Jump to content

User:Nidarista/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admin do's and dont's[edit]

Do[edit]

  • Always assume good faith if at all possible, and sometimes beyond.
  • Always be civil without failing. Apologise if you fail in this. Keep the sarcastic remarks you'd like to say to the vandals to yourself (or other admins on IRC ;-) )
  • Remember to check both sides of the story when investigating incidents. For example user x has reported user y for breaking the 3RR. Check to see if x broke it as well.
  • Try and get the balance right between discussion and getting things done. Generally, if you think there is a good chance an edit/action you make will get reverted/questioned seek consensus first. If an action is non-controversial just go ahead and do it. Finding the line between the two takes experience (including observation of others, such as following WP:AN/WP:AN/I).
  • Related to the above, follow the WP:1RR for cases not involving vandalism, unless there is clear consensus to do otherwise. This prevents edit warring, which is 'a bad thing'.
  • Stay neutral in disputes. If you feel you should put your personal opinion in, recuse yourself from taking admin actions against the parties involved.

Don't[edit]

  • Be/do the opposite of the above!

RC patrol Q&A[edit]

The following are some scenarios that you might come across while doing RC patrol (or have your attention brought to via some other means). Have a go at saying what you would do and why. I've deliberately not given many help links at this stage, however don't worry if you can't answer any of them or get them 'wrong'- the whole point of this is learning! Some of these have been 'borrowed' from User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching, however I adapted them, and might post follow up situations based on how the hypothetical situations develop. Petros471 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please answer these questions as if you were an admin (i.e. have blocking, page protection, deletion etc available to you). After all this is admin coaching ;)

Article 1[edit]

Situation: A page is receiving a large burst of vandalism, from different IP addresses. Each vandal edit is similar. The article does not have a history of heavy vandalism.

Response: I see two different reactions depending on the nature of the IPs. If the IPs are closely related and I find that they belong to the same ISP (using WHOIS) I would assume that there is only one vandal and that his/her ISP gives out random IPs, and I would have to block the IP range if the vandal does not respond and/or change his/her behavour*, maybe an hour? If the IPs are unrelated, I would assume that its a concerted attemt to push a POV, and I would have to protect the article against editing by new and unregistered editors. If they continued to another article and did the same there, then I would block the IPs, and contact other admins to make them aware of the incident (maybe I should do that right after protecting the article?). --Eivindt@c 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

*Since the hypotetical user has several talk pages, I would single out one page to leave the test-temp and other comments, and leave a message on the other talk-page asking politely if they are the same person (and giving a link to the before mentioned talk page). If s/he replies, s/he will most likely deny this, but at least the s/he will be aware of it (s/he might not get the "you have a new message" if the IP changes around for every edit). --Eivindt@c 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches:

For ISPs who use shared IPs, they might give each user a different IP whenever they re-connect, or even when they load another Web page. In this case, another user will see the vandalism warning meant for the vandal, and you'd get the occasional "Why did you give me a warning / block me? I didn't vandalise." type of message.

IMO, if the IPs are unrelated, just protect the article. It will allow the anons to make (hopefully good) contributions to other articles. After protecting articles, record it in the list of protected pages. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that page protection is the way to go here (in this case semi-protection as you only need to block anons editing). Range blocks are generally only used in the most extreme cases of multi-article vandalism, due to the high risk of collateral damage.
It can still be worth warning each vandal IP, as it provides the route to blocking if any happen to stay around. Might be a good idea to use {{bv}} as is the quick route to test4/5 as appropriate.
I like your suggestion about using WHOIS to check ISP. This is a helpful idea for cases when checkuser is not really needed, but you want to check that the IPs are related. Petros471 07:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 2[edit]

Situation: This article is a non-notable bio created by a newly registered user (User1). The user has no other edits.

Response: I would talk to the user, welcome him and depending on the content, ask him/her if the subject is him/her or someone s/he knows personly. Then explain that the article might not pass our guidelines for notability (in a less wikiesque language of course). Then ask if the subjects has any claims to fame, won any awards or been in the news. If after that the article is still clearly non-notable I would inform him/her that I would have to delete the page (CSD A(gee can't remember number)). Or if the notability is questionable (not the usual highschooler) I'll take it to AfD, and inform the user of the prossess. --Eivindt@c 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Great! Some links that might be helpful: WP:CSD is your invaluable guide to speedy reasons (A7 for nn-bio's). WP:BIO provides some guidelines as to what is notable. Also when it's fully working again WP:PROD instead of AfD might be appropriate (depending on how questionable the notability is). Petros471 08:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good answers. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User 2[edit]

Situation: This user has inserted '''Bold text'' into an article, and blanked a section.

Response: Sounds to me like somebody doesn't know we have a sandbox, without any further knowledge of his/her history, it's a {{test1}}. --Eivindt@c 22:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Quite right, just checking ;) Petros471 08:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuing situation: This user keeps on doing similar 'newbie' type of edits. They are of the 'testing' variety rather than blatent vandalism type, however they keep at it. What do you do?

Response: I would try again to get him/her to use the sandbox, this time with {{test2}}. If there is still no change in their editing pattern, test3 and 4. If then s/he continues still, I see no other option than to block. --Eivindt@c 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: You seem to be able to handle the basic stuff easily enough :) Minor vandalism or testing users should be given the full range of warnings before a block, followed by a 24 hour block (unless shared IP means it needs to be less). Petros471 08:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User 3[edit]

Situation: Inserts obscene images into multiple articles. They have no previous warnings.

Response: Revert and warn, if the images has been uploaded by the user, and not from one of our "not censored for kids"-articles, get them deleted (there doesn't seem to be a speedy critirion for vandal pictures, would they fit under I5?) or list at IfD. --Eivindt@c 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Aye. Revert ASAP to remove the offending picture from view. The warnings should progress rapidly- i.e. start with a {{bv}}; then test 4 if the vandal is relatively slow moving, or straight to blocking if fast moving.

As for image deletion (if uploaded by vandal), I would say this depends on the picture. It could be deleted under G3 (pure vandalism) if the images are obviously vandalism, for example an image of a person that has had obscene text scribbled over it. In other cases it is likely to be improperly licensed and should be dealt with that way, and yes it looks like that includes CSD I5 (we can cover copyright issued in more detail in another session), or as you said IfD. The other thing to watch out for is for vandal versions of images being uploaded as a new version of an existing image (in which case revert and delete as appropriate) Petros471 09:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User 4[edit]

Situation: Shared IP address, long history of vandalism with many warnings given. However seems to avoid blocks by stopping after a few warnings are given.

Response: I'm assuming good faith, there's a good likelyhood that it's all different user testing to see if you really can edit the pages, espesially if it a high-school IP or similiar. If it happends quite often, a couple a times a week, I would try to contact the school/library/ISP and inform them of the vandalism by e-mail. I wouldn't block the IP unless it's a serious incident, and only for a short while. --Eivindt@c 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Correct. Shared IPs are to be blocked for as short a duration as possible. (Obligatory link to blocking policy here.) Kimchi.sg | talk 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to answer this one all day (at least 3 attempts, failed for various reasons!). Anyway no problems with the above answer (there is a range of opinion on the issue, and I certainly haven't decided yet which one is 'right', if any). Later on (nearer to you actually having the powers) I'll cover blocking. Not much point going into detail on it now and I could do with some more experience in it myself first. Petros471 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User 5[edit]

Situation: A registered user or static IP has been reported to WP:AIV and has carried out a series of 'bad' vandal edits. However no edits since the final test4 warning. Do you block?

Response: Short answere: no. Long answere: While I don't believe that vandals have a right to four free vandalism attemts before they are blocked, the whole point with blocking is to stop the vandalism not to punish the vandals, and having it stop by itself is better than having to block. I would of course keep an eye on the user, incase s/he start anew. --Eivindt@c 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Very similar comment as to user 4, but yeh basically no block unless either the vandalism was really bad, or in the case of registered users it looks like a vandal only account (i.e. every single edit is vandalism, meaning the account was probably registered by an existing vandal. Vandalism that shows a knowledge of how Wikipedia works is a give away for this). Petros471 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User 6[edit]

Situation: You reverted user 6 with the edit summary 'rv claims like this need to WP:CITE sources' (the edit was adding gossip style information to a article on a person without quoting any sources). User 6 posts on your talk page saying you censored them, were against free speech etc.

Response: I would explain to the user that in the nature of Wikipedia all facts, regardless of which user the information came from, needs outside sources, and that I would be happy to leave his contribution untouched if he could give one or more sources. --Eivindt@c 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by coaches: Fine :) You might need to escalate if they persist, especially if the additions could get Wikipedia into trouble (what with all the fuss about WP:OFFICE and related issues we need to be careful). Also need to be careful of the WP:3RR in cases like this as they will fall under content dispute rather than simple vandalism. Petros471 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

You have a good general grasp of what to do in these situations, hopefully you've also picked up some hints and tips as well!

I'm also going to move the first section of this page to the talk page, and give you a new message there (i.e. moving talk about the admin coaching to the talk page, and keep the coaching itself on this page, if that makes sense?). Petros471 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK! --Eivindt@c 12:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Incident investigation[edit]

This is an important task for admins. Some admins run away from it as it does take up a lot of time, and can sometimes be frustrating. However, it can also be very rewarding! Sometimes things can be chucked at you: "hey you're an admin, can you help with this?" type; sometimes you come across things during general editing; but you can always find some at WP:AN/I or WP:RFI.

WP:RFI - requests for investigation - is the new name for what used to be vandalism in progress. Over time VIP become less and less about 'vandalism in progress', hence to re-name. In it's current form, which I helped develop (yep blame me and Pathos ;-) ), it has sections for article watchlist (a place to report articles being hit by vandalism that need watching), and sections to report users requiring investigation.

The idea of that page is to provide a place to post complicated vandalism/abuse of editing privileges that require more in depth investigation than simple vandalism reports (which should all go to WP:AIV.

I'll go off now and do some work over there and pick some real life cases to go through some of the things it involves... Petros471 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Case 1[edit]

Original report:

Response:

Simple vandalism report, can't block right now (not enough recent warnings/vandal edits) so gave a test4 in case they were still around. Remove from page with edit summary including link to WP:AIV and drop a note on reporters talk page:

Subject: 195.188.217.143 report on WP:RFI (my personal 'standard' format when replying to RFI reports).

I'm currently trying to see if there is a better way to deal with vandalism from schools (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contacting_schools_Re:School_IP_vandalism). However for now I think it will have to be dealt with in the usual way: revert- warn - block (if vandalism continues past a recent test3/4 warning).

By the way, this report is being used for training purposes, I hope you don't mind!

Feel free to get back to me if you have any questions. Petros471 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Case 2[edit]

Original report:

Response: Article dispute, which I don't really want to get involved with. Corrected mistake from IP about page protection (i.e. removed misplaced protected template on article (the article was not protected and a template on its own has no effect apart from possibly confuse people) and left a note on the article talk page, and below the RFI report (currently viewable at WP:RFI, will be moved to archive later). Left notes on the article talk/RFI page rather than directly to the user, as I normally would, as I don't know if the IP is dynamic and therefore might not get the message. Petros471 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

One of the key duties an admin faces is blocking people that are vandalising Wikipedia or are otherwise being disruptive.

When to block, and for how long, is a mixture of an art and a science. Each admin has their own style, but also there are certain things that should be followed.

The official policies are Wikipedia:Blocking policy and the related Wikipedia:Banning policy. The following is an expansion some of the points there, I still expect you to read the official policies.

Vandalism[edit]

The most common reason to block is for vandalism. A rough idea of my thought process when blocking for vandalism:

  • Load up contribs (to check for frequency and nature of vandalism), user talk page and block log. If a block is already in place (i.e. another admin got there first) there is no point continuing...
  • Is last contrib more than a minute after last warning? I notice a lot of reports to WP:AIV that might so something like: 10:00 - IP vandalises, after ignoring previous warnings. 10:03 - user places a test4 warning on IP's talk. 10:04 - IP vandalises again. 10:06 user reports IP to WP:AIV with summary of 'vandalises past final warning'. 10:10 - IP has not vandalised again. Admin sees report an AIV and has to decide if a block is needed.
  • Generally, if vandalism has stopped (especially if it's an IP) don't block. However, I do follow some exceptions to this: If the vandalism is 'really bad' and the user has been properly warned/if it's an IP no sign of collateral damage; if it's a vandal only registered account; if it's a static IP (for example if exactly the same style of vandalism/vandalism to the same article has occurred over time with warnings being issued repeatedly over that time, a maybe it's time for a block even if they have stopped for a few minutes "right now".
  • Block length: a tricky issue. Default to 24 hours, subtract for shared IP, add to for previous blocks/for really 'bad' vandalism. You'll work this out as you go along as well!
  • After applying a block check the block log. If another admin has blocked at the same time as you (or just before/after) there is a block conflict. Unlike edit conflicts you won't automatically be told of this so you must check for them. The shortest block always applies, so if one admin has blocked a lot longer than you (or vice versa) it might be a good idea to contact them to short out which one should be left to apply.

Personal attacks[edit]

I take a very dim view on personal attacks, generally tread in a similar way to vandalism, making sure user has been properly warned and taking into account severity of personal attacks (e.g. abusive insults posted on userpage B by user A will get user A blocked very quickly. A heated discussion between user C and D with attacks (but not of the extreme kind) being traded should result in warnings and ultimately short-ish blocks if they persist, however discretion is needed.

Disruption[edit]

Best to post potentially controversial blocks to WP:ANI for review, unless it is clear that no-one would object. I've blocked a few users for disruption, and so far haven't got into trouble!

Contributions review[edit]

This is going to be quite short for now, as I'm getting tired of typing it out (believe it or not I've actually tried to do this section several times over the last few weeks but something always happens to make me loose the text!).

Generally I don't see any major problems with your contributions. You're civil, one of the first criteria for being a good admin. Recent edits show good use of edit summaries. I can't really see any mistakes or conflicts (if you think you've made/had any please point them out so I can take a look). You seem happy to do plenty of maintenance type work, which is what being an admin is about.

Things that need to be addressed- either by you pointing out that you've actually done these, or by doing them, as applicable:

  • Fairly limited range of edits, mostly stub sorting for articles, vandal patrol, and AfD for Wikipedia namespace. I suggest doing some article work that can be pointed out to satisfy those who are bothered by such things on WP:RFA, and some experience in at least one other major 'admin' (I say 'admin' like that because you can do a lot without having the position of administrator, but they are admin type things) area (for example WP:RFI, WP:ANI, WP:RFC, WP:ABUSE,...)
  • Erm... can't think of anything else right now :)

Questions[edit]

Here are some questions to try and probe your attitudes to different things, as opposed to simply 'what to do in a particular situation' scenarios. Try be as detailed as possible on your answers. Petros471 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Q1[edit]

Do you think being an admin is a technical or political position? Or both? In what way and why is this the case?

Q2[edit]

What is your idea of a good admin? Who do you admire as admins and why? What qualities do you think are important in an admin, and how do you think you meet those?

Q3[edit]

Do you think adminship earned? If so how? Can some people deserve to become admins?

Q4[edit]

A recurring issue among admins is the process vs result debate. Where do you stand on this? What is your opinion of WP:IAR, and in what situations should it be/not be used? Should policy ever be ignored (when, why)?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nidarista/Admin_coaching&oldid=1142404763"