User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching

• Archive for first bout of adminship coaching

This is the page where I will get coached for administratorship here. Please write instructions and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so that I know who sent it. Please also use either indents or asteriks or headings to seperate the different sections. Thank you!

Tips

1. Don't do anything to piss anyone off.
2. Don't do anything to piss anyone off.
3. Have ten thousand edits, a year of experience, and be familiar with every possible scenario you might encounter.
4. Do not, under any circumstances, display any sort of personality.
5. Don't do anything to piss anyone off.
6. During the RfA, thank editors for their industrial-grade flame opposes. Sound genuine. Say things like, "I respect your opinion..." and "I appreciate your comments". When other editors step in to point out the obvious flaws in the oppose, step in to defend the opposer's right to call you an idiot.
7. Try to time your RfA immediately after a week of mass-destruction dramafests, a la DHMO, Enigma, or Ecoleetage.
8. Do not, under any circumstances, do anything to piss anyone off. Ever. EVER.

That should get you started on your way to adminship. Tan | 39 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will be sure to put them to good use. Is it generally a good idea to have good amounts of participation in areas like XFDs, GAs, FAs, VGas, etc? Thanks, Razorflame 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See tip #3. Tan | 39 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more important to be clueful, knowledgeable, and civil than it is to chalk up X number of GAs, FAs, or DYKs. Useight (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

yea, overall, just be yourself, be helpful, and be civil. but are you sure you really want to be an administrator? editors have all the real power... they're allowed to be jerks =) –xeno (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is good to know. I will definitely act like myself. Yes, I am sure that I want to be an administrator here, however, I know that I won't be able to run for at least 6 months from now. Razorflame 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say tat having some / a GA or DKY or FA would help with an RFA. Or that's what i found [= ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How to Pass RFA Without Really Trying

Originally posted in this thread, if you care about petty little things like "context" – iridescent 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Create account; write a valid stub article with incorrect formatting (if it's correctly formatted, everyone will think you're a sock);
2. Go somewhere that will rack up your edit quickly. Twinkle is always good, but you run the risk of messing up; stub sorting or link disambiguation are slower but steadier;
3. Write a long article with sources. Find someone active at both GAC and RFA and ask them to help you with it. This gets you seen by those people who will vote (sorry, !vote); and give you a reputation as an article writer. Agree with every suggestion made by anyone who appears popular, and always agree with everyone female; remember that most RFA voters are 14 year old boys who automatically follow anything a Hot Chick says, in the hope that if they always agree with her she'll show them her boobies;
4. Repeat step 3;
5. Once you have the two long articles under your belt - and only then - request rollback and install Huggle;
6. Set Huggle to show you your reversions after you make them (you don't want a "rollback removed for misuse" sitting in your log), and rack your edit count to 10,000;
7. Repeat step 3;
8. Ask someone (preferably a Hot Chick) if they think you're ready for RFA, but only if you're sure they'll say yes;
9. Wait until a high-grade flamewar is raging (hint: watch Giano's and Sandy's talkpages) to distract the usual dramamongers and RFA trolls;
10. Transclude RFA. On one relatively trivial question give an answer that's against policy with a long explanation as to why you don't support policy - this will prove to the freethinkers that you're not a Cabalist. On everything else, spout the party line faithfully - this will prove to the Cabalists that you're one of them. As long as you haven't pissed people off, in a community that thrives on little-tin-gods and petty-empire-building, people see what they want to see in you.

You're welcome. – iridescent 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very long and somewhat serious-humorous stuff. I will be sure to follow them pretty closely. I've already surpassed the 12,000 edit count mark. Razorflame 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tips from Synergy

Take things slow, and get them right. Synergy 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can we please not bring that up here. Thanks! Also, don't worry, I've been taking things on here very slowly. I have not requested adminship here since I joined in November of the year 2007 and I don't plan on running for adminship here anytime before April or May of this year. Cheers, Razorflame 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing my comments is not very constructive Razor. Its a legitimate concern. If you didn't want help, you should not have created this page. Synergy 15:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it is a legitimate concern, and I do want help, but I only want help for this Wikipedia, not others. I will not remove any more comments from you, but could we please keep the Simple English Wikipedia out of my coaching for now? Thanks, Razorflame 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we are alluding to that, the only chance in hell that won't burn your RFA is if there is at least 12 months between the last request and the one here. Viridae^Talk 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesson 1

I'm just going to ask you to do stuff and ask you questions to try to make sure you know as much as you can :P, So then... Try to list all the tools admins have. Describe a circumstance where an admin should not use them, despite a valid issue existing, and a circumstance when an admin should use them. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Block An administrator has the ability to block named users or IP addresses for any length of time and for a variety of reasons:
  • Administrators should only block named users for breaking the username policy, for confirmed cases of sockpuppetry and for being a vandalism-only account or after the community has decided to ban a particular user, that is when an indefinite block is used. Otherwise, most other cases of named editor blocking are finite. Breaking the 3RR rule is usually given a block of 24 hours and being uncivil or rude towards other users are grounds towards blocking as well (usually for 24 hours up to a maximum of 1 week, depending upon the situation). Administrators should never block users in which their personal feelings could jeopardize or sacrifice his or her judgement. In situations like those, it is best that the administrator in question ask another neutral administrator for the block.

• Protect An administrator has the ability to protect pages from being edited for a duration of time or indefinitely both to completely prevent anyone other than administrators from editing or moving the pages or anyone other than unnamed editors or unconfirmed editors from editing or moving the pages. Depending upon the situation, the duration can range from a few days to indefinitely. Most times, administrators will semi-protect a page for a few days if that page is getting a good amount of vandalism to it (usually, more than just a few IP addresses at once). Usually, in cases like these, a semi-protection for a few days will help deal with that. Pages that are highly hyped up (such as Barack Obama after Inauguration day) can also be semi-protected for a few days to prevent vandalism as the amount of editing to said page dramatically increases in situations like these. Any user can request that their userpage be indefinitely semi or full protected, depending upon the user and situation. Usually, administrators should only protect these pages if that page has already gotten a good amount of vandalism recently. Highly visible templates, such as the Geobox series of templates, or the various stub templates can be fully protected indefinitely to prevent any amount of vandalism that would harm or make them not work appropriately.

• Rollback Rollback should be used to only revert vandalism. It automatically reverts all of the changes of a single user back to the last edit by a different user. This is used to combat vandalism. Again, it should only be used to revert vandalism.

• Delete An administrator has the ability to delete any article or page on Wikipedia. Administrators should only delete pages that are either tagged for speedy deletion (including images), or that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators cannot delete pages that are hoaxes or neologisms etcetera because they have the tendency to be highly controversial. Instead, the administrator should tag it for the discussed deletion instead of just deleting it. Administrators can also close Requests for deletion and delete pages based on the community's consensus and if the community wants it deleted.

Administrators can also grant or take away other editors (non-administrators) rights to the rollback tool. If a user demonstrates that he can correctly identify and revert vandalism, then he should be granted the rollback tool, and if an editor uses the rollback tool inappropriately or in edit warring, an administrator may take the rollback tool away from that editor.

That just about covers it. Cheers, Razorflame 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lesson 2

This is just really a series of shorter questions, they deserve shortish answers :P ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is cascading protection? Can it be set by an admin? When is it normally used?

Cascading protection is a protection setting that administrators can set that is normally used on pages such as a list of articles that are highly vandalized. It basically protects all of the pages that link to the page that is protected with cascading protection. Razorflame 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents on your watch list?

Yes, both are on my watchlist now. Cheers, Razorflame 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Who can warn an administrator? Who can block an admin? What editing policies may admins violate?

I believe that anyone can warn an administrator, but that only other administrators who are neutral towards the administrator can block the administrator, and I believe that you also have to have the communitys' approval for it as well. I am fairly sure that administrators are not allowed to violate any of the editing policies as that would be unfair towards the other users. Razorflame 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is an open proxy? Why are the banned by the foundation?

To tell you the truth, I never really bothered to learn what an open proxy was, but I know that vandals like to use open proxies to hide their identities and to evade blocks. I believe that to be the reason why they are banned by the foundation. Razorflame 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you want to become an administrator?

I want to become an administrator to better be able to help the community out by dealing with vandalism, closing AfDs, closing IfD's and to generally better be able to help out the community than I already do. Razorflame 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• You have probably seen many RFA discussions, so what do you feel you could get opposed for when its your go at RFA?

I feel that people will oppose me for not having enough edits in the mainspace OR for not creating enough longer articles as I don't really like to make longer articles. Razorflame 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good good. Try to participate on AN and AN/I whenever you can, its not just for admins :). An open proxy is in simple normally a website that people can browse the web through. They can got to wikipedia through the proxy using the websites ip address rather than their own. This enables them to dodge blocks e.t.c. Also a quick note, Articles are not everything, I passed without writing any huge articles, I suggest you defiantly try to do some though as this will inevitably make the RFA process easier. Your edit count (11247) is perfectly fine in my eyes and your ratio of article edits to other page edits is better than mine. Keep it up, try to get involved in as many places as you can, WP:AFD, WP:AIV e.t.c ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lesson 3

Now for some RFA like questions. These will not only test you but may make you look at policies you have not seen before or do not remember. These are typical questions so get used to them now :P

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

   A:When and if I am granted the administrator flag, I plan on using the tools to benefit the Wikipedia. The specific areas that I plan to work on are helping out in the WP:AIV page (which is now experiencing quite a backlog) by deciding (after going through every specific detail) if an IP address needs to be blocked or not and if the IP in question is in fact violating any part of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, helping to clear out the WP:RPP by first deciding if the situation requires the page to be protected (using Wikipedia:Protection policy as a guideline, and then after deciding if protection is needed, again using Wikipedia:Protection policy to determine the most appropriate protection, helping out on the WP:RFR page by first deciding if the user has been involved in any WP:3RR rule violations and if the user if new or not and how the user will use it, and if that user hasn't, then giving him or her the rollback tools. helping out other administrators by helping to clear out the administrative backlog by first deciding what needs to be done and then by deciding the best possible route to take. I also plan on helping close AfD's that have gotten a clear consensus as to what needs to be done with the article and after making sure they pass the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and to help close IfD's if either they specifically violate the Wikipedia:Image use policy. I also intend to help clear the Category:Uncategorized pages category by appropriately categorizing pages as per Wikipedia:Categories. I also plan on helping out on the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention using the same strategies as per the WP:AIV page, with the addition of checking to make sure that they are indeed violating the Wikipedia:Username policy. Finally, I plan on helping out by deleting CSD's using the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page as a guideline to determine if the page is in fact a page that needs to be deleted. I also intend to help clear out both the regular and administrative backlogs.

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

   A:My best contributions to this site so far are my immense amounts of vandalism reversions and my short articles that I have created, which include 8127 Beuf and 25039 Chensun. I have also done much copyediting throughout the site and love participating in WP:AFD discussions.

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:I have had a few instances where a user didn't agree with my rollback of a page, as you can tell from User:Razorflame/FP, however, I am always willing to help those that believe that I made a wrong decision, and all of these instances were resolved completely and civilally. No other conflicts have been engaged in.

4. What's the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, no copy-pasting please. :P

   A:Blocking is the action of temporarily preventing someone from editing the site for a predetermined period of time so as to minimize disruption caused by the person who is blocked. This is only used when disruption occurs. Banning can be decided either by community concensus or by Jimbo Wales. Jimbo Wales reserves the right to be able to ban anyone that he believes imposes a particular threat upon the integrity of the Wikimedia foundation. I believe that a ban should only be used when the integrity of the Wikipedia as a whole is at risk. People from the community should first be given a chance to voice their opinions on the matter, and if they deem that the user poses a risk to the integrity of the English Wikipedia, then they should be banned. As for the difference between blocking and banning, I believe that the most important difference is in the fact that if they are blocked, and they create a new account and start editing again, then they are sockpuppeting, and if they were to create a new account before the block expired, then there is grounds to extend the block. If they are banned, then they are not allowed to create new accounts at all.

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

   A:I personally believe that using the blocking tool for cool down blocks is against the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and is misusing the blocking tool.

6. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).

   A:

7. You are looking over a protection request at WP:RFPP, the request states: “Lots of anon-vandalism all making the same controversial edit, probably all socks of each other or a banned user, pleas protect.” You review the page history to find 138.989.789, 138.989.196, and User:CiltyDog all making the same edit/reverting to the same version (note that the edit they are making is not vandalism, but instead a clear content dispute). If you add up all three of their edits they have far surpassed and violated WP:3RR. You also note that the reporting party, and thts/IP’e one who the 3 accouns are reverting is on the verge of violating 3RR himself. You also notice that there is an IP: 68.934.123 that is making non-controversial clean up edits to the article. How would you proceed?

   A:If the content dispute is on a topic in which I am not neutral, I would contact another administrator who is neutral towards that topic of the article and ask him or her to handle the situation for me. Otherwise, I would message all of the users involved in the content dispute and find out what their points of view are, and after I do that, I would try to facilitate a compromise between the users of the content dispute that would solve it. If I am met with incivility or rudeness from any of the users, I would tell another administrator and ask them to take over the mediation for me as that would harm my judgement of the situation. I would warn the reporting parties to say that they should stop engaging in the content dispute as they are not helping it, and may in fact be making it worse, and if they continue, then I would ask another administrator to review their actions and block them. I would do nothing with the 68.934.123 that is making non-controversial clean up edits because he isn't doing anything to help or hurt the content dispute.

8. After how many acts of vandalism in what period would you block a proven vandal?

   A: It requires 4 acts of vandalism in a short period of time (within a few hours) or a final warning to block a proven vandal, however, some situations may have the IP address blocked earlier or later than that. It all depends upon the situation.

9. For how long should previous acts of vandalism be taken into account when deciding what to do with the most recent?

   A:I would consider previous acts of vandalism for a week to a month after they are given. Afterwords, I would consider them to be stale and a different user editing using that IP address.

10. For how long would you block vandals (registered or IP) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th offences?

    A: I would block registered users for, depending upon the situation, 24 hours (vandalism/3RR) or indefinite (sockpuppet or banned user) for the first offense, 72 hours (vandalism/3RR) for second offense, 1 week for the third offense, 2 weeks for the fourth offense and indefinitely for the fifth offense (named users). For IP addresses, I would block: Open proxies: 1 year, 24 hours (vandalism) for first offense, 48 hours (vandalism) for second offense, 72 hours for third offense, 1 week for fourth offense, 1 month-1 year for fifth offense. Those would be what I would block for if it was proven that either or were vandals.

I don't suggest you do all of these at once :P. Ask me if you want more. Questions like this will defiantly help you when and if you come to RFA. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By proven vandal, do you mean a repeat vandal? Razorflame 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered all of the questions with the exception of the 6th question. If a situation like the one described in that question were to arise, I would ask another administrator to deal with it because I would not be able to keep a clear head during such a situation. Cheers, Razorflame 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On questions 4 (the one about blocks and bans) Bans are restrictions put upon a person in which they are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. This can be set on part or the whole of Wikipedia. A block is a technical mechanisms that usually enforces bans (it actually stops them from editing). Creating another account would still be Sock puppetry.

Try re-answering question 7 as if you were an admin now. Good answers all around and also that is your answer to questions 6 (above). If you don't know what to do, then don't do it :) No point in making mistakes if someone else can do it without the mistakes ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that I answered it as if I were an administrator. The key is to ignore the first sentence as that just tells what I would do if I was not neutral about the situation. Otherwise, the rest of it was answered like I was an administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally in that situation I would block all three edit warriors and I wouldn't protect the article. I acctually got asked this question and this was my answer. Remember they broke 3RR by a long way. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if they broke the 3RR rule, I usually don't apply the 3RR rule to IP addresses because the user would change quickly. However, I would probably block named editors for a 3RR violation. However, if that is what should be done, then I am, by far, willing to carry out a block on all three of the users. Cheers, Razorflame 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there isnt really a right and wrong, depending on how serve the violation is e.t.c. Also nearly every single policy can be read differently by different people as we have just prooved. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the last lesson, or are there more? Anyways, thanks for the help you have given me so far :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is probbably no limmit to how many I could give you :P Do you want more? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that would actually be beneficial or not. I think we should probably start gearing towards the actual running of the RfA (start gearing towards, meaning, start preparing for it (not like I'm going to have it for at least another 4-6 months)). What do you think> Razorflame 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Preparing in what way? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Whatever way there is to prepare for it. Cheers, Razorflame 15:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The main thing that I think will hit you when you and if you go up for RFA is the questions. This will test your general knowledge of wikipedia and its policies. But to prepare yourself I also suggest you look through past RFAs and see where and why people have fallen previously. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright...thanks for the help :). I am currently active in WP:AFD, WP:AIV (intervention for vandalism), WP:IFD, and in new page patrolling. Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)