User:RazorICE/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admin Coaching

This user page is for my admin coaching with Firsfron.
I'm ready when you are. :)

1 Let's start with...
2 Lengthy litigation
3 Helping out elsewhere
4 CSD
5 Comments about WP:SPEEDY
6 AFD?
7 More deletion stuff

[edit] Let's start with...

Hi RazorICE!

Well, first off, thanks for your interest in Admin coaching. It's really great to have you involved in the program.

Here are a few disclaimers, which you probably already knew: Admin coaching does not guarantee you will become an admin. Nor does it even mean you must request an adminship. Our work is mainly just to "feel out" if you're ready for adminship, something only you yourself can truly judge, and, if I can help by answering questions, giving advice, or asking you questions, I will do so, to the best of my ability. Like any other admin candidate, if you choose to pursue an adminship, you'll have to go through the RFA process. An admin is no better and no worse than any other editor; s/he just gets extra tools, which the community has decided s/he is trustworthy enough to use: the recent trouble with Robdurbar shows that we (the Wikipedia community) need to be careful to whom we give the tools.

Since we may spend a while working with one another, and I like to get to know the people I'm working with, tell me just a bit about yourself. I already know you're a vandal patroller in Australia, etc. You don't have to reveal any personal information (actually, please don't), but, for example, what sorts of articles do you like working on? What's your biggest achievement on Wikipedia? That sort of thing. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking me as a coachee! I hope I don't trouble you too much =P I do hope of one day becoming an administrator but I'd first like to learn all the major stuff in Wikipedia.

As I said on my user page, I'm mostly a vandal hunter, and usually am on recent changes patrol. I don't really work on any specific articles, however recently I have done a lot of work on Chernobyl-related articles, and Age of Mythology. I also have done some commenting on articles for deletion, as well as nominated two articles (which were successfully deleted). Recently, I'm trying to get more into the article-writing side of things (which I haven't really done, I'm more of a vandal reverter/gnome), as I have done on the AoM article. I really don't know what I could say is my biggest achievement on Wikipedia... I guess I've contributed to keeping articles clean and tidy, but that's not really a big achievement. I'm going to get involved in helping out with featured article collaborations (such as WP:ACID) soon, but I haven't yet.

Apart from that, not much else. If I ever received adminship, I'd probably help out mainly at WP:AIV and with speedy stuff.

Oh, and, just as a side-note, I had an editor review, but I archived it after one comment. Just in case you wanted to check it out.

Razor ICE 07:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool. Razor, taking you on certainly isn't a problem, and it certainly doesn't cause me any "trouble". Don't ever think that. :) I've coached quite a few other users, and if it was at all a problem for me, I just wouldn't do it.

About Age of Mythology: I notice quite a few problems with the article. For one thing, the title of the game is variously written with italics, without italics, and within quotation marks, even in the same paragraph. There are also blank sections which need filled out or removed (why put in a section which has nothing in it?), etc. Wikipedia's Manual of Style is the definitive guideline on which form to use for titles, and has a section on combining short article sections. You don't need this to become an admin, but when you request adminship, one of the standard questions (#2) is Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?, and the work you are proudest of should at least adhere to WP:MOS. It probably won't matter much, since you are more of a vandal-fighter and wiki-gnome than an article writer, but I thought I should at least mention it. :)

As far as Editor Review goes, I'm not a big fan of that process, personally. I think there is too much emphasis on "tailoring" your contributions to the areas that other folks think you should work on, and as long as you are just editing, you really should feel free to work on whatever you want to work on. I get that they want well-balanced editors, but...

Work on WP:AFD is good. Once you understand that process, it's relatively easy to understand various other deletion processes on Wikipedia, like speedy deletion, which you'll have to know as an admin. WP:ACID is also a very worthwhile project!

The only other thing I can think of right now is to let you know that the Admin Coaching project coordinator, Fang Aili, may drop in here from time to time, to offer ideas or suggestions. She was my admin coach last year, and she is, in my opinion, one of the best administrators on en.wiki: last I saw, she had something like 13,000 deletions under her belt; she really knows how to clean house!

OK, Razor, did you have any questions or comments about adminship or the admin coaching process? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the AoM article, yes, there are still a lot of problems with it but I am working on cleaning it all up. I also voted to make it a gaming collaboration of the week, but it looks like we need one more vote.

But apart from my work on that article, I really don't know what I can mention as my best work if I was to do a WP:RFA. Would I be able to mention my overall vandal hunting for a question like that?

And anyway, I don't really have that many questions to ask. I would like to know what exact policies and anything I need to know before becoming an admin. What did you know when you requested adminship? What would you recommend I need to know? And based on what I've done, how far do you think I have to go to gain adminship?

I just realised that I've seen some of your work on articles before... that's probably why I picked you for a coach. :P I don't remember when or where, though.

Razor ICE 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Razor!

Sure, you could absolutely mention your work vandal hunting as your best work on Wikipedia. As for what you need to know... well, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:List of policies: there are 42 policies, but I don't recommend that you read that all that at once: break it down, one section per day or week or whatever. We could start off with, say, Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Behavioral. All of these are important for any editor; the last one, Wheel Warring, applies only to admins. Have you been in disageements with other editors, Razor? If so, how did you handle it? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the list of policies, had never seen that before. I will definitely take a look through it tomorrow. Apart from the Wheel Warring policy, what others would you say are most important?

I don't think I've ever had a disagreement with another editor, though I have made the occasional mistake while vandal hunting (here, here, and here... I think that's it).

But I did revert my own changes in those occurrences (or had my changes reverted by someone else), and I did apologise to the editors involved.

I think I may have also violated WP:3RR once, but it was while reverting vandalism, so I'm not sure if that counts as a violation. I don't remember on what article it was (or if I did in fact violate it at all).

On a side note, may I ask what extra powers you, as an administrator, receive to help out? I'm just interested.

Razor ICE 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(De-indenting)Administrators get four extra tools:

1. Protect/Unprotect - When a page is receiving a lot of vandalism or is the subject of an ongoing edit war, it can be protected. When the protection is no longer needed, it can be unprotected. Admins also have the ability to edit a protected page. There are also various levels of protection, such as semi-protection. The protection tool shows up as a tab on the top of the page, just like "edit this page". Read WP:PROT for details.

2. Delete/Undelete - When a page meets certain requirements (such as all revisions of the article are pure vandalism, or the community has decided it can be deleted via WP:AFD), it can be deleted by an administrator. An article can also be restored by an admin. The delete tool shows up as a tab at the top of the page as well. The restore function appears as a link on the deleted page. Read WP:Delete for details.

3. Blocking/unblocking - A user account, IP, or range of IPs can be blocked from editing. Blocks are always to be preventative, not punitive. The length of the block varies. The "Block user" tool appears as a link in the left-hand toolbox. The unblock function appears as a link on the block page. See WP:BLOCK for more information.

4. Rollback - An admin can quickly revert an edit made by another user. It should only be done for vandalism. The rollback tool is similar to "undo", a tool anyone can use.

Admins also have the authority to enforce WP:ArbCom decisions, which is not a tool, but doesn't fit neatly into the any of the above. All of these tools should be used with caution. They are not given out until an editor has shown s/he has the trust of the community.

When you are vandal-whacking, mistakes will happen. Try to be as careful as possible, and, as you correctly did, apologise if you have made an error; it happens: everyone's human. As far as WP:3RR goes, you did not break the rule, if you were reverting pure vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. It would be great to have Delete and Block tools (whenever I report a user to AIV, I always feel like I'm making someone else do the work for me... I would love to help out there). I'm reading through the Behavioral policies right now... looks like I know ~~some~~ most of these already.

I've been doing some more work on Age of Mythology, in a few minutes I'm going to look up the MoS pages and check against them. Thanks for the suggestion for that. :D

I have a question, but don't answer it if you don't have much time. If I were to run an RFA right now (which I definitely won't), what would you, based on what you've seen from me, comment? Would you support or oppose? I know it's a bit early to ask this kind of question but I'm interested.

Anyway, thanks heaps for taking your time in helping me out! I really appreciate it. --Razor ICE 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Mythology page is looking much better already, RazorICE! Don't bother changing italics to <i></i>, as you did here, though, as AutoWikiBrowser will simply change it back next time someone edits the page with AWB.

As far as your hypothetical situation goes: no, I probably would not support you at this time: just yesterday, you did not know what the admin tools were, and you have not demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Based on this, I could not support your hypothetical adminship. However, all of this is easily rectified, given a little time.

My main criteria for adminship, Razor, is that a user demonstrates experience with Wikipedia in terms of editing, knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and, most importantly, is always civil during discussions and disputes.

RFA is a tough process; people oppose for a variety of reasons, including "not enough experience", "too many userboxes", "does not demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policies", "annoying signature", "not enough edit summary usage", "has not exhibited need for tools", "very little WP: space participation", etc. An analysis of your contributions indicates that some folks might have a problem with your edit summary usage, your lack of WP: space contributions, and some of your userboxes.

You may want to turn on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under "My Preferences" editing tab. This will make it so that you will be prompted when you have forgotten to write an edit summary. The lack of Wikipedia: space contributions is solved only by time. And, recently, there is a user who is opposing the RFAs of users who have userboxes of the "this page has been vandalized X times" variety. I, personally, think this is a silly reason to oppose someone for RFA, but I thought you should at least be warned that it could happen.

Some people like to see an admin candidate who has written or helped write a Featured Article, and they may oppose an editor who has done no FA or GA work. Personally, I think that's also not a great reason to oppose someone's adminship.

Finally, there is the issue of your only being really active for the past three months. People like to see an editor who has experience, and I have seen folks oppose admin candidates who had less than six months of experience; you've been editing for a year, but only in the last three months have you been really active, and many of those edits are AWB edits. Give it some time, is my advice. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would someone oppose a user for too many userboxes? o_O

The Blank Edit warning thing in preferences I have had turned on for a week or two, but sometimes, even though I had written an edit summary, it would say I didn't, and so it became annoying and I unchecked it.

I would have to say that in my opinion it is good for a user who wants to become an admin to have participated in GA/FA work. I'm at the moment attempting to fix the Age of Mythology article up to GA standards (with the help of others) so hopefully that'll be something I can mention in an RfA.

I have two questions if you don't mind answering them (they're small):

Can someone have more than one RfA?
I have no looked up the RfA process much yet (seeing as I'm not looking to run it any time soon), so how does the vote work? Is it an actual vote (number of supports vs. number of opposes) or is it a AfD type vote (where reasons out-weigh the number)?
Nothing major, but I didn't put my name on any list or anything when I asked you for this coaching. Is this a problem?

--Razor ICE 12:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good questions, Razor! I'll try to answer all of them. About the Blank Edit warning: you'll get it if the edit summary is truly blank, or if there is text in there such as the title of the section. An edit summary which just contains the title of the section "counts" as a blank summary, as it doesn't explain why you're editing the section, so that might have been the reason you were still getting the message. Still, if the message annoyed you, it's not a problem to turn that preference off. Some people find it helpful; some do not. I personally don't use it, but I still have a 100% summary usage: you can have 100% summary usage without turning on the Blank Edit warning. Not that you need 100%: but there are people on RFA who like to see the edit usage relatively high, and may oppose a user who doesn't use an edit summary, or uses it rarely, as it explains why you're editing the page.

It is good to have a GA under your belt. I wish you much luck in getting the article up to that staus! And, yes, that could be something you mentioned on a potential RFA. People like to see editors who know what is and is not encyclopedic content, and working to achieve a GA is a great way to achieve that.

Yes, an editor can have more than one RFA. If the first one fails, the admin candidate (hopefully) learns from his mistakes, corrects the problems that caused his RFA to be rejected, and can come back at a later time to request adminship again. Usually, three months are recommended between RFAs, so that the candidate is truly ready, and the mistakes or other issues are long behind him. That's how it usually works, anyway. There have been a few editors, sadly, who have had three or more failed RFAs. It is unlikely that someone who has failed three or more RFAs will ever get the tools, because people may oppose for "has already failed RFA three times", or will believe the candidate just isn't suited to adminship. Of course, adminship is supposed to be "no big deal" (in the words of our founder, Jimbo Wales); giving someone the "mop and bucket" (admin tools) is just supposed to be about community trust.

RFA is like AFD, where the word "vote" is anametha: it's not a vote, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reasons outweigh the number; a well-reasoned comment is given more weight than "I like him!"-type comments. That does not stop anyone, of course, from making the latter sorts of comments. If you haven't participated in RFA, you may want to give it a try; you'll quickly start to see what people expect in an admin candidate. Of course, this all hinges on you being able to have enough time to 1)get an article up to GA status, 2)read up on all the policies, and 3)participate in RFAs, and 4)lead a normal life off-wiki. You shouldn't feel pressure to take on too much at once. I only make the reccommendation in case you do have time to do all this. No pressure. :)

People can oppose an admin candidate on RFA for any reason; I've seen some doozies in my time: on my own RFA last year, someone opposed my RFA because I didn't have 7/24ths of my edits in WP: namespace (as if anyone keeps that close of a watch on their edit percentage!). I just smiled, assumed a little good faith, and tried to be "zen" about it (actually, I try to take a zen outlook about everything on Wikipedia). When you have your RFA, in addition to answering the questions they ask, people will want to know that you can handle yourself well, even under pressure.

There is a list for people to sign up for admin coaching, but I think it is outdated. I tried to use it for a while, but a lot of the people at the top of the list were inactive, so when I tried to contact them, they didn't respond; I got a few responses from people who were unable to participate, and did coach a few people who were active. Later, some well-meaninged individual altered the list, adding his own comments to the list itself, refactored comments, etc, and now the list is hard to use, because it is difficult to tell who left what comment. I don't think that it's a problem that you did not sign onto that list, as I think your name would have been lost in that mess. No, admin coaching was always supposed to be an informal way to help/get help, and while I feel bad that there must be people on the list who have been waiting for ages to get coaching, I honestly wouldn't even know where to start. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woo, lengthy answer(s) there! :D I have been at school so not on Wikipedia that often, though I'm still on here at least once every two days as I said somewhere else before... I don't have any questions for the moment so you can relax for a while. =P

Thanks for all the help! --Razor ICE 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. No problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy litigation

Could you explain to me what the lengthy litigation process is, is used for, and how? (Or point me out to somewhere I can read about it?) I just read on the WP Signpost that User:Betacommand was desysopped but I couldn't understand anything that was going on. Thanks! :D --Razor ICE 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Razor!

The Signpost is Wikipedia's "newspaper", which publishes short articles that the editors feel will sum up the week's happenings on (or about) Wikipedia. Each issue of "The Signpost" also includes a section called "The Report on Lengthy Litigation", which is usually about open ArbCom cases. The Arbitration Committee is the very last step in resolving disputes between editors, when all else has failed. As I try to stay away from Wiki-politics (whenever possible), I can't give you an informed break-down of the particular dispute you are asking about, or likely any other. Some of these things make for interesting reads, but... judging from what "The Signpost" says, and judging from the now-closed ArbCom case, user:Betacommand was accused of using a bot (an automated program) to automatically block users using admin tools, and deleting many articles and images, among other things. This use is strictly prohibited: Admins need to be careful when using the block and delete tools; they need to consider each block carefully, and they need to look at the history of an article before deleting it. Obviously, if someone is deleting a hundred articles per minute, s/he is not looking at the article's history to double-check that the article really is a deletion candidate. Betacommand was desysopped; in other words, his admin tools were taken away by a Steward, at the end of the ArbCom case. He is allowed to Request adminship again, though I cannot be certain he would be successful at this time. WP:BLOCK and WP:DELETE are some relevant policies here. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the helpful explanation! :D Hope I never have a meeting with this so called ArbCom =P --Razor ICE 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no; ArbCom is the very last step in dispute resolution. If the case is heard, it means every other attempt at mediation has failed, which is bad. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out elsewhere

Hey Firsfron, just wondering if you can recommend any other places for me to participate in Wikipedia. I'm a bit lazy to do some vandal hunting for the moment so I'd like to try something new. Any suggestions? :) --Razor ICE 07:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know you already participate in Articles for Discussion. When you're ready, you might want to take a look at the other Deletion debates:

These discussions are a lot like AFD, but with a few differences. For example, RFD has some important differences from AFD, listed here. Learning the guidelines behind these discussions is important; as you participate in these discussions, you very quickly get the "feel" of what the Wikipedia community expects of each type of discussion. You'll hopefully get a feel of what the consensus should be, which is important if you become an admin who wants to close deletion debates.

If you'd rather wait on this, then you and I can go through WP:CSD practices, which is good practice for Speedy Deletion. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time lately for Wikipedia related stuff (thanks to school...) but I will be looking through the policies of what you mentioned here. As for the WP:CSD practice, I'm not really sure what you mean but you can go ahead, as I should be able to check Wikipedia at least once a day or two. Also, User:G1ggy nominated me for an RfA but I have not yet accepted as I doubt I'd pass. Should I leave it for now or accept and see what criticism I get? --Razor ICE 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Razor!

It's good to see you active again; no, I didn't forget about you. You're free to pursue an RFA at any time, and you shouldn't let my advice hold you back from pursing anything you want to do, but I would be remiss if I didn't tell you your chances of a successful RFA aren't fantastic right now: just a few weeks ago, you confessed here that you didn't know what the administrator tools were, and you haven't been really active since then: a hundred edits spread out over 14 days, more than half to your own user subpages. If it was me, I would wait a while, as many editors recommend that an unsuccessful admin candidate wait between three and six months to pursue another RFA after an unsuccessful candidacy. I will return shortly with WP:CSD practice exercises. It is my hope that you will find them helpful. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the RfA. I will wait. :) --Razor ICE 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

During your work on Wikipedia, you will most likely come across one or more article tagged for Speedy Deletion: these are often (but not always) pages which are pure vandalism, attack pages, etc: things which do not belong on an encyclopedia.

Created by EWS23 for his admin coachees, I've stolen these CSD practice pages from him to use for our own practice sessions. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Halo 3 trailier

Okay, so I'm looking at this now. Here's a list of things I've noticed:

Typo in the title, if this ended up being a legitimate page, I'd also move it to Halo 3 trailer.
It is a one-line article. I do know that such articles could be salvaged but this one places it in no context and is not of any particular interest. Reading WP:CSD it says in the introductory paragraph (and this is not a criteria): speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content.
I don't imagine a trailer would require its own article so if this was salvageable, I might look at merging it with Halo 3.
Is not a vandalism page, or attack, or any thing like that. Could be of encyclopedic value.
A Google search gave this result, which is reliable.

For the criteria, the article does not seem to fail anything in General criteria at WP:CSD (I'd say the closest is advertising, but it really isn't).
On the other hand, it fails Very short articles providing little or no context, and possibly Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. (specifically, web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject).
I would delete this article for the above reasons.
Damn, this is hard, I hope I got it right. :P Though I guess if I don't I will be learning something new. --Razor ICE 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I might also add a reference of this in the Halo 3 article if it didn't already exist there. --Razor ICE 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I would delete this, also. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject can be Speedy Deleted under A7. This article doesn't assert the importance of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Union Millwright

Here are my impressions:

Links only article, failing A3 on WP:CSD as stated in the nomination.
All three links are to the same website, which claims to be "A Chartered Member Of The Gravy Sucking Pigs."
I looked around the site and found their blog, which is complete advertising, leading me to believe this article could also be advertising.
Couldn't find anything on Google, so I would also say it fails A7 on WP:CSD.

Delete this one as well. --Razor ICE 08:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. An article consisting only of links elsewhere can be Speedy Deleted under A3. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webs

Wow, alright, let's see.

Fails:
- Very short articles providing little or no context
- Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites
- Blatant advertising.

Pretty quick delete on this one. I did look it up on Google and couldn't find anything. --Razor ICE 08:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'd delete, possibly under G1. A page with Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. G11 Blatant advertizing or A7 Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites might also apply. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Haverton Smith

Well, a google search gives nothing...
I'm not really sure what criteria I could give for this to be speedily deleted.
I would either delete for Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites., or maybe re-list it as an WP:AFD... but in this case probably delete as well. --Razor ICE 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a possible attack page. Any time you get "so-and-so is gay, and is dating his own cousin" you should be suspicious. Probably qualifies for G10 Attack pages. Certainly qualifies under A7 Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think of that. Knew I had to get one wrong. :P --Razor ICE 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say you were "wrong", because the article also qualifies for A7. But just do be aware of potential attack pages, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Out Boy

Remove the deletion tag for the reason(s):

Tag claims the article does not assert notability, however the article shows albums, awards, and Top Ten singles. This is pretty notable.
As per WP:MUSIC, a band is notable if it Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

It's referenced, it's notable. Wouldn't even take this up with WP:AFD. --Razor ICE 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. This one has been mistakenly tagged. Which is a pretty rare exception on Wikipedia: we get tons of non-notable unsigned bands who have never even released a single, and whose "official web site" is a MySpace account. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen quite a few of those around (mainly in AfDs). --Razor ICE 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

A quick Google search gave a bunch of articles about him. I'd probably remove the csd tag, add a stub tag and possibly improve it a little bit, using this as a reference. --Razor ICE 08:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! The article is in terrible shape ("We're the best we ever had!"?), but it's about a notable subject, and there are plenty of ghits to support this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So, any more of these? --Razor ICE 09:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all I have for you tonight. I'm off to bed! Have a good morning! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about WP:SPEEDY

OK, Razor, now you've had a little "taste" of what WP:CSD is like. We get all sorts of odd unencyclopedic articles, and, although no admin is required to work on CSD, it frequently gets backlogged, and it's nice to have admins who can work to reduce the backlog by speedy deleting articles which meet the criteria. As you go along, it gets easier to quickly identify which criteria, if any, the article meets, and fix it either way.

If you delete an article, and someone asks you to restore (undelete) it so that they can fix the problems which caused it to be deleted, you should consider doing so, unless it is something like G12 (a copyright violation with no non-infringing content in the page history), G10 (an attack page created to disparage its subject), etc. Use your own best judgement. Remember to assume good faith of editors who request restoration. Be polite, even kind, but firm with users who request the undeletion of an article which definitely should not be undeleted. Request a second opinion if you're unsure.

If you make a mistake and delete a page, acknowledge that you have done so incorrectly, and restore it. Never wheel war with another administrator over the deletion or undeletion of a page. I guess that's all I can think of for now... Firsfron of Ronchester 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, some great advise (advice? Damn my English-second-language!) there. I've always tried to acknowledge mistakes I've made (as often happens with vandal hunting...) so hopefully if I do become an administrator and do make a mistake, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Anyway, I think I'd be doing quite a bit of WP:CSD or closing AfD work if I did become an administrator, as well as helping out at WP:AIV. I don't think I consider myself too much of a writing-articles person, more of a house-keeping one.

By the way, the Age of Mythology article almost passed for a Good Article! Just in case you're interested.

Thanks for taking your time with me today! :) --Razor ICE 09:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, Razor. That's what I'm here for. :) Good luck with the AoM article; I did some tinkering with the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD?

I nominated this article for WP:AFD, however I'm not sure it I was correct to do so (I have nominated articles before, successfully as well, but this one seemed different). Though I could not find any reliable sources, I'm not sure whether or not a club like this would be notable. I'm wondering if there's any way to stop an AFD? Or did I do the right thing? Thanks for the info! --Razor ICE 11:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse RFA (Request for administration) with AFD (Articles for Discussion), Razor. As for the article itself, it's in pretty terrible shape. The article does not even state that the organization is a hurling club until the Category section at the end of the article! It cites no references, etc. I think an AFD may well be appropriate: at the very least, it needs serious clean-up. For the record, you can withdraw an AFD nomination by placing a note at the top that says you're withdrawing the nomination, but the discussion (by other editors) may continue anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Woops, haha, I think I might have been looking at my talk page just before I wrote that. :P Thanks! --Razor ICE 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Those CSD examples were really useful, are there any more? --Razor ICE 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not; it seems like you get the gyst, so we can move on to other things. How far along on the policy-reading did you get? Did you understand everything you read? Was there something that needed further clarification? The ~40 policies are absolutely required reading material for any potential admin. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already read most of the policies, except the legal/copyright ones, as I don't really understand all the fair-use stuff that well. Needless to say, I would probably not be an image-deleting administrator. :P --Razor ICE 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC seems to be in transition right now anyway. So you don't have any questions? About anything? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one question. On WP:Vandalism, it states that Vandalism is not: Tests by experimenting users. I usually don't give a warning to people who, for example, add a bunch of random characters to a paragraph, or add a Heading Test or Gallery (with no images) or anything like that. However, what if a user does the above, and removes some of the page's content as well? Am I allowed to provide them with a "Thank you, but your last edit removed some content. Please be more careful." warning? --Razor ICE 08:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:AIV history doesn't seem to have been looked at in the past 11 minutes (a bit strange seeing as I usually see people being reported or removed from the list within minutes/seconds. Just wondering if it's not a problem with the Helper bot or anything? --Razor ICE 08:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Woops, nevermind, it was just changed. :) --Razor ICE 08:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Test1 doesn't say anything about vandalism, and I use it often to warn a user who has edited a page as a test. just write {{subst:test1}} ~~~~ Test2 has a message about not adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Test3 has a stronger test warning. {{subst:uw-delete1}} ~~~~ works fine for warning against content removal. These specific templates are nice because they are customized, but I don't think anyone will judge you harshly for using warning templates using your own best judgement. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but as I'm using Twinkle I believe most of the templates I put on are uw-vandalism1. I have one more question, if you don't mind. This article to me seems to violate the Wikipedia is not a dictionary/slang guide/jargon guide policy, and there is a Prod currently on the article (though an IP user removed it and another IP user restored it). I'm not sure what to do with this article. It seems notable-ish, but... violates the policy as I said above. Should I nominate it for AFD? --Razor ICE 08:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the prod tag (prod tags can be removed at any time by any user, and should not be immediately replaced, as it says on the tag: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced"). It seems to me that article is sourced (but three are from the same company's website) but doesn't assert much notability. An AFD discussion wouldn't hurt it. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AFD :) --Razor ICE 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Something else: (sorry for bugging you so much today :P) If a user/IP address has recently been blocked, and has begun vandalising again, or their last warnings were a few days before now, should I start over with the test templates? (i.e. start again with test1/uw-vandalism1?) I usually go straight back to test2 or test3, depending on the severity of the vandalism. --Razor ICE 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. For example, if an IP is vandalizing Age of Mythology, you'd warn the usual number of times, and then block, if the vandalism continued. The length of a block usually starts at 24 hours. If, the next day, the same IP started vandalizing again, I would simply block again at that point, as it's likely it's the same user, and blocks are supposed to be preventative. If it's a different IP, you should probably start over with the warning messages, unless WHOIS indicates it's coming from the same place as the old IP, or the vandalism is identical (such as "Hi mom!" written by both IPs on consecutive days in the same article). Always try to assume good faith, even of users who appear to be vandals: oftentimes, new editors won't realize they are blanking things, and mistakes will happen, even from experienced editors. Hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That does help, thanks :D --Razor ICE 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts. I really hate double edit conflicts. We can make smaller talk sections; that might help with edit conflicts. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, my edit summary usage has been 100% for this month, so yay. :) (I'm not using the option to tell me when I haven't used an edit summary, either). --Razor ICE 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good ole Wannabe Kate. :) I don't use the automated edit summary reminder, either: after a while, it just becomes a habit to use edit summaries, and it feels weird not to. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More deletion stuff

I came upon this page and don't know what to do with it. I don't think it violates speedy deletion guidelines. --Razor ICE 11:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

user:David Fuchs deleted it under (CSD A7). Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn. Beat me to it. :P --Razor ICE 04:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I'm still alive! School's being fairly annoying so I'm not getting much Wikipedia stuff done. I did have a 100% edit summary use last month so I'm proud of that. Also, a new user has asked me to be adopted, so that's also cool (might help in an RfA?) Anyway I should be back to being fairly active again within a week or two, though exams will be soon... >.< Just letting you know! --Razor ICE 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries are helpful for other Wikipedians who may not know why you're editing what you're editing. It really helps. I'm glad to see you've improved that aspect of your editing. I'm not sure an adoptee will help in an RFA (because I've never seen it mentioned there), but I guess it couldn't hurt to mention it if you wanted. Sorry to hear school is being so annoying right now; I look forward to seeing you fully active again. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)