User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/VanTucky

The following page is preserved as an archive of an admin coaching discussion. Please do not modify it.

Coachee: VanTucky (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Coaching

First 12 questions

• The following three questions are from RfA itself:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A. I am primarily an editor of the mainspace, and project space areas related to article improvement and assessment. In plain english: I work on article writing and in GA (as a reviewer and project member) and FA (at my last RFA, it was suggested I try participating more in FA, and I've enjoyed doing so). I am hardly ever around XFD anymore, except when I spy an article needing attention in my usual work, but I do have experience with it. I enjoy welcoming new editors and helping them learn the ropes, and I am confident in fighting vandalism and spam (though these I do only incidentally through my watchlist these days). I am familiar with RFPP as well, and may help out there. To be perfectly honest, I must say that the "big" admin powers of deleting, blocking and banning are tasks I expect to be doing sparingly. I am willing to help wherever I'm asked, but mainspace and GA are my central spheres of contributing. As a side note, I am also a sysop on a MediaWiki wiki that's not associated with Wikimedia, so I'm functionally familiar with carrying out administrative tasks of most kinds. I also recently received some valuable admin coaching from Acalamari, which I encourage everyone to read for further illumination of my knowledge of admin tasks.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A. My userpage has a list of all the main article work I've done, which includes several FAs, GAs and DYKs. In addition to the articles I have previously assisted get to FA (Guinea pig, Parapsychology) and GA (Go, Herdwick), I have done some respectable work since my last RFA. I did a complete rewrite of Domestic sheep, originally for the The Core Contest, and it is now FA-class. That took several months, and I'm proud of the result. I additionally authored a batch of smaller articles you can see listed on my userpage, bringing a few to GA and making some DYKs out of them. My second largest area of contributions are as a regular GA reviewer, you can also see a list of my reviews on my userpage. I've recently begun to comment more on FACs and help out with them.

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. Conflicts of some sort are inevitable on Wikipedia. How I handle conflicts was the central concern of my first RFA, and I feel I have significantly improved in the way I handle them since. As I noted then, my only block was in July 07 for 3RR violation on Mike Godwin. I haven't had a problem with understanding and obeying 3RR since then. How I've improved my conflict resolution is due to several important factors: first, I've developed a stronger ability to pick my battles. Several participants in my first RFA called me "intractable", which was not inaccurate. These days, I just as often simply prefer to not draw out arguments needlessly. I may also have lessened my overall conflicts, because of the change in my topics of interest; parapsychology is infinitely more contentious a subject than sheep. Whatever the subject, the ability to diffuse conflict before it gets out of hand is important. I've been better at keeping a cooler head, and making sure that disagreement over content is not a personal matter.

• 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 Wikipedia:Ignore all rules?

A. In my experience standing policy has a contingency for the majority of situations that arise, and editors should first look to them when encountering a problem. Only when following the letter of the law would cause more harm to the project is it appropriate to ignore all rules. In other words, legalese shouldn't contradict the encyclopedic principle that the policy was designed to support in the first place. Example: the spirit of PROD nominations is to provide a way of deleting pages that are inappropriate speedy candidates but are unlikely to require debate. Even if an editor removes a PROD tag after the five days has expired (i.e. the time between the expiry and what would be the deletion), the spirit of PROD says that you should take it to AFD rather than relying on the technical loophole of the "expired PROD", since someone has objected to the deletion.

5. What is your understanding of Wikipedia:Snowball clause?

A. When there is a 100% consensus among a group of editors, and no reasonable objections have been raised, a discussion should be closed rather than letting it continue through the full time period that would be normal for that forum.

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A ban is a consensus within the community to revoke or restrict the editing privileges of an editor, and a block is a tool by which sysops prevent individuals from editing.

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. I do not know a part of WP:PPOL which deals specifically with this issue, but my gut says that a request should be made through RFPP. Unilateral action by an admin to protect a page he has edited significantly sounds like bad idea.

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. Accordingly to Wikipedia:BLOCK, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking...but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior accordingly, before blocking." In practice, blocking when less than the four standard warnings have been given is only appropriate for registered editor accounts that should know better (i.e. have been around for a lengthy period of time or have previously been adequately warned and blocked for vandalism).

9. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Under no circumstances whatsoever.

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. The policy plainly says than an unblock should not be done unless a consensus (derived from discussion, just so we're clear) exists between you and the blocking sysop to do so. An unblock might be in order if a significant consensus of admins against the block exists, and the blocking administrator has accepted this consensus. The key here is to discuss the matter, and avoid a wheel war at all costs.

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. Bring the issue to the talk page of the article and alert the admin that you dispute their edit. If the concern cited was to the BLP policy, then reverting the admin should not be done without discussion first.

12. What type of edits should "rollback" be used to revert only?

A. Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism; the use of rollback to revert good faith contributions is strictly prohibited. I'm a rollbacker already, so I've got plenty of practice with this.

Questions part 2

13. When should IAR not be used?

A. It would be easier to answer this if you gave me an example, but in general, IAR should not be used to defend a position that seemingly contradicts policy in the interest of winning an argument, rather than preventing harm to the project.

14. You encounter a page tagged for speedy deletion marked as nonsense, or WP:CSD#G1. The content reads: "Acalamari is from the planet Squidworld. The inhabitants of this world are ruled by the Empress Bellatrix Kerrigan. Squiddy trees are the planet's main forestry. This is obviously a blatant hoax, but would you delete the page under G1? Why or why not? What action would you take?

A. I would remove the tag and not delete the article, as hoaxes are not under the purview of that criterion.

15. Another page you come across is tagged for speedy deletion, and the reason is that the subject of the article does not assert notability, or WP:CSD#A7. The content reads "'Mr. A. C. Alamari isthe why terr of the popular, great booke called The Way Home isa goodOne, ALWayS. He ollso wote Trains LeavIng teh Stations at MIDknight." Would you delete this article under A7, or does the article's subject assert why it is notable?

A. The article does assert notability (the author of a pair of popular books), so I wouldn't delete it under A7. I would probably rewrite it to make more sense, and Google the titles of the books to ascertain whether this was a hoax or not.

16. When would it be appropriate to protect a page from being recreated?

A. When it has been repeatedly recreated after deletion resulting from a consensus of editors.

17. You have been blocked, and are 100% sure that the block is inappropriate. Would you unblock yourself, or not?

A. No, because there are avenues for me to discuss the issue and protest the block without unblocking myself (such my talk page, email etc.) I would however, if the block log showed that the blocking admin had made a simple mistake, such as a confusion in user name.

18. You are in a dispute with a user (either over article content, or any general disagreement). The user rapidly becomes uncivil, vandalizes your user page, and you then block them. Do you think this block was appropriate to make, or would it have been better to have let another admin handle it?

A. No, it would not be appropriate. Even if I considered an editor's actions to constitute vandalism, if I was in a good faith dispute with them it would inappropriate to use any of the tools myself.

19. A user comes to your talk page, and calmly questions one of your admin actions. How would you handle this? How would you handle a user coming to your talk page, questioning one of your actions, but is extremely uncivil in doing so?

A. Anyone who wants to discuss my edits, whether they be admin actions or not, has a right to be treated with courtesy. Only a civil response to someone who disputes one of my admin actions is going to solve the problem, so irregardless of their attitude, I would respond the same. I would, however, ask that the person who is extemely uncivil curb such behavior. If they fail to do so, I would probably take it to the appropriate forum or ask another admin to remind them to be civil.

20. A user brings up one of your admin actions to AN/I, and never had any prior discussion with you beforehand. How would you handle this situation?

A. I would say that they should try to discuss the matter with me on my talk page before bring ing it to AN/I. We could solve the problem ourselves without having to bring in outside help via AN/I. From my experience, that is what any typical admin response at AN/I would be anyway.

21. In your answer to Q10, you said that if you disagreed with a block another administrator made, you would discuss it with them. Would you apply this action to any administrator action you disagreed with?

A. Yes. Again, wheel warring is to be avoided, whether it's over blocks or any other admin action.

22. Two users are edit-warring on a page. You revert the user who performed the most recent edit in the revert-war (either with rollback or a manual revert), and then fully-protect the page? Was this appropriate? Why or why not?

A. No. First, the revert would be pointless, as since it's an edit war someone has a problem with either version. The point is to restore order so a discussion can take place, not decide personally which version is better. The full protect would additionally be inappropriate because (according to a literal interpretation of the question), neither party had been contacted and asked to stop edit warring first. A protection can be enacted later if necessary, but simple discussion should always be the first step.

23. Due to a dispute you are having with another user (in this case, a non-admin), a page is fully-protected. You notice an error in the article. As an admin, you can edit fully-protected pages, but it was partially your fault that the page was protected in the first place. How do you deal with the error in the article?

A. I ask another admin to make the edit for me on the article talk or at RFPP's "Current requests for significant edits to a protected page" section.

24. What is a wheel war?

A. A conflict between admins in which they repeatedly undo one another's administrative actions, such as blocking/unblocking, deleting/undeleting etc.

Questions part 3

25. Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are important policies for all Wikipedians, but why are they more important for admins?

A. Sysops are bound to epitomize the best behavior of an editor according to our policies and guidelines to set an example for others.

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

A. It's important because administrative actions can affect the editing process and individual editors substantially (i.e. blocking, protecting etc). It is vital for admins to communicate why the tools were used in each particular case.

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

A. Yes, I see myself feeling the need to communicate more than I do presently, per the reasons I outline in Q26.

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

A. They may need to communicate with outside parties or people who simply have not learned how to use a wiki talk page. They also may need to communicate privately with editors in conflicts, and to communicate with those that may be blocked.

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

A. Yes, I understand it.

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. Well, that seems like a little bit of a loaded question. Basically, both. All admins should be equally careful in applying the tools, but I personally plan on taking it easy. I am a sysop on another wiki (not a Wikimedia project), but Wikipedia presents it's own unique problems for a new admin I suspect.

General discussion

Review of the first 12 answers

Q1. Looks perfectly like a good answer to me: you mention what you want to do, what you'd be best at, and what you plan to do sparingly: no problems or concerns here at all. You mentioned the coaching too so that's a bonus. :)

Q2. Great answer: you highlight your (excellent, I must say) work here. You have done a large amount of article-writing, and yes, while we need vandal-fighting admins, we also need content contributors such as yourself as admins. No concerns here, and I'm glad to see that you're going to continue your article work alongside your admin work.

Q3. A fine answer which mentions what conflicts you've had, how you've learned from them, and how you plan to avoid them in the future. I am very, very pleased to see that you have taken on board concerns from your last RfA and have learned from them, therefore, becoming a better Wikipedian and person overall.

Q4. A good explanation of IAR, and an example as well.

Q5. Yes, this is a correct: it's used for when the consensus and outcome in a process are blatantly clear (such as an RfA with multiple opposes and no support, or nominating the civility policy for deletion and there's nothing but keeps in the MfD), and continuing would not be necessary.

Q6. Correct, though ArbCom and Jimbo Wales can also ban an editor.

Q7. You are 100% correct: if you've worked significantly on an article, requesting protection is preferred rather than protecting it yourself.

Q8. No problems with this answer: it shows you won't be quick to block people, or bully newcomers.

Q9. There are circumstances where blocking without warning is acceptable, but I'm marking this as correct anyway because like the above answer, it shows you won't be trigger-happy with the block tool. For the record, obvious sockpuppets of banned editors do not need to be warned prior to blocking, and neither do blatant violations of the username policy (although they may be informed of the block afterwards, they weren't warned prior to their blocking).

Q10. Discussing the block is the correct course of action. If you are unable to come to an agreement, the next thing to do would be to take the block to the administrators' noticeboard.

Q11. Discussion, whether it takes place on the admin's talk page or the article's, is correct. Reverting would be disruptive.

Q12. I see Ral315 made a good decision to give you rollback. :)

First 12 questions: 12 out of 12 received correct answers

Review of the second 12 answers

Q13. Well, to be honest, I wasn't supposed to give an example. :) However, you are right that IAR should not be used an excuse to do anything you like, such as being uncivil, revert-warring, or vandalizing.

Q14. This is correct: while the article is obviously a hoax, it is not nonsense, as the text is readable. However, for the record, it would qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G3, which covers blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation.

Q15. Yes, the article does assert notability, and therefore, does not come under A7: cleaning it up and then researching it is the right thing to do.

Q16. If a page has repeated been recreated after a deletion discussion, that's when it would be necessary to protect a page from recreation. However, a time when consensus is not needed to stop a page from being recreated is when it's a page continually created by vandals, such as Acalamari, Ryulong, or Yamla.

Q17. When blocked, and you know the block is wrong, contacting the blocking admin via E-mail, or posting an unblock request on your talk page is correct. If you're blocked as the result of a typo (the admin meant to block "Van Tucky", an impersonator; and not "VanTucky"), I personally would still request an unblock, though I don't think any harm would come from unblocking yourself, providing you explain to the blocking admin, and make sure the intended user was blocked. There is nothing wrong, however, from unblocking yourself if blocked by a compromised admin account, as that block was clearly disruptive.

Q18. Yes, you should let an uninvolved admin deal with the block.

Q19. Keeping calm and level-headed, and responding with civility is the best thing to do, regardless of the other person's behavior.

Q20. Discussing with the person is a good thing to do, but with your answer above, it's best to remain civil and calm in the situation, no matter where the person posts.

Q21. This is the answer I wanted.

Q22. I like this answer: it shows you're willing to discuss with other users first rather than rush to protect or block. Also, you are right about the revert being pointless: it would be abusive and unnecessary. After all, as you said, you're supposed to restore order and allow discussion, not take sides and inflame the situation.

Q23. You can do this, or mention it on the article's talk page.

Q24. Good description.

Second 12 questions: 12 out of 12 received correct answers

Review of the last 6 answers

Q25. This is correct: while administrators are not "in charge" around here, users will go to them for advice and help, and it's not productive for administrators to be uncivil towards them or others.

Q26. Agreed: sysops have the potential to do more damage than regular users, and it's imperative that sysops should explain their actions if they're questioned.

I take this a step farther: I think it's imperative for admins to explain their actions regardless of whether they are questioned or not. No block or deletion should be made without explanation. VanTucky 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I do agree with you. That's why admins have "admin summaries" the same way edit summaries exist: to explain the action. If an admin leaves an unclear summary for a deletion, protection, etc, that's where the questioning comes in. Plus, certain blocks or protections may even need talk page explanations instead of just a clear summary in the logs: for example, a block of a highly-respected editor will most likely need an explanation at ANI, or the protection of a page where a very controversial dispute is taking place will need an explanation on the article's talk page rather than just in the protection summary. Acalamari 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Q27. If you can see yourself becoming more communicative than you already are, then that's the sort of behavioral change people want.

Q28. The reasons you listed are exactly why it's important for admins to have E-mail enabled.

Q29. Good: that's what I wanted to know. :)

Q30. Yes, new admins should take it easy, but more experienced admins should not become careless over time. New admins are expected to make mistakes, but that's not an excuse for them to be deliberately foolish or constantly accidental with the tools.

Last 6 questions: 6 out of 6 received correct answers

Overall: 30 out of 30 received correct answers

The above admin coaching discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this coaching discussion, the coach, or the coachee). No further edits should be made to this page.