Hi, Gryffindor! Here's a scenario to get our admin coaching session started. Please respond in the indicated spots, and under the section titled Coaches' comments, Banes and I will give you suggestions, tips, etc. in response to your answers. Refer to policy pages if needed. Best of luck! (Note: This scenario was made possible thanks to Banes.) :) Sango123 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Ok, well first of all I think they should both be willing to allow a third person to try to calm things down. I can either make that proposal on the talk page of the article itself, or ask them directly on their own user talk pages. Best thing would be of course if I get asked directly. Only if I get green light from both parties, and they accept me as someone who can try to resolve the dispute, will I go ahead. This of course goes without saying that I will be polite, follow Wikiquette, be neutral, etc etc... Gryffindor 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Hm, I guess I would still try to calm Goo down. Maybe that depends on the level of personal attacks, I mean if the user is completely deranged and out of its mind, then probably leave that alone. I still think it better to try to reason first, try to calm things down, explain that you are not being biased obviously and just trying to help. If there is absolute and vehement opposition to me, then either refer the case to someone else, maybe place an alert on the Wikiquette board (depending on the behaviour of that user), ask for a third opinion from another user maybe... Gryffindor 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

   Get the hell out of there!-)) jk, hm... I would say ok guys, calm down, take a break from Wikipedia maybe for a couple of days (that really does wonders sometimes), try to cool down, assume good faith, be polite, etc etc. If that still does not work, I would maybe ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion board or ask a user who I know who is good with these things and willing. Not too sure if I would ask for an arbitration commitee, since that IMO needs to be requested by the two who are in disagreement.... maybe ask for the Mediation Cabal, but if they are both unwilling to be helped, well then. they both need to be willing to settle a dispute, I can't force anything on them. Gryffindor 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

   Stress?? pop a valium obviously. no, i make joke.... hm, I think that is quite extreme and ridiculous. If I did everything right by trying to be reasonable, patient and polite, i really don't have anthing to worry about as the facts (meaning the communication on the talk pages) should speak for themselves. It's annoying, it's not nice or comfortable, no one likes an RfC, but I am sure that if I stayed calm and only tried to help and followed the rules and procedures (mistakes can happen of course when trying to stick with the rules), it should be ok. RfCs should not be abused obviously for personal attacks or when having a grudge against someone, therefore by filing such a request, it would not reflect favourably on the user who does that itself. Gryffindor 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Perfect! Forethought and unwillingness to "jump right in" are excellent traits for this type of intervention. I like how you handled this one.
2. Right. Also take a look at the blocking policy for disruption in the case of severely detrimental behavior. Should that occur, you may want to ask another admin (for a new perspective) of their opinion in regards to a block, as imposing one yourself when you are involved with the editor may be frowned upon by some.
3. I can't force anything on them. Yes, great point. There comes a time in many disputes when it may be necessary to step back.
4. Good (minus the valium). :)

Sorry, I lost some of the detail in my comments when my browser crashed... Nice overall responses though! Regards, Sango123 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

All I can say (to chime in here), is that all looks just fine, you've handled this one perfectly, although, the real thing would of course be harder. :) Good work! Banez 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Cheers.
2. Oh of course, I am not masochistic. I mean if the user is blatantly insulting me, I will have to report him or warn him. Then see what else can be done, if the line is clearly being overstepped. I hope though that those cases of rage are extremely rare, either way they are of course not acceptable behaviour anywhere.
3. Exactly.
4. Bless those pills!-)) no i make joke, ok... Thanks for the scenario, that was fun. give me some more!

Gryffindor 10:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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.) Refer to Template:TestTemplates if necessary. Sango123 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• User1 creates a non-notable biography.

I would first have to assert if this biography really is notable or not, basing the judgement on the Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability. It could be that I just never heard of this person, who is notable though, even if it's local. Maybe do a Google search. Say hello and talk to the user and ask where this information is coming from, how is it important, etc. I would also point out to the user the Wikipedia:Notability to familiarise himself/herself first with our guidelines. Also ask another user if I'm not sure about the importance of such a biography. If the case is totally cut and clear (for example personal biography of user or someone random) post the ((nn-test)) template, which refers to the notability guidelines at the same time. When user has been informed (and it has been established that the biography really is nonsense) delete the article.

• User1 ignores your warning and recreates the article.

Hm, I cannot find a template for users who repeadetly recreate a biography in that case. I would try to continue that dialogue and ask what's going on here and again, how is this important (if user ignored my question or something like that). If it is blatantly not important, give a warning to stop recreating nonsense. Not too sure what template to use in that case, can a biography be considered vandalism? If the article is recreated, it can fall under pov-pushing, but I don't really see a specific warning template for such a case. Probably post a ((test2-n)) or even ((test3-n)) if it has been established that this biography is completely useless and nonsensical. Delete article again if necessary.

• User2 inserts "1 4/\/\ t3h 1337 h4x012!11!!1!!" multiple times to random articles, but has not received any warnings yet.

Say hello, tell that person to stop or add a ((test)) or ((test-n)) template if I want to be more specific. Ask user to revert the changes, or do it myself. Is there such a thing as a spam server that can automatically post such things on a number of random articles?

• User3 adds obscene comments and/or images to an article.

Blatant vandalism. Say hello and post a ((vw)) or to be more specific a ((vw-n)) warning. Ask user to revert the changes or do it myself.

• User3 does it again

Oh boy.... post a warning on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts board about the violation, as well as any other board if necessary to inform the general public about the going on's (depends on how bad the situation gets). Get the help of a second user if necessary. I would post the ((blatantvandal)) template (if there are multiple vandalisms on different pages), or if I want to be more specific (one article) the ((blatantvandal-n)) warning. Ask user to revert vandalism or revert it myself.

• User4 has a ((test4)) warning from two weeks ago, but has just resumed vandalism today.

This is difficult to answer, because the question does not tell me if the user has an account or is using an I.P. address. It could be that it's an AOL address, or from a school, etc. If nevertheless it seems to be the same user (same articles, similar vandalism, etc.) I would maybe post one more warning, if it's too obvious then probably block that I.P. address straightaway with ((test5)). If it is from a registered user account, block with ((test5)). User has been warned before, two weeks or not. I would cleanup after the vandal.

• User5 has been blocked many times before, and vandalises once today.

Again, is it an anonymous user or a registered one? If it's anonymous, I would get more help from other users to determine if the I.P. address is from a school, AOL, etc... difficult to say really. If the vandalism does not seem to be from the same person, then probably give a warning again. If the user is the same one, either from an I.P. address or from a user account, post ((test6)). Cleanup the vandalism.

• User6 is an NPA violator, but only against you.

err, I assume NPA means neutral-point-of-argument? If this is a case that is only between us, then I need to deal with this on a bilateral basis on each other's talk pages. If case is super-persistent, get the opinion of others, maybe wait a little as well, give it some time.

Actually, WP:NPA is "no personal attacks". —Nightstallion (?) 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• User7 is a page move vandal.

If case is clear, say hello, post a ((test2m)) warning if blatant vandalism. Ask user to revert the changes. If worst comes worst I would have to clean up after the mess done.

P.S. Happy Valentine's Day, Gryffindor! :D

P.P.S. cheers guys, you too :-) sorry if took longer to reply this time.

Overall, looking good (I havent checked carefully), however, generally its best just to revert the changers yourself, before another vandal fighter does. Banez 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and for user3, best to slap a bv on straightaway ;) Banez 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• User1 – Right. You might also consider protecting the page and adding ((deletedpage)) if the speedied article is persistently recreated for vandalism.
• User2 – Yes, see vandalbot. These are dealt with more severely.
• User3 – No need to be polite and go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. ;) Warn with ((obscene)) or ((bv)) right away, and block if s/he does it again.
• User4, User5 – Good answers.
• User6 – NPA = no personal attacks. Sorry, that was a violation of Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. ;)
• User7 – Page move vandals (registered accounts only) are often blocked indefinitely (infinitely) at once. You know what happens when these users get loose... :)

Overall, good responses. How often do you revert and report vandalism? Regards, Sango123 (e) 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Ah ha I see, ok didn't know about the ((deletedpage)) good to know.

2. Yes, I thought it was something like that.

3. Alright. But then when is the ((vw)) used, in case where it's only a mild vandalism, such as screwed up edit or something like that by a new user?

• I've always considered ((vw)) to be a more condescending version of ((test)). I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia... :) So yes, it's probably best for mild cases or as a first warning. Sango123 (e) 03:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

4 and 5. cheers

6. AH, I see (these abbreviations can be confusing). Ok, no personal attacks whatsoever against whomsoever. Personal attacks can be interpreted differently I guess, however I am assuming the question is in case of a blatant personal attack. Tell that user to stop, probably report on the Wikiquette alerts. I am allowed to remove personal attacks from my talk board (has happened to me already). If this continues, take the steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, get the opinion of a third user as well. Personal question: an irrate user once called me a Nazi (amongst other things, that was just the tip of the iceberg), not only on my talk page, but on other article pages. Would that have warranted a block (let's say, for 24 hours?). I was extremely offended, because I had to endure other verbal abuse from that user before that which I thought "ok bad enough but stay calm". But that comment just did it for me, took a break from Wikipedia for days after that.

• There are also warning templates for personal attacks: ((no personal attacks)), ((attack)), ((npa3)), and ((npa4)) (blocked for disruption). Sango123 (e)

Ok good to know, thanks.

7.Willy on Wheels?? you must be joking, I never knew such a thing existed... probably more like he's got a wheel loose.

• Not joking. Have you taken a look at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels? ;) Sango123 on wheels! 03:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No way!

(Even Banes was graced with a willy impersonator once!) Banez 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds almost more like an honour at this point to be chosen :-))

Ha ha, the 3 revert rule, how will I ever forget that one (check my Archive4 User talk page to see what happened)? 3 reverts allowed only within 24 hours. Should I get too close to breaking the limit, let other users revert it. This applies to a user though, where the issue at hand is question of content of an article. If it is blatant vandalism, the 3 revert rule does not apply, meaning I can keep on reverting (and warning) until the user has reached the limit and gets blocked, either by me or another sysop.
About your second question regarding the report, my understanding is I should report the case openly after that user has gone through all the warning procedure and after the user has vandalised again after the last warning. This should only happen though, if that user vandalised within a couple of hours after the last warning. If the user breached the warning limits, as a sysop I can simply block that user and remove the warning from the list, since that case is "taken care of" for a while by the block. Gryffindor 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but did I answer your last questions correctly or did I miss something? Gryffindor 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gryffindor, I have one more..sorry. What if a user vandalises, but only your userpage, rather obscure, but what if? Would you treat him like a normal vandal? Banez 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my user page (you are not talking about the user talk page, right?). User pages are never to be touched, except by the user itself, unless there is a problem with the page itself (incorrect links, images with copyright limitations, in worst case suspected sock-puppetry template may be posted, etc...). Apart from that no one should touch the User front page. When it's vandalism, that's even worse. Vandalism gets removed from my user page (either by me or by an attentive sysop that noticed it before me), and vandal goes through the normal warning procedures, therefore gets treated like a normal vandal. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How did I answer the other questions above? Gryffindor 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody willing to be an admin, better get at least 75% edit summary usage for major edits. :) Just a friendly advice. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be a bit harsh to say "better get," but Oleg is right to some extent. Although Gryffindor does use a considerable amount of edit summaries, I might as well just post the reason for this here. Obviously, edit summaries help users patrolling RC to determine if an edit is legit or not. Also, if someone wants to look through your edit history for types of edits done, it helps to have edit summaries. Like I said, I don't think Gryffindor's got a problem in this department. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have put in summaries before, apparently I should have done more. Ever since that has been pointed out, I've been summarising my edits to almost 100%. But I just wasn't aware of this rule or regulation before. Gryffindor 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

With admin tools, what would you do in the following situations?

• In an attempt to move article A to a new article with page title B, a user 1) cuts all content from page A and replaces it with a redirect to page B, and 2) pastes everything into page B. Since the user did not use the move function, the page history of the article will be lost on page B. How would you fix this?
  • ok, cutting-and-paste moves are a big no no and articles should always be moved or be submitted for a move, not copy-pasted. The user who did that should be informed about what should have been done, so that the mistake won't be repeated. The process of fixing such a page history is rather complicated. I would have to revert the moves done by the user and restore the articles as they were. If the user wanted to move it anyways, discuss it with the user so that the copy+past move is not repeated, point out that there is a moving option, which will take along the history of the article with it, which is vital. Should the article remain at the name that is has been moved to, the histories would have to be manually merged, however apparently that is a complicated process and I have not encountered it yet (obviously) so I can only answer that question about the exact procedure once I am confronted with that.
• After being blocked, an anonymous user proceeds to blank all the warnings issued on his talk page. You revert several times, but the user gives no signs of stopping. What would you do?
  • Hm, as far as I know users are allowed to doctor with their own talk pages as they wish. Warnings however should not be removed, since that is an important indication for other sysops how to deal with such a user, especially in anonymous cases because we need to know if this is a shared I.P. (from a school or AOL for example). I need to be careful about the three revert rule, get other sysops or users to help in the revertions. In cases of continued vandalism, etc. is the removal of such warnings really problematic, since it would be difficult to see how many times that user has been warned or even blocked already. An indication of a block should however not be removed IMO, since that is important for future dealings. If user keep on removing, report the user on a forum so at least we have it on-file somewhere. Block in worst case it user does not stop.
• You speedily delete a nonsense article consisting of Bob is teh awesome! However, the author doesn't like this and demands to know why his/her article was deleted. How would you explain?
  • Nonsense is nonsense, this would fall under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I would be polite to that user and point out the policy here Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and ask the user to read through that first. As long as the user does not keep repeating the nonsense, just talk and explain to the user. Should it happen again, more drastic measures will have to be taken, with multiple warnings. in worst case, block.

Good luck! Sango123 (e) 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Right. The procedure for fixing cut-and-paste moves can be found here.
• Unfortunately, blocking a user does not prevent them from editing their talk page. Removing warnings is considered vandalism (see ((wr)) and ((wr2))), so you don't need to worry about 3RR when reverting. If the blankings continue, semi-protect the talk page to prevent new and unregistered users from editing it and add ((usertalk-sprotect)) at the top.
• Perfect. :)

Great work! Regards, Sango123 (e) 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything else you'd like cover? :) Sango123 (e) 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)