User:Corvus coronoides/Admin coaching
|
This page is an admin coaching page for Firsfron to coach Corvus coronoides |
Hey Corvus!
OK, let's get started. :) First the usual disclaimers: the admin coaching process is entirely unofficial. It's just an informal way to introduce you to adminship, answer any questions you may have about the process, and offer assistance with other problems you may have. You may withdraw from coaching at any time if you don't feel it's helpful, coaching doesn't guarantee that you'll become an admin, and you are under no obligation to become an admin if you decide you don't want to. OK, that's out of the way. :)
I believe you're my ninth admin coachee. I'm really looking forward to working with you, Corvus: your edits speak for themselves and you're a solid editor. Additionally, I have great respect for the WP:BIRD WikiProject; you guys have put together some excellent articles.
Let's start out with introductions, as it's easier to collaborate with someone if you know him/her a bit. I know you're on WP:BIRD and I've seen your good work on WP:GA. What exactly do you need coaching on? Or rather, what is unclear, and where would you like to use the admin tools? Do you know what the admin tools are?
Please feel free to call me Firs; Firsfron is hard to spell (or, rather, easy to mangle). More stuff can be found on my userpage. You're welcome to ask any question. I've got this page on my watchlist, so I'll see any comments you leave, but if you notice that I haven't responded in quite a while, please ping me on my talk page. It's hard to ignore those orange bars. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about "good work" on WP:GA. As far as I'm concerned, my work everywhere has been mediocre, which is what I want to work on. Well, I know that admins are involved with protecting pages, blocking users, and banning users. I guess what I want to know is... how best do you handle an uncivil user? Corvus coronoides talk 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if you could take a look here here and comment on my behavior in this situation, what I could do better, any advice, etc, that would be helpful. Please don't feel obligated to join in the discussion there, but as this is only my second quasi-conflict, I'd like some feedback. Corvus coronoides talk 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corvus, I have taken a look. In this situation, I feel asking for more than a hundred citations in a GA is probably excessive. I do understand that you want a citation for every paragraph, and there were obviously small sections which could have used sourcing. However, it looks like you asked for eighteen additional citations in addition to the hundred that were already there. Some of the paragraphs seemed to merely serve as introductions for later paragraphs. Strictly counting citations in each paragraph is probably less helpful than trying to see which paragraphs truly need citations. Obviously, you were acting in good faith, and you don't deserve to be "yelled" at, so I think you handled the civility warning about as well as you could have. But in my opinion this dispute could have been avoided using some common sense about what material is likely to be challenged (yes, it's true that some folks will challenge anything, but few editors are willing to anticipate the fact that any sentence can be challenged).
- You were obviously civil in this dispute, and an outstanding editor will recognize when to compromise. Does any of this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this helps. I'll go compromise then. Thanks :) Corvus coronoides talk 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if you could take a look here here and comment on my behavior in this situation, what I could do better, any advice, etc, that would be helpful. Please don't feel obligated to join in the discussion there, but as this is only my second quasi-conflict, I'd like some feedback. Corvus coronoides talk 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"The tools"[edit]
I sometimes read RfA discussions, and have seen "the tools" mentioned often. What exactly are these tools? Do they help with things like blocking people? Corvus coronoides talk 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question. Look at the top of this page. You will see a row of tabs that looks something like:
- [user page] [discussion] [edit this page] [history] [move] [(un)watch].
- And then on the side of the page, you'll see a box labeled "toolbox", with links marked something like:
- [What links here]
- [Upload file]
- (etc...)
- These are tools that are available to every logged-in user. The "admin tools" (sometimes called "the buttons") are a series of extra tabs and links at the top of the page and in the toolbox. When I am logged in as an admin, on the top of the page, in the tabs, I see:
- [user page] [discussion] [edit this page] [history] [delete] [move] [protect] [(un)watch]
- And in the toolbox I have an extra link called "block user". In total, I have eight tabs and twelve toolbox links (some are regular editor tools, some are admin tools, and a few are extra stuff). If you decide to become an admin, after a successful RFA, a 'Crat will change your status from User to Admin, and these new tools will appear on Wikipedia pages when you are logged in to your account.
- These tools are a little more advanced than the regular editing tools (or, rather, they can cause more damage if used improperly), and they are not given out lightly. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", but at the same time, these tools are given in trust by the community, and should never be misused.
- Four of the most important admin tools are Block/Unblock, Delete/Undelete, Protect/Unprotect, and Rollback. Blocking is user to block users who are disturbing the encyclopedia. The main relevant policy is WP:BLOCK. Delete is used to delete pages. The main relevant policy is at WP:DELETE. Protect is used when a page needs protection or semi-protection from vandalism or edit wars. The main policy is at WP:PROTECT. Rollback is only used to quickly revert vandalism, and is similar to the regular [Undo] link. This is covered at WP:ROLLBACK. These tools must be used carefully, and within policy. You should read all four policies, when you get a chance. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. A kind of general/vague question: what do admins normally do? I know what they can do, but I'm still unclear about what they normally do. Or is it just too varied to be generalized? Corvus coronoides talk 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It really does vary. Some admins like to hang out at WP:RFPP, some like to work on the backlogs at CAT:SPEEDY, some watch WP:AN, others work on WP:AIV, WP:COPYVIO, etc. It's just whatever you feel comfortable helping out with, and what you like doing. Since you don't get paid, no one forces you to do anything. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. Another question: what should I know about Wikipedia to become a "better" editor? Any policies I should read, etc? Corvus coronoides talk 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's always good to know policy. The list of policies has a general overview of all Wikipedia policies. The manual of style has guidelines for better article editing. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. Another question: what should I know about Wikipedia to become a "better" editor? Any policies I should read, etc? Corvus coronoides talk 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It really does vary. Some admins like to hang out at WP:RFPP, some like to work on the backlogs at CAT:SPEEDY, some watch WP:AN, others work on WP:AIV, WP:COPYVIO, etc. It's just whatever you feel comfortable helping out with, and what you like doing. Since you don't get paid, no one forces you to do anything. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. A kind of general/vague question: what do admins normally do? I know what they can do, but I'm still unclear about what they normally do. Or is it just too varied to be generalized? Corvus coronoides talk 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Question[edit]
I just had to deal with a vandal only account, User:Csapn. The account was blocked after I and User:Lobojo reported it. However, I saw this edit and was wondering - even if this account is a vandal, is this acceptable? Corvus coronoides talk 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a vandalism-only account, so I don't think there should be any objections to removing it entirely. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Removing what entirely? The account or the page? Corvus coronoides talk 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page. You can blank the material on the page and add {{Template:Indefblockeduser}} to the page. It is not possible for an admin to remove (delete) an account. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that part, but going back to a question about the original creation of the page - would you say the creation of the page was acceptable? Corvus coronoides talk 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the page had been created by a user in good standing, who was just joking around, I personally wouldn't care: after all, we should be focusing on building an encyclopedia. I don't really care what a user has on his or her userpage, to some extent, as long as it's not a disturbance to the encyclopedia. There's a guideline of what people can have on their userpages, covered at WP:UP, but it's just that: a guideline, to be treated with a little common sense. Wikipedia:UP#NOT covers what should generally not be on userpages. Does this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this helps :) Thanks. Corvus coronoides talk 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any time. That's what I'm here for. I saw you added the indef-blocked template. That's a great way, I think, to start thinking about admin tasks: blocking users and adding blocked templates is something admins regularly have to do. So, what's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good question. "What next?" Well, I'm not sure. I have not edited much lately, and I feel like that is because I don't have a goal that I am working toward. I a am a little content-weary right now - in other words, I don't feel like going through my field guide and expanding bird stubs. What do you think is a good goal for a relatively new editor like me to work towards, if becoming an administrator were one of my long-term goals? Corvus coronoides talk 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hee! Well, I don't suppose I should be telling you what your goals should or shouldn't be. You are a good user, and in the end, only you can decide what you want to do with your time on Wikipedia. We all get bored working in the same area after a while; there are so many other areas which need improvement. You could take a look at Category:All pages needing cleanup and improve some of these articles which desperately need attention. You could click on "random article" (in the navigation box) and try to improve some of those. You could take a look at the article on your hometown and try to improve it, introducing sources. You could source any of the articles which lack sources. If you wanted to help fight vandalism, you could sign up for one of the automated tools (TWINKLE, VandalProof, Popups, etc). If you wanted to help delete bad articles, you could participate regularly on Deletion debates, which would help give you an idea of what criteria is needed to keep an article on Wikipedia. Any editing work which improves the encyclopedia is a bonus, and should help you in the event that you do decide to become an admin. I hope my examples aren't too vague... Firsfron of Ronchester 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good question. "What next?" Well, I'm not sure. I have not edited much lately, and I feel like that is because I don't have a goal that I am working toward. I a am a little content-weary right now - in other words, I don't feel like going through my field guide and expanding bird stubs. What do you think is a good goal for a relatively new editor like me to work towards, if becoming an administrator were one of my long-term goals? Corvus coronoides talk 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any time. That's what I'm here for. I saw you added the indef-blocked template. That's a great way, I think, to start thinking about admin tasks: blocking users and adding blocked templates is something admins regularly have to do. So, what's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this helps :) Thanks. Corvus coronoides talk 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the page had been created by a user in good standing, who was just joking around, I personally wouldn't care: after all, we should be focusing on building an encyclopedia. I don't really care what a user has on his or her userpage, to some extent, as long as it's not a disturbance to the encyclopedia. There's a guideline of what people can have on their userpages, covered at WP:UP, but it's just that: a guideline, to be treated with a little common sense. Wikipedia:UP#NOT covers what should generally not be on userpages. Does this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that part, but going back to a question about the original creation of the page - would you say the creation of the page was acceptable? Corvus coronoides talk 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page. You can blank the material on the page and add {{Template:Indefblockeduser}} to the page. It is not possible for an admin to remove (delete) an account. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Removing what entirely? The account or the page? Corvus coronoides talk 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) No, your examples are not too vague. I suppose I'm sort of at a loss of what to do with myself as far as Wikipedia goes. I think I'll go check out WP:XFD. Corvus coronoides talk 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)