User:Admiral Norton/Admin coaching

__NEWSECTIONLINK__



Since admin coaching often consists of asking questions and what-if scenarios, we'll just start with the traditional RFA questions.

Traditional RFA questions

 * What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * I wouldn't try anything complicated at first, and I would mostly hang around WP:CSD, WP:AN3 or WP:AIV and participate in WP:XFD and WP:DRV. Later on I would try more complicated things, like judging the consensus on WP:XFD or WP:RM. I would also try to be available on admins IRC channel.


 * What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
 * I tend not to take the conflicts seriously enough to have them impact my real life or impact my interaction with these users outside the area of conflict. The most expansive conflicts I've been in was the conflict about the Indiana Gregg article where I tried to resolve the grudge between two editors, one of which repeatedly used sockpuppets. An administrator protected the page and I made the parties discuss the proposed changes on the talk page (look at the talk page archives). It didn't work out very well as I inadvertently took a side myself, but it's pretty calm now.
 * The other problem I ran into was the spelling dispute about the Novak Djokovic/Novak Đoković. I proposed a move revert to the latter name, which generated a very long discussion, with me ultimately failing in this goal. On the bright side, no one breached a rule during the discussion, except for two new Serbian users unfamiliar with the WP:RM process.


 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * The work I have done to expand the coverage of Croatia and Zagreb articles. I'm currently running Milan Bandić for GA and I'm planning on doing the same for Šalata and Zagreb. I have created over 40 articles related to either Croatia and Zagreb and I've been active at the WikiProject Croatia. My current "job" is writing about neighborhoods and former mayors of Zagreb. Both of these areas are very scarcely covered, mostly with red links and substubs.
 * I do not plan to abandon this type of work if I become an admin, but I won't be able to leave the same amount of time for it. As for my contributions to other wikis, I have a global account and I'm also active on the Croatian wiki, though not to the degree of my en.wiki activity.

Checklist
Thank you for the descriptive answers. They were clear and detailed, and to write like this is especially important in an encyclopedia founded on communication. Now, with the checklist. I'd like you to tell me what you've done and what you haven't done. If you'd like to elaborate on something, sure. If you haven't done something on the list, try it out! Maybe it might turn out to be something that you like.


 * !voted in an RFA?
 * Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
 * Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
 * Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
 * Had an editor review yourself?
 * ✅ It's currently running here.
 * Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * ✅ I saw it a few times on other users' talk pages.
 * Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * ✅ I use popups, though rarely for reverting changes. I did try Huggle, but it's too fast for my liking.
 * What XFD's have you participated in?
 * ✅ I can remember Postolar Tripper, Rijeka terror attack, Berlin Circle (traffic circle) as some of the latest ones.
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * ✅ Used to hang out at WP:RD/C and WP:RD/M.
 * Uploaded an image?
 * ✅ Not on WP anymore, I upload them on Commons nowadays.
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * ✅: WP:CRO, WP:FY
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * ✅ DYKs: Šalata, Archdiocesan Classical Gymnasium. GA nominations: Milan Bandić
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Can't remember an instance right now, but I'm sure I did
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * ✅ I'm a moderate eventualist, article rater, moderate anti-statusquoist, communityist (as much as this is an encyclopedia, we are not professional custodians or mad scientists), communalist, rehabilist (that doesn't mean I won't touch the "block" button), WikiPacifist, semi-factionalist and I find myself somewhere in between a vigilante and a proceduralist. I consider neutrality a virtue (not elusive, but it isn't easy on some articles); adminship an important thing (no matter how much people say adminship is no big deal, the duties of admins require a small group of experienced users to deal with problems that aren't left to everyone else).
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * ✅. I have accountcreator permission.
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * ✅ DYKs: Šalata, Archdiocesan Classical Gymnasium. GA nominations: Milan Bandić
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * ✅ Can't remember an instance right now, but I'm sure I did
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * ✅ I'm a moderate eventualist, article rater, moderate anti-statusquoist, communityist (as much as this is an encyclopedia, we are not professional custodians or mad scientists), communalist, rehabilist (that doesn't mean I won't touch the "block" button), WikiPacifist, semi-factionalist and I find myself somewhere in between a vigilante and a proceduralist. I consider neutrality a virtue (not elusive, but it isn't easy on some articles); adminship an important thing (no matter how much people say adminship is no big deal, the duties of admins require a small group of experienced users to deal with problems that aren't left to everyone else).
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * ✅. I have accountcreator permission.

You certainly have had quite an eclectic experience here, and I think it has given you a more unorthodox view of Wikipedia, not as connected to the mainstream thought as most people are. Unorthodoxy isn't bad, unless you're a bigot. Keep your horizons broad, and you'll do well.

Starting off
Okay. Most of admin coaching comprises of questions, answers, and discussion. I am not a very firm believer in heavy regimentation of the admin coaching process. Granted, it may help organizationally, but it tends to be one size fits all. I'll start off with some broad, less focused questions, and then we'll move on to more specific topics. For now, I want to see your knowledge of the big picture.


 * What is your opinion on WP:IAR? How do you apply it to your contributions? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
 * I've seen some people believe IAR is a catch-22 clause, but it is de facto a rule that should be used when other rules fail in their goal or usefulness. Of course, rules have to exist to maintain order, but sometimes they stand in the way of improving Wikipedia. At that time rules like WP:IAR and WP:SNOW are used. I rarely encounter situations where IAR has to be used, but they included occasions WikiLawyering. This is probably the most often way IAR is applied.
 * What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what would you need to read up on? What tasks do you believe you would totally avoid?
 * I'm a man with many hobbies and I like to change them. I don't believe I would be able to stay in one place all the time or avoid a task all the time. Nonetheless, experience is required for solving some issues. If I were to become an admin, I would not jump straight into determining the consensus or doing other controversial tasks, but more probably spend a lot of time reading policies and guidelines. The thing I have to work the most on is mediation. I would read some essays about it and try out an easy task of mediating before diving in that area.
 * What are your personal criteria for an admin?
 * As the admins are the top of Wikipedia, an admin has to be a well-respected user, experienced in both editing and participating in community discussions. Note that AGF has to be applied here, although the burden of proof lies on the candidate. I would probably consider a user with at least 500-1,000 edits total in Wikipedia (talk), Article talk and User talk namespaces as someone who has had enough interaction with the community. A DYK, GA or FA would be good, although a lack of it doesn't imply the user would be a lousy admin. Really, the criterion that supersedes all this would be the fact that the user must've gained the trust of the community. If he's respected enough, I would drop other criteria.
 * Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
 * Wheel warring is much worse than a fight between regular users, since little can be done to fix it once it's underway (AFAIK there's no way to protect a page above sysop level). Not only it results in extreme sanctions, including desysopping and community bans; but it also presents sysops in a negative view and contributes to showing Wikipedia as an anarchy. As being trusted users, admins should resolve their disputes in a reasonable way, taking the matter to WP:ANI instead of reverting each one's actions, as all kinds of warring are detrimental to the user's work and reputation.

I'm glad that you want to build on your weaknesses. You listed one as mediation. I strongly suggest trying out WP:3O as a way to gain experience in this aspect. Third opinion is not really an official process, like RFC, and it is more casual and amicable than RFC. I would suggest you try your hand in giving an impartial third position.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, I'll try it out tommorow. It seems we're in totally different time zones, since it's about 2 AM in my place and I've been awake for nearly 20 hours. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing
I'm interested in seeing your experience with conflicts, so the questions here have to do with POV and neutrality.


 * How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
 * Until I gain further experience or if I become too involved in the case, I would report him on WP:NPOV/N.
 * What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
 * It's an alternate version of an article that suits only a particular point of view. If I encounter one, I would delete unsourced information and merge sourced into the existing article.
 * Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
 * Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
 * Neutral. The statement describes both views: what notable cell-biologists (opponents) have to say and how do scientologists (proponents) explain their point of view. It also doesn't leave the necessity of and similar tags.
 * Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
 * POV. I don't know how do I find a source for "most widely accepted". Among scientists, definitely possible, but a large part of the population might not believe scientists. What about other points of view? Although I can easily imagine some, they aren't even mentioned here.
 * Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
 * Neutral. I really do not see how could a different point of view be constructed against a reliable source in this sentence. It also passes WP:AVOID.
 * Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
 * POV. I wouldn't be surprised if this statement were unsourced. It uses exact descriptions like "is right" or "is wrong" and it does not state the opposing view which, given the sheer nature of the statement obviously exists.

Good! I feel you know POV when you see it, you just need to gain the experience to deal with it. The second example in the third question is debatable either way, but I think that you have explained your reasoning well enough.

Blocking
We'll move on now to blocking. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that an admin can use, and it must be used with care. Blocking is explicitly non-punitive. Although one can see how there might be a connotation of a punishment, blocks are to prevent further damage from a vandal or a troublesome user (the latter moves into the realm of a ban). Although the difference between a block and a ban used to be a very common question in RFAs, I have not seen it for a while, so I'll just explain it. A block is the technical mechanism that stops a user from editing. A block is just when you go to the block page, set a time period and a blocking reason, then hit a button. A ban is the community consensus that an editor should not edit in a certain subject, or in extreme cases, not edit in the project at all. A ban may include a block to enforce a complete ban, but it is not a block. Blocks enforce bans; they aren't bans themselves.


 * If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
 * Ask at WP:AN/I. When I look at ANI I tend to see a few sections where administrators ask whether to block or not.
 * You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
 * I roll back all his contributions that aren't reverted already. I've also heard of appending "&bot=1" to avoid flooding recent changes with reverts.
 * How long would you block an IP with a last warning? What about a shared IP? What about an IP with a history of vandalism?
 * For IPs without a block log the standard duration is 31 hours (prevents vandals from making vandalizing a daily routine). From IPs with an extensive history the block can be up to one year old. When blocking shared IPs I would add sharedip to the IP's talk pages to notify good-faith users to create an account or reset their modem to avoid being affected by the block.

I would hesitate blocking an IP for a year. In general, I prefer to block an IP with a history of vandalism for a duration of time up to 3 months. A year seems to cross the line into punitive for me.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I read that a year is maximum according to WP:BLOCK, but I agree. An abusive IP would usually forget about Wikipedia in 3 months or get a new IP address or something similar. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection
The other tool that we use to guard against edit-warring is page protection. In my opinion, protection is the best way to go ahead with a dispute. Blocking often inflames the situation, and often warring continues after the block expiration. By cutting off access to the article though, you can get people to discuss in the first place, which is a step ahead. Others may disagree, but this is the way I have gone about it. Here are some questions regarding protection.


 * When should a page be SALTed? Why?
 * Salting is a rare form of protection and I believe it should stay that way. It is to be used only when user(s) continually create a page against the policies and they can't be deferred from that action by other means (e.g. block).
 * Should you protect a Today's Featured Article? First state the correct policy, any extenuating circumstances, then state your view on the matter.
 * WP:MPFAP states that the article should be semi-protected only for a small amount of time and in the case of extreme vandalism and I agree with that view. Although the TFA is the showcase of the day, it should not be cast in stone, and the good-faith edits of anonymous users usually outweigh vandalism by a large degree even on such an exposed article.
 * A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be semi-protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
 * It depends; I'd protect it if there has been recent vandalism that would warrant a mainspace semi-protection. I am also strongly against protecting talk pages except in plain vandalism or situations, as the protection disables IPs and new users to discuss their concerns with the user in question. Protecting talk pages of users in ongoing disputes is both detrimental to inter-user relations and also discourages the main use of these pages.

Your answers are definitely solid. I agree with protecting talk pages, I really don't like to do so either. We give quite a bit of leeway for userpages, but talk pages should definitely be carefully checked before protecting, and then only protected for a day or two. As for TFA, remember that they are move-protected as well on the days in which they appear on the main page.

Question time
This time, I would like you to ask me any questions that might be on your mind. Do you have something you've never really figured out before or you would like another perspective on? Don't hesitate to ask me if that's the case.


 * I'd just like to know what's your take on WP:RECALL. There seems to be a lot of fuss recently generated about that on Wikipedia. BTW, I had my 5,000th edit today (on Cairo Ring Road). Admiral Norton (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the big 5x103. It's a given that each admin and user is accountable for their actions. Therefore, I believe that recalling admins or (hopefully this will never happen) crats should be a given right to the community. My opinion is that recall ought to be a concrete process. The reason we are having so much drama (especially with the whole Elonka affair) is because the recall process is completely arbitrary. There is no community backing to enforce the desysopping of an admin; it is all in the admin's hand. Unless it comes from ArbCom, desysopping is sure to be a sticky affair if recall will be like this.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. I share your view, because there are no firm guidelines about the recall process. Depending on one's preferences, one can be desysopped after one complaint by a vandal or only after a complaint by Jimbo Wales. I do not intend to use the recall process, but I will be willing to participate in a RfC and resign voluntarily if any dispute ever reaches a level that high. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Do you have anything else on your mind before we move on?  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's all. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts to read
Antandrus is one of the finest essay writers I've ever read. There are four essays of his that I highly recommend you read.


 * Bureaucratic Slime: On IAR
 * Thoughts
 * Ignore all dramas
 * Observations on Wikipedia behavior

The first three are quite short, but the last is a long list of maxims. I don't expect you to read all of the maxims; after all, we are all very busy. I would like you to write your thoughts on one or two of his thoughts or maxims on the following four pages. You can comment about whichever one you want. Have you ever had an experience related to one of these thoughts? Do you disagree with one? Do you have any thoughts, observations, or maxims of your own? I would like to hear your thoughts about it.


 * I do not agree with his observation #5. While we do have people whose only edits are to user pages and people who salt their user pages, there are also many people like User:Blofeld of SPECTRE or User:Swatjester who don't fit this pattern. Although they are obivously myspace-y, I do not feel that user pages are necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes userboxes and similar things can be helpful in finding a Wikipedian from a specific city, or involved in a specific article type. Of course, there is also the vanity part and the unnecessary hours spent on fiddling with HTML and wikicode, but this probably takes up a negligent amount of my time reserved for Wikipedia.
 * The observation #16 is a valuable tool against POV pushers, as they tend to watch the page for a couple of minutes to see if someone has reverted them. I found it useful to leave the material for two-three hours and only then undo their edit, since the likelyhood of them insta-reverting becomes much smaller. I would also add that it's often useful to leave the next revert to another user monitoring the article. It will show the POV pushers that you are not the only one who finds their edit improper and it also diffuses you as their target and lessens the possibility of wikistalking.


 * Excellent. Did you find the essays overall informative or not?  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they help users understand the way Wikipedia works and the role its users have in it. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Resuming
Sorry for the very long hiatus. Things just keep popping up and around. In this exercise, we'll be measuring your ability to determine consensus. These are real AFDs, but I would ask you not to have any outside help by looking at how other admins closed them. You can mention that you would relist, but if that is the case, I would like to hear your opinion on the article.

Here they are:
 * Richard Denner
 * I would relist this one, because only two users have voiced their opinions and the discussion isn't a WP:SNOW candidate. IMO, I would probably vote weak keep, since the subject of the article is getting about 3,000 Google hits, which show appearances in only one major magazine and some others of questionable notability, but I'm very reluctant to vote delete, although he's getting less hits than my name does and I don't have a Wikipedia article about myself.
 * Moreno Valley Mall
 * Delete. Arguments to keep the article are weak, mostly implicating the need to keep it as a trivia article. The only "ground" for notability seems to be the police officer fact and very little context is provided to help others expand the article. Google hits show the possibility of the article being notable, but no one has asserted that notability yet and there has been both enough time and enough users to check.

BTW, congrats on your bureaucratship. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning. I'm fairly sure that you will be able to handle AFD closing. Now, here's a toughie I'd like for you to try. When dealing with these long ones, I don't recommend trying to immediately read every opinion. It is better if you break it up into parts, say, 10 opinions at a time, then have a final "big picture" assessment. With some patience and a critical mind, it is possible to close these types of AFDs. Ready?


 * List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (For further reference, you may want to see Deaths in Harry Potter, which went on at about the same time as this one)
 * Delete. There are a lot of good list/bad list arguments that should be weeded out. Afterwards the arguments to keep all resort to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or some insanity ("keep because Snape gets killed"). On the other hand, those interested in deleting cite WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and claim the article is an unnecessary in-universe list. Also, those interested in keeping the article seem to think only about its spoiler value, not the real delete arguments. Merge is a possible alternative, but judging from Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows the list was originally expelled therefrom.
 * Good. There really isn't much to merge, considering that it's already there in the plot summary for Deathly Hallows.