User:Hamtechperson/Admin coaching

102. Oppose There should be no globalblock for these people. Would you want an unidentified user coming and blocking you from all wikimedia wikis? I wouldn't. Hamtechperson 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm a vandal, then yes, I would. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With User:Juliancolton

Welcome!

Before we get started, here are the standard RfA questions. Answer them to the best of your ability so I can get a general idea of your current activity; as the admin process goes on, I'll ask them again periodically to monitor your progress. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A: I intend to be a "lather, rinse, repeat" administrator. This means that although I will poke my head around, do some blocking, deleting, protecting, or whatever needs to be done, but mostly focusing on anti-vandalism warning "lathering", and blocking, or "rinsing". Then I'll repeat the cycle.

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

A: I feel that my best contributions to Wikipedia are my vandalism reverts. I say this because these give me the greatest satisfaction. It makes me happy to be able to protect this wonderful compendium of knowledge.

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: Although most nonconstructive users cause me some stress, probably the one who has caused me the most stress is User:Bolegash. It started with a post on my talk page asking if I was right in the head (in French) this dispute spilled over to AIV, AN/I, and WQA. It was all over my use of rollback to remove vandalism.

Anti-vandalism work is great, but keep in mind that RfA voters generally look for other experience, such as with writing articles. Have you made any substantial contributions to the project? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created the article Dutchess Day School. I'm also somewhat involved in Files for Upload. You can see those pictures somewhere, but I'm not sure where. I've placed some CSD tags, and nominated a few articles for deletion. The main area I have edited in is anti-vandalism. Hamtechperson 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

Alright, here's a bit more from another admin's coaching process:

Have you ever:

• !voted in an RFA? once or twice
• requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP? once
• had an editor review? once
• used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle? Quite a bit, actually...
• contributed to an XFD? I've even nominated some pages for deletion.
• answered a question at the help desk? Not yet, though I've asked quite a few.
• uploaded an image? 2 times.
• mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute? See my mediation notes for the one time I have.
• participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI? Yes, see above
• taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to. Not yet. Although I may soon.
• helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface? I placed a request to, but have not been able to yet. EDIT:I can, but Arb0 has the only open request reserved. EDIT:6 creations and counting
• requested and received/been denied for Rollback? I've gotten rollback.
• had a previous RFA? No.
• Written a good article? No.
• Created any featured content? No.
• Written a DYK? No.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Answered. Hamtechperson 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then...

Do you feel an editor's age affects their ability to contribute to the encyclopedia? Why or why not? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Having a variety of age in the editors make the encyclopedia more likely to have a greater variety of topics. Consider if we had only editors from High School. There would be a lot fewer articles on some of the older topics not covered as often in classes. Hamtechperson 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, and what about with regard to adminship? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins should be those that the community trusts to use the tools. If the community trusts a 9-year-old with the tools, so be it. I have no objection to having a 9-year-old administrator if that person is trusted by the community. Same for the other end of the spectrum. Hamtechperson 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the responses. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not-so-straightforward "vandalism"

Since you're interested in reverting vandalism, I'm sure you've seen many types of unconstructive edits, from the standard graffiti to the subtle fact-changing. Most unhelpful edits are exceedingly easy to identify, although there are times when seemingly bad-faith contributions are actually a bit more complicated than that. For example, when an IP or new user blanks a section in an article about a living person, it can usually be reverted. However, these sorts of edits require a bit more thought than your typical spam. They may be the subject removing incorrect or libelous information. If reverted and warned on sight, they can get frustrated, understandably, and quite a few issues can arise. In cases where you accidentally and unknowingly reverted someone's good-faith edits, always be sure to apologize and clean up after yourself. Any questions or comments? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if the person removes an entire section for this reason, if I find nothing to give me any indication that there is a good reason for the removal, I will generally revert. Basically, no edit summary + no glaring problems=revert. Good or bad? Hamtechperson 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should take a moment to read the content being removed. Does it have any potential WP:BLP violations? Could there be a good reason for removing it? If not, go ahead and revert. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And what if it has some BLP violations, but also things that are fine? Hamtechperson 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. A BLP violation is always bad. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a BLP violation in the removal, but it is not all BLP violation. What should I do? Hamtechperson 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to manually sift through the article and see what content can stay and what should stay out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Once you've gotten the tools, blocking will probably become a daily activity for you. Hundreds of vandals are reported every day, unfortunately, to the point where even the current admins can't keep up at certain times. How many reasons for blocking a user can you list off the top of your head? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• UPolicy
• vandalism
• Socking
• legal threats
• arbcom enforcement
• violation of sanctions
• edit warring
• personal attacks
• continual incivility
• abuse of editing privileges

Hamtechperson 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. There are a couple more — and I'm sure I'm missing some — open proxy and compromised account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Deletion is another technical function administrators have access to. Its purpose is to allow the removal of offensive, disruptive, or libelous content, or more commonly, articles that simply don't meet content policies. Deletion is carried out via multiple community-driven processes, which can take either minutes or weeks. The most significant and universally-known (at least on enwiki) means of nominating an article for deletion include speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. Images, templates, and categories each have one or more custom processes. That said, there are certain circumstances under which deletion may be executed even if not explicitly advised by policy; can you think of any? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Office Actions and OTRS are the only two I can think of. Hamtechperson 03:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are prescribed by policy, though. Any other examples? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a trick question isn't it? Hamtechperson 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No; at least it isn't intended as such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it permissible to delete without it being advised by policy? Hamtechperson 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what single policy allows you to take action contrary to policy? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR, the paradox rule. But how is IAR permissible as a deletion reason? Hamtechperson 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That policy explicitly permits anything discouraged by all other policies if deemed appropriate. Actually, it's more complicated than that, so go ahead and read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I haven't read that essay yet, but it seems germane. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand. Hamtechperson 01:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You know that IAR allows for selected necessary actions to be taken if policy would otherwise discourage them. Can you think of some situations in which you would use IAR as a rationale for deletion? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RTV of a user in semi-good-standing. After discussion elsewhere, such as on IRC. In cases where my gut tells me something's wrong, but I don't know exactly what. Hamtechperson 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IRC should never really be used to discuss the implementation of any non-trivial edits or actions. To invoke IAR, you need a pretty solid reason for doing so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Any updates? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I thought this was complete. Hamtechperson 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to review the essays and guidelines linked at the bottom of the IAR page. Once you've done so, please report back and, in your own words, explain the meaning of IAR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is using common sense that goes against policy in order to further the encyclopedia. <sarcasm>And now I'm off to vandalize Vandalism.</sarcasm> Hamtechperson 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really that simple though. One man's common sense is another man's folly. I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of IAR; it's pretty vague, highly subject to misinterpretation, and cause of much confusion. While it's here, though, it's essential to understand it, especially as an admin. I'd like a more detailed explanation, if possible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

IAR is a rule, that, while paradoxical, describes the basic unit of interaction. This is improvization. IAR gives one the right to improvise, and actually tells one to do so. This can be equated to a "license to kill". Although killing in general is not allowed, the "license" lets one do so, regardless of the rule against killing. Hamtechperson 20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)