User:Cholmes75/Admin coaching

Hey Yanksox and Hoopydink! Before we begin I would like to note that since I originally added my name for admin coaching many moons ago, I did have an unsuccessful RfA. Perhaps that might be a good place to start? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Cholmes, I'm glad that I can help you with your admin coaching. Before we start anything off, are there any questions you have for me (or Hoopy when he shows up)? Yanksox 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I was actually just edit-conflicted, hehe, so it seems as if we arrived at the same time. Here's what I was going to post:

Hi there[edit]

Hi! Obviously, the admin coaching program is backed up quite a bit, and during that time (especially since your RfA in June), you seem to have gained lots and lots of experience editing. It seems as if your first RfA failed in regards to the lack of understanding of the proposed deletion policy, which at the time was relatively new. The diffs provided by Where were concerning in that it demonstrated a shortness and an unwillingness to appreciate that new users are, well, new, and are going to make mistakes. As an administrator, one is often dealing with new users, so a levelheaded approach, patience, and understanding are of the utmost importance. Having said that, those diffs are now four months old and I can't imagine that they have any bearing on your abilities and potential now. Also, I think that self-nominations are a postive thing, rather than a negative thing. When I made my RfA, I chose to go with a self-nomination, and I didn't encounter any problems as a result of that. Some users seem to appreciate self-nominations, as it shows some extra initiative. Also, your RfA probably would have passed with a few more supporting comments.

I'm not sure what I can help you with, but I'd certainly love to try! You have some phenomenal experience in editing and creating articles. You have some good AfD experience, although for future reference, a "per above" or "per nom" comment does not weigh much, if anything, with the closing administrator. It's best to cite precedence or your view of how policies should be interpreted in the context of the AfD. You've been active at WP:AIV and have done some good RC patrolling with VandalProof, which is great as well. I briefly looked at your talk page, and there seems to be some good communication with other Wikipedians. If you made an RfA today, I don't think that you'd run into any problems. Edit counts don't mean much in RfA after 3,000 or so but you have more than twice what I had when I filed mine. This is per a brief overview of your contributions, but I'd be happy to give it a more intensive look if there is anything specifically you'd like to work on. Yanksox has been an admin for longer than I and has been active in a lot of administrative areas, so I'm sure he'll have some good ideas. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Hoopydink. I actually was wondering something, and would love to get feedback from both of you. How has your view of Wikipedia changed since becoming an admin? Do you enjoy it less, more, or the same? I know that as an admin, there is more expected of you. Any suggestions on how to handle that effectively?

OK, so that was 2 questions. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! I'd be happy to reflect a bit on my post-RfA Wikipedia experience, but please keep in mind that my, or probably anyone's experience cannot be applied wide-scale, as each person and his/her experience is going to be different. I probably enjoy Wikipedia the same, but my editing has decreased considerably, largely due to my RfA closing at about the time school started (first year at university). However, the time I do spend on Wikipedia editing is mostly geared towards maitenance stuff. I do plan on starting up some more article writing shortly, however. Prior to becoming an admin, I had a great balance of article writing and "other stuff", and I look forward to establishing that again. In terms of adhering to certain standards that the community expects an admin to, that's fairly simple. Basically, just don't abuse the buttons and remember that you have them because the community entrusted you with them. Trust and collaboration with your fellow admins is important, as well. I hope this helps, but feel free to ask about any specifics, as what I replied with was a general overview. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with the life thing. Hoopy said pretty much anything that could be said. Yanksox 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking over my contributions, do either of you see any potential areas that might be brought up in a negative light, were I to undertake a second RFA? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, not really. It seems as if you are one of the more well-rounded Wikipedians in the community, as you've been involved in lots of areas. An RfA is no big deal, regardless of how it may seem, and I think you satisfy the three criterion that the community seems to look for; experience, a passion for the project, and trustworthiness. This may not be what you were looking for in terms of advice, but I hope it helps! Cheeers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Same thing as Hoopy. It does appear recently that you have alot of automated edits. But, that's not a big deal. What do you think some of your finer edits are? Yanksox 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I recently got ahold of AWB and have been playing with it. If I start using it enough I'll create a separate account for it. As for your question, I don't know if I can single out specific edits, but I did a lot of work on Crazy Eddie, Peace Dollar, Wicked Lester and Winfield Scott (ship) to elevate them to Good Article status. I also created Civil War token and got that listed as a good article. I've done a bunch of work to Dime (United States coin), but for some reason GA/FA status eludes it. I also try to contribute original photos whenever I can (gallery on my user page). I've also done a lot of work tagging images with no licensing or copyright info. Same thing for articles with copyright violations. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually feel a tad bit silly now since I alreadly knew about that from your userpage. Also, it appears you're from my neck of the woods. =D Now, let's see how we can address some of your opposers concerns on your previous RfA.

I take it now that you understand the PROD process concerns addressed by Candian Caesar about Kapa's deproddings. I do agree with Opabinia regalis that Kappa can have a bizzarre and sparotic period of deproddings. What is your understanding of how PRODs work and when something is deproded?
Where's civility concerns are somewhat important, but you are not incivil, and this appear to be comments that could be the norm in actual conversation. What do you say?
Agent 86 brings up concerns about AfD and CSD from May. May was a while back, how do you think you've improved?

Hopefully this will help. This is just the beginning of the process. Yanksox 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. Here are my responses:

Regarding questions 1 and 3, here is the quick version of my understanding of the deletion process - If something is an obvious violation of WP:CSD, I tag it as such. When I first started tagging, I do admit that I was a bit overzealous. But if I (as an example) come across an article about some garage band that has never released an album and just has some myspace page, I tag it for speedy deletion. That's level 1. Level 2 are the prods - something that in and of itself isn't detrimental (like an attack page that would be speedy'd), but simply doesn't belong due to a lack of any verifiable claims of notability. Having prodded dozens of articles, I think by now I have a pretty good feel for what should be prodded and what should be brought to AfD. What I obvioulsy learned from the Kappa incident is that if a prod tag is removed for any reason, if I still want the article deleted it has to go to AfD. So despite my views on Kappa's deprodding, I know that he is well within his rights to deprod articles. So that takes us to Level 3 - AFD (or XFD depending on the situation). Again, I've nominated a ton of articles, and gotten involved in many AFD discussions so I have a pretty good idea of what is deletable and what is not. I don't have hard numbers to back me up, but I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of the articles I nominate end up getting deleted. But I have been wrong a few times, so it means the process works.
I'd like to think that I'm a civil editor here. I know that on some occasions, I have to take a step back and take a breath before reacting to something. Regarding the diffs Where provided - this was a situation where I tagged an article as a copyvio. Next thing I know, my name is being added to somy guy's web page as an example of yellow journalism. I honestly feel that I did what I could to help this guy out, but he was obviously more interested in bashing me than in getting the situation amicably resolved. I know that if I ever become an admin, I'll probably run into more situations like that. There are more than a few comments on my talk page (and archives) that, at first glance, could look like I rile people up. In almost all cases, it's just people lashing out at me because I am reverting their vandalism or flagging their images as having no source/copyright. So to make a long answer longer - I would not say I am uncivil. On occasion I will make a remark that I intended as a joke, but the meaning gets lost on the printed/pixelated screen. So I know I have to keep a watch on that. That said, I think humor/gentle sarcasm is part of who I am and I hope I don't have to quash that to be an admin. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Geeeeezzzz...sorry, I've been stupidly busy if you need contact quickly you can e-mail me. I like the response here, and I understand the comments about humour, which is completly necessary for the project. Just keep in mind sometimes people read things different than it may seem. I'm not suggesting that you kill humour, but just keep that in mind. We need more humorous people. :)

I like your answers involving deletion policy, but you don't have to get too complicated. The easiest way to go about things involving speedy deletion is if there is the slightest doubt or reluctance, PROD it. Also, be sure to check the history, sometimes things get revamped and could confuse you. But the number one rule I learned was that AfD is the safest possible route you can take, it gets consensus and it allows people to assist the article if it is "notable."

Now, I'm just going to give you some CSD things and you tell me what you would do with the article if it had admin tools.

I'm trying to break down admin tools in three key parts: deletion, blocking, and protecting of pages. After that I'll go into the finer details of all three. Yanksox 13:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pop quiz![edit]

I hope I scored OK! Here are my answers:

Well this article seems to indicate that Valeri Gopin is involved in some kind of international competition, so I wouldn't consider it a db-bio. A quick Google search tells me that he was a gold medalist at the 1988 Olympics. So I'd either slap a cleanup/expand tag on this (after adding a few wikified details), or if I was so inclined I'd try to expand it a bit to make the notability even clearer.
I will admit that my "notability radar" is pretty poor when it comes to academics/intellectuals. But I know the Nobel Prize is a big deal, and I did a quick search to confirm that he is the chairman of the committee. To me, it seems a notable enough position that I would remove the speedy tag and, as above, either add a few detils and/or a cleaup/expand tag.
To me, this is a clear-cut case of vandalism. No attempt is being made to add to the encyclopedia, it's just some person goofing off. CSD G3. It would not, however, be considered "nonsense" in the strict usage of the term.
Right off the bat, I wouldn't speedy this as it does make claims of notability, even if they aren't sourced very well. I wouldn't prod this either, and would remove a prod tag if I saw one. I would do a search for actual citations to back up the claims made in the article. If I could find them I'd add them. If I couldn't actually find any proof that this person is as notable as the article claims, I'd bring it to AfD.
CSD A7, plain and simple.

Now in the case of #3 and #5, those articles would get deleted and their creators would get the appropriate warnings. If the articles had been recreated in essentially the same way a number of times, I'd have to consider protecting them against further recreation. If the behavior continues, I would eventually consider blocking the users (taking into account their history of course). As for the length of the potential blocks, that again would depend on a number of factors, but the basic guide laid out on WP:BLOCK is a good guide. If I am a new admin, I might also seek the advice of other admins rather than acting unilaterally. One thing that I've seen can get some admins into hot water is blocking unilaterally, unless of course it's a clear-cut case. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If any kind of research is necessary that's a 99.9999% chance that it's not a speedy candidate. I play a very simple rule in terms of speedies: does it assert any importance whatsoever? Alot of people mistake that for notability, but there is a big difference, and I've gone to DRV a few times because of it. The last one is just total and utter crap and clearly done by a vandal that knows the system slightly. Also, a great amount of the time, anyone that creates articles like 3 and 5 can be blocked because they are usually a vandal only account, but I wouldn't block over one deleted article unless it is persistent and they clearly know the rules and work out of them. I usually don't dish out a lot of blocks, and the ones that I do are usually of indefinite and those are the most common ones that you come across upon.

Aside from realizing that notability is not a measurement of CSD, and importance is, you did perfect. Yanksox 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Pages[edit]

Another one, hope you don't mind. WP:RPP is one of the more interesting places that exists, it moves quickly and is pretty important since it does reflect the image of the 'pedia. Protection is one of those things that's "evil" most of the time since it conflicts with the philospohy of the 'pedia. But it is necessary in most circumstances.

Just some quick scenarios to see your understanding of protection.

Someone asks for protection of an article that was vandalized 12 times in the last 2 hours by a couple IPs that just appear to attack the subject.
A lone IP keeps altering the article and violates 3RR about 3 times.
The subject of an article recently died (the subject was an intensly disliked political leader) and numerous IPs and new accounts flog the page with utter nonsense.
The featured article of the day is totally altered to change the article to profaine images and other images multiple times in less than 8 minutes.
Two users are edit warring and both pass 3RR, but both express interest in resolving the debate on 3RR

These are kind of crappy, and difficult since you need to also assume the history of a page. I recommend checking out some of the requests and thinking about how you would do it. Yanksox 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look and answer these as soon as possible. Page protection is an area I am not as familiar with as XFD, so it may take some time. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, being an admin doesn't mean that you focus on everything, I will cover AfD as a admin which is sort of a double sided sword. It just doesn't hurt to know these slightly. Yanksox 15:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Responses[edit]

OK, I think I have a basic grasp, so let's see....

If it is just a couple of IPs vandalizing the page, protection is not appropriate. The vandalism should be reverted, and the vandals should be warned/blocked per established policy.
Protection is definitely not the way to go. Now we get into blocks for violation of WP:3RR. If they have indeed broken 3RR three times (assuming it is indeed an edit war) and not been warned or blocked yet, then a warning definitely needs to be issued. If they have been warned and are ignoring it, then a 24-hour block is next. Another violation, and the block will be extended to 48 hours. After that, 72 hours.
I think in this case, semi-protection is fine. With multiple IPs attacking the article, semi-protection would stop the so-called "drive-by" vandalism, but still allow established and interested editors to contribute to the article.
From my understanding, protection of a featured article is highly discouraged. I would say that it must simply be watched very closely, and any vandalism reverted.
If they are genuinely interested in resolving the issue, I think a warning for each is satisfactory, so long as they do hash the issue out in a constructive way. If, after the warning, they continue edit warring then blocks will be handed out. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good answers, though sometimes it is acceptable to protect the main page if it gets really bad with severe and constant vandalism. Let's take a break from the gameplan and see if you have any quetions or anything specific you want me to address. Yanksox 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't really think of anything. I guess at this point I'll just keep absorbing as much info as I can, and perhaps take another crack at RFA later this year. Thanks so much for all your help! --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, well I can still whip some stuff out to help you out. If you need help ~~just click those ruby slippers together~~ drop a message on my talk, and I'll be there. Yanksox 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)