User:Malinaccier/The four phase system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you ready to wield the mop?

I have recently taken it upon myself to coach and help prepare editors on how to become better administrators. To do so, I have developed a four phase system (described in the introduction section) that helps to cover all the aspects needed and to discover strengths and weaknesses more effectively.

I will use this page as a glossary of questions and to update/keep track of new methods. Feel free to make comments on the talk page about this, and to suggest changes and additions.

Generally, the phases should be given in chronological order. Questions in Phases 1 and 2 should be given three at a time, while questions in Phase 3 should be given one at a time. After coaching several users, I have determined that it is best to limit the number of questions a user can respond to in one day. This allows the coachee to develop over time. I suggest a maximum of five questions a day in phases one and two, one section a day (including followup questions) for phase three, and at least a month for phase four (about 58 days if done fully). Of course coaching can be done slower than this and is more beneficial if conducted at one's own pace.

I will be implementing Balloonman's footprints strategy as well. This will come in phases one and four.

  • Phase one deals with questions designed to let the coach know what the coachee's best contributions are, and what their general strengths and weaknesses are. (3 days minimum)
  • Phase two is all about policy. The admin coach will ask several series of questions dealing with policy, or will give lectures or advice based on administration. They will then critique the coachee's responses and provide help in areas where the coachee needs it as shown by the responses. (17 days minimum)
  • Phase three has to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). The coach will ask several questions about Wikiphilosophies and controversial areas of Wikipedia policy. (11 days minimum)
  • Phase four is a phase in which coachees explore other areas of editing and areas that they may come across as an admin. The coach will provide minimal guidance in this phase, and should only answer questions rather than pose questions to the coachee. (approximately 30 days minimum)

Introduction[edit]

(To be put on coachee's admin coaching page)

I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into four phases:

  • Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
  • Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.
  • Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
  • Phase four is a phase where you will explore other areas of editing and areas that you may come across as an admin. I will provide minimal guidance in this phase, and will only answer questions rather than pose questions.

After completing the four phases, I will generally nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one!

Phase 1[edit]

Experience[edit]

(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this) Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
  • requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP?
  • had an editor review?
  • used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle?
  • contributed to an XFD?
  • answered a question at the help desk?
  • uploaded an image?
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
  • helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
  • requested and received/been denied for Rollback?
  • had a previous RFA?
  • Written a good article?
  • Created any featured content?
  • Written a DYK?

More questions[edit]

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A.
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A.
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A.
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A.
6. What kind of editing habits do you have? Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
A.
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A.
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you regularly participate in?
A.
9. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A.
10. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A.

Footprints[edit]

Right now, I'd like for you to pick a few administrative areas you'd like to participate in. You can change these later or add/subtract any areas as your interests change. The areas you choose will be the ones I will help develop in the next phase and will most likely be where you will work as an administrator. Take your time and think things throught before deciding.

Phase 2[edit]

Suggested reading[edit]

To be a good administrator, it is essential to read up on Wikipedian policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with everything on the list below before coaching is finished. It will also serve as a good resource for looking up answers to questions in phase two that you do not know.

Blocking[edit]

General[edit]

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A.
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A.
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A.
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A.
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A.
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A.
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A.
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A.
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A.
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A.
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A.
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A.
12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?
A.
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A.
14. What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?
A.

Nishkid64 part I[edit]

Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck!

1. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.
Last three warnings:
  • 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
  • 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
  • 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)
A.
2. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.
Last three warnings:
  • 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
  • 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
  • 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)
A.
3. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.
Last three warnings:
  • 20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
  • 19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
  • 19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)
A.
4. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.
Last three warnings:
  • 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
  • 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
  • 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)
A.
5. XX (talk · contribs) Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.
A.
6. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shared IP last received a vandalism warning (uw-4) at 19:00 UTC on March 11. Someone from the IP has made 4 vandalism edits at around 12:00 UTC on March 12, but has not received any final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.
A.

Nishkid64 part II[edit]

Nishkid64's other blocking situations (username violations and 3RR). For 3RR reports, just indicate what action you would take (if any). If you choose to block for username violations, differentiate between soft blocks and hard username blocks (account creation disabled).

1. XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.
A.
2. YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.
A.
3. ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.
A.
4. 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.
A.
5. User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.
A.
6. User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.
A.
7. Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?
A.
8. Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org
A.
9. Username: RealTek, Inc.
A.
10. Username: Bitch78
A.
11. Username: Iwannafkuup
A.
12. Username: Asswipeface
A.
13. Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef
A.
14. Username: CroatoanBot
A.
15. Username: AndysAutolandCompany
A.

3RR[edit]

1. How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?
A.
2. How long should a user generally be blocked for their first 3RR violation? What about further violations?
A.
3. In what cases can a user make more than 3 reverts to one article?
A.

NPOV[edit]

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A.
3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
  1. Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.
  2. Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
  3. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
  4. Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
  5. Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.

Page protection[edit]

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A.
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A.
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A.
4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
A.
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A.

Deletion[edit]

1. How would you close the following AFD's?
A 1
B 2
C 3
D 4
E 5
F 6
2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A.
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A.
5. Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?
A.
6. What should one do if a {{hangon}} is placed on a page nominated for deletion?
A.
7. Why is it so important to check the page history of an article before you speedily delete it?
A.
8. Please state what actions you would take if finding the following articles listed at CAT:SD. Take your time and make sure to evaluate all of the external links in the articles.
9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?
A.
10. What is the appropriate length of time that should pass before deleting a PROD?
A.
11. Who can remove a PROD tag?
A.

Granting user rights[edit]

1. Could you list for me all of the user rights that may be granted by an admin? Malinaccier (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
A.
2. What are the generally accepted criterion for granting account creator and ip-block exemption?
A.
3. What are the generally accepted criterion for granting rollback?
A.
4. When would you remove rollback from an account?
A.
5. You grant "User:Somebody" rollback. Two days later, another user messages you on your talk page pointing you to a thread on "Somebody's" userpage warning him against using AWB to make seemingly pointless edits. They think that this abuse of automated tools extends to his rollback use, and thus it should be removed. You check "Somebody's" contributions and they have not used rollback incorrectly. What do you do?
A.

Miscellaneous[edit]

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
A.
2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
A.
3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
A.
4. How would you deal with a copyvio? What if the article that was a copyvio was a new page? What if it was a highly-visited page that had been around for a long time?
A.

Assuming good faith[edit]

(Don't worry, this isn't in response to anything you did.) Although it is very important to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE now, it will be even more so when/if you become an administrator. Every action that you take will represent the project itself. Your behavior will become synonymous with how Wikipedia is in the eyes of New Editors. Therefore, the utmost care must be given to deletion and blocking when regarding these people.

Keeping the above in mind...

A new user creates the article "John's Auto Shop." Assume that it is written in perfect prose, with a neutral point of view, and with adequate sources. But the one problem is the subject is not notable whatsoever. In what way would you deal with this that would leave the writer with a positive view of Wikipedia?

AN—an admin's greatest resource[edit]

As stated in the section header, WP:AN is one of the best tools that an administrator has access to. On this noticeboard, you can get other administrators to review blocks you are unsure about, inform you about a policy that you are looking into, and get other admins to help you out.

There is no shame in asking for help—even after you have become an administrator. You will generally find that almost any admin is open to questions from their peers. Accepting that you need help also makes you stronger in many's eyes, and I would not trust an RFA candidate who refused to ask for help.

You can also get general help from other admins including myself. Like I said, almost every admin is open to offering feedback, an opinion, advice, or whatever help you need.

Phase 3[edit]

Answers to these need to provide links to policy pages, have a good argument with solid reasoning, and be thorough. Follow up questions are suggested to stimulate a discussion.

Is this Wikipedia?[edit]

  • What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

Fun and Humorous?[edit]

  • Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?
    • What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly or "bad" userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed?
    • Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?

Re-confirmation[edit]

What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)

The Power of the Admin[edit]

How important do you think administrator duties are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why? Furthermore, what extra influence do administrators have compared to other users?

Banned Users[edit]

In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead).

Ageism[edit]

Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

False Credentials[edit]

"I have a JD, so I should know the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan Laws, and how they should be used in the article"

Do you believe that this claim should need some kind of verification? I could say to you right now that I'm 23, live in Vermont, and have a Doctorate in Biochemistry, but this wouldn't be true whatsoever.

Also, should lying about an editor's real life situation have consequences?

Reward System[edit]

What is your opinion on a reward system for editing (besides the reward board)? This would be along the lines of gifts/cash per edits, gifts/cash per FA and GA, volunteer hours per edits, etc.

Fail[edit]

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

Registration[edit]

In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain.

Pile-on RFA's[edit]

Do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? WP:BITE? Why or why not? Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this? Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?

Phase 4[edit]

Your turn[edit]

Feel free to ask me any questions you have. I can help you review whatever areas you wish to, but during this phase you should branch off and explore Wikipedia on your own.

Interesting areas to explore[edit]

Here are some areas on Wikipedia that you may not have heard of before:

  • WP:ITN-Picking the items for the "In the news" section on the main page.
  • WP:ERROR-Regarding finding errors and fixing them as they appear on the main page.
  • WP:SA-"On this day" section on the main page.
  • WP:AFC-Articles requested to be created by non-registered users.
  • Reviewing:
    • WP:GAN-Reviewing and promoting articles to good article status.
    • WP:FAC-Reviewing and promoting articles to featured article status.
    • WP:FPC-Reviewing and promoting pictures to featured picture status.
    • WP:FLC-Reviewing and promoting lists to featured list status.
    • WP:ASSESS-General article reviewing.
  • WP:RESCUE-Rescuing articles from deletion at AFD.
  • WP:DPL-Repairing links to disambiguation pages.
  • WP:3O-Giving a third opinion in disputes.
  • WP:REFDESK-Answering questions posed to Wikipedians at the reference desk.
  • WP:EAR-Help users making requests.
  • WP:TRANSLATE-Volunteer to translate articles to english.
  • WP:WC-Welcome new users.
  • WP:MAINT-Help with general maintenance tasks.
  • WP:DELSORT-Sorting deletion discussions by type rather than only dates.
  • WP:RA-Create requested articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malinaccier/The_four_phase_system&oldid=1086394270"