User:Dendodge/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: This shouldn't be used to simply gain adminship. The questions are designed to help you understand what being an admin is about, rather than how to answer optional RfA questions. Keep in mind that adminship is no big deal; if you edit purely to gain the tools, you will be sorely disappointed when you receive them, as they are nothing special.

Welcome to your admin coaching page,
Dendodge (talk • message • contribs • page moves • deleted contribs • summary • count • total • logs • block log • block • email) !

Throughout the page, "we" refers to both I, WBOSITG, and Malinaccier, and "you" refers to, well, you. =P

Phase one deals with questions designed to let the coach know what the coachee's best contributions are, and what their general strengths and weaknesses are while editing. It could develop article writing skills, something look upon with importance.

Phase two is all about policy. The admin coach will ask several series of questions dealing with policies that will be used extensively in their role as administrator. The responses will be marked and built upon.

Phase three has to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, et al). The coach will ask several questions about Wikiphilosophies and controversial areas of Wikipedia policy.

Phase four is a mop up phase. The coach and coachee will work on whatever weak areas still need to be addressed.

[edit] Courses

Phase Portion Stats Result
Phase 1 Basic Checklist 92.86% (13/14) Complete!
Phase 1 Reasons for failure 100% (4/4) Complete!
Phase 1 Strengths and weaknesses N/A Complete!
Phase 1 Basic RfA questions N/A Complete!
Phase 2 Blocking 85.71% (24/28) Passed!
Phase 2 NPOV 100% (10/10) Passed!
Phase 2 Page protection 80% (8/10) Passed!
Phase 2 Deletion 76.67% (23/30) Passed!
Phase 2 Miscellaneous In progress...
Phase 3 Miscellany Not attempted
Phase 4 Assuming good faith Not attempted
Phase 4 Administrator's Noticeboard Not attempted
Phase 4 More Miscellany Not attempted

After completing the four phases, we will nominate you for adminship. If we feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if we feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one!

[edit] Phase 1

[edit] Basic Checklist

(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this)

Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
    • YesYYes, quite a few. I did one earlier today in fact!
  • listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
    • YesYYep, about 10-ish
  • requested a page to WP:RPP?
    • YesYYup, Tyrannosaurus (semi) for 1 month and every subpage of {{HD}} (semi) indefinitely (both were accepted)
  • had an editor review?
  • reviewed another editor at editor review?
    • NoNNo, I want to though
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
    • YesYYes, I'm on the spamlist
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
    • YesYTwinkle, Friendly, AWB, Huggle and I'm approved for many others that don't seem to work for me
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
    • YesYYes, a couple of TfDs and 1 MfD
  • posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
    • YesYHundreds! I think I was the 15th highest contributor to the help desk a month back.
  • uploaded an image?
    • YesYI have uploaded 6 undeleted images, and 6 that were deleted
  • welcomed a user?
    • YesYYes, I went through a phase where I got about 100 edits a day from doing it
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    • YesYOne as part of the Medcab
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    • YesYYep, I hang around there a lot
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to. We will cover this more later.
    • YesYI am definitely a deletionist, but besides that I float somewhere in the middle.
      • Result: 92.86% (13/14) - that's great! You'll be using many of these skills as an admin, and it is very useful to be using them now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for failure

We will now look at why your previous RfA failed.

  • Little article building experience
    • YesYSince then, I have done much more with articles, and am currently a coordinator, and rejuvinator, of the Wikipedia Spotlight, with a GA (Kristallnacht) as one of my major contributions.
  • Too many welcomes with Friendly
    • YesYSince my last RfA, I have welcomed very few users.
  • Too little project-space edits
    • YesYI would say this is what I have remedied this the most, the Wikipedia namespace now makes up a large proportion of my edit count.
  • Power hunger
    • YesYI have removed everything that has caused power-hunger concerns with even one editor, and will certainly be more careful so as not to be wrongly labelled as power-hungry in future.

Please tell me if any of these have been remedied. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, that seems ok. Working on an article to get it to Good status would help no end, and proves you are a proficient writer, too. You don't have to cut out welcoming altogether. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strengths and weaknesses

1. What are your favourite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. I like my help desk work, and what I do for the spotlight. I am also proud of Tool use by animals and Stephano (Shakespeare), both of which I created and regularly contribute to and monitor.
Yeah, I see you around the helpdesk very often, you do good work there.
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. I always concentrate on articles I create (which can be whatever takes my fancy) and whatever's in the spotlight. I just edit anything I'm knowledgeable about, basically.
Good strategy there. ;)
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. It used to be about 90% antivandalism, although I've neglected that recently and started on some of the Wikipedia namespace and article work. Now it's probably only 30-40% antivandalism (maybe less)
Probably a good idea to focus less on the antivandal work; for some, editors that are purely vandalism fighters won't make good admins (not my ideology at all, but there you go.)
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. Yes, I's say so. I try to do 3 or 4 every time I log in (following Malinnacier's advice) but I've only recently started being truly active there.
That's good, keep it up.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. Well, where do I start? I think my biggest weakness is people. I'm bad with people, more in real life than on-wiki, but it does definitely apply to Wikipedia. I find it hard to discuss things, and even harder to begin a discussion. I think I've just about sorted that on-wiki now though.
Ooh, err, good that you're sorting that. Bad tempered admins can do a lot of damage if they wanted to.
6. What kind of editing habits do you have? Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
A. I open firefox and click the main page link on my Wikipedia toolbar. I scan the main page, mark myself online (if I remember) and then check my watchlist. If something on there catches my eye, I check it out (and probably contribute). I then open IRC, with #wikipedia-en-help, #autowikibrowser, #twinkle, #wikipedia-spotlight, #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en set to open at startup and contribute to discussions there while editing or reading pages in the foreground.
Alright, so you go to your watchlist. Good idea.
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. What need do you have to ask? It feels great to be part of something so big, and to know that I'm contributing to something the whole world can see! Wikipedia is the only place I have any real friends and there's always something to do there.
I agree with the last part of the last sentence!
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. I would read up on whatever was suggested in my RfA, as well as the whole Administrator's Reading List. I would avoid the main page, as that's never really interested me. As a sidenote, I've already read the whole new admin school, but would go back and do the exercises.
That's a good idea to read through NAS. Admins don't generally edit the main page, but rather the DYK and ITN sections.
9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. Deletion, antivandalism, administrators' noticeboard, usernames, and probably others I forgot to mention!
These are ones you've not had experience with? Are you sure?
Whoops. I should really read questions more carefully! Heh, I haven't had experience with granting and revoking of rollback or the interface (though I contributed to WP:VPT a couple of times about it)
Heh, it's alright. That's good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to note that these do not need to be answered all at once. Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, but while I'm answering one, I may as well answer them all...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basic RfA questions

Let's answer the basic RfA questions!

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A. Deletion and blocking mainly, but also edits to protected pages and, very occasionally, protection.
2. 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?
A. Nothing I would call a conflict, but the edits between these diffs could be considered a minor revert war. We later reached an agreement and I apologised to the user politely. Since then, I have taken many precautions to avoid such conflicts in future.
3. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A.Probably my help desk work, and what I do for the spotlight. I am also proud of Tool use by animals and Stephano (Shakespeare), both of which I created and regularly contribute to and monitor, being careful to adhere to WP:OWN.
Nothing glaringly wrong there. In the RfA, try to answer the questions as fully as possible; people might be inclined to oppose for short answers. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

[edit] Blocking

Blocking is one of the major aspects of adminship. It is quite difficult to decide if and when to block, and hopefully these will help you.

2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70% + to pass. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A. You say 'user', so I presume you mean registered (as there are certain things to take into account for IPs, such as WP:SIP and shared IPs). I would check the user's contributions to determine whether or not the account is for vandalism-only. I would also check the user's talk page to see how many blocks were previously placed upon the account. If it is clearly a vandalism-only account, or has received at least 3 previous blocks, I would indefinitely block the account. If it is not or has not, I would block the account for a varying period of time depending upon the severity of the incident. If it is an IP, however, I would check WP:SIP and the talk page to determine if it is a shared or sensitive account, and then run a whois for a similar purpose. If it is sensitive, I would take care, asking myself if a block is really needed, and , if it is, report the block to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. If it is a shared IP, I would make sure the vandalism was all recent (and similar) and, with the exception of educational IPs, block for a shorter period. I would never indef block an IP...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a good answer to me. Remember that you must always use a WHOIS on an IP before blocking (the shared IP template isn't on all shared IPs), and the SIP list is on the block form for quick reference (not that you'd know that, having never blocked before). On registered accounts, I usually go for a block time of two weeks (Second chances and all) for vandalism after a final warning, and indef blocking for further abuse. On IPs, it's normally 24hr for the same abuse, followed by 48hr, 72hr, and 96hr. I wouldn't go higher than this because IPs change. You're right though, schools can be blocked for a very long time (3 months to a year). However, I would suggest avoiding blocking IPs to begin with if you become an admin; it's rather complicated to begin with.
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. If the user has committed no vandalism after a final or only warning, or an IP has committed no vandalism in the past month or so. I would also decline if the user received an only warning first for no good reason, if it has not received sufficient warning, or if the report is stale. I would also consider declining if one party involved in an edit war was reporting another (although I may still block for a 3RR violation, depending on the circumstances). There are other situations in which I would decline, but I would need to be in those situations as I cannot think of them off the top of my head. If I decline a request, I would remove it from the AIV page with an appropriate edit summary and place {{subst:uw-aiv}} on the reporting user's talk page...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sort of. The first part of the first sentence is right, but the next bit isn't; really, a user or IP shouldn't be blocked if no vandalism has been committed over the past 24 hours. It's a great idea to check for editwarring before blocking, to see if the other party was involved; you may have to become the third party in the dispute. As for the last sentence, that's a great idea, and one more people should use! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Per WP:CDB, never. They only aggravate the situation more. I see no need to explain the full reasoning, as it is all linked in the first sentence of this response.
Spot on. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. I would refuse and redirect them to the Wikibreak enforcer javascript. A block blemishes a block log and ruins a user's chances of permissions and respect in the future.
Perfect. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A. Consult the other administrator to find a reason for the block. If I believe the reason was insufficient, and have good reason to unblock (and no conflict of interest), I would unblock the user and politely notify the blocking administrator with a clear and detailed reason for unblocking...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's good, but watch out for any possible wheel wars, and you may want to report concerns to the admin noticeboard for a wider insight if needs be. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. Per the meta 'Vandalbot' page, I would:
  1. Block it
  2. Go to the contributions page
  3. If the bot already received "bot" privilege by bureaucrats, append "&bot=1" to the contributions page URL (or ?bot=1 if the URL does not already contain ?). Approved bots do not show in recent changes.
  4. Click on all the rollback links
I would delete any pages the bot created and notify the community (probably at WP:ANI) so they can look out for any further incidents.
Good copy and pasting there ;) Then again, that's perfectly correct. You might also consider raising Wikidefcon to a level of 1 to warn other admins, as well as AN or ANI. You could also notify a steward or developer in the #wikipedia-tech IRC channel. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. I would probably leave it (I don't want to turn a user away from the site for doing nothing blockworthy) and would probably contact another administrator that is experienced in that area. My actions would really depend on the exact situation though.
Yes, if you're unsure, do not block. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A. Contact the administrator via email and start a thread at WP:ANI. I would also request temporary desysopping of the account so they cannot unblock themselves. If the user has enabled a cryptographic hash, they can use that to confirm their identity.
Sure. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. Warn or block (depending on severity) per WP:LEGAL and maybe start a thread at WP:ANI, again, it depends on the exact circumstances. An office action may be necessary in very extreme circumstances.
Right again. You're good at these! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I would maybe kindly request that they change their username. I would not block without checking their edits as being confusing is not a sole criterion for blocking any more.
True, but I personally wouldn't ask them to change their username. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A. Now that is confusing and disruptive. I would block and notify them on their talk page that I had blocked them for username purposes. The name suggests that the owner may be a vandal (on a flyby, as that'll be hard to type every time you want to log in!) Obviously the user's contributions will affect my decision. (I've only just realised how many times I've said that!)
Perfect. Suggest WP:CHU for good contributions. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I would wait until the user edits. If a significant proportion of their edits are to something link Qwik Clean Inc, I would then block. It is a promotional username, although constructive edits to unrelated pages should be OK. I would place {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page and request deletion of the Qwik Clean Inc page (if they created it). If there is evidence that it is a shared account I would probably file a WP:RFC...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant. Note: Admins can delete pages =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?
A. Depending on the contributions, I would either block under the misleading usernames part of WP:U or file a WP:RFCN. I would certainly notify User:RyanPosthelwaite of the attempted impersonation.
Well, that's a really obvious attempt at impersonation. I'd immediately block. But yeah, tell the real Ryan. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. A hardblock means the IP address most recently used by the account, and any IP addresses that the account subsequently attempts to edit from will be automatically blocked, while a softblock means the block will only affect anonymous users editing from that IP address; registered users editing from that IP address will not be affected. The option has no effect on a block of a registered user. The former is useful for socks and persistent vandals, while the latter is perfect for blocks on shared IPs
That's perfectly correct. More info can be found at WP:HARDBLOCK. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Total: 85.71% (24/28) -- Well done, that's really very good! Looks like you've got the gist of blocking. We might come back to this a bit more later. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Now, we'll move on to neutral points of view. It is very important, especially for an administrator, to be neutral at all times. This can be used to advantage in disputes, writing articles or even deletion.

It's a pretty short section, so answer as fully as you can. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 10. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV fork is a non-neutral version of an article, under a different name, that does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Such forks are usually deleted. If I were to come across one, I would first assess its verifiability and possibly merge it (with a redirect from the old title) into an appraisal/criticism section of the main article, remembering to fix double-redirects. I would, of course, notify the creator and all major contributors. If I thought the material was pure POV, and not neutral enough for Wikipedia, I would delete it, possibly salvaging important and verifiable points to make an appraisal/criticism section. Of course, my actual actions would depend - again - on the exact circumstances.
Very good. If the POV was very extreme it's probably not worth salvaging.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A. Well, you can't change your own point of view, but you can write in such a way as to hide it, i.e.write in adherence to WP:NPOV. The best way to do so is to:
  1. Present both sides of an argument equally or in proportion. Either present conflicting points or talk slightly more about the point taken by the majority, e.g.'Most believe Hitler was a bad man because...[refs], however, he has been described, by a minority, as 'a hero'[ref(s)] due to...' This makes an article fair, and widely-believed points are easier to source.
  2. Attribute and substantiate biased statements. For example: 'David Beckham is the best footballer in the world' is very bad, while 'David Beckham has scored more goals during his time at Manchester United than any other football player in history[refs]' is very good.
  3. Ensure that your comments are verifiable. All the above 'good' examples include [refs] tags, indicating where to place references. Obviously, the more the better. While verifiability is important, and can help towards a neutral point of view, it does not, on its own, suggest one. All three strategies mentioned aove should be used.
Excellent, spot on.
3. Label each statement as either being neutral or non-neutral, and explain why you labelled them so. Assume all are sourced.
  1. Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.
    Non-neutral: The word 'erroneous' is a rather heavy POV.
Correct.
  1. Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
    Neutral: This version is simply a statement that says many disagree. Correctly sourced, this would be fine.
    Yup.
  2. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
    Neutral: Just a statement. It is the most widely accepted.
    Indeed.
  3. Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
    Neutral: If he has, and the statement is sourced, it is simply stating fact.
    Perfectly correct.
  4. Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
    Non-neutral: You really need to ask? I'm not even going to bother explaining!
    Heh, that's right.

Total: 10/10 (100%) -- Absolutely spot on. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Page protection

Another important aspect of a janitor's job is protecting pages. This is done for a number of reasons, including edit wars and other disputes.

Another short section, so answer as fully as you can. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 10. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A. If most, or all, of the vandalism/dispute is by autoconfirmed users.
Yes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Woops, remember that a user v IP battle would be unfair to semi-protect as the IP would be at a disadvantage. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. If it keeps being created by a vandal, or there is some other reason that the page could not be created, for example: HAGGER! is salted, so Grawp cannot create it through a page move. It should not be done pre-emptively, but instead in response to an actual event.
Yep. Protected titles are found at Special:ProtectedTitles. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A.
  1. Pages subject to page-move vandalism
  2. Pages that have no reason to be moved, such as WP:AN
  3. Pages where the name is disputed
Absolutely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
A. I, personally, would protect every requested userspace page except the user talk page. I would not protect that as all users should be able to communicate with each other. I have, however, seen user talk pages being protected so I would maybe leave these cases for a more experienced administrator
You should never really protect a user talk page, because IPs must be able to talk to them, however, if the page is being vandalised or a user threatened or attack, then a protection would be appropriate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. If I felt it would contribute to the debate, yes. In the majority of cases I would restore it but replace the page with {{subst:delrev}} so users could check the history. If I decided to make the page visible, I would place the delrev template at the top of the page. Long story short: it depends on the circumstances.
Yeah, essentially to make a hard copy, uneditable, for the debaters to reference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Total: 8/10 (80%) Very good, just a couple of slight faults. You don't seem to have too many problems there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Deletion is probably the primary thing you'll be attending to as an admin, whether you're closing old AfDs or patrolling CSDs. It's useful to have a sound knowledge of CSD before even looking at a deletion candidate, and these questions will help hone that.

Another short section, so answer as fully as you can, giving reasons and policies. Again, 2 marks for a right answer, 1 mark for a partly correct answer, and no marks for an incorrect answer. 70%+ to pass, and it's out of 30. If you don't do too well, we can always come back to this later.

1. How would you close the following AFD's? Please note that these are probably the hardest you could possibly close as an admin. Assume they had to be closed.
A 1
Keep: There is clear consensus to do so
You did well at determining consensus, but if you had to !vote on it, what stance would you take and why? Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep: I'm no command and conquer expert, but It seems notable enough.
I can't find a specific policy, but would WP:TOY do? The game itself is licensed and famous, with a large article.
B 2
Delete: There seems to be consensus, although it's closer than number 1
You did well at determining consensus, but if you had to !vote on it, what stance would you take and why? Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't seem notable to me.
WP:BIO says the person must have received significan coverage in reliable souces. I can't find any (a Google search comes up with a different person)
C 3
Keep: The keep argument seems stronger and, even counting the nom as a delete vote, there is not consensus of 70%, so it would be closed as a no-consensus (keep as default)
You did well at determining consensus, but if you had to !vote on it, what stance would you take and why? Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Seems to be notable-ish. I probably wouldn't vote in this one if I had the choice though.
WP:BIO: He seems to meet the basic guidelines
D 4
Keep: Again, no consensus
You did well at determining consensus, but if you had to !vote on it, what stance would you take and why? Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep: But, again, I probably wouldn't vote by choice
WP:MALL states that 'super-regional' malls are notable (the AfD suggests that it is one) and that if it stands out for some reason (the use of on duty police) it should be kept.
E 5
Delete: Delete seems to have consensus there
You did well at determining consensus, but if you had to !vote on it, what stance would you take and why? Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep: With the same reasoning as number 1
I can't find a specific policy, but would WP:TOY do? The game itself is licensed and famous, with a large article.
F 6
Keep: Clear consensus, and guidelines dictate that locations are generally kept
I would have relisted to get clearer consensus. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have, but it says 'assume they had to be closed'.
Eep. Ok, my mistake... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to get Malinaccier on these, sorry.

Can you cite specific policies to back up your !votes and give reasons that those policies apply? (Sorry, I'm picky about these) Malinaccier (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A. To quote WP:DGFA: "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."
That's it.
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A. They should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#R1
Correct.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A. Copyvios or defamatory text.
Copyvios are right, but as it says at Wikipedia:DGFA#On_deleting_pages (point 5) you must not include any personal information about anyone (phone number or name, et al).
5. When patrolling C:CSD, you come across unreasoned CSD tags on the following articles. Under which speedy deletion criterion would each be deleted (if any)?

[edit] Miscellaneous

And finally in Phase 2, some miscellaneous questions for you.

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
A. Obviously stricter than for users with a clean record, but I don't see a problem with it in the eventuality. A year with no vandalism should make me happy, as long as the user meets my usual requirements (basically trust and experience) as well.
Sorry? I think the question was asking that if a vandal were reported at AIV, would you indef block the account, or give a second chance, etc? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the question was about vandals becoming administrators. AIV was never mentioned...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, but it was meant to be your approach towards vandals upon becoming an admin =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's the second time I've misread a question! I think first time vandals should be treated with good faith, and be blocked for shorter periods, while repeat offenders should be punished more severely. I would be fair and judge each case individually...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
A. Admin tools could, effectively, bring down the site. If a vandal got in they could do whatever they want! To proect your account:
  1. Have a strong, and hard to guess, password, for obvious reasons.
  2. Add a cryptographic hash to your userpage. If your account gets hacked, quoting the English version in an email to the 'crat who will desysop will prove it's you so you can be trusted and have the action done.
  3. Ensure that your computer is free of keyloggers, which can find your password from what you type.
Yeah, exactly. I hope you have a hash string in case of that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
A. So they can be emailed if a user needs an admin action to be done but wants to communicate in secret.
Well, no, not in secret, but if for example the user was blocked, they could talk to the admin for a possible unblock. Also, users may want to talk about a sensitive issue that they don't want stamped across the internet. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Malinaccier and I think you should perhaps slow down a little with the coaching. You said at the start you wouldn't plan to become an administrator for a while (can't say I blame you), and whizzing through the coaching will just leave a long time to idly wait. So, please take some time to put in some AfD contributions at this point. Make sure you give a good, detailed reason for deletion (or otherwise), rather than "Delete: Non-notable" or "Keep: Notable". Thanks, and good luck... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A review of your edits so far

I went through your contribs and will commment on your editing since your coaching began:

At the beginning of coaching, you concentrated almost exclusively on answering questions, and there was little else that you did. After my comments about slowing things down, you got back to regular editing. I see that you joined the Beatles Wikiproject and that has been your primary activity. This work is good, and I encourage you to keep working on articles there. Another main activity you're involved in is the Spotlight. I don't have any experience in it myself, but I believe it is a positive experience for you and once again I encourage your participation.
User:Denbot was cleared for a trial run. Bot policy is an area in which few editors choose to get involved. Creating PHP based tasks would definitely be a good task, but I wouldn't put all of my time into learning PHP, but of course this is up to you.
Suggested action(s): Don't forget what I told you in your editor review: "get in on maybe 3 or 4 XFDs every time you log on."
WBOSITG can add his own review below, and I think we are safe to continue your coaching at a slower pace. Malinaccier (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)