User:Swatjester/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page for the purpose of SWATJester to get Admin coaching with Mr. Lefty.

Hi there, coachee! All you really have to do is just say what you want to work on, and I'll help you with it. Maybe you'd like to start by addressing the issues on your previous RfA? Up to you. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good place to start, I'm sure will find plenty of stuff to go onto from there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm out of town for a funeral until Wednesday. I'll probably have nothing to do BUT use my computer most of that time, but definitely tomorrow I won't have internet. I'll make sure to pay attention to this page as soon as I get access though, so hopefully you shouldn't see any difference. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, from what I read of your previous RfA, the main concern was that you tended to be too argumentative and sometimes incivil. Do you think you have improved on that since then? --Mr. Lefty (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes I believe that I have. There's been a couple of instances lately where I've gotten into a dispute with someone about something content wise, and as it starts to get heated, I just stop. If I can't find a compromise, I'm learning to consider concession as a possible alternative. It's frustrating, and I don't like doing it, but in the end this is just an encyclopedia, and its not worth the stress of fretting over. Hmm...there are two examples: One was the layout on the United States Army Special Forces page. I had one idea, the other guy had another idea. I submitted it to WP:3O, but it took too long so I just basically let the other guy do his thing. 3O came back later on, and it wasn't helpful anyway and didn't resolve the problem. The second situation....trying to remember here, oh yeah. It was on a massive merge and restructuring of a series of articles involving C4ISTAR, RSTA, and the like. I had created RSTA, now Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition. The merger/split/redirecting/disambig deal was completely civil, between me and the other users: there was one main guy, myself, and a couple guys who came in every now and then. Problem was, we both compromised on a couple things, but were sort of deadlocked on a major issue. To be honest, I can't remember how we ended up resolving it, but it got resolved satisfactorily somehow. I'm really not sure how both of us ended up happy: momma always told me compromises are when you both get pissed and nobody wins (joking, but it carries a veneer of truth sometimes).

So that's the argumentiveness. It's not that I'm less argumentative, although I think I've cut back a little, but that I'm more open to compromise, and concession that I was before. The type of editing that I find myself doing a lot of involves anti-vandalism, and a lot of grammar restructuring, clarity restructuring, and tagging fact or cn tags, or deleting unreferenced statements per WP:V/WP:RS. It is a necessary job to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the encyclopedia, but unfortunately, it tends to draw confrontation. I think that it'd be important as an admin not to shy away from confrontation, but to handle it properly and maturely, and to keep an open mind and willingness to work. I think I've much improved on that since last RFA.

Incivility: I think my last RFA was less about incivility, but rather a sort of hostile attitude and a lack of good faith, specifically towards anon users. Well, one of the problems was I had wrote that, and forgot about it, shortly after joining the project. By my RFA, my views had changed, though I sort of agreed with some of it (and wrote a much toned down version). But some of the more extreme stuff was left in there, and I forgot about those.

That should not be an issue next time. I'm much more receptive and open towards anons. I've seen the good they do to this project and I now believe it outweighs the bad.

As for incivility, I don't think I've been too bad on that in the past, but its a sad byproduct of arguing. With the aforementioned decrease in arguments, there's a corresponding increase in civility. Basically, I argue nicer now. Sure, like everyone, certain people push my buttons, especially on issues that I hold dear to my heart, but lately I've just learned to let it go. If they're out of line, someone else will yell at them. The more I shout, the greater the chance I'll mess up and say something wrong. Better to let the snert blow his load off, and if he violates policy, take the appropriate measures, if not, just leave it alone.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Sorry for the delay; I've been busy, then I lost my Internet access for a while. Anyway, here's a CSD exercise created by EWS23:

Okay, this is a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases that I have come across while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through my deletion log to see if I deleted it, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (I plan on using these for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything (I'm the only contributor), but remember that in real cases the page history is important. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Halo 3 trailier

Keep and AFD. I'm borderline for wanting to do it with CSD A1, but it's right on the border of counting. I would do it under A7, but I'm not 100% sure whether it counts under that because its not a person or company, and I don't know if it counts as web content. So I'd put it up to AFD.

Actually I just noted: the article's name is spelled wrong, which would imply that it may be a bad page move or a POV fork of some sort. Therefore, due to the several "borderline" traits of it, AND the misspelled name, and the complete lack of verified and sourced content, I'd actually speedily delete it, citing A1 and A7 if challenged. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union Millwright

CSD A3: There is no content on the page, just links. Simple. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webs

Speedy A7/G11. Reads as an advertisement, vanity page with no assertion of notability. Though its not a CSD, I feel further justified in doing it that by removing all the POV, personal email addresses, unsourced remarks, and advertisement, there is no content left and it'd be speedied as A1. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Haverton Smith

Speedy G10 as an attack page. Google shows no results, so its not notable anyway, plus the incest comment implies an attack. If it weren't that I'd do it as an A7, because it makes no assertion of notability.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Out Boy

Speedily keep, and reprimand the csd nominator for falsely claiming the article doesn't assert notability, where it clearly does several times in the article ( album releases, MTV/FUSE air time, etc.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Keep, google asserts notability even on a misspelling of the name. Tag talk page with WP:BLP, add citations. Remove the "everyone loved the hamburgers" one as non verifiable. I only briefly looked at the page, but I'd remove the child molesting and cannibalism claims as unsourced and potentially libelous if they aren't true: the page I saw said he was convicted of assault and murder. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] seperation

Have fun! --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh this is so cool. I'm working on it now. I don't know if this is allowed, but I'll be checking the talk pages for each article to see if a WP:BLP boilerplate has been added. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, that was fun. Finished.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, looks good. Is there anything else you feel you need practice doing? (By the way, I'm fine, I've just been really busy lately and haven't had time to edit.) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay you're alive! Um, Zsinj is going to give me some exercises in other categories. Um, is there anything else you could think of adding? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some other areas

You said earlier that you wouldn't mind exercises in areas like "CAT:NT, WP:RFI, WP:OP, WP:CP, or even on writing policy." While for some of these I was looking for a Q&A-type deal, I've made some exercises for WP:OP and WP:CP. Because WP:NT is mostly the housekeeping behind WP:UI, and WP:RFI can be worked at as a non-admin, I won't be making exercises for those. :-)

[edit] Open Proxies

WP:OP enforces m:WM:OP. IP addresses that appear to be used by multiple individuals, with the exception of educational institutions, are not allowed to edit Wikipedia due to the risk involved to the project. The following is subst'ed from my userspace. Feel free to edit your conclusions directly into the table as usual. No cheating by looking at block logs! :-) --ZsinjTalk 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: There arn't many details at the WikiProject about how to go about verifying open proxies, especially since vcn isn't working at the moment. I personally use Nmap, but it can be difficult to understand without a background in networking. Try looking for IP blacklists and open proxy lists using the "search" link.

Let me clarify, is this exercise to determine whether the conclusions on these IPs are correct as to whether they are open proxies or not? ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The task is to determing whether they are open proxies or not. If you don't feel you'll be getting into this area, just say so and I'll finish up the CP section for ya. ZsinjTalk 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, hmm. I hadn't planned on getting into it, but since I dont really know much of anything about open proxies other than what I was briefly told on the cvu IRC channel, it might be very good for me to learn. I'll take another look at them on friday or saturday, when I'm done with finals, and I can dig through my notes on how to detect open proxies (I've got them saved somewhere). As for Copyright Problems, I love killing copyvio's so bring it on! ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
IP address user talk edits log scan block Notes
127.0.0.1 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log (Example)
213.142.211.32 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log Blocked on fr; seems open on 3128. Korg (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
66.98.130.235 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log [1] — Deon555talk 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
216.255.185.26 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log Spammer. MER-C 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
72.36.230.178 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#User:Enlighter1_.26_sock_puppets Agathoclea 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
72.232.196.138 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log Web proxy - [2]. Korg (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
72.3.253.183 user talk edits log CWI - tor - search block log Web proxy - [3]. Korg (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Problems

Coming soon! --ZsinjTalk 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update

Sorry Zsinj, I forgot to mention that I was going on vacation to colorado and I have horrible dialup. My editing will be next to minimal until I return on the 5th, when I have to deal with back to school stuff and all.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/a/User%7ESwatjester_Admin_coaching_d386.html"