User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/Aitias

The following page is preserved as an archive of an admin coaching discussion. Please do not modify it.

Coachee: Aitias (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Coaching

First 12 questions

• The following three questions are from RfA itself:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A. Mainly I would use the unlimited administrative-rollback and block vandals myself, which I had to report to AIV so far (I did more than 440 AIV-reports).

When I patrol the newpages I would delete pages myself, which fit in the Criteria for speedy deletion. Till now I had to request speedy deletion first (I did more than 600 speedy deletion requests). I would try to have a look at the Candidates for speedy deletion and the Requests for page protection as well. Besides I could protect pages myself without requesting the protection first. Finally I would have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, too. I could also help out in emergencies in the chat-channel (#wikipedia-en) when an admin is needed. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A. Mainly I patrol the Recentchanges and revert vandalism, “warn” vandals at their talk pages, request speedy deletion and page protection. I also like participating in the Featured picture candidates. I have written some articles (Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, Noli turbare circulos meos! and Barba non facit philosophum.) and translated some articles from the German Wikipedia (e. g. Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? or Sardonism) as well.

3. 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?

A. So far, I had no really serious conflicts. Some time before I was a bit angry because of this warning left at my talk page - In this case I left Orangemike a message and said frankly, that I think, what he did was not really nice. This “problem” was solved, when Orangemike apologized at my talkpage. If I would have any similiar problems (I don't think that this was a real conflict) or even a “real” conflict in the future, I would try to solve it by saying frankly what the problem is (for me). At all I think it's important not to inflame conflicts, but calmly discuss them.

4. What is your understanding of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules?

A. I think this policy wants to say that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If there was any rule that prevents you from building the encyclopedia, you should ignore it, and do what's the best for Wikipedia.

5. What is your understanding of Wikipedia:Snowball clause?

A. I think this “clause” wants to say that there is no sense in carrying out an issue, that has no chance to succeed. For example there is a RfA with a candidate, who is active since three weeks and has 250 edits. The only right thing to do is to close this RfA fast. So, I think, this “clause” is a very usefull thing.

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A block is the blocking of an account by an admin (so that the account can not edit Wikipedia anymore), while banning is a decision that a person is no longer allowed to edit. This decision can be made by the community, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, the Wikimedia Foundation or User:Jimbo Wales.

7. An article you edit frequently and have improved significantly receives vandalism to the point where it needs protecting. Do you semi-protect the page yourself, or do you request protection instead?

A.No, I definitively would not protect it myself. I would request semi page protection instead, because I would be content-related involved.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a vandal if they had received level 1, 2 and 3 warnings, but not a level 4 one?

A. I rarely would block anyone, who had just three warnings. But I think, when it's obvious that someone does not want to do any constructive work, you could block this user after just three warnings. For example such spammers, or [1].

9. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. I think every user/IP should have at least one (only) warning. So I would not block a user/IP without a warning. There would of course be exceptions like such edits. I think in such a case it would be justified to block the user without any warning.

10. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A. That is the unblocking policy. Of course I would adhere to it. At first I would leave a message at the talk page of the blocking admin and say, that I disagree with the block, and why I disagree with the block. If no agreement is reached in this way, I would go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

11. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a WP:BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A. At first I would leave a message at the talk page of the admin, who had removed the material. I would say, that I don't think that the material violates the BLP policy. If no agreement is reached, I would go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

12. What type of edits should "rollback" be used to revert only?

A. I think rollback should only be used when reverting vandalism or, when you revert your own edits. Rollback should not be used in content disputes.

Questions part 2

13. When should IAR not be used?

A. IAR should not be used, when you would damage Wikipedia. For example you should never ignore Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility or Wikipedia:Edit war.

14. You encounter a page tagged for speedy deletion marked as nonsense, or WP:CSD#G1. The content reads: "Acalamari is from the planet Squidworld. The inhabitants of this world are ruled by the Empress Bellatrix Kerrigan. Squiddy trees are the planet's main forestry. This is obviously a blatant hoax, but would you delete the page under G1? Why or why not? What action would you take?

A. No, I would not delete it as nonsense (G1), because the content is not incoherent. I would delete it as pure vandalism (G3) instead, as the content includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation.

15. Another page you come across is tagged for speedy deletion, and the reason is that the subject of the article does not assert notability, or WP:CSD#A7. The content reads "'Mr. A. C. Alamari isthe why terr of the popular, great booke called The Way Home isa goodOne, ALWayS. He ollso wote Trains LeavIng teh Stations at MIDknight." Would you delete this article under A7, or does the article's subject assert why it is notable?

A. I would not delete the page under A7, as the content asserts notability (because “Mr. A. C. Alamari” is supposedly a writer of a great book). I would try to clean up the page, then the notability should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

16. When would it be appropriate to protect a page from being recreated?

A. It would be appropriate to protect a page from being recreated, that is repeatedly re-created after it was deleted according to the Deletion policy.

17. You have been blocked, and are 100% sure that the block is inappropriate. Would you unblock yourself, or not?

A. Of course I would not unblock myself. Instead I would try to request unblock at my talk page ({{unblock}} ) per e-mail ([email protected]) or the chat-channel (#wikipedia-en-unblock). I could also ask another admin in the IRC (#wikipedia-en).

18. You are in a dispute with a user (either over article content, or any general disagreement). The user rapidly becomes uncivil, vandalizes your user page, and you then block them. Do you think this block was appropriate to make, or would it have been better to have let another admin handle it?

A. I think it would have been better to report that user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or to ask another admin in the IRC to block that user.

19. A user comes to your talk page, and calmly questions one of your admin actions. How would you handle this? How would you handle a user coming to your talk page, questioning one of your actions, but is extremely uncivil in doing so?

A. In both cases I would stay civil and calmly discuss the issue in order to find a solution.

20. A user brings up one of your admin actions to AN/I, and never had any prior discussion with you beforehand. How would you handle this situation?

A. I would discuss the issue at AN/I as usual and I would mention, that the user didn't try to solve the problem before at my talkpage.

21. In your answer to Q10, you said that if you disagreed with a block another administrator made, you would discuss it with them. Would you apply this action to any administrator action you disagreed with?

A. Of course I would apply this action to any administrator action I disagreed with. As I wrote in Q3 it's very important not to inflame conflicts.

22. Two users are edit-warring on a page. You revert the user who performed the most recent edit in the revert-war (either with rollback or a manual revert), and then fully-protect the page? Was this appropriate? Why or why not?

A. It would not be appropriate. Actually it would be an abuse of the tools. I would just protect the page and not revert anything.

23. Due to a dispute you are having with another user (in this case, a non-admin), a page is fully-protected. You notice an error in the article. As an admin, you can edit fully-protected pages, but it was partially your fault that the page was protected in the first place. How do you deal with the error in the article?

A. I would mention the error at the talk page of the article and ask for correcting it.

24. What is a wheel war?

A. A wheel war is a dispute between two or more administrators, in which they undo one another's administrative actions.

Questions part 3

25. Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are important policies for all Wikipedians, but why are they more important for admins?

A. I think they are especially important for admins as admins seem to serve as a model.

26. Why is it important for administrators to be commmunicative?

A. It's important for administrators to be communicative as they have to be able to discuss and explain their admin-actions if requested.

27. Upon becoming an administrator, could you see yourself changing the way you behave in any way? If yes, why?

A.Why should I change the way I behave? Actually, being an admin means having some more technical tools – not changing behaviour. Of course, I would take even more care about important rules like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

28. Why do you think it is important for admins to have E-mail enabled?

A. Some admin-related issues are sensitive. They should besser be discussed per e-mail and not publicly. Therefore it's important to have e-mail enabled. Furthermore perhaps some blocked users would like to discuss the block per e-mail.

29. Although the following page is technically an essay, do you believe you understand what adminship is not?

A. I think all in all that essay wants to say, that admins are normal users, but they have some more technical tools. Actually they are not “better” than normal users, but they are expected to set a good example.

30. When should "cool-down blocks" be used?

A. They should never be used as they usually inflame the situation.

31. Upon being granted adminship, do you think new admins should take it easy, or do you think all admins, regardless of time spent as an admin, should be equally careful?

A. I think it's important for an admin always to work with high care. Though I think it's important, that new admins work with even more care as they have no experience.

General discussion

Review of the first 12 answers

Q1. Seems good to me: AIV can always do with an extra pair of hands, as can RFPP and RFR, and CAT:CSD is rarely empty, so it's good you'll be willing to help there. I'm not sure about one thing though: what do you mean by helping out in the "chat-channel"?

Sometimes an admin is urgently needed in the chat channel for blocking vandals or something like that. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I see: though I think AIV is better, in all fairness. Acalamari 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Q2. Some people don't consider speedy tagging and reverting vandalism to be contributions, but as far as I am concerned, they are still improvements to the encyclopedia (i.e. cleaning up), and are therefore contributions. However, you have written and created a few articles in your time here, and that's an excellent thing: creating content. Once your next RfA comes, you'll have more articles to add to this list and answer. :)

Q3. I don't have any problems with this answer: in a conflict with another user, finding out what the problem is and discussing it calmly is the preferred course of action.

Q4. Your understanding of IAR seems fine to me.

Q5. A good understanding of SNOW.

Q6. This is the difference between a block and a ban.

Q7. Yes, with and article you've improved significantly or created, you should always request protection of it to avoid conflict of interest and ownership issues.

Q8. Agreed: rarely should someone be blocked if they had not received a final warning, however, in the case of blatant vandals, they often ignore the warnings and keep vandalizing, therefore making a final warning pointless.

Q9. Users should almost always be warned before blocking. However, blatant sockpuppets, extreme violations of the username policy, and users like this do not need warnings prior to blocking. Both this answer, and the one above, show that while you'll be cautious with the block tool, you'll also use common sense when blocking.

Q10. This is the correct course of action.

Q11. Yes, you should discuss with the admin who removed the material rather than just insert the text back in.

Q12. Rollback should indeed be used to revert vandalism/spam, and there's nothing wrong with using it to revert your own edits. It should never be used in content disputes and revert wars or to revert good-faith edits.

First 12 questions: 12 out of 12 received correct answers

Review of the second 12 answers

Q13. These are good examples of when IAR should not be used: if IAR is being used to cause disruption, then it is not being used correctly.

Q14. That's correct: G1 does not apply because the text is clear and readable, and not nonsense at all: G3 is the criterion to use.

Q15. While the page is messy, it asserts notability, and should be cleaned up rather than deleted.

Q16. This is correct, but can you actually list a situation where you would protect a non-existent page?

Q17. Yes, unblocking yourself would be a bad idea, and in some cases, may lead to a recall (assuming that administrator is open to recall) or an ArbCom case. Contacting the blocking admin in any way possible is best, and if the blocking admin is unavailable, another admin will most likely unblock you. However, unblocking yourself if blocked by a compromised account is fine.

Q18. You were half right: you were correct not to block the user, but Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents would be the better venue to have the situation sorted rather than AIV. Even though the user was uncivil and resorted to vandalism, you were in a dispute with them that led them to vandalize, and AIV is not for disputes. IRC would not be an appropriate place either, as the discussion over the block should be done publicly.

Yeah, of course you are right, that Administrators noticeboard/Incidents would be the better place to go... But I tought it would depend on the specific case: If it's blatant vandalism (“fuck, gay, ass” and all that) I tought it would also be okay to go to AIV. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is definitely the better place: due to the dispute that was taking place before the vandalism, the report would be too complicated for AIV, hence, why ANI would be more appropriate to go to. After all, if the dispute hadn't happened, you wouldn't have to worry about blocking a user you're in a dispute with: you'd just be blocking a regular vandal. Acalamari Bellatrix! 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks for the explanations. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good. You're welcome. Acalamari Bellatrix! 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Q19. Keeping cool is the best.

Q20. Yes, like above, it's best to keep cool, but at the same time, it would also be good to mention that the user didn't bring the situation to your talk page first. However, in the case of a newcomer, the fact they didn't go to your talk page to begin with can be overlooked, depending on the situation.

Q21. Correct: rather than potentially start wheel wars, you should discuss first.

Q22. You are right: it would be blatant abuse of the tools as you would be taking a side in the dispute and protecting your favored version. As you said, you should protect, but not revert.

Q23. Yes, while being an admin allows you to edit protected pages, they have to be edited responsibly. Since you helped get the article protected in the first place, raising the error on the talk page and having another admin make the edit is correct.

Q24. This is an accurate description of a wheel war.

First 12 questions: 11 out of 12 received correct answers. One received a neutral-marked answer, but after a discussion, the coachee understood the correct answer.

Review of the last 7 answers

Q25. Yes: although admins are not “better” than other users, people will still go to them for help and advice, and therefore, uncivil admins are not a positive influence for less experienced users.

Q26. Admins have access to more tools, and they should explain their actions in their summaries, but sometimes, further explanation is required. An admin needs to be communicative.

Q27. It’s good that you don’t plan to change your behavior, but if you plan to adhere to policy more, then that will be positive.

Q28. These are good reasons why it’s very important for administrators to have E-mail enabled.

Q29. This seems like a good explanation of what the essay means.

Q30. Right answer.

Q31. Yes, all admins should be careful and not become reckless, but new admins, simply because of their unfamiliarity with the tools, should take more care. More experienced admins will know how to use the tools, but they should not become careless.

Review of last 7 questions: 7 out of 7 recieved correct answers

Overall: 30 out of 31 recieved correct answers, with one marked as neutral, and then discussed.

The above admin coaching discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this coaching discussion, the coach, or the coachee). No further edits should be made to this page.