User:HG1/training

This page contains information on my training and self-evaluation within Wikipedia.

Drafting replies to standard RfA questions

RfA Question 1: What admin work do you intend to take part in?

As an admin, primarily, I would be contribute by working to ensure that articles comply with WP editorial policies and to make the editing environment more civil and collaborative. To this end, I currently deal with disputes among registered users and edit conflicts/warring, esp over Israel/Palestine topics. Much of my work in this regard does not require admin tools. Nonetheless, I would occasionally like the opportunity to impose appropriate sanctions on individual users, or temporarily protect pages. I doubt that I would need to do this often, but the authority to sanction does need to be exercised at times and it may enhance the effectiveness of my warnings to folks. As I become more comfortable using sanctions, I would broaden the range of topics where I could help out.

This work could lead me to help out with requests for page protection (RPP), moves, and edit warring (3RR) sanctions.

- //NB As an uninvolved party, I can be more effective in quieting the I-P battlefield as an admin. //, since it works best when admins both issue the appropriate warnings and follow-up their warnings with suitable sanctions.

Secondarily, I would work on AfDs and a few other XfDs (e.g., categories, templates). This work is motivated, too, by my interest in WP policies and guidelines. I think I would also be useful at deletion review (DRV), though I've only participated there a few times.

I have great respect for admins who fight vandalism and do other system maintenance work. Such work isn't my forte or interest, though I'll continue to revert vandalism and warn vandals on an ad hoc basis and, as an admin, I would issue appropriate sanctions. (Also, I don't plan currently to work on copyright or image q's, not my skill set.)

RfA Question 2: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

As an editor, I've enjoyed creating or contributing significantly to articles. Recently, it occurred to me to do this thru DYK and I loved that, too. Perhaps because WikiProject Judaism doesn't focus on GA/FA efforts, I haven't either. I did participate actively in a collaborative effort to move Palestinian costumes to GA.

In my view, my best contributions have been toward promoting policy and trying to handle/resolve conflicts among editors. I worked hard to try to facilitate discussions over Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This effort included extensive work on policy aspects of renaming the article, which did eventually happen. In Sept '07, I also facilitated consensus over restructuring the article and kept an eye on the level of rancor and edit warring. I've been called upon or volunteered to facilitate editorial conflicts on various other Isr-Palestine pages: I'm almost always able to bring the conversation down to a constructive focus, though the editing results are mixed. In January '08, I created a WikiProject to promote collaborative editing for the I-P topic area and have served as a moderator there. We've achieved some ad hoc results. We've helped document and smooth out the battlefield. Nonetheless, I sense that the biggest improvements have come from the ArbCom decision to allow discretionary sanctions, so I think access to admin sanctions would enable me to contribute more in this arena.

I also love working on disputes that hinge on WP policy judgments, so I occasionally do things like 3PO and AfD work, or intervene on sourcing disputes, etc. This is satisfying, though advising on policy itself does not require admin tools. Still, it gives me useful experience for XfD and related policy work.

(Given these interests, I should mention that my contributions to Wikipedia are reflected in the edit count for Talk pages, where I do nearly all my Isr-Pal work. I don't often directly edit on disputed I-P pages.

RfA question 3: Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I do feel some degree of stress in working on various I-P editing disputes, though I mostly feel thrilled that I manage to act as if I were a calm, kind and unflappable editor/facilitator. Much of my wikistress comes when I get over-excited about a proposed compromise or reconciliation idea; I've had to lower my expectations and develop patience with the pace of editing progress. I did get into a direct editing conflict myself over the structure and naming of Progressive/Reform Judaism articles, and with an individual proponent. I tried an WQA and various Talk pages but, rather than come to a complete mutual understanding, we dealt with it by leaving the disputed articles alone. Another conflict happened when I started what I thought would be a non-controversial I-P article on postage stamps, but we ran into a naming dispute. I'm perceived as stubborn there. I've occasionally felt stressed in working with a few individual editors*, not so much due to a direct conflict w/me but because the community is uncertain how to deal with them. I try to deal with stressful situations by being patience, courteous and respectful to people, trying to understand other people's views, and, as needed, taking time away from disputes that I get too personally involved with. In many cases, I find that things also get ironed out if I tread lightly and call in other opinions.

Note to self: PR is an example of this. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PR#Brief comment by HG

Conflicts with other users

Some of my less shining moments include:

This discussion where I focused on a user's viewpoint / motivations. She was insulted and we soon dropped it. (She was also offended by a comment of mine in ArbCom discussion but we worked it out, here. Generally, our working relationship if fine. (Another user on that same page was fairly exasperated with my reasoning or stubbornness about the article title. But I think we kept things pretty civil and occasionally compliment each other.)

I had a more serious conflict with a couple editors working on Progressive Judaism. I did not assume enough good faith about some of their extensive editing and spin-outs of Reform (aka Progressive) Judaism. I submitted AfDs for these spin-outs and soon ate crow, withdrew the AfD's and apologized. However, in November 2007, I continued to have a conflict with one of the editors, who filed a WQA on a third party and who I argued with on my Talk.

Another interpersonal conflict happened when I told an editor, at Legal status of Hawaii that I found her comments' antagonistic. She felt I had judged her unfairly and was patronizing. We discussed it fully and it didn't get out of hand.

The lesson here is that I still am trying to figure out how to handle my interactions with editors whom I perceive to have a strong viewpoint that may be flavoring their editorial judgment. Most of the time, I do fairly well, but I've tripped up on occasion.

Optional RfA questions

JamieS93 questions

Which is the more important policy WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? Please don't explain your answer.

HG: Civil because NPA is a arguably a subset.

Which in your opinion is the most important Wikipedia policy? Again please don't explain your answer.

HG: WP:WIN because the core mission accounts for a few other key principles, eg neutrality

This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

HG (need to look again at that page, but from memory:) I'm not inclined to take the level of vulgarity into consideration in making a judgment about the block. It seems to me that the vandalism was repetitive and deliberate, and the purpose of (escalating) blocks is to ensure that the user discontinues their conduct. I would be inclined to affirm the user's constructive edit and to encourage them to wait out the block and come back to contribute to our project.

closer analysis -- the 2nd warning is pretty quick, could they have read the 1st one already? Also, maybe they think they're just commenting on the existing article as wrong (i.e., BS)? (See policy: expressing opinion may not be vandalism.) Then, vandalizing user pages. Clearly disruptive, but on the other hand a kind of testing the limits in the face of the challenge (from Alpha Beta). 5 days later: v3 looks deserved. v4 ok, but maybe too quick for response? Then 1 Good edit. Then continues to disrupt, 1 week block. After misstep, issues a more contrite unblock request and promise to stop vandalizing. Ok, well, this one does seem to take it more seriously. Not sure what the downside would be to unblocking. If they vandalize again pretty soon, their credibility for an unblock is pretty shot.

This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

I would like WP to have a system of periodic admin evaluation and recall. Absent such a system, I am not confident that we have a robust voluntary recall system in place, though I certainly respect those who have designed it, signed up and respected it. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable person and can tell when there are sufficient doubts/opposition to my judgment that I no longer have the community's confidence to be a sysop. That said, I don't have enough experience at this juncture to predict what those circumstances might be, esp since I intend to avoid getting anywhere near that kind of situation. At the same time, I'm a big believer in institutional processes and would encourage people who have complaints about me to work these complaints through the WP channels, including the ArbCom de-sysop procedures as need be.

The current AOR process is problematic and category kept yet disputed.

Should IRC be used in order to make any decisions regarding GA reviews, policy violations, etc.? Have you ever used IRC in order to make these decisions (such as passing GA reviews)? And if so, how will that change when you are an administrator?

I have very little experience with IRC. I have used IRC for help with editing and education about some policy questions (though often by getting links to the right pages). Likewise, I could imagine consulting with more experienced admins about decisions I might make, and perhaps IRC is a mechanism for obtaining such advice. Otherwise...

What does 3RR mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?

HG: (need to look at policy again) Mention how to identify the 3 reverts within a time period. May be done via undo or direct edits, though not nec same text each instance. It is not a permit to go up to 3RR. Nor should multiple users coordinate to avoid 3RR technically (tag team). The policy may be applied correctly, on occasion, to reverts and edit warring that do not meet 3RR itself. On the other hand, I might ignore the policy in cases of clear of BLP or copyright violation (or serious harrassment or threats?, etc), if reverts were the only/best way to handle the situation. Vandalism aspects...(seems to me that these get undone, of course, but it's not considered part of the 3RR process. Plus blocks or page protections...)

What does 3RR mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?
(Jamie) 3RR is a policy meant to prevent repeated unconstructive reverting and edit warring over two or more parties' non-vandalistic edits. In keeping with the BRD cycle, content disputes should instead be discussed between the two parties (with perhaps a third opinion), since endless reverting doesn't help the problem or get it anywhere. The only time that 3RR does not apply is when reverting vandalism, or if one party is inserting sensitive material like copyright violations or a clear BLP violation.

In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.

HG: Well, I'd avoid doing a block solely to cool down a user. If a person needs to be cooled down but is not acting in a manner that justifies a block, I would try to cool them down by other means. If a person deserves block because they are angry, then the appropriate block would serve to help cool them down as a byproduct or benefit of the block. But I'd try not to let my interpretation of their anger, need to chill out, unduly influence my decision about whether to block them.

A. First off, following the policy at WP:CDB, cool-down blocks shouldn't be used. As for my own application of that, I personally would not step into the area of WP:IAR to disregard a fairly important piece of policy. More importantly, it's based on reasonable logic that I agree with. Since blocks are meant to prevent damage to Wikipedia, I consider it this way: is the user(s) in question causing damage to Wikipedia? If their heated comments or actions are not breaching WP:NPA and remaining fairly civil, I see "cooling down" as an insufficient reason to block – it would agitate the situation, because one or more users would feel that their legitimate opinion is being ignored for the sake of arbitrarily keeping a discussion cool-headed. Granted, in many situations where users are getting hot-headed and angry, incivility or attacks come with the territory. A good reason for blocking would only be if incivility got too far, however, not just frustrating a good faith user by trying to cool things down.

Have you previously edited under another name?

Due to anonymity concerns, I have an SPA to add content where I have some specialized expertise. It made 28 mainspace edits, created 2 articles (stubs really), and has no activity since July 2005.

In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

HG: Great question. Let me say, though, that I don't see why admin tools or responsibilities need come into play in resolving what seems to be a content dispute. One step would be to ask the disgruntled editors to patiently explain what's going on to the newbie. Second, if the consensus text is truly unverifiable, then I'd ask them to discuss how their version lines up with the pillar of WP:V. Fourth, they could be reminded that consensus is both subject to change and that, in the WP understanding of consensus, it's not merely the majority because a minority may have a more compelling case. In a nutshell, according to WP policy, its sounds like the newbie has the proper edit, not the majority, but the majority on that Talk page might not be called the "consensus" for WP policy purposes.

- Thoughts about this draft response?

As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

HG. Examples of helping newbies:

Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

lankviel

Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If I felt that the community as a whole had lost faith in me or trust in me to use the tools in a responsible fashion, I would voluntarily suspend myself until the issue had been resolved, whether through reconfirmation or some other manner. As an example, if I were taken in front of ArbCom on grounds relating to misuse of the tools, I would be happy to be temporarily desysopped until ArbCom could make a permanent ruling.

xeno question
- A. Given the extensive history of abusive language and vandalism, and the fact that the user continued to vandalise after the solitary constructive effort, it would be difficult in the extreme to assume good faith to a point that I'd be comfortable in unblocking them. However, I would at the same time not decline such a request from a user that I had myself blocked. Instead I would leave it for another uninvolved admin to judge and make a call on. In the worst case scenario for the end-user, they'll only have to wait a week anyway to be allowed to edit, and they can contribute constructively then.

If you noticed me and another editor in a tendentious edit war over the Cricket in Iceland article, will increasingly inappropriate comments flying across our talk pages, what are the chances you would give either or both of us a cool down block?
A. If you and another editor got into a tendentious edit war over that particular article, I'd be very impressed that you and another person actually managed to find some material to disagree on! More seriously though, I would not be handing out CDBs, as I agree with the general assessment that they usually do more to heat a situation up than cool it down. If the inappropriate comments on the talk pages crossed the line (per WP:BLOCK), then I might hand out some blocks, but I would attempt to calm both parties down and mediate before I started breaking out the tools.

9. Do you believe articles should ever be speedily deleted from Wikipedia under the rationale of ignore all rules? Townlake (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
A. I suppose you might be able to construct a particular hypothetical scenario where ignoring the CSD guidelines would be the best way to improve the encyclopædia, but generally speaking, no. The CSD criteria are pretty good, I feel, and I personally will be going "by the book" in applying them.

Optional questions from DGG (talk)

10. Do you intend to close AfDs on topics where you have a strong opinion in general about the notability or desirability of the articles in general? DGG (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- A I do not intend to avoid such topics, but I will not seek them out either. I don't see that this will be a problem, because I don't intend to close an AfD as "delete" (or any other outcome), unless there is a clear and unambiguous consensus to do so, per the deletion policy. I feel that I won't have any problem separating my personal feelings about such articles from the job of impartially determining consensus.

Myself, I decided to avoid such topics entirely, knowing that I sometimes had firm opinions that were not generally shared, and not wanting to take the chance that my judgement in those areas might, in spite of every good intention, still somewhat tend to reflect my own opinion. DGG (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

- - I certainly respect such a decision if you choose to make it, and if many of my closures on a given topic start getting overturned at DRV, then I guess I will have to look at this again, but seeing as I've been able to write what I hope are impartial biographies of people I don't particularly care for, and because my real-life job demands impartiality, I am very confident that I won't have any problems of that type. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

- A: Again from the original question #9, I believe that you might be able to construct a hypothetical scenario where it would be acceptable to ignore the WP:BLOCK policy and issue one. However, I struggle to think of what such a scenario might entail. I do not see myself ever issuing a CDB, again, because I agree with the reasoning that they usually only serve to inflame the situation, which is not something that I want to do.

12. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
13. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

moni3

What is the difference between a block and a ban?
How would you establish notability in line with deletion?
Now for the story problem: 7. There is a large debate on a talk page about the inclusion of a topic in the article. The article is fully protected because of edit warring. The extreme majority favor the inclusion of one sentence, however, a lone dissenter favors a different sentence, one that is backed up by several reliable sources. The Editprotected template is placed on the page and the majority asks you to insert their sentence, citing WP:CONSENSUS, but the dissenter tells you to put in his sentence instead, citing WP:RS and WP:V. Which sentence do you put in?
Why have you chosen to not customize your Wikipedia signature?
Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
9a. ...an editor to be blocked?
A: Constant disruptions to the process of building the encyclopedia, uncivil behavior in the extreme (and by that I mean pulling out big guns with epithets, threats, and other comments that make talk pages very hostile environments—as opposed to what some editors take as uncivil behavior), violations to 3RR, and vandalism, plagiarism, or deliberately posting false information. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
9b. ...a page to be protected?

A: Frequent vandalism, edit warring, immediate quick changes (a living subject has died and huge amounts of edits are trying to be made at once). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

9c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
A: Is blatantly false, fabricated, a hoax, or such an obvious fan or smash page that no amount of reliable sources could save it to make it work within the context it has been written for. Non-notable subjects without reliable sources (which I felt needed a clarifier, since some subjects appear to be non-notable on the surface until more information in uncovered). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
9d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
A: When the rules really aren't that clear and editors are stuck trying to figure out what to do, at an impasse, or seeing only two options. I hardly ever think there are two options to solve a single problem. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
10. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

A: This is another tricky one, and from the information in the example you gave, its hard to make a call one way or the other without knowing additional information, for instance, whether the article in question is a BLP, whether the sourcing is reliable, etc etc. Generally speaking, and without underemphasising the importance of consensus, I would have to say that in my view verifiability comes out with its nose slightly in front, when it comes to importance, particularly in situations where people may be adversely affected by something unverifiable written here.

Misc Stuff

Unblocking process: unblocking processes beyond the unblock template, include m:OTRS Unblock queue, unblock-en-l mailing list, and #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. Courtesy of User:Swatjester

Self-evalution:

Shortcomings in article editing
Why haven't I been involved in a GA/FA effort? Wissenschaft or similar B class article? Jewish studies? Also, the Jewish history article is rather weak, as is Jewish law, Responsa history, etc. Maimonides, Mussar movement, Jewish medical ethics or Jewish ethics (needs much writing/revising respectively). Simchat Torah, Shoftim (parsha)
Facilitation progress, frustrations, and time. Q's about number of interventions in a given conversation, when to propose and when to let others propose (Islam & antisemitism), when to move from contributing process to contributing edits, how much to do thru user Talk, dealing w/multiple forums (Prog/Reform),
Learning various WP policies and guidelines, using them effectively, etc.
Learning various WP procedures, e.g. dealing w/vandalism, user conduct, XfD, ANx, etc
Editor review (done)

Reasons for number of edits in mainspace

Examples of successful mediation work

Example of creative way to deal with two editors battling thru wikispace.

Wikipedia Cases and Lessons

Example of ultra vires and sovereignty dilemma as it pertains to Wikipedia leadership Jimbo Wales RfC

Recent case involving User:Durova, User:!! and User:GianoII, etc. in ArbCom and elsewhere

How about a WP page dealing with the precedents in ArbCom, AfD, CSN, and other decisions. Does it exist?

Kelly Martin Essjay Other high profile cases?

List of AfD and other precedents. Why not more precedent records?

On admin conflicts-of-interest: "Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute." From Dbachmann case, 10-0.

One of many discussions of WP:CANVASS: 'crat Talk

Sample notices

Greetings. Welcome to Wikipedia. Since we are hard at work writing an encyclopedia, it is unhelpful if you experiment with articles such as 613 Mitzvot. The changes you make require somebody else to come along and clean it up. Please experiment instead in the WP:SANDBOX. Feel free to join us and become familiar with our volunteer project. (Further inappropriate changes will be considered "vandalism" of our work and may lead to a block on the use of this account here. Thanks.