User:Sunderland06/Admin coaching

Introduction
I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into four phases:
 * Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
 * Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.
 * Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
 * Phase four is a phase where you will explore other areas of editing and areas that you may come across as an admin. I will provide minimal guidance in this phase, and will only answer questions rather than pose questions.

After completing the four phases, I will generally nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one!

Experience
(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this) Have you ever:
 * !voted in an RFA?
 * - Yes.
 * requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP?
 * - Yes.
 * had an editor review?
 * - Never bothered with one so far.
 * used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle?
 * - I've used all three, but huggle primarily.
 * contributed to an XFD?
 * - Yes.
 * answered a question at the help desk?
 * - Yes, more increasingly recently.
 * uploaded an image?
 * - Yes.
 * mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * - In the loosest of terms.
 * participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * - No.
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * - I'd probably see myself as more of a inclusionist. I'm an article writer mainly so I like to see the integrity of our encyclopedia being maintained, instead of deleting anything on the verge of notability, I'd be more likely to keep it.
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * - No.
 * requested and received/been denied for Rollback?
 * - Granted rollback.
 * had a previous RFA?
 * - Sctrictly speaking, yes, but I was nomminated out of friendship more than anything, I quickly declined through lack of experience.
 * Written a good article?
 * - Yes.
 * Created any featured content?
 * - Only lists so far, but I hope to have a featured portal candidate, and maybe a featured article candidate soon.
 * Written a DYK?
 * - Yes.

More questions

 * 1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia?  Your best contributions?
 * A. I'd probably say my favourite contributions to wikipedia would be List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers, List of Sunderland A.F.C. players, and Sunderland A.F.C. seasons which I brought to Featured List status, I enjoyed building a comprehensive list of something very important to me, plus it was also quite fun learning things I'd never knew before through research. Along with the lists, I also enjoyed working on Sunderland A.F.C. which recently reached Good Article status, I eventually plan to raise this article to Featured Article status. I particularly enjoy working on biographies of footballers that play for Sunderland A.F.C., to help bring a higher quality of articles on something to is important to me. Along with this, I occaisionally like to work at DYK.
 * 2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
 * A. The articles I edit most tend to be related to Association football, most of the articles I have brought to FL/GA/DYK have been related to football. More specifically I like to work on Sunderland A.F.C. articles as you may have guessed. Along with these articles, I like to try editing other things such as the music competition lists I have worked on.
 * 3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
 * A. I'd say at the moment I do about 10% fighting vandalism compared to article writing, recently I have not had much time for reverting vandalism as I have been working on articles pretty much all the time. In my earlier days on wikipedia I'd say I did around 70% vandalism fighting, but I started to make a balance with the two after starting to work on articles more.
 * 4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
 * A. I have contributed to WP:AFD, I do not tend to get involved too deeply with AFD disscusions, but if an argument is there to be made then I'll make it. I don't usually take part in that many AFDs, but my wikipedia editing is usually pretty random and I'll probably have a pop to AFD every now and then.
 * 5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
 * A. The major weakness I see in myself would be that I am to lenient with people, although its good to not be too harsh on people, I think I should probably make myself a bit stricter if someone has done something wrong. The only other real weakness I see is perhaps that I am a bit impatient.
 * 6. What kind of editing habits do you have?  Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
 * A. When I log onto wikipedia, I go immeaditly to my watchlist unless I have new messages. I check through my watchlist to see if there is anything I need to jump over to, if there isn't I would usually continue working on an article. As I say my wikipedia editing is pretty random, so I could go to patrol newpages, comment on AFDs, revert vandalism etc depending on how I feel. Otherwise I pretty much gnome around.
 * 7. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you regularly participate in?
 * A. Upon becoming an admin, I'd say I would regularly participate in WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, I would also like to become active in organising the next updates in T:DYK as its usually pretty backlogged.
 * 8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on?  What tasks would you totally avoid?
 * A. As I previously stated, I would like to go into WP:RFPP, so I would have to read up on this more extensively. I'd defiently have to get some knowledge at dealing with DYKs new updates just incase I messed it up. :/ The tasks I'd probablys avoid are username related, and I generally like to stay out of dramas.
 * 9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
 * A. I have not had any experience with WP:AN or WP:ANI due to my general focus on just content editing. I've also not had experience with merging articles or deletion review.

What areas will you go into?
After answering the questions above, could you pick two or three areas you will go into as an administrator. This is a new aspect of my coaching and I am picking it up because of a reccomendation from Balloonman. Just pick a few adminly areas and that we will concentrate on, and we'll head into phase two. If you wish, we can discuss what you are going to choose. Take your time! Malinaccier (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to gain some experience on WP:CSD to become more accustomed to the criteria, I'd like to have a good look into blockings and page protection, as these are the areas I would most like to go into. Thanks. Sunderland06  (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. These sound like good areas.  Sorry, I've been very busy lately and not had time to get on Wikipedia.  Now that you have determined the areas you are interested in, we may as well come up with a plan for you to get more heavily involved in those areas.  The best way to get better in these areas are to go out and get some hands-on experience.  I would suggest trying to spend some time working at WP:NPP and doing some WP:RCP along with your regular editing on Wikipedia.  Remember that you should focus on quality rather than quantity when dealing in these areas.  I will also put a list of suggested readings that you should take a look at if you have time:


 * Blocking policy
 * Banning policy
 * Bans and blocks
 * Blocking IP addresses
 * Deletion guidelines for administrators
 * Deletion policy
 * Deletion process
 * Undeletion policy
 * Criteria for speedy deletion
 * Protection policy


 * These are pretty general, but I think they will be helpful. In the meantime, let's go on to phase two. Malinaccier (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

General

 * 1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
 * A. When I would be moving to block a user reported on AIV, I would check their contributions to determine whether they're a vandalism only account. I would then check the user's block log and talk page to see if they have been distruptive beforehand. Depending on the severity of vandalism, I would go for a two week block, but if it was a regular occurance with the user I would go for a longer block up to the point where I would indefinetly block the user. This is all if it was a registered user. For an IP, I would check if the IP was a shared address through a WHOIS, if it was a shared address I would tend to be more lenient, however if it isn't I would give it a 24 hour block if it was the first time the IP had repeat vandalised, then go up in usual steps but would never indef block an IP.
 * Well done.


 * 2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
 * A. It would be appropriate to decline a block request at AIV if the account is not a vandalism only account with signs of constructive editing. Also if the account had not vandalised in the past 24 hours, or vandalised again after a final warning. I would also have a look into the reporter of the said user, as it could be a bad faith request as a result of an edit war between the two users.
 * Good.


 * 3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
 * A. According to WP:CDB, cool down blocks should never be used as they often tend to make the situation worse.
 * Of course ;).


 * 4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response?  Where do you direct them?
 * A. I would decline the block, and show them towards the WikiBreak Enforcer because there is no real need to dirty their block log.


 * 5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
 * A. Firstly I would communicate with the administator into his reasoning with the block, if the block is non controversial and accidental, I would unblock the said user, but if it is quite controversial I would go to WP:AN to seek a broader outlook.


 * 6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
 * A. Really sorry to copy and paste, but here we go. :)
 * Block it
 * Go to the contributions page
 * If the bot already received "bot" privilege by bureaucrats, append "&bot=1" to the contributions page URL (or ?bot=1 if the URL does not already contain ?). Approved bots do not show in recent changes.
 * Click on all the rollback links
 * Along with this I may go to AN or ANI to seek a broader outlook.


 * 7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
 * A. First of all, if I was unsure about a block I would never do it. I may go to another administator or WP:ANI to seek a broader outlook.


 * 8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
 * A. After blocking, I would start a section at ANI, and then request a desysopping so he can't keep unblocking himself. I would then allow the user to confirm their identity if they had a cryptographic hash key incase they were unknowingly hacked.


 * 9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
 * A. Depending on the seriousness of the claim, per WP:LEGAL I would block the user if it was more severe, or warn for a less severe offence. I would also start a thread at ANI to get some opinions on it.


 * 10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user?  Why or why not?
 * A. Depending on their contributions, but I would not block solely for the username, as it's not overly confusing.
 * 10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
 * A. Now this one is confusing, and suggests it could be just a fly by vandal. Firstly, I would check their contributions to see if was a vandal only account, if they had no constructive edits I would indef block for username violation. However, if they had made constructive edits, I would just kindly ask them to change their username.


 * 11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user?  Why or why not?
 * A. If they had also created/edited significantly an article for QwikCleanInc I would block the account as a promotional account. Also, if they had created the article, I would delete it as advertising.


 * 12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user?  Why or why not?  What actions would you also take?
 * A. Block indef straight away, clear impersonation attempt, and then I would probably notify the real RyanPosthelwaite.


 * 13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
 * A. A hardblock disables editing from users or anonymous users on the same IP address, apart from administators and IP block exempt accounts. While a softblock is a block usually used on shared IP addresses, it will only block anonymous editors but left registered users to edit while logged in. This also gives the option to allow people to create an account to edit constructively.


 * 14. What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?
 * A. The level three warning is the last warning before a final warning, it is significant because it is the first warning to use the world "block" in its message.

Nishkid64 part I
Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck!


 * 1. vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.


 * Last three warnings:
 * 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
 * 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
 * 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)'''
 * A. Over a pretty short period, I'd probably not block depending on the history of the IP. If it had a bad history I'd block for a short time, about 24 hours.


 * 2. vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.


 * Last three warnings:
 * 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
 * 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
 * 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)'''
 * A. No vandalism after (uw-4) I'd leave it with no block. But I would keep an eye on them to see if they progress.


 * 3. IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.


 * Last three warnings:
 * 20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
 * 19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
 * 19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)'''
 * A. Around about a 48 hour block.


 * 4. School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.


 * Last three warnings:
 * 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
 * 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
 * 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)'''
 * A. Heavy vandalism straight after a 3 month block. School IP, softblock for 6 months so they can create an account if they want to edit constructively.


 * 5. Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.'''
 * A. Vandalism only account, indefinete block.

Good job! Malinaccier (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 part II
Nishkid64's other blocking situations (username violations and 3RR). For 3RR reports, just indicate what action you would take (if any). If you choose to block for username violations, differentiate between soft blocks and hard username blocks (account creation disabled).


 * 1. XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.
 * A. 24 hour block.


 * 2. YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.
 * A. 24 hour block as a partial revert should still be counted as a revert.


 * 3. ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.
 * A. The self revert gives the impression they mistakenly reverted an edit, so I'd look at the actual contribs to see the context in which they were reverted. I would just watch their contribs in this instance.


 * 4. 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.
 * A. 24 hour block.


 * 5. User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.
 * A. Maybe 48 hours, not really a legit 3RR, but shows signs of edit warring.

These are good. A bit more on 3rr: Malinaccier (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

 * 1. How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?
 * A. Usually if they revert over 4 times (excluding for the things listed below). However, the editor can still be blocked before they reach that number if they have a history of edit warring on that specific article.


 * 2. How long should a user generally be blocked for their first 3RR violation? What about further violations?
 * A. The first time they commit this offence, they should really only be blocked for 24 hours. Depending on how many times they re break the rule, progressively it may go up to 48 hours, 72 hours, and then a longer term long for repreated offences.


 * 3. In what cases can a user make more than 3 reverts to one article?
 * A. Self reverts, reverting clear vandalism, reverting edits by banned users, reverting copyvios, reverting illeagal material, reverting BLP material and reverting in your own userspace are all considered exceptions from the 3RR rule. From WP:3RR.

These were good. It's important to keep in mind that a user can make three reverts without being blocked, but only on the fourth revert can they be blocked. Just be careful on this point (though nothing in your answers indicates you will mess this up!) Malinaccier (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

 * 1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
 * A. A POV Fork is an article created in similar or of identical subject of an existing article to show the opinion, or point of view, of the editor, usually promoting or criticising the subject. When dealing with them, some legitimate verifable information may be merged into the neutral article, but usually they would just be delted as an attempt at POV pushing. Generally, information from POV forks is not really reuseable in the actual article, as they contain references rarely.


 * 2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
 * A. Verifable information — for instance if you have a sentence saying "this was described by several as the greatest discovery of all time." have a few reliable sources showing people labeling it as such. Only neutral, verifable information should be present on Wikipedia.


 * Both sides of the argument should be presented equally, not leaning to one side, which would lead to a non-neutral article. Say for instance, "Windows Vista received a mixed reception, with some labelling it as worse than Windows XP. However, some have supported Vista, describing it as more beginner friendly.


 * If there is an article called Criticism of McDonalds, it should not be written as a rant detailing a user's point of view on McDonalds. It should be written in an impartial way, mainly detailing complaints over McDonalds (each backed up by a relabile source. If a sentence says "I found a chicken head in a box of chicken nuggets, don't go to McDonalds they are scum" or something like that, instead it could have been phrased "In April 2008, McDonalds were involved in a court case after a customer found a chicken head in a box of chicken nuggets.[reference]


 * 3. 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 erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.
 * I'd say this is POV because of the word "erroneous" as other's may have agreed with the works of Crick and Watson.
 * 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...
 * This should be fine, as long as the assertion is backed up with a reliable source.
 * Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
 * Fine, it only says its the most widely accepted, not the only.
 * Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
 * Should be fine if it is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
 * Purely an opinion, chews up the NPOV policy and spits it out.

Everything looks great! Keep up the good work. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

 * 1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
 * A. Semi-protection is intended for protection of editing certain pages from unregistered users. I would fully protect the article is one party involved was a registered user (or both).


 * 2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
 * A. A page should be SALTed when it has been recreated on numerous occasions, despite being deleted inline with the deletion policy.


 * 3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
 * A. When pages suffer frequently from page move vandalism, pages with disputed names, pages that need never be moved WP:AN, WP:RFA etc.


 * 4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page?  Both? Or neither?
 * A. If the user page was subject to heavy vandalism I would fully protect the userpage only. A user talk page should never really be fully protected as it would prevent communication from unregistered and non-admins.


 * 5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
 * A. I would restore and fully protect an article during deletion review so it could be actively viewed by concerned members, but not edited as a mainstream article, as if it were a temporarily locked article, pending on the result of the DRV.

Good job. Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

 * 1. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
 * A. They should be deleted per G8 "redirects to invalid targets".


 * 2. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
 * A. Copyviolations, but foremost, not personal information should be included, such as telephone numbers, addresses, names etc.


 * 3. Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?
 * A. The criteria for speedy deletion is so strict to ensure only notable, verified work is included on wikipedia, however this isn't usually the case as many pages slip through Special:NewPages unnoticed and continue to be for a long time.


 * 4. What should one do if a hangon is placed on a page nominated for deletion?
 * A. They should visit the article's associated talk page to see the editors reasoning for adding the tag, this may discount deletion of unready articles, for instance if the editor is in the process of editing and establising the subjects notability.


 * 5. Why is it so important to check the page history of an article before you speedily delete it?
 * A. It is important to check the page history of an article because the current revision could simply be vandalism of a totally fine article. An article could have been vandalised making it seem deletable, and the tagging editor assuming it to be CSD'able.


 * 6. Please state what actions you would take if finding the following articles listed at CAT:SD. Take your time and make sure to evaluate all of the external links in the articles.
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Law High School broadcasting - This doesn't really seem notable up to the point where it mentions an NBC award, I don't know much about that, but I know its a top news group in USA therefore establishing its notability as long as it was backed up by a reliale source.
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Sam's Soda Shoppe - This is clearly non-notable and also contains heavy advertisment, so I'd delete per A7 and G11.
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Steve Q. Smith - Needs some work, but I think notability may be established by the fact his charity has raised $12,000,000 which is quite a feat.
 * False third reference, delete as A7. Sunderland06  (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Jon Starks - I reckon the fact his business made $45,000,000 establishes some notability, also I'd work on it as its not in a good state.
 * Make sure to check the references out to see if they are relevant or not. Reference 3 does not check out.  What is your action now? Malinaccier 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Theres only one reference. Sunderland06  (talk)
 * Woops, I meant for User:Malinaccier/CSD/Steve Q. Smith, the one above. Sorry. Malinaccier (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Getting Away With It - I'm not too familiar with WP:BAND but a number one charter is surely notability in itself for the band.
 * User:Malinaccier/CSD/Marketingandbusinessonline.com - At first sight, I'd probably say this was a A7 candidate as a non-remarkable website. However, after further reading the mentions by the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Times newspapers would establish its notability.

All good except for the one I marked in question 6. Malinaccier (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?
 * A.


 * 10. What is the appropriate length of time that should pass before deleting a PROD?
 * A.


 * 11. Who can remove a PROD tag?
 * A.