User:Aditya/Admin coaching

My editing career I don't hesitate to call myself the maintenance guy; writing articles is not my forte and I tend to stay away from it. I started my time here with anti-vandalism work using Huggle, and then I moved on to AfDs (200+ edits to Articles for Deletion at last count). I've been involved in WP:CSD, WP:UAA, !votes at WP:RfA, Wikipedia:Help Desk, clean ups and fixing typos (mainly using AWB). And finally I've tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage and Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect though I'd like to be more active in both.

One project I've just joined is WP:FS for which I've been compiling sounds. I know my content contribution is negligible, and I know this can sink my RfA, but I don't want to do stuff just to pass, so I'd rather not start writing GAs and FAs just yet. A v N 17:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Now I've a series of entirely random questions for you, shamelessly stolen from User:Balloonman (as far as I know; it might have originated somewhere else):

Getting started

Questions marked with an asterisk (*) have been researched by reading the appropriate policy before answering

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

Articles nominated for speedy deletion generally undergo review by just two people (the nominator, and an administrator) as opposed to XfDs or PRODed articles that undergo review by the community. The criteria are pre-established by consensus, so only those articles that are clearly unencyclopedic (vandalism, articles created by banned users, etc.) can be deleted. Finally, inappropriate speedy deletions can discourage new editors, so if the article has a small chance of being encyclopedic, it should not be speedy deleted.

Sure, that works. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

WP:XfD and WP:PROD.

Yep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

A level three warning states that a user may be blocked for vandalism the next time he makes an nonconstructive edit. It can be a final warning, since the level four warning is optional.

Spot-on. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

An established editor can be blocked for violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:NLT, copyright violations, posting unreferenced and defamatory material about living persons, vandalism, harassment, and sock-puppetry.

The same can be said of almost anybody, but yeah, basically. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

That depends on the type of IP. Indefinite blocks are discouraged. Open proxies, TOR exit nodes, and IP addresses used for long-term vandalism (school blocks, etc.) can be blocked for months or years. In cases of short-term vandalism IP addressed can be blocked for a few hours or days.

In short, IP addresses should only be blocked for as long as necessary to prevent disruption, but no more than that.

Right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

3RR allows for a maximum of three edits/reverts with the same content in a 24-hour period. An editor can be blocked for edit warring before violating 3RR.

Correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

WP:SOSP lists some signs indicating that a user might be a sock-puppet. A better way to make sure is by filing a request at WP:SPI with adequate evidence listing the user and possible sock puppets.

Alright. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

Rollback is a way to revert blatantly non-productive edits such as vandalism and page blanking. It is faster than undoing an edit manually, and is available only to a select group of users.

Yes, though keep in mind you're allowed to revert yourself with rollback. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

Semi-protected articles cannot be edited by anon IPs and users who have not been autoconfirmed. Fully protected articles can only be edited by administrators.

Quite right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

An article can be protected if (1) it is subject to recent significant vandalism by multiple users, where blocking would not be feasible (for example, due to media coverage) (2) it is subject to a content dispute and experiences heavy edit warring. Semi protection would apply for vandalism by IPs, else full protection applies.

Indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

The WP:IAR is pretty clear as to where the application of the rule is necessary. Editors should not have to worry about rules while editing, they should however use common sense and see if their edit is detrimental to the 'pedia. Rules are guidelines established by consensus, however they cannot cover all possible situations and there common sense and good judgment must be used.

I've never really had to use WP:IAR, but I can think of a situation where it might apply. I wanted the Susan Boyle article to be deleted, as I felt (along with a few other editors) that people who audition for a TV show aren't notable. We were outvoted and the article was kept. Looking back, the article has millions of views now, and though the existing rules don't cover it, probably deserves a place in Wikipedia.

Seems a reasonable answer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

If a page is recreated with no additional content added, then it can be salted (creation protection).

Yep! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

Usernames can be changed at WP:RENAME. If the new username is registered, then the request must be made at WP:USURP. The new username must not have any edits/log entries and the account must be several months old.

Mostly correct, though you can still carry out a usurpation if the target username has only made minor edits and/or vandalism. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Names that are either promotional, disruptive (abusive or offensive), or misleading (real names, names of celebrities) can be blocked.

Correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

If by others you mean there's been a discussion on the talk page of the article, and consensus is that the material isn't libelous I would take it to WP:BLPN.

Fair enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

Per WP:NLT legal threats must be reported to WP:ANI and the editor must be blocked indefinitely while the legal threat is outstanding.

Right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

2500+ edits 6+ months on the project At least 8 months from last block (if ever) Demonstrated expertise in the area where the candidate wishes to take part Article content contribution isn't necessary

I like it. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

Warn the editor for vandalism, then ask for a third opinion on the talk page of the article.

Good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:ARL

If you haven't already, read through WP:ARL and write down your thoughts on it. Have fun, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started, but it'll take a day or two. The list is longer than I originally assumed. Ant ive nin 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nearly finished the list. But I don't know what to write. What do you mean by 'thoughts'? Improvements? Criticism? Ant ive nin 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Use your imagination. :) What did you learn from it? Which of the listed policies do you believe is most important? Do you see any gaps in the list? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the clarification. =) Ant ive nin 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. This was a harder question to answer. WP:ARL is intended for administrators. Ideally this question should be answered if/when I become an admin, as I'd know what this list was missing based on what I would have to read up on, which is not included in the ARL.

There are several pages I found in the ARL which I hadn't heard about. Wikipedia:Undeletion Policy, m:Vandalbot, Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism, wikibooks:Mediawiki Administrator's Handbook, Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship/Goals of the adminship process and Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators. Out of these, by far the most useful is the Administrator's Handbook.

The WP:ARL is not comprehensive at all. The username policy does not find a mention, and nor do areas that require admin work (WP:AfD. WP:IRC should also be given a mention (due to the admin channel which I think is an important form of communication among admins). Wikipedia:Naming conventions should be included in the content policies. And finally, WP:AOR should get a mention. (It's extremely important, makes admins more accountable for their actions)

Since WP:ARL is just a collection of links (and doesn't include the content of the links) there should be no hesitation in including the links I've pointed out, plus any I've missed. An admin does, after all, have to keep him(/her)self updated with ALL policies on WP. Ant ive nin 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. The fact that you were able to identify the missing pages shows that you're quite knowledgeable in terms of policy, which is definitely a good sign. I'll look into addressing the issues you noted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA, etc.

What are your personal standards for RfA candidates?
If you ran for adminship right now, what do you think the result would be?

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. My personal standards (more comprehensive)

2000+ edits on the project (at least 40% in the mainspace, not more than 30% with Huggle)

At least 6 months on the project

3 months from last block (for minor reasons, such as WP:3RR), 8 months for more serious reasons (vandalism, violation of WP:CIVIL)

Always civil and courteous when talking to users, even vandals.

Willingness to learn

Demonstrated knowledge of area where the candidate wishes to work in

Knowledge of general admin areas (CSD, AfD, blocking and protection policy) even if the admin doesn't intend to work there.

Comprehensive knowledge of policies

Content contribution is not necessary

2. If I ran for adminship right now I think it would end up as 'no consensus' (would not succeed).

This would be because of my lack of content contributions, which some editors think is essential. I don't necessarily disagree, that's just their opinion. Ant ive nin 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Now for some more... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Homework

Alright, now that I have a fairly comprehensive understand of your editing skills, let's get started on some work. To start off, go to WP:GAN and review one or two articles. While this may seem a bit irrelevant to adminship, it'll prove that you can work with content just as well as you can with admin-related maintenance. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'll report back in a week. Ant ive nin 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed one. Talk:MissingNo. Starting on the second one now. Aditya ^α _ß 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed second, which is now on hold. Aditya ^α _ß 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job. Will post another lesson later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA-like questions

Is this Wikipedia?

Is this an accurate description of Wikipedia? Why or why not? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)