User:Balloonman/Admin coaching

Page set up for possible admin coaching.Balloonman 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go for admin I will give you my support based on your civility in the face of open hostility alone. Cheers, JCO312 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JCO...Balloonman 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting started

OK, Balloonman, thanks for your patience. Where would you like to get started? I usually try to start out with introductions, as it's easier to collaborate with someone if you know them at least a little. I know you're involved in the Poker WikiProject (I like Poker, but I don't win a lot), and it looks like you'd be an easy admin candidate (very civil, thousands of good edits, Featured and Good articles under your belt, etc). I haven't done a lot of research on your edits, but overall things look very good to me. What exactly do you need coaching on? Or, put another way: what is unclear, and where would you like to use the admin tools?

A little about me can be found on my userpage; feel free to call me Firs, because Firsfron is difficult to spell correctly. Please feel free to ask any question. I've got your talk page on my watchlist, so I'll see anything you write there, but if it's regarding admin coaching, it's probably best to keep it here so everything is centralized.

If you don't have any specific questions, we could probably start on the WP:CSD practices, or wait if you prefer. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, you already know that I'm married to an admin---thus, she is available to answer my questions if I have any and will generally handle any issues that I find (thus I rarely goto places like ANI, or report vandals). As for where I would like to use the admin tools. I do not see myself being an overly active admin in the sense of blocking users and speedy deletions. I know that they are part of the process, thus I have to know how to do both. I also feel like I should know a few of the more common activities so that I can stop nagging my wife.

The areas that interest me the most are:

1) DYK---which would mean learning the tools there.

2) GA/R --- Not too interested in closing debates there.

3) AFD --- Do have some interest in closing debates here.

4) (recently) RFC---although I can see my interest here rising to number 2.

5) Another reason why I'm interested in Admin is because I'd like to become active in Deletion Review, but when I looked at the page many of the articles are deleted---thus unavailable to non-admins.

My big thing is NPOV and tone. This means that I'll often take a position that *I* personally don't like because it is the neutral thing to do. It also means that I have upset some people who are trying to push various agendas. I tend (but not always) try to stay calm... I figure that if others have to be brought in, they are more likely to respond well to the rational reasoned voice over the one that is making ad hominem attacks. Generally, when a dispute is concluded, both parties walk away on amicable terms. (I will point you to the debate I had with Jayjg on the Holocaust Denial Article/GA-R.) I think if you asked Jayjg about me at the start of the debate he might have used some not so polite terms about me because I was VERY critical about the article. After the debate, I would be very surprised if he wouldn't support me for Admin.

So what do I need help with? Some of the more technical aspects of what an admin should know. I haven't mastered the alphabet soup of rules/guidelines surrounding Wikipedia beuacracy. Thus, before moving on, would like to have some guidance in that arena. I suspect it is where I am the most vulnerable. I think my contributions, edit counts, patience, etc will win over a large number of people, but it's the technical aspect that might make some reluctant to support me.

I like debate which is why AFD/GAR/and RFC are of interest to me. It is also why I do not expect to have a unanimous verdict when I am nominated. The DYK is because I like 'hooks'---"That would sound better if you wrote XYZ instead."Balloonman 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like, based on your interest in WP:DYK, closing WP:AFDs, and Deletion Review, that the admin tools would certainly be beneficial!

As far as the alphabet soup and bureaucracy, I'll see what I can do. What areas need the most clearing up, do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What other options are out there besides AFD/CFD/MFD. For example, I recently had a run in (with the guy who just gave me a barnstar!) over a page that I felt should be renamed or deleted. Based upon precedent, I knew that it wouldn't be deleted, so I didn't really try to get it deleted. I indicated that it should be renamed---but the place I made the request was as an AFD because that's where I have experience and have seen files renamed. I did consider RFC, but didn't think that was the appropriate avenue. On the AFD I was made aware of another avenue that I should have followed instead. My concern is what other options exists that I should know about. Another thing I just learned about was WQA... same user who gave me the barnstar was taken to WQA for his comments to me by somebody else. Up until that point, I didn't know that WQA existed. (I can see that becoming a place that I'd be interested in contributing as well... I like debates, but I also can play the role of peacemaker sometimes.)Balloonman 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually when I rename something I just do it, but for a potentially controversial renaming you can bring it up on the talk page. There are also templates here you can use. Same goes for merging; if any discussion is necessary, use a template from here. (Remember not every function has a centralized discussion page; this is the sort of thing that typically takes place on article talk pages.) A broader answer is to just remember that the shortcut WP:TM is your best friend. I refer to it constantly even when using templates I'm familiar with because they are frequently updated. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Ginkgo has some good advice. I'm bold, too, and I've moved/merged pages that didn't seem particularly controversial. But then sometimes I'm surprised at what is controversial. I thought this would be an easy merge, but we had people coming out of the woodwork commenting on this one.

Balloonman, you mentioned AFD, CFD, and MFD. Are you aware of RFD, TFD, UCFD, and DRV? The feel is slightly different, because most of these discussions don't get much participation, and these pages should not be PRODded. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DVR I'm familiar with as it is something that I mentioned above that is motivating me to go through the RFA process. TFD I've seen, but it doesn't have much interest for me. RFD I was unfamiliar with, but I don't see too much desire to be involved there. UCFD looks like it could be fun if for no other reasons to see what kind of silliness people come up with.Balloonman 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I forgot you mentioned DRV. Sorry. Balloonman, do you find yourself usually supporting the deletion of an article, supporting the keeping of an article, or usually !voting along with the crowd? Any of these things can earn you some opposes on RFA: the first two from inclusionist or deletionist editors (respectively). People who usually !vote along with the crowd may be opposed because they keep or delete along with everyone else, instead of thinking for themselves. Do you ever get stuck in that rut (!voting along with everyone else)? How might you !vote in this AFD? (Disclaimer: I've already weighed in, but feel free to discuss why you might delete/keep; I promise not to hold any opinion against you). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[Unindent]I responded on the debate, but I approached the subject the way I generally do. Read the reason for the nomination, review the article quickly. Make a decision as to which way I think the vote should go. I then read the comments of others to see if anything said will change my mind or if there is something that I missed. In this case, there weren't. It was, IMHO, an obvious keep. As for how I vote. I often vote early in the process, before there is any sense of a consensus or I'll vote late where there is no consensus. Generally, I would have skipped this vote because the outcome was pretty obvious. I'd say that my votes tend to be on the side of the majority about 80% of the time... but that's because the majority is usually correct. I am not afraid to disagree with others if I think they are wrong. I've been the sole vote to keep when there were 8 deletes on the article. I vote to delete more often that I do to keep, but I tend to want to vote to keep more. If I can see the potential of an article and there is somebody who is making a legit attempt to raise it up to standards, I will probably give the article more space to grow.Balloonman 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This all looks really impressive. I've looked through your edits, and I don't see anything offhand that sets alarm bells off, and in fact, many of your contributions look awesome. Are you sure you don't want to request adminship now? No pressure if you'd rather wait, of course. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the CSD's presented below and once that is done we can consider it. RFA's generally last a week, so I would need to be nominated by Saturday. (That way I can respond to questions/issues during the RFA before I start travelling.) Another case in point, I plan on renominating this article for deletion in about a month or so. It was nominated for deletion shortly after the incident that garnered the individual his day in the spotlight. Unfortunately, external websites heard about the deletion nomination and sent scores of new accounts and anonymous users to save the article from deletion. It was properly closed as no-consensus, but the closing admin was correct in indicating that it was hard to determine because of the large number of socks.Balloonman 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS please take a look at User:Balloonman/draft1. If you have any comments there please let me know. And if you think that looks good and my answers below look good, I would accept a nomination.Balloonman 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

If you're going to be involved in any aspect of the deletion process, you need to be very familiar with speedy deletion policy, especially the criteria for speedy deletion. Even if you don't plan to "work speedies," as I say, AfDs are often closed as Speedy Delete, and they come up in DRV quite a bit, too. My other admin coach User:Steel359 gave me these exercises. Don't sweat about them like I did, as there is more than one right answer a lot of the time (although definitely a lot of wrong answers too). You can just put your answers below. Make sure you refer to the CSD criteria. The convention, when giving a reason for deletion, is to use the letter for the section (e.g. G for general, A for article, etc.) and the number of the criterion -- so a copyright violation would be G12. Enjoy! --Ginkgo100^talk 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion exercises

• 1) Halo 3 Trailer. I would definately vote to delete this article at AFD, but I don't believe that it is a candidate for speedy. A stronger argument might have been made under G-11---blatant advertising. But even then, it wouldn't qualify for speedy. I'd probably place a PROD on it or nominate it for AFD (depending on how active the edit history is.) This might be something that should be added to the Halo 3 article. Balloonman 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This doesn't qualify for speedy under A7 because it's not a person, group, company, or web content. However, I would delete under A1 - not enough context for an encyclopedia article. (I see I said the opposite during my own admin coaching!) --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 2) Union Milllwright. Clearly deletable per the reasons listed.Balloonman 17:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, clear A3 deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 3) Webs. I wouldn't delete it for the reasons cited, but I would under A7 and use G11 as supporting reasons.Balloonman 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it qualifies as patent nonsense (see my essay for some real and clear-cut examples of patent nonsense I've deleted), but I still can't figure out what the hell it's about, so I'd probably say A1. A7 and G11 fit too. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 4) Niel Smith. Clearly delete per G10. Not hits on Altavista and clearly an attack page.Balloonman 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely G10. You don't even need to check ghits (or Altavista hits) to see that. By the way, when deleting attack pages, make sure none of the article text shows up in the "reason for deletion" box. It's sometimes generated there automatically, so if this happens you should remove it. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 5)Fall Out Boy. Easy keep... not even a candidate for AFD as it clearly meets WP:MUSIC for having multiple albums from major independent labels and several award nominations/wins.Balloonman 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, either a mistake or a bad faith nomination. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 6) Bar Jonah. Can't speedy delete it under G1. Some might delete it per A1, but I wouldn't. I might nominate it for AFD per A1 and lack of references, but I probably wouldn't. It definately needs some tags such as stub, expand, references.Balloonman 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why nominate for AfD when you can prod? I'd probably prod this. I think serial killers are notable enough that it doesn't qualify for A7. It might be a hoax article, but hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion. Or, if you feel like researching it, you can always see if it's actually real and clean it up a bit -- I've done that before too. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay Plagerization questions

Did you think I was done with you? =) You don't really need to write an essay for these, just an answer long enough to be complete. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

To ensure that articles are deleted appropriately and to give editors the benefit of the doubt. It is also a preventative for WP:BITE

Also because there is no opportunity for discussion and very little, if any, time to contest a speedy deletion. Thus it is reserved only for the most obvious cases. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

2What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

PROD/AFD

You can also redirect or merge an article. Deletion ideally is a last resort. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

3What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

Per WP:WARN

• Level 1 - Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant.
• Level 2 - No faith assumption
• Level 3 - Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
• Level 4 - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
• Level 4im - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning

You didn't answer why level 3 is significant. Typically it's preferred that a user have received a level 3 or stronger warning before you block that user, although there are always exceptions. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

4Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Per WP:BLOCK When blocking may be used

• 1.1 Protection
• 1.2 Disruption
• 1.3 Open or anonymous proxies
• 1.4 Enforcing bans
• 1.5 Evasion of blocks

Okay, this used to be an in-vogue question at RfA, not sure if it still is. When do you think an established editor should be blocked? --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say only as a last resort when s/he isn't willing to back off/cool down and is in violation of the rules. I would also expect a warning to be issued to the user reminding him/her that the rules have been violated and that continued behavior will result in a block. I would also suggest that it be performed by an independent party from the dispute to ensure that emotions are not overriding reason.Balloonman 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good answer as far as I'm concerned. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

Per WP:IP they can be blocked indefinately... but this is frowned upon. Use {{indefblockedip}} or {{open proxy}} if you do so.

Under what circumstances would you indef block it? Other than rare indef block cases, how long do you think IPs should be blocked for? --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. I'd be reluctant to indef block an IP for quite some time as I learn the ropes and nuiances. Generally, it would have to be rampant continuous problems with multiple shorter term blocks having failed. As for how long should it be blocked. Depends on the severity, but generally less time than one might block a specified account.Balloonman 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never indef blocked an IP myself, and don't think I ever would -- I'd leave that to a bolder admin. For run-of-the-mill disruption, I usually don't block IPs longer than 24 or 31 hours, but for repeat abusers including shared IPs, I'll block longer. Most other admins will too. My outlook is that if you're using a shared IP and you're frequently blocked because of other users' abuse, you should probably just create an account anyway. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

6How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

3rr goes into effect on the 4th edit. Yes, they can be blocked if it is apparent they are doing so to be disruptive.

Quite right in the case of reverts. If it's a new edit (a positive addition) they're reverting back, then technically they haven't violated 3RR until the 5th time. To avoid drama you might not even bother mentioning the word "3RR" if they haven't made the required number of edits; just say it's a block for disruption/edit warring. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

7How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

From WP:SOCK Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Difficult-to-detect sockpuppets

If you think that someone is using sockpuppets abusively and wish to get further people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and follow the instructions there.

Checkuser

In certain cases, Wikipedia operates a process known as Checkuser to identify some sockpuppets. It is important to note that checkuser cannot ever confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected. It can only confirm they are connected, or that at the time of checking there is no obvious machine-identifiable evidence of connection.

Copy-paste is lame but it shows you know the answer. :P --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

8What is "rollback"?

Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with an edit summary of (Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. One-click rollback is mainly intended for vandalism, spam, etc. Disputed content deserves an explanation, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, and it is not nice to omit that (either by rolling back, or by leaving the summary field blank).

See my comment above. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

9What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

from WP:PPOL Full protection disables editing for everyone except other administrators. Fully protected images cannot be overwritten by new uploads. Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts fewer than five days old.

Again. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

10An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

Again from WP:PPOL Temporary full protections are used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
• A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
• Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page.

Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:

• Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush.[1]
• Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted.
• User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user.

Temporary semi-protection may be used for:

• Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses.
• Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

Semi-protection should not be used:

• As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.
• In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.
• With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption.

Again. You misspelled "plagiarism", btw. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

None of this is really important to know to be a good admin, but the more you know, the more well-rounded an admin you will be. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1Speedy deletion templates begin with the letters "db". What do they stand for?

"delete because"

2What is VfD?

Votes for Deletion---the legacy name for AFD.

3What is WoW?

WP:WOW Words of Wisdom---quotes about Wikipedia.

No, not WP:WOW, WoW. I guess since a lot of newer editors don't know the answer, we're doing a good job with WP:DENY. It stands for Willy on Wheels, a notorious page-move vandal (actually, probably a group of vandals). Even now, any new username with "on wheels" or some variation gets immediately blocked by admins who have been around a while. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Balloonman, I know you're not planning to become an admin to do page protections, but page protection/semi-protection/unprotection is a fairly common procedure (unlike History merges, etc). So I think it would be a good idea if you reviewed WP:PROT: sooner or later, you will run into two or more users in an edit dispute where the page may have to be protected to stop an edit war, or semi-protect a page from rampant IP vandalism. I think I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nod, see Ginkgo's questions 9 and 10 above... she beat you to it.Balloonman 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, my wife would like to co-nominate me...Balloonman 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Balloonman, I see nothing in your contribs that would prevent you from becoming an admin. If you will accept this co-nomination, and Ginkgo is willing to nominate as well (above or below my own co-nomination), then you just have to subst: the template on the WP:RFA page. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ginkgo, I'll let you add your comments before making it a live nomination. When you are finished go ahead and submit me.Balloonman 07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)