User:Wpktsfs/coach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am currently interested in an admin coach. Please talk to me on this pages discussion page. --wpktsfs 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Reading

[edit] Should already know

[edit] General

[edit] Security

[edit] Content policies

[edit] Copyright

[edit] Blocking

[edit] Page protection

[edit] Deletion

[edit] Requests

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Controversy

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Questions

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: I would take that editor to WP:SSP and leave a description telling the circumstances of the problem. Privately request for a CheckUser, and then proceed from there.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

A: I would talk to the deleting admin about it, and see what the circumstances allow. I would not do anything without agreement of the deleting admin.

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

A: I would look at the block log and see previous blocks. I would block the annon for a period of time, def not indef, granted they have not made a personal attack.

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?


5. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?


6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?


7. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?


8. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?


9. Why do you want to be an administrator?


10. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

A: Both. For better or worse, the two are indivisible. Politically, good admins have to hold themselves to a high moral standard to carry out the will of the community in terms of technical decisions and changes, without letting their own personal bias get in the way. In theory, admins should only hold a technical position, however, because admins have, for lack of a better word, "powers" (i.e. the tools) that the rest of the community does not, admins should be able to handle themselves in a politically correct and bias free way.

11. Have there been any times where you were insisting on a certain edit and realized later or during the dispute that your version in fact had a POV problem?


12. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?


13. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about TFDs, RfDs, MFDs and CfDs?


14. Can semi protection be used on articles where there are many edit conflicts or when vandalism is quite frequent but not all the time?


15. How would you act, as an admin, to help defuse situations between other editors?

A: Neutrally.

16. Will you edit your preferences/editing to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?

A: Already done. I always try to encourage other editors to change their preferences to remind them to leave a summary. I feel that edit summaries are a very important part of the workings of Wikipedia.

17. Do you think discussing blocking of the established editors over IRC instead of WP:ANI is appropriate? I am not talking about the rare case when the editor is on the vandalizing spree warranting an emergency action. This is not what an established editors would ever do anyway.

A: Major violations, IRC, minor violations, ANI.

18. Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR, WP:SOCK, etc) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fair use policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? As you admit yourself, your involvement in the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. How can you make sure you will in your administrative actions be able to understand the editor's concerns if you continue to stay away from significant editing?


19. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?


20. For what, if any, reasons might you consider speedy deleting a page not covered in WP:CSD? (As an example, some administrators speedy delete dictionary definitions and editorial rants, citing WP:NOT, even though neither of these falls under a particular criterion for speedy deletion.)

[edit] Additional questions/practice

[edit] Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc

(originally found at my second editor review, I moved the questions to here to consolidate.)

Y = Vandalism/Speedy Delete N = Not vandalism/speedy delete


Borrowed from Glen (talk ยท contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

[edit] Speedy Delete or not

  1. CSD1 Y Article is (presumably) an autobiography about a currently unknown band.
  2. CSD2 N Article can be built upon, granted sources are given
  3. CSD3 N per no.2
  4. CSD4 Y WP:PN
  5. CSD5 N This is a tough one. Keep with {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}} tags.

[edit] Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] Y
  2. [2] Y WP:PN
  3. [3] Y
  4. [4] NY not sure here... not very knowledgeable when it comes to this topic, however, I would ASG, but revert, but give an edit summary that would let a knowledgeable editor on the subject feel free to re add with sources.
  5. [5] N ASG, revert, leave a MOS message on user's talk page
  6. [6] N ASG, revert, leave user a message on user's talk page telling him or her what they did wrong.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dfrg.msc for your interest. I value that deeply. --wpktsfs 04:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. Correct.

2. True.

3. Correct!

4. Good understanding of policy.

5. Excellent!

Ok, now go back through and see what WP:CSD tags you would mark under. Dfrg.msc 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

_


1. Good! You could check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.

2. Correct.

3. Correct.

4. Correct!

5. Yeah, borderline vandalism and an unhelpful edit. Test 1 and Welcome.

6. Great!

Sorry for the long wait. The CSD'ing was excellent. I'm happy to see that improving Wikipedia is foremost in your mind. The important thing is "all Edits are Effort'. And when you destroy that effort, have a good reason. Cheers, Dfrg.msc