User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/AngelOfSadness

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

Coachee: AngelOfSadness (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. I would begin with admin work that does not stray too much from the non-admin work that I have done in the last few months. A fair amount of my contributions to Wikipedia are those of a vandal fighter and so I think I would start in areas such as AIV, UAA and CSD and branch out from there.

I would also like to take part in closing Xfd debates but, at the beginning, mainly ones where consensus is clear otherwise I would leave it until consensus is clear. I would also like to help in WP:SSP as I have some past experience in that field and it does tend to be backlogged from time to time.

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

A. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia which a good chunk of them would fall under the "vandalism fighter" and "wikignome" categories. But when I come across articles in dire need of attention, I do what I can to improve the articles as much as I can. For example, when I found the articles Escape (Enrique Iglesias song) and Not in Love, both could have been tagged with CSD and speedily deleted then and there for not asserting importance/significance. But I did what I could and now both articles not only provide more information but are also are not red links or redirects right now. I have also improved the articles Dangerous (Busta Rhymes song) and Sitting Down Here.

Along with improving existing articles I have also created articles such as My Favourite Game, Erase/Rewind and Cradle of Love. With the first two articles, I know a lot about the subjects so writing those was no problem. But with the third article, I found it red linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs and so I spent the day researching and writing the article. I have also created templates such as Template:Lene Marlin, Template:Enrique Iglesias and Template:Billy Idol aswell as improving existing templates such as Template:Tokio Hotel.

While I don't make many major content contributions, I have spent some of my time improving the sources and reliablibity of the content in many articles including Venus Doom and a few Craig David related articles. To me, I find that the reliablility of content is very important as many people use Wikipedia as their primary source of information so the content they read may as well be well sourced or at least factually correct. That may be the reason why amongst my many vandalism reverts there are also reverts with "rev addition of unsourced content" as the edit summary. Such revert explainations are necessary, especially when dealing with articles that have subjects of high public interest such as Blackout (Britney Spears album) and much of it's content has to be discussed on the talkpage.

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. To date, I haven't been in any major editing conflicts except for the genre changing (without sources, explaination or discussion) sockpuppets of their puppetmaster, who I encountered back in July when, at that time I was an active Wikipedian for a whole three weeks. Because of that stressful three day conflict, I was almost blocked for edit warring but I learned a whole load of what Wikipedia is really about such as: lame edit wars are simply not worth it and that Wikipedia is an ongoing collaboraive effort so communication is always better than edit warring.

For present and future similiar situations, I think it's best to write a friendly note on the editor in question's talkpage in an attempt to begin a discussion about the edits and how to improve them instead of reverting the edits. If the editor in question is a suspected sockpuppet, it's always better to assume good faith and be civil were possible which can be hard to do if there were dealings with the puppetmaster and several other sockpuppets previously.

I have had my fair share conflict with persistant vandals and other editors but these conflicts have been relatively minor in comparision to the conflict mentioned above. But the minor conflicts might have been caused by simple misunderstandings. I have always found it's best to review the situation and try to understand what happened in the views of both parties involved before pressing the "save page" button on the other party's talkpage.

• The following questions are ones that I picked up from various RfAs, or ones that I came up with. Some may be tricky or seem not relevant to adminship, but they are designed to test the judgment and knowledge of the person answering them:

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

A. My understanding of WP:IAR is that if a policy or guideline on Wikipedia is preventing you from improving the project ignore it. But IAR does not apply if your work is damaging the project. For example: IAR cannot be used to justify actions against WP:CIVIL, to start/take part in edit wars or to disrupt Wikipedia intentionally.

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

A. My understanding of WP:SNOW is that if an issue does not have any chance of having a surprising outcome from a process, there's no need for the issue to be run through the process. For example, if an editor who has made 10 edits with their account, has been editing for six days and decides to nominate themselves for a Rfa. The Rfa may be closed as WP:SNOW if all of the comments oppose the Rfa for the same reasons and there are no supports whatsoever for the Rfa.

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

A. A WP:BAN is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users while a WP:BLOCK is is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Banning is a technical mechanism used to prevent an IP address or account from editing while blocks can be used to enforce bans but are also used to deal with vandalism, disruptive editors and 3RR violations etc. Bans are enacted by the Wikipedia community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. But blocks are enacted by the individual administrators.

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. I would only semi-protect the page myself if it's blantant vandalism and not simply a content dispute as semi-protecting the page not only prevents vandlaism edits from IP addresses/new accounts but it also prevents constructive edits from IP addresses/new accounts. It would be best to request protection to see if other administrators agree with the protection of the article and then it won't seem so much like a case of WP:OWN if I had protected the page myself after improving it significantly.

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. Where possible, I wouldn't block a vandal without a final warning with at least 1/2 warnings beforehand. But if it's a case where the vandal is making a vast amount of personal attacks/vandalism edits in a very short amount of time, I would give them a final warning/only warning (depending on what warnings they have already recieved) and then if they ignore the warnings, then a block would be placed.

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

A. I don't think there are many circumstances were a user should be blocked without any warnings. I feel that it's best that the user is warned at least once. And who knows, they may not know that what they are doing is wrong, and so they could turn over a new leaf and start contributing constructively or they continue what they're doing, get sufficiantly warned and then are blocked.

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. The policy about unblocking states that Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. I intend to adhere to this policy as reverting another administrator's block is discourteous and strongly discouraged. If there was an error in the block, I think it would be better to discuss the block with the blocking administrator and if a conclusion can't be drawn, it would be best then to take the discussion to the administrator's 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. I think, at first, it would be best to discuss the content removal with the other administrator who removed the material. Or, if a conclusion can't be reached, take the discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to gain some outside views and intervention.

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

A. I think rollback should only be used on vandalism edits/non-constructive edits. If there is a doubt if the edits should be rolled back, it's best to undo and leave an edit summary explaining the revert.

Questions part 2

13. Can you think of a situation where IAR would be justified?

A. Honestly it is difficult to determine when IAR would be correctly justified in a situation as there are just some rules that can never be ignored like WP:NPA an WP:CIVIL. Ignoring just those two rules would , in my opinion, damage the encyclopedia rather than help it. Of course there are less restrictive rules that can be ignored depending on the situation but I don't think there will be any appropriate time to intentionally ignore all rules.

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 the page under G1 as the page is not unsalvageably incoherent as what the CSD G1 critera states. Instead a deletion under G3 would be more suitable as that includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation which the content of this page fits under.

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. This wouldn't be suitable to delete under A7 as the article does assert notability as it seems the subject is an author and so the CSD would be turned down. I would clean up the page and research the subject try to verify the information in the article. If the information can't be verified, I would ask the article creator for help with sourcing the article. But if they can't help but want the article to be included, it would then be a case of requesting an Afd for the article as the subject does not meet the general notability guideline outlined in WP:N.

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

A. It would only be appropriate to protect a deleted page when the page is repeatedly re-created in a way that is against policy after it was deleted multiple times per the deletion policy.

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

A. I would not unblock myself as that presents a clear conflict of interest except if it was found that the administrator's account which blocked me was comprimised at the time of block placement.

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 don't think the block is appropriate to make as if I was in a disagreement with another user and block them even though if they were uncivil and started vandalising my userpage, it would seem that I have abused my use of the tools just to win the dispute. It would have been better to maybe suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help solve the dispute but if the incivility has gone too far bring it up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for intervention by other administrators. But if other editors get involved in the dispute, it would then be best to bring it too request for comment on users.

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. I would civilly discuss the matter in both cases. Except with the uncivil editor I would communicate with them with greater civility and respect as an attempt to reduce the impact of incivility. I find that pointing out that they are violating WP:CIVIL from the beginning can make things worse but I would point it out if the incivility is ongoing.

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 calmly and civilly discuss the situation on ANI and mention that a prior discussion between me and the editor didn't happen but I would still AGF as the editor may not have seen/remembered the talkpage rules of ANI posted on the top of the page (especially the one where is says it's advised that grievances be taken up on the user's talkpage before posting).

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. Yes I would apply this action to any administrator action I disagreed with but if we can't come to a solution and the issue at hand is too serious to let go, I would bring the situation up on WP:AN/I.

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. The action was not appropriate as reverting to any revision will automatically involve the you in the edit war and then fully protecting the page with your own prefered revision would seem like an abuse of admin tools. It would be best to have fully protected the page in whatever version it was found in. Text then can only be removed/changed if:

1. ) to make changes that clearly breaches content policies such as vandalism or copyright violations
2. ) to make changes unrelated to the content dispute
3. ) to make changes per clear consensous on article's talkpage.

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. It would be best not to fix the error myself, as it would seem that I have an unfair advantage above the non-admins as they can't edit the page. It would be best to post a comment on the article's talkpage and then the error could be discussed with the other editors and if there's clear consensus among the editors involved then it would be best to get an uninvolved administrator to make the changes per consensus.

24. What is a wheel war?

A. A wheel war is when two or more administrators undo each other's administrative actions as they have a disagreement on the particular issue. Instead of wheel warring, it would be best to try an communicate with the other administrators involved and try to come up with a solution for the issue. If a conclusion can't be made, the issue should then be brought to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for outside intervention.

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. Well, policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are especially important for admins as those two particular policies are two rules that must not be broken by any Wikipedian under any circumstances. While some rules can be easily ignored in some circumstances (WP:IAR), WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA must be followed as without them the communication amongst the community would break down and the project wouldn't go far. While newbies can be forgiven for not ahearing to these policies, breaking these policies with admin tools in hand doesn't leave any room for excuses as admins will have to communicate to take out various admin actions and without civility, the admin could abuse the use of the tools for example: an editor questions an admin's deletion/block etc., the admin is uncivil/attacks the other editor and could block the other user in disagreement.

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

A. Well, all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them so issues can be resolved. But admins have tools that, with one wrong click of a mouse, can cause a whirlwind of problems so it is very important that admins be willing to discuss their admin actions with other users.

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

A. I don't think I would change the way I behave. I would, however, always remember to be civil and fair in any situation and I would assume good faith as much as I can.

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

A. I think it is important for admins to have E-mail enabled in order to communicate Wikipedia matters too difficult/not possible to discuss on Wikipedia. A discussion may have to take place in e-mail, for example, because the admin's account might have been comprimised and possibly blocked and an e-mail might be sent to verify the situation.

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

A. From that essay I understand that adminship is not a trophy that promotes the user to Sergent like status. Adminship must also not be used to win content debates like using the fact one is an admin and what they say goes and is correct even if it's not consensus or abiding per wikipedia policy. Admins aren't the wiki-police but more the wiki-janitors. And I agree with that dear old quote of Jimbo: "Adminship is not a big deal" as and admin is just an normal user with a few extra buttons/ a bucket and a mop.

30. 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. Well of course at the start it is important to take it easy to get used to the tools but it doesn't mean that admins can be come careless once the "admin newbie" time is up. But while I understand that everyone makes mistakes, admins should be as equally careful as a newbie admin as the consequences of an admin mistake can be a lot more horrific than the mistakes of a normal user (without the tools).

General discussion

Review of the first 12 answers

Q1. A decent, detalied answer to this question. You seem to be experienced in the areas you mentioned, and you plan to take it slow at first when you're an admin. No concerns here.

Q2. This is a good answers: you mention what articles you have improved significantly, explain what you've done to them. Alongside your vandal-fighting, you have written and added content, referenced information, and formatted pages to comply with standards.

Q3. I especially like the answer to this question: you explain about what conflicts you've had in the past, how you've dealt with and learned from them, and how you plan to deal with them in the future.

Q4. A fine explanation of IAR, and some reasons when it should not be used. IAR should be used carefully, and if used, the person using it should have full understanding into what they're using it for. A follow-up question to IAR will be in your next set of questions.

Q5. Good understanding and example of SNOW. Along with IAR, SNOW should also be used carefully.

Q6. Great understanding of Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. As an administrator, it is important to know the difference between a block and a ban.

Q7. I'm marking this as "neutral" at the moment: in the first part of your answer, you said "I would only semi-protect the page myself if it's blantant vandalism". Well, administrators should not protect articles that they have edited significantly: it's best for the protection to be handled by another admin. You did say this as well: "It would be best to request protection to see if other administrators agree with the protection of the article and then it won't seem so much like a case of WP:OWN if I had protected the page myself after improving it significantly." You were right with that, but what did you mean by the first italicized part?

I'll admit this question got me. I think I was thinking that blantant vandalism edits like this but only if they were done multiple times over by multiple IP addresses/new accounts within a few minutes like this (scroll down the page to August 25th). So I'm quessing in a case like that it would be better just to wait for another admin to protect the page and while that is happening I could revert any other non-constructive/vandalism edits by the IPs/accounts, warn them or block them etc.

Actually, in the case of the PLUR article, you would be correct to protect it, as (after a look at the history) it's not a page you have done a lot of work to, and a protection there would have been fine; after all, you were just reverting vandalism, not changing the content of the article in any way. However, according to your edit count, the article you have the most edits to is HIM (band): that is an article you've done a lot of work on, and if that page got heavily vandalized in a short period of time, it would be better for another admin to protect it, because you protecting it, due to your work there, could be seen as a ownership issue and a conflict of interest. Do you see what I mean? Acalamari 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see exactly what you mean. But funnily enough I haven't made many major edits to HIM (band) as most of my edits are either vandlaism reverts or "unsourced content reverts". With that article, a lot of fans tend to add their fansites to the ELs or change the genre to "Love Metal" (genre made up by the HIM frontman) etc. But I think I would file page protection with any pages I have edited heavily on even if most of my edits on the pages are reverts.

Yes, due to your high involvement there, asking for page protection would be better, and since you have given the answer I wanted, all I can say is: excellent! I'm changing my mark of this answer from neutral to pass! :) I'm glad you understand that if pages you have had a lot of involvement in need protecting, it's best to let another admin handle the protection Acalamari 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. It's great that I'm learning all these things now instead of making a mistake later on that could land me in hot water. AngelOfSadness talk 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're doing great at the moment, and this coaching is for you to brush up on a few relevant admin areas. In fact, you're doing so well I haven't even finished the next 12 questions yet! I hope to have them done today or tomorrow. Acalamari 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can take your time coming up with the questions as there's no hurry :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Q8. Good answer: it shows that you will be careful when giving out blocks.

Q9. You are correct that there are few times when a user should be blocked without warning: it's best that someone should receive at least one warning. However, there are times when blocks without warning are appropriate, for example: a blatant violation of the username policy, or users like this one (who was a sock as well, but look at the edits). Best of all though, your answer shows that you will be careful with the block tool.

I was going to mention username violations and sockpuppetry but the without any warnings part of the question made me think that it was only regarding situations where the user could be warned (3RR, vandalism etc.). Of course there are no actual warnings for sockpuppetry cases except for Template:Sockpuppet which is kind of a warning in itself and then Template:Uw-username is also kind of a warning that the username is inappropriate or even borderline.

True, but your answer was still good. :) Acalamari 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Q10. Exactly: you should discuss a block made in good-faith first, and bring it to the administrators' noticeboard if it becomes necessary.

Q11. Correct: discuss first, and if you don't come to an agreement, bring it to the appropriate board if that is needed.

Q12. Bingo! I'm glad I didn't make a mistake in giving you rollback. :)

First 12 questions: 12 out of 12 received correct answers

Review of the second 12 answers

Q13. I'll give you a pass here: it's not easy to think of a case where IAR would apply, but the important thing here is that you won't abuse IAR. I've been an admin for over 7 months (as of now), and I'm not sure if I have ever invoked IAR, to be honest.

Q14. This is correct: the content is a blatant hoax, but it's not nonsense, as it's quite clear what the content is saying. WP:CSD#G3 is the criteria to use to delete it.

Q15. Correct: the content is hard to read, but it does assert notability.

Q16. Repeated recreation, such as continued recreation of a page after a deletion discussion or of a page that meets the CSD criteria every time it is recreated would make protecting a deleted page necessary.

Q17. You are correct: if you are blocked in good-faith, but the block is blatantly in error, you should let another administrator handle the unblock, for unblocking yourself would very likely lead to a speedy ArbCom case. However, unblocking yourself if blocked by a compromised account is fine: Riana did this herself.

Q18. You were in dispute with the user: blocking was clearly inappropriate, despite their behavior. The steps you suggested to take were correct.

Q19. It is best to remain calm in both cases.

Q20. This is the best course of action.

Q21. Good answer: it shows you're very unlikely to start wheel wars.

Q22. This is correct: reverting the most recent edit and then protecting the page would be blatant abuse of the tools. However, for clarification, if you came across a page being heavily vandalized (not a content dispute), reverted the most recent edit if it was vandalism, and then semi-protected the page, that would not be abuse.

Q23. This is the correct course of action.

Q24. A good explanation of a wheel war, and what should be done to avoid one in the first place.

Second 12 questions: 12 out of 12 received correct answers

Review of the last 6 answers

Q25. This is correct.

Q26. Agreed: all editors should strive to be communicative as possible, but admins, with their extra tools, have the potential to cause more harm, and communication is important.

Q27. I'm glad you have no intention of changing your behavior, though if you become more civil and kind than you are already, there is nothing wrong with that.

Q28. This is correct.

Q29. Correct: adminship is only a technical position, not power over other users.

Q30. Good answer: while new admins should be very careful to start out with, more experienced admins should not become careless over time.

Last 6 questions: 6 out of 6 received correct answers

Overall: 30 out of 30 questions received correct answers

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.