User:Soumyasch/AdminCoaching

Admin coaching · soum^সৌমোyasch · Bane s · Sango 123

16 June 2006[edit]

Hi, Soum! Here's a scenario to get our admin coaching session started. Please respond in the indicated spots, and under the section titled Coaches' comments, your coaches will give you suggestions, tips, etc. in response to your answers. Refer to policy pages if needed. Best of luck! :)

Scenario[edit]

Two editors, Goo and Foo, are in a heated edit war on some controversial article, like War on Terrorism.

1. You kindly try to intervene and mediate between these two clowns. How would you go about it?

Well, it depends mostly on the subject of the edit war. If it is due to factual errors, or misinterpretation of facts, I will start by backing the correct party and politely informing the other where s/he went wrong. However, if the article is not on my area of expertise, I would leave it to the editors to put the information.

Things get trickier when the warring is on light the information is to be presented in. I would ask each party to re-state their grudges against the other as objectively as they can. Then I would present the merits and demerits of each in an unbiased way, and suggest modifications so that a compromise can be reached. I would be very careful in making sure I point out all possible policy violations. If any party is commenting not on the article, but the contributor as well, I will be strict in warning of the consequences, and try to talk him out, may be twice or thrice. If that doesn't work, well, I am getting tempted for a small block to show them what can be done. In case technical aspects of the article are involved, I would go for consensus if I am not in a position to decide over the technicalities.

If the edit war is over inclusion of certain lines in the article, I will first make sure they are in tune with policies. If it relates to the technicality of the subject, I would encourage other editors of the article point out the mistakes of the erring party, and thus help reach a consensus.

In case my opinion is challenged by either party, I would request their rationale and decide on the merits of their argument, whether I stick with my opinion, or apologize and try for a better suggestion that addresses the concerns.

However, this assumes both parties are not just revert warring, but are actually willing to talk it out. If they are just reverting to their versions, without presenting their rationale, I will first try to politely invite them to sort it out on talk pages. If they dont pay any heed to the messages, I will warn them, and perhaps invite community consensus. If still nothing changes, I would be left with no option but to block to get them to their senses.

One thing I always maintain that if I prefer any suggestion, I tend to praise the person who came up with it. It helps a lot in sooting tense nerves.

By now you must have realized I love to write on and on and on. :-) It is further proved by the fact that I am one of the major contributors to an article which currently stands at 111KB. :P

2. Goo responds negatively to your intervention, attacks you personally, and claims you are biased toward Foo. Do you back off and leave the whole thing alone, or do you reply to Goo and try to reason with him?

I would definitely try to reason out with him. I will point out to him that his grudges are against my comments and not me, and will further clarify why Foo's edits are more in sync with whats acceptable, if I indeed had favored Foo's suggestions. So rather than pointing fingers at me, Goo should come forward with his issues against my comments, and then factor them in without compromising the integrity of the article or of wikipedia policies. If that calms Goo down, fine. If not and he still continues personal attack, I will start with warnings, while still politely requesting for his feedback on my comments and not me.

I would not get angry over him for isolated instances of personal attacks. But if he turns it into a vendetta, I am not sure but may be take him to an RfC, but definitely not leave the goofies (oops Goo and Foo) to fight out forever.

3. Foo also starts to grow peevish, and does the same as Goo. How would you react?

I will start by pointing out why his suggestions were wrong or right. Then I would do the same with him - ask him for his grudges and talk it out with him.

4. Goo calls for an RfC against you. Bogus though it is, it'll make you stressed. What would your reaction be?

An RfC would not freak me out, if it maintains decency and does not contain too much personal attack. I would clearly present my facts and rationale bare to the community. And if it does personally attack me, well, he is showing how well behaved he is to the community. :P

Coaches' comments[edit]

First comment :). In your answer to "1.", you said that "tempted to...small block to show them what can be done", while there is nothing "officially" wrong with that, perfectly within policy, it would be advisable to seek another admin and ask him (or her) for his opinion and to take the neccessary steps. This way, Goo (blocked) will not feel like you are on the side of Foo. It will be easier to appear neutral and gain their trust if you do not directly block one of them. (More comments later. :)) -- Bane s 16:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, and be sure that both sides are aware of the three-revert rule, which, if violated, will need to be enforced. You can report violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but you might want to leave {{3RR}} and {{3RR4}} warnings first. The Mediation Cabal can also be of assistance. Sango 123 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. If the personal attacks don't show any signs of stopping, warn him with {{npa2}}, {{npa3}}, and {{npa4}}. There's also a personal attack intervention noticeboard, and "excessive personal attacks" can be a blockable offense. Sango 123 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and see comments to #2 as well. Sango 123 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well done. :) Sango 123 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Any other questions or concerns[edit]

If you have any other questions or suggestions, please post them below.

4 July 2006[edit]

Based on the following occurrences, what test templates or warnings would you issue? And if there is any further action you should take, what would it be? Suppose you have admin abilities.

Scenarios[edit]

User1 creates a non-notable biography about his garage band.
User1 ignores your warning and recreates the article.
User2 inserts "1 4/\/\ t3h 1337 h4x012!11!!1!!" multiple times to random articles, but has not received any warnings yet.
User3 adds obscene comments and/or images to an article.
User3 does it again.
User4 has a {{test4}} warning from two weeks ago, but has just resumed vandalism today.
User5 has been blocked many times before, and vandalises once today.
User6 is an NPA violator, but only against you.
User7 is a page move vandal.

Assigned reading[edit]

Since this session shouldn't take as long as the first one, please spend some time to read through and develop a good understanding of the following policy pages. Thanks!

Coaches' comments[edit]

Any other questions or concerns[edit]

If you have any other questions or suggestions, please post them below.