User:Buffs/Coaching

This is a place for myself and User:Juliancolton to discuss admin issues with respect to WP:ADMINCOACHING. While I do not own this page, I respectfully request that any comments be made on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to admin coaching! Over the next few months I'll be quizzing you and hopefully polishing up your contributions. Before we start, please answer these questions:


 * Why do you want adminship?


 * If appointed as a sysop, what work do you intend to do?


 * What do you want to achieve with the admin coaching process over the next few months?

Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I'd like to get involved in the maintenance of Wikipedia and cleaning up the "messes". There are lots of areas in which admins are useful and I intend to work in the images arena. Right now, I have a 100% agreement rate with the outcome of the discussion in the WP:PUF arena, so I feel I'm at least on the right track. In short, I think I would make a good admin.
 * 2) My goal with the admin coaching process is to become a better user and learn what I can from another admin in a one-on-one discussion format. I hope to grow from the experience and, hopefully, become an admin. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. One more thing – is there anything in particular you want to place extra emphasis on? This is pretty tricky, since you're already very familiar with the admin role. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given my last RfA attempt, I'd say I need to focus on improving the way my temperment is viewed, but that's about it. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then...
As you said, your last RfA seems to indicate that people view your temperament as occasionally problematic. Bluntness is a positive trait, but RfA voters tend to look for more neutral and generally impartial candidates. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion—far from it—but that whenever possible, you should simply state your opinion whenever possible without using potentially divisive or offensive wording. This is harder said than done, of course, but one can opine on almost any issue while staying polite and courteous.

That said, as I haven't seen any major recent problems relating to your contributions, I'm not sure whether or not this is still a problem. Could you point me to some instanced where you feel that you went a bit overboard in terms of using strong language, and that you've since learned from? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-looking at my last RfA, I can honestly say most of the opposition seems to stem from unspecified "temperament issues". I think the reason seems to be muddled. If you want an example, I once saw a person who, from time of first post to the time of their banning, lasted under and hour. Quite frankly, I found that to be quite impressive. However, my comments as I was warning him for an edit coincided with his block, I refactored my comments, and left a message saying how impressed I was. In retrospect, I can see how that could have been taken as taunting. Aside from that, I'd suggest reading the notes from the last RFA. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, alright. Looking at the RfA page linked above, I see one particular oppose... "I find BQZip01 too argumentative, too defensive, and I see his sig way too often in this Oppose section." Just curious, do you personally feel you responded too often to opposers? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's look at each:
 * too argumentative - To me, this is an excuse for people to justify bad behavior. To use MQS's recent RfA as an example, he was called a Taliban, militant and had implications he was a Nazi. Were any of these people chastised or brought before WP:AN under WP:CIVIL? No. Someone needs to challenge those types of comments. (IMHO, Bureaucrats should have the authority to remove such comments, but leave the Oppose intact). I see nothing wrong with challenging inappropriate comments or unsubstantiated assertions. However, I recognize that some people don't like that. In an RfA, as long as someone is challenging those assertions (in order to give them context), I don't see a need for me to interject my opinion. As for arguments, it seems like too many people on Wikipedia want the easy quick-fix solution when, in fact, a simple, easy solution simply isn't possible. Look at the flagged revisions discussions. Those have extended discussion well into the tens of megabytes range. There is a difference between a thorough discussion (as advocated by WP:TALK and WP:DR) and simply being argumentative.
 * too defensive - When someone accuses me of illegal acts, this person was absolutely correct that I am defensive. Ignorance is also the bane of my existence and I've done my best to educate people, but some people refuse to listen and oppose me for WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type reasons. If you are going to mischaracterize/vilify my actions, I will certainly defend/explain my actions in an appropriate context, not the skewed version portrayed. The question next though, is how to do the same without giving that same aura in a possible future RfA.
 * I see his sig way too often in this Oppose section. - I think it is quite possible that I responded too much, however, "oppose badgering" is one of those things that isn't explicitly prohibited either. I even saw it on a few times when people asked me questions. I think the best way to handle it in the future is to let my supporters/nominators answer the questions and/or frame the objection appropriately instead of me. That would insulate me from these criticisms and show I have faith in my fellow editors. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, I think, and I tend to agree with most of what you're saying. While I'm not judging the aforementioned oppose vote, I do think the word "badgering" is thrown around too much nowadays. If the candidate is not allowed to engage the community, RfA has failed. However, there is a point when responses to either side – support or oppose – become excessive. An excellent piece of advice to keep in mind is Essjay's infamous quote, which I like to think applies to all namespaces. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD
Let's try a few standard CSD practices. They're hypothetical and intended to demonstrate some of the trickier deletion nominations admins see on a daily basis. Which would you delete, and which would you decline? Please explain your answers. Credit goes to for developing these.


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Law High School broadcasting
 * As it asserts notability, it is not eligible for speedy deletion under this category. Propose a merge into Law high school and a redirect (would be appropriate if extensively linked to from other articles); a single notable act could certainly be contained within the high school's description. If significantly prominent, it could be featured in the lead. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Sam's Soda Shoppe
 * Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. If reliable, third-party sources were found to bolster such claims (and they were noteworthy...such as 99 cent drinks in an area where $10 is the norm), I would support restoring the article and potentially help the individual craft the article into a simple Wikipedia-esque blurb. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Steve Q. Smith
 * Delete the last sentence as unsupported. Given the reliable references, I would check and make sure the individual is indeed notable and keep it as a BLP that could easily be expanded. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Jon Starks
 * Decline deletion as it does reliably assert notability. I would remove anything defamatory that was unreliably asserted and the puffery at the end as unencyclopedic. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Getting Away With It
 * Keep and tag for cleanup. The fact that this band has a chart #1 makes them inherently notable and, even if reliable sources do not exist at this time (due to an unexpected rise to the top?), they will shortly as fame comes at a cost. I'd remove some of the puffery. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Marketingandbusinessonline.com
 * Delete, provided no reliable third party sources turn up in a simple google search on the company. A quote merely mentioning the company in the New York Times once is not that notable. There is no reason asserted that this company is notable in any way. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

– Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No issues here. Thanks for the detailed responses! I'll go through your contributions later today to find actual CSD nominations and see if I can find anything interesting... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, I forgot it was my turn to respond again. In any case, I don't see many CSD nominations in your deleted contribs. Could you tag a few new pages so I can check them out? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Examples of my work
I generally don't get into this much, but here are a few examples of my work in that area:


 * 
 * 
 * 

In doing this I just looked at several new pages and evaluated them. It was hard to get the correct tags on them quickly as they were speedily nominated. On the first one, I could see this becoming an article if it had other sources and wasn't a complete copyvio, but the copyvio needed to be removed from our databases. More work available upon request — BQZip01 —  talk 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All have since been deleted as I tagged them. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. All looks good. Now, on another note, I see your mainspace contributions are a bit few and far between. Do you feel it is important for admins (and established editors) to make a point of editing articles, or are you of the equally common belief that gnomes are just as useful as writers? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the belief that it is important to be well-rounded in various matters of Wikipedia. To that point, I have a LOT of mainspace contributions (to include 4 FAs under my belt). I feel equally comfortable in the WP realms as well as the mainspace dominions. To this point, you will notice that my contributions to WP:PUF are extensive in number, but short on much substance (Usually a comment or two will do). Whereas I am also working with another editor on the Nobel Prize article. While I don't have as many recent instances (in raw numbers) in mainspace, my contributions on talk pages and in WP forums directly benefit articles. It should also be noted that I am going to work on the mainspace of the Nobel Prize article and submit it for FA later this week. While it will certainly contribute to my WP numbers addressing the points at WP:FAC, I believe the minor contributions to the article will also contribute to my mainspace totals.
 * In short (too late!), I believe I am well-versed in the nuances of both arenas and can contribute equally in either as the need arises.
 * On a related note, I believe WP has plateaued with respect to new article contributions and that improvement of existing articles is the current thrust. As such, it is going to lead to more tension as relatively easy tasks (an article about George Washington needs more information) have already been accomplished. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All fair points. You're correct in that WP has shifted gears from creating articles en-masse to improving existing content. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin role
This is a bit of an open-ended question. In one sentence, how would you characterize the admin role? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In one sentence...hmmm...
 * "The formal role of an administrator on Wikipedia is to be the janitor, cleaning up "messes", but at the same time their role is to exercise judgement and make the final call on whether or not a piece of information should be kept or discarded; whether kept or not, such closure should be within policy and, IMHO, should explicitly state the reason why."
 * A bit of a run-on sentence (and I sort of cheated using a semicolon), but it's accurate and gets my point across. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Now, look at this and then look at this. Which do you prefer? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking which nomination process I prefer? If so, I prefer them both, but they are each for different circumstances. In the WP beginning, there were few admins and the level of scrutiny was relatively low, but there were fewer articles and less impact. Now, with millions of more articles and significantly wider interest, the bar has been raised necessarily higher. Both have their plusses and minuses, but they each served different roles. I also think that we have gotten more political in the recent past, vitriol/grudges/vilifying are more prominent, and taking small actions (in the big scheme of things) and blowing them out of proportion to get after a "rival". I think WP:CIVIL is no longer followed in RfAs because the process takes too long. If we spent a little more time building each other up/providing constructive criticism instead of tearing each other down, WP would be a better place — BQZip01 —  talk 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was asking, sorry. That's a very reasonable answer. You're correct in that it's all but impossible to compare the two processes, but I just wanted to hear your thoughts on both of them. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anything else to focus on? Questions? BTW, the quiz was pretty good. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Page protection is one of the three major sysop functions, the others being deletion and blocking. It is a technical feature used to prevent certain accounts from editing a particular page. There are two protection levels: [edit=autoconfirmed], which prevents unregistered or new users from editing an article, or [edit=sysop] which gives only administrators access to editing the page in question. There are a couple side features (cascading protection, which automatically prevents all pages transcluded onto the protected page from being edited, and move protection, which, although by default is synchronized to the level of page protection implemented, can be adjusted independently. With that said, its primary purpose is to halt ongoing and severe disruption, either in the form of vandalism, spam, socking, or simply excessive good-faith edits that aren't very productive. It can also be used preemptively for highly-visible templates, images, or userpages, but rarely for articles.

Now, as a new admin I found page protection guidelines to be pretty vague, and to an extent I still do feel a bit lost sometimes. WP:PP tells you under what circumstances page protection may be necessary, and how to implement it, but it doesn't give tell you how long to set the expiration date or other common questions. For example, if you see an article with moderate vandalism for a few days, what do you do? For the most part, it's an arbitrary decision, and the best you can do is make an educated guess as to how long protection will be necessary for. You'll be able to determine what level of protection is necessary based on the demographics of the accounts responsible for activity requiring prevention. If it's mostly IPs and new users, go for autoconfirmed. If even autoconfirmed users are actively editing an article in an unproductive fashion, set it to admin-only editing, though only for a short time. After all, open-editing is the foundation principle of the project.

Got that? Here are a few hypothetical practices. While these decisions are more difficult than what admins usually see, they're the kind of situations that require some good judgment.


 * An article about an individual is vandalized twice by the same account with vulgar language. The subject happens to notice and requests some sort of action be taken. Do you implement page protection?


 * Semi-vandalism (edits whose authors' motives are not clear) by IPs plagues a article on a movie about to be released; a user requests page protection at WP:RFPP. It's obvious that protection is needed, but for how long?


 * An indefinitely blocked user asks for their talk page to be full-protected. Do you fulfill their wishes?

– Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Situation 1:An article about an individual is vandalized twice by the same account with vulgar language. The subject happens to notice and requests some sort of action be taken. Do you implement page protection?
 * No. I would rollback the vandalism and place a warning on the user's talk page. If sufficient warnings were already present on the user's talk page, I would implement a short/long block. As the situation dictated. If it is a continuing problem, I would submit to WP:ANI for further opinions on an indef block.
 * Quite lenient, but I see no real issues with that. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Situation 2:Semi-vandalism (edits whose authors' motives are not clear) by IPs plagues a article on a movie about to be released; a user requests page protection at WP:RFPP. It's obvious that protection is needed, but for how long?
 * I would use semi-protection until the movie is released or a month (whichever comes first). If the IP problems continue, I would have no problems extending it after that.
 * That works. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Situation 3:An indefinitely blocked user asks for their talk page to be full-protected. Do you fulfill their wishes?
 * In general, no, but I would consider the reason first. If someone is writing profane things about them on the page, protection might be warranted. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm a little confused about the first one. We don't block people on a whim and 2 incidents of "I'll just replace his last name with Sh!+head." Hardly seem necessary of a block for the user. Likewise, 2 instances of vandalism on a page isn't really severe and, while the subject may not like it (and I'd be happy to make sure to explain it to him/her), semi-protection isn't applicable in this instance (IAW policy)
 * Would you be so kind as to explain your response? I must be missing something. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really a matter of individual administrators' judgment. Some choose to block vandalism-only accounts on-sight, others elect to employ the entire warning hierarchy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if the account was being used exclusively for vandalism (wasn't mentioned before), I'd block them in a heartbeat for a time commiserate with previous offenses. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my intent; I should have been clearer. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Any more queries? (Bring 'em on!!!) :-) — BQZip01 —  talk 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking
Sorry for the delay. Next we'll focus on blocking, which is another important area of the admin role. Blocking is a technical measure used to prevent a particular user, IP address, or, occasionally, a range of IP addresses, from editing the project. It differs from a BAN in that it actually disables your ability to edit a page. Hundreds or thousands of blocks are implemented each day, varying in duration from hours to an indefinite period of time. When you use the block feature, you should be thoroughly convinced the user about to be barred from the project is so disruptive that a more benign solution is out of the question; and that you do not foresee immediate improvement on their part. There are many reasons why you might have to block someone, from run-of-the-mill vandalism to serious legal threats, and each situation where blocking is necessary requires careful evaluation and good judgment.

Like page protection, there are many variables you have to deal with when filling out the block form. How long should the block last? What should the logged rationale be? Should the user to be able to edit their talk page? Send email? Should the block be "hard" or "soft" (we'll get into that later)? These are all things you need to consider. At first, it can be nerve-racking, and frankly you will probably mess up a few times. But like anything else, even a serious mistake is reversible, and most folks will understand if you've accidentally blocked them or something. In general...


 * Blocks for inappropriate or misleading usernames should be of an indefinite duration, although there should be no prejudice toward immediately unblocking if the user agrees to apply for a rename.
 * Blocks for vandalism from an IP address should last a day or two, with increasing increments if the vandalism continues. With the exception of shared IPs belonging to educational institutions, which are often blocked for up to a year, IPs should never be blocked for more than a couple weeks due to their rapidly changing nature.
 * Blocks for vandalism-only-accounts should last indefinitely. There aren't a lot of accounts whose edits alternate between productive and outright vandalism, but they should be dealt with in the same manner as IPs.
 * Blocks for edit-warring are tricky, and require thorough investigation. However, if a block if necessary, it should be set to 24 hours on the first offense, then 36 hours, then 48, etc.; if, after a week-long block has expired and been followed by continued disruption, an indefinite block may need to be considered.
 * Blocks for various forms of disruption—copyright violations, incivility, misuse of editing privileges—should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Any questions? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree for the most part, but I think it is important to consider IP blocks more carefully. We don't want to block sensitive IP addresses without substantial reason and contacting the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, I forgot about that. On a different note, are you familiar with the distinction between a "soft block" and a "hard block"? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I could quote the policy, but basically a soft block stops anonymous editing via IPs while edits from registered accounts are permitted. A hard block stops all editing from the IP. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm running out of things to say here! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good thing. :-) — BQZip01 —  talk 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is! I guess we can talk about that RfC if you'd like. How do you feel the dispute as a whole has hindered your editing? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC
Honestly, other than the initial response, it really hasn't affected my editing NEARLY as much as IRL issues with the military (working 14+ hour days + Saturdays + Sundays is REALLY taking its toll). I'm also satisfied thus far with the response from the community (100% support, no additional opposition). Right now, I'm dialed back on WP to take care of my professional/personal life for a month or so. I should be back into WP after that. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Hope you find some time to rest sometime soon. Let me know when you resume full activity and I'll think of some more stuff to post. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)