User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/A Raider Like Indiana

Coachee:

First 12 questions
I accept.  A Raider Like Indiana  (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The following three questions are from RfA itself:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A. My main goal is to help others with vandalism. I will take part inWP:AIV by helping other users who reported recent vandalism. However, my help in CAT:SD, which was benefical to me to act out and cast my opinion to whether or not to delete an unwanted image in Wikipedia. My help their will be excellent since I have some good experience in that perticualar field. As well as taking part of WP:RFPP. Along with WP:AIV, I am currently a rollback user with more permissions to stop vandalism from speading in Wikipedia. I would still take part of that when I am an administrator.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A. Although, I have over 1,120 contributions in Wikipedia since I joined in April 2007. I have encountered the Microsoft Windows related articles since the begining and I helped out with my extended knowledge of Windows. With that, one of my remarkable contribution was the Fergie related articles which I recieved an original barnstar for my work.

I have also helped to clean the article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and asked with many other registered users to promote it to Featured article for its 30th anniversary. It did and it has been an A-class article for many months before with pleasing reviews. Other Star Wars episode articles that I've helped with have been reviewed and brought up to good status. Episodes I, III, and VI were B-class articles when I joined, along with Star Wars fans here on Wikipedia and myself have brought those articles to good status. I contiune to maintain articles that interest me or may not here on Wikipedia, but moreover I tend to focus on Microsoft Windows.

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. Yes, it often occurs with editing the Mircosoft Windows articles which sometimes goes hand to hand with WP:COI. As I try to remove a vandal edit or encounter spelling, grammar or not vaild information. This could definalty cause stress whoever is trying to edit the article. I tend to keep cool. I never attempt to start clicking the save page button repeatly thinking the editor might go away. I wait and after a few seconds and try again. Unforutally, if it happens again or if the editor might be trying to edit the same part of the article I am editing. This situation could start set off the flame and cause panic in most cases in the article's or my talk page. However, to help maintain peace amoung myself and the editor, I write myself a note saying what I want to edit in this article and cancel my attempt to edit and wait patiently while the editor finishs. By reviewing the history and seeing what they have edited, I contact the editor and clamly discuss about the conflict. When I am an admin, I will try to deal with this case the same way I am doing now. With this said, I do not get stressed when I am involved in an edit conflict.


 * 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 Ignore all rules?
 * A. Well by seeing the title of the article, I believe that it is trying to say to me to ingore all the rules listed in Wikipedia. Which it is quite temping to do so however, the "ignore all rules" means that if I want to edit an article that interests me and I have found decent information to support my statements there might be a rule that recricts me to save my edit and allow people to see what I did listed in WP:PG. I have to take pride in my work reguardless of whether or not it is vaild. Other users could edit or remove it, which is fine and they have broken a rule but WP:IGNORE backs the editor up. WP:IGNORE was one of the first pages I have seen when I joined Wikipedia. I have reviewed it and it directed me to the policies of Wikipedia. I did in fact got an more clear, in-depth perpective of what WP:INGORE meant and how should I properly use it when I attempt to edit an article.

5. What is your understanding of Snowball clause?
 * A. I have gotten a clear understanding of what this meant. I have been involved in WP:SNOW before in my first RfA. The cycle of arugments and or those who opposed me rolled down hill, and eventually got larger. Though, it did not humiliate me, an admin finally brought my 1st RfA to a close before the snowball effect gotten out of countol. In part of the guidelines of Wikipedia, you cannot create severe arugments and Wikipedia is not a place to judge something and other things Wikipedia is not. However, WP:SNOW is backed up by WP:IGNORE in most cases.

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A. With my extent knowledge of internet forums, and being an administrator of one currently I am aware with the term "ban", which means to permantally remove the vandal or someone who broke many policies of Wikipedia from editing. Block or "suspend" means to allow the registered user or annoymous IP to countiune editing after his or her blocking time is up, they could come back. Blocking in most cases is temporary solution to prevent vandalism and may straigthen out the editor. You may request to block a user or IP address after you have reported them.

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. Even though I am an admin, I won't block everyone off from editing and protect the article without proper consult from other administrators. I dont own that article, Wikipedia is an free encyclopedia. Or even an article I created had been engulfed with vandalism, I would still request protection on that article. Although WP:INGORE allows me to protect it otherwise, I would still not abuse my power.

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. If the vandal had recieved an warning in the past and has or has not been blocked I could still wait and see if the vandal contiunes to disrupt other editors from editing articles. If I see reports in WP:AIV, I could block them for a period of time depending on the damage they have done or if they are a sock puppet. But before I attempt to block the vandal I could check their level. Level 4 is above all one of the worst, I would block the vandal. But anything from 1 to 3, in some cases I would let the vandal slide but with another warning and I would watch the vandal. If he or she does vandalizes an article once again, blocking would be a good solution.

9. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
 * A. On the rarest occasions. However, if the user or annoymous IP ingores rules and causes trouble and begins to causes an arugment that eventually builds up, WP:SNOW, I would intervene and block the user depending on what damage the user did or what started it. Breaking Wikipedia policies or rules and going againest WP:IGNORE, WP:BOLD would make me watch the user and if the user steps out of line and contiunes to edit articles that violate different rules once more, or copyright infringement and or plagiarize without proper sources all the time I would and block the user. And after the block, I would discuss with the user on what he or she did and why their account was blocked so they could edit articles properlly.

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. Appeal an block. Many users, excluding myslef but witnessed many times have requested to appeal a block that just recently began. If the appeal gets out of control and the administrator is not doing anything about it and more and more users are aruging I would step in and deal with it peacefully and make the problem end. If they have a good reason why the user should be unblock, I would first check the blocked user's log and contributations and see if the user is a vandal. If not, I would check to see any talk page edits or any Wikipedia core articles the user went on. If the user had no warnings, and had an outstanding record I would remove the block. One of the policy is to not let the user who is appealing get their way without looking at what you are dealing with and how you would solve it. And I would make sure the vandal has a warning before the user was blocked. Any blocks for no reason whatsoever would be removed depending on the users history in Wikipedia. Shared IPs, like a public place would be another problem to handle. However, public places like schools have many students and most likely will go on Wikipedia and even may vandalize articles. Sock puppets are another cause of this. It should not be reported in most cases in WP:AIV but rather, WP:SSP.

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. Unless the biography has been cited or is known throughout. The material could have been added form a certain point of view. Unless the information has been investigated and it is correct I could discuss it with the administrator who had removed the information, WP:NPOV. If we both agree or I think it is vaild to allow the information to be on the article, I would then rollback the article to a point in which before the admin removed the work.

12. What type of edits should "rollback" be used to revert only?
 * A. Vandalism. But vandalism is a word with different meanings. It could have meant that the user had used a word that had been filtered through Wikipedia and I or someone eles sees it and rollback/revert the edit because of how it has been placed. Talk pages should not be touched unless fighting or severe profanity has been added to the arugment. I would revert their little edit and add my response and warn, if nessesary the user. Material that has infridgements or bad not vaild information that is make up or a point of view that is not clearly supported within the statement the editor added in the article should be reverted back to its original good state. If the user adds it again, and quesions why I did that in my talk page I would review it and see if I make a mistake or the user just wants the edit he or she made to be seen and forever saved on that article.

Questions part 3
25. Civility and No personal attacks are important policies for all Wikipedians, but why are they more important for admins?
 * A.

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

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

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

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

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.

Review of the first 12 answers
Q1. This appears to be a much better answer than the one you gave in your request for adminship several months ago: this is good, as you've said what work you wish to take part in. If you want to help with blocking vandals, deleting pages, and protecting pages, I suggest studying and familiarizing yourself with the speedy deletion criteria, the blocking policy, and the protection policy.

Q2. Same here: you've listed what your best contributions are, and what articles you've worked on and improved in your time here.

Q3. Doesn't seem like a bad answer to me, however, in part of this answer, you seem to be describing an edit conflict (when two users edit the same part of a page at once) rather than your disputes with other editors. On the other hand, you mention about keeping cool as much as possible during disputes, so that seems fine.

Q4.

Q5. I'm not totally sure I understand what you're saying here. Anyway, if something is closed in accordance with WP:SNOW, it means that it was closed early because the outcome was blatantly obvious, and allowing it to run its course would have been pointless. An example would be at AFD: they normally run for five days; however, let's say someone nominates an article like Jimbo Wales for deletion: Jimbo Wales is clearly notable, and allowing the AfD to run all five days wouldn't be necessary, as the outcome would be clear from the start (in this case, "speedy keep"). Since the outcome is obvious, it's better to close the discussion early rather than let the AfD go through five days of people saying "speedy keep - Jimbo Wales is notable!" Do you understand SNOW now?

Q6. See Banning policy and Blocking policy. Bans are a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia, and a decision to ban someone is made by the community, the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocks are the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks can be used to enforce bans, and you are right when you say that blocking, in most cases, is a temporary solution to prevent vandalism.

An example of a block enforcing a ban would be this: let's say I was banned from editing my userpage; a decision had been made that I could edit any part of the encyclopedia, but not my userpage. If I decided to violate my ban and edit my userpage, I could be blocked for violating my ban. Another example is this: a user creates an account and uses it only for vandalism, and that account is blocked indefinitely. However, since the user is not banned, nothing stops them from creating a new account, even if it's revealed that the person's previous account was used for vandalism. Now let's say I was banned from the site: if I created new accounts, and they were all revealed to be my accounts, they would be blocked, as I would be violating my ban.

From these examples, I hope you'll understand the difference between a block and a ban.

Q7. Yes, you should request protection at RFPP, or talk to other administrators rather than protect the page yourself. For the record, WP:IGNORE wouldn't allow you to protect a page you have edited significantly, as that's not really a good use of IGNORE, but at least you said you wouldn't protect the page.

Q8.

Q9.

Q10. I actually wanted to know what you would do if you disagreed with a block, not if other members of the community were disagreeing with a block. For the record, if you disagree with a block, first you should contact the blocking administrator, and not just unblock the blocked user. If you and the administrator are unable to come to a decision, you then take the discussion to the administrators' noticeboard. I also suggest reading this part of the blocking policy. Acalamari 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Q11. In this answer, where you said "Unless the information has been investigated and it is correct" and "If we both agree or I think it is vaild to allow the information to be on the article, I would then rollback the article to a point in which before the admin removed the work" concern me. They concern me because even if you think the information is correct and NPOV, you should always talk to the admin who removed it first rather than just restore the material. Also, if you both of you ultimately agree that the material is fine, then you should let the admin who removed it re-add it rather than add it back yourself. However, you also said "I could discuss it with the administrator who had removed the information", which I assume means that you would talk to the admin instead of just add the information back in: it was because of that why I marked this answer as "neutral".

Q12. I didn't need a long answer. :) All I needed was for you to say "vandalism/blatant spam" followed by "reverts that need explanation should not be reverted using rollback." :)

Review of the second 12 answers
Q13.

Q14.

Q15.

Q16.

Q17.

Q18.

Q19.

Q20.

Q21.

Q22.

Q23.

Q24.

Review of the last 6 answers
Q25.

Q26.

Q27.

Q28.

Q29.

Q30.