User:BradBeattie/Admin coaching

Getting started

Hi Brad (should I call you Brad? I assume "Beattie" is your last name). You can call me Fang Aili, Fang, Aili, or Erica.. they all work. So.. you want to be an admin, ey? ;) I read your previous RfA and your user evaluation page. There are good suggestions there. What would you like to do with admin buttons? --Fang Aili ^talk 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Erica. I tend to prefer first names, so Brad will do just fine. I've been using Wikipedia for a long while and want to see it do well. Since I kicked my World of Warcraft addiction about two months ago, I've had much more free time that I've been focusing here.

I'd say my biggest effort here is in counter-vandalism. The rollback button would certainly help in cleaning up vandalism, but my own custom app is filling in the gaps for now. I've been trying to flesh out my efforts here to get a broader feel for what's going on, but that's certainly my focus.

In my RFA, the main things it was suggested I focus on were warning vandals (which I think I'm doing a much better job of now), and citing policty & guidelines in AFDs.

Ultimately, I want to do what I can to help out around here. Be it clearing backlogged tasks or whatnot. Suggestions? Oh, and if you want to get in touch with me faster, see the contact section on my user page. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Learning a lesson

So, I learned a little something about process this week. I've been going through Wikipedia's webcomics and weeding out the non-notables. I prodded one article, which was subsequently removed without an edit summary. I figured the correct course of action in that case was to reinstate the prod. Turns out that's very much against policy.

If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

— WP:PROD#Conflicts

So there's a lesson learned. Fortunately, Kusma pointed this out to me and the article's now going through the AFD process as per proper procedure. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone watching, Brad and I talked about this over gtalk. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocks

Here's a little quiz. In what case(s) would you impose an indefinite block? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:BLOCK, indefinite blocks can be imposed on user accounts for

• threats or personal attacks
• posting personal information about an editor without their consent
• inappropriate user names
• consistent vandalism (after previous shorter blocks have expired)

However, they shouldn't be applied to anonymous IPs as those aren't necessarily associated with one user and they occasionally get reassigned. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The default questions

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

One of my primary efforts here has been in vandal fighting. While administrative access isn't necessary for the task, it certainly makes it a little easier. As a non-admin, the only time I look at WP:AIV is when I have a consistent vandal to report. However, I suspect that with the mop I'd be watching that page far more often for reports by other users.

I've also been contributing the the deletion processes, primarily in WP:AFD with occasional visits to new page patrolling and (admittedly much less regularly) to the other WP:XFDs. I've noticed that CAT:SPEEDY and CAT:PROD seem need help fairly often, which I'd be willing to offer.

Ultimately it's a matter of working in the best interests of Wikipedia and its community. I've certainly made a mistake here and there, but I've made efforts to learn from them. If there's anything I can do to improve what we have here, I'd like to do it. I'm sure most Wikipedians feel the same way. :)

1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

While I didn't actively participate in the article past a certain point, I helped birth 0.999.... The article had discussions on its separation from recurring decimal, frequent arguments over the mathematical validity of the subject, and how best to present the subject to the intended audience. I was pleasantly surprised when I was informed that the article reached FA status, although that focus has seemed to bring many more arguments over the subject matter.

I've also been trying to find articles that lack photos in Japan, going to said location and taking a couple photos. It's relatively easy to do and adds to the visual quality of articles. If, for example, you had a desire to know what Kemari looks like, you can.

1. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Dealing with vandalism, there is the occasional anonymous user that reacts maliciously to even something as light as {{test}}. I wouldn't say that it causes me stress as nothing is truly destroyed in their acts. If anything, it just takes 5 minutes or so to reach civility, for the user to disappear, or for the user to be blocked. Obviously civil contributions are the best outcome of the three, which is why it's important to warn appropriately.

Another source of conflict I've run into is in AFD discussions. As per my webcomic cleanup records, I've nominated a fair number of comics for deletion. There are a few cases where I was in the wrong and in those cases I've gladly stepped back and learned something. However, these discussions occasionally lead to people being uncivil and forgetting to assume good faith, which are two of the most important things.

I wouldn't say I've ever really been stressed out by my efforts here. We're all working to a common goal and while we might disagree on the finer points of what that entails, I think that stepping back and looking at the larger picture puts things into perspective. It's all good.

Sounds good to me. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question

I found this one on a recent RfA; thought it was interesting: "What does WP:IAR mean to you? Also, could you say something about the distinction between policy and guideline?" --Fang Aili ^talk 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always interpreted "ignore all rules" as a way of acknowledging the limitations of policy and the wording therein. If in some case we know some action is certainly within the spirit of policy but not in the letter of it, then we ignore the rule and move forward. Of course, we need to be careful with our use of WP:IAR as everyone is biased in one way or another. Before you ignore the rules, try and get a couple outside opinions to be sure your actions will truly be within the spirit of what we're trying to do here.

As for policy and guideline, I previously made the mistake of confusing the two in an AFD a month or two back. Another user pointed out the difference to me. Policies cover the core concept of what we're trying to do here. Beyond WP:IAR, they are what dictate our actions. Guidelines have the consensus of the community, but aren't set in stone. They should be used as points in discussions as they're occasionally updated and revised.

--Brad Beattie (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)