worst incidents you have ever been involved in, you have done really well! The only one that would concern me is the one with Miranda as it is still quite recent. As you say, however, you can show evidence of having learned from it.--John 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I will consider what you have said carefully. Tbo 157(talk) 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)