User:Scetoaux/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Introduction

I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into four phases:

  • Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
  • Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.
  • Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
  • Phase four consists of studying an RFA or two, and determining the candidates strengths and weaknesses. This will familiarize you with the process, and get you ready for your own RFA.

After completing the four phases, I will nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I 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! Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase one

[edit] Checklist

This checklist will give me a better idea of what you have done. Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
    • Yes.
  • listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
    • Yes.
  • requested a page to WP:RPP?
    • Yes.
  • had an editor review?
    • Yes, but it went for weeks without review, so I requested speedy deletion (author request).
  • reviewed another editor at editor review?
    • No.
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
    • No.
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
    • Yes (Twinkle, Friendly, a tool that highlights administrator's usernames and talk pages, and a tool for a user's contributions page)
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
    • I don't recall, and I can't find anything in my contributions for the past 150 edits.
  • posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
    • Yes (posted, not answered).
  • uploaded an image?
    • Yes.
  • welcomed a user?
    • Once or twice.
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    • Not that I recall.
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    • No.
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
    • Quite frankly I have never seen this list before, but I'll see what there is that I agree with, at least partially. I'll just go down the list and pick one from each category (except for those with which I agree with none of the choices given).
      1. Moderate Eventualism
      2. Moderate Anti-Statusquoism
      3. Communityism
      4. Communalism
      5. Rehabilism
      6. WikiPacifism (this I applied to my RFPP on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
      7. Neutrality - Elusive Virtue
      8. Antifactionalism

Sorry about any really stupid and obvious items like reports to AIV, but I try to ask this of every user that I coach. Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff to do

  • Do a little work on responding to posts at the help desk.
  • Work a bit more on writing and developing articles. May I suggest this to get started?
  • Get some more experience in XFD's, particularly at WP:AFD, but also try some others (WP:TFD and WP:IFD) for the experience.
  • On the other end of the spectrum, I'd also like to see you participate in a discussion or two at WP:DRV. Most admins neglect this area, but I'd like to see you having at least a little background knowledge about the subject.

These are all ongoing things to work on during the coaching process and before your impending RFA. They need not be completed right away, but over time. Malinaccier (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. :) —  scetoaux (T/C) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More

Here's a few more questions about articles you like to edit:

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. I think both my best and my favorite contributions are my contributions to Civil Air Patrol related articles, including the main article itself, which in the past few days I've been working strenuously on in order to bring it back to featured article status.
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. Not that I know of. If an article interests me and I feel there is information I can add or copyediting I can do, I just go ahead and do it. If I feel a subject is notable yet has not been covered, I may create its article, depending upon how daunting of a task it is. :P
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. Probably about 70% of the time. Fighting vandalism is a lot easier, to be honest, than creating something new that is beneficial to the encyclopedia. But I do try to work on the encyclopedia itself.
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. I have contributed to AfD, but I don't consider myself as having contributed "heavily." To my knowledge I have only tagged one page for AfD, and that page was Lisa jennings. For AfD discussions, I usually contribute my !vote and then if necessary reply to others on the page to promote discussion, or request clarification.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. My main weakness is simply that I can't bring myself to become the type of contributor that writes FA's and GA's. I'm simply not that type of editor. I also have found that I am too quick at times to accuse others of incivility, but in that regard I do usually assume good faith.
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 typically check my contributions page to see what pages no longer have the (top) tag, and see what changes have been made since. I then will usually open recent changes and logs so that I can perform antivandalism work, CSD tagging, UAA reports, etc., and if I think of or find an article I can contribute to, I'll stop the patrolling to work on that.
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. I just enjoy contributing and making a difference to the larger project as a whole, and I like the feeling of being part of something this big.
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. After becoming an admin, I'd probably be conservative in my actions until I've gotten a feel for it, and this means that I would probably read up on policy or other related areas before I take action such as blocking a user. For the most part I would probably avoid making edits to the MediaWiki namespace.
9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. To my knowledge, just 3RR, AN, AN/I and DRV, and most of MfD except for AfD. I have very limited experience in PROD, and somewhat limited experience in AfD.

[edit] Some other things

Ok, from these answers I can see a few other things that I'd like for you to do. I also have a few suggestions:

  1. You don't have to write FA's and GA's to be a good mainspace contributer. You can create many many stub articles about different species of animals. Articles such as Maacoccus arundinariae, Ninespine Batfish, Qadrius salvus, and Zabalius apicalis inversus can be written very easily by using an online database of animals such as this one.
  2. You should try to participate in every RFA you can from now on (if you don't already).
  3. Read the stuff on WP:ARL
  4. Try to get in on a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI for the exprience.
  5. Take a look at Template:Cent from time to time and participate in discussions at WT:RFA, WP:VP, etc.

That's what I can think of right now that might be beneficial. We'll head to phase 2. Malinaccier (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off a bit on the questions for right now and work on these things that you've suggested. My objective here is not to move through this as quickly as possible, though I'm sure you probably wouldn't want that anyway. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. We'll resume when you believe you are ready. Malinaccier (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As per the animal stubs you talked about above, is this what you are suggesting I do, or is it an example of the type of stub article that I can contribute a lot of? This is one of the only things I can think of that would work in that manner.
And as per AN and ANI, I'm not sure exactly what type of discussions to which I can actually make some sort of positive contribution. Same with WT:RFA. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The animal articles are just an example in saying that you don't need FA's or GA's, just experience in the mainspace. If you are interested in adding animal species then go ahead, but if you would rather work on something else that is fine.
Regarding the discussions on AN, ANI, and WT:RFA: I was just thinking that it would be good for you to get involved in discussions about different policies and proposals. Most stuff at AN, ANI, and WT:RFA wouldn't work (such as User:Example harrasing others). I probably should have been clearer in my intentions. Malinaccier (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

[edit] Basic RFA questions

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A. I intend to work in basically all of the areas of admin work, especially antivandalism work, application of username policy, and speedy deletion, but also page protection, incidents, and XfDs.
Can you expand on why you want to go into these areas?
Certainly. I feel that with my experience in antivandalism work in these areas (incidents and XfDs I should have more experience in by the time of my RfA) that having the admin tools would help me to help Wikipedia through various incidents that may arise. I simply wish to have the tools so that I may use them for the betterment of the project as a whole.
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. Rarely have I been involved in an actual edit conflict, but the most notable would be an incident where I filed a now deleted RfC on Malleus Fatuarum because I believed he was being uncivil in an RfA discussion. However, filing an RfC in this case was way overkill for the situation. In the future as I have in the past, I intend to resolve my own edit conflicts through compromise.
3. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A. I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are my expansions to Civil Air Patrol and Continuum (instrument). I feel that I have contributed to both of these articles being the level of quality that they are now. I am currently working on getting Civil Air Patrol back to Featured Article status, after it was delisted in an FAR. Apart from these articles, my primary mainspace work that doesn't involve antivandalism work is simple WikiGnome type stuff.

[edit] Blocking

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A. I'd first check to make sure that the report is valid, i.e. isn't a report on username violations, edit warring, content dispute, and the like. If the report is invalid, then I would remove it from AIV and notify the reporting user. If the report is valid, I check the contributions of the user in question, as well as their talk page, to ensure that they have vandalized past a final warning and if they have been sufficiently warned. This is also to double check the validity of the report. Finally, I would apply the block time I feel best fits the pattern of vandalism, i.e. vandalism only account, etc. If the user is an anonymous IP, I would check to make sure whether or not it is a shared IP address. Then I will notify that user on their talk page of their block.
Good job. Very thorough.
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. If the request is for anything other than obvious, persistent vandalism (again content disputes, edit warring, etc.), if the user has not been sufficiently warned, if the user is inactive, or if the user has not vandalized past their final warning.
Sure.
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Never, per policy and because they have the tendency to do the exact opposite of "cool down."
Yeah.
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. Just as cool down blocks are never used, per policy neither are self-requested blocks. The user can instead go here for a nifty little script to put in their monobook.js file. If the user makes a mistake, they can notify an administrator as an anonymous IP, at which point the admin can immediately rectify the problem by editing the user's .js file.
Yeah.
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A. I would not unblock the user until I have discussed the matter in depth with the blocking administrator, and decided together on a course of action. If the blocking admin is not available, then I would discuss the matter at AN.
Yes. As you know, wheel warring is bad. =)
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. To be honest, I don't know the answer to this question, and I couldn't find it anywhere. I assume that a user has to be behind a bot, so I need to determine if the vandalism was the intent of the user, and if so, block that user immediately as well.
On meta here. Feel free to re-answer as well. Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Revised answer: After immediately blocking the bot, I would go to the contributions page and append &bot=1 (or ?bot=1 if there wasn't already a ?) if the bot had been approved by 'crats. Then I would click all the rollback links on the contributions page.
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. I would make a thread at AN/I requesting the input of other administrators before coming to a definite decision.
Yes. When in doubt, don't make the block.
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A. I would list the administrator at Requests for Checkuser, since I suspect that in such a case it is likely that the user's account might have been compromised. If there is reason to believe that instead the user posting vandalism is the user in righteous possession of the account, I would bring it up instead at Requests for Arbitration, where ARBCOM can determine if the user's sysop privileges need to be removed.
Good.
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia for article content. What action do you take?
A. Block the user, and if the block is likely to be controversial, make a thread at WP:AN/I.
Sure.
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I would not block the user right off. I would notify the user that their username might cause confusion and instruct them on how to request a username change. If the user does not reply, or refuses to change their username, then they may be soft blocked, especially if their only contributions are non-constructive.
Yes, but what if the username was ";LKASD;MMFA;DSNFP;KE;AKND;LAKVCNDS;LKNFA;LDSKNF;EOINA;DOK"?
Then the username would be blocked, but the block should still allow for creation of a new account to allow a more appropriate username, unless there is reason to believe that the user intends to disrupt Wikipedia.
Hope you don't mind my interjecting here, but there has been a change to the user name policy wherein confusing names are no longer blockable.Balloonman (talk) 04:41, 21 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 to block the user until it is verified that the username is intended to be promotional. If the user creates a promotional page or makes edits that display a conflict of interest, then I would block the username.
Yes.
12. A new user account is created with the name of "WJBScribesucks." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. Yes, I would hard block this username, because it is a personal attack against User:WJBscribe.
Good.
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. A softblock blocks only anonymous IPs from editing, allowing usernames to be created and logged in users to edit under that IP. A hardblock is the opposite, blocking both accounts and that IP from editing, and disallowing a username to be created. When used in the context of blocking a specific username, a soft block allows that user to create a new account, while a hard block automatically blocks any IP addresses that edit under that username.

[edit] The more common extras

1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
A. I like the idea of administrator accountability, and feel that having such a recall process is a preventative step against possible administrator abuse. Before AOR, the only way adminship was removed was, as far as I know, through ARBCOM and by acts of Jimbo. However, another power bestowed upon these two groups is the ability to ban users. But a community decision is also capable of enacting a ban. Since removing sysop priviledges can be considered a type of ban, this option should be open to the community as well. AOR does exactly that.
So as for adding myself to AOR, my answer is definitely "yes." Should I become an administrator, it is then that I shall decide process and criteria for recall.
Well reasoned
2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. A ban is a formal revocation of editing priviledges on all or part of Wikipedia, as decided by the community, ARBCOM, or Jimbo. A block is a technical restriction on a user from editing Wikipedia, and is used to enforce a ban.
Yes
3. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A. Talk it over with the other administrator and try to find compromise. I would not edit the article in question until then, so as to avoid an edit war.
Yes.
4. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?
A. I consider IAR to be used for rationale in XfD discussions, because if people believe inclusion of an article, template, or whatever is up for deletion improves the encyclopedia as a whole despite being in violation of policy, this is a legitimate reason to support keeping the item as long as the concept of improving the encyclopedia by inclusion is supported in that user's argument. That being said, the job of an administrator is to close XfD discussions based upon consensus in the discussion, not to apply their own personal viewpoints. So the only case in which I would apply IAR is if I were to participate in the discussion itself, but having done so I would not be the administrator to close the discussion.
What about WP:SNOW?
When it is clear in an XfD that an article has no chance of ever either being kept or deleted, then an admin that is able to make that proper foresight can close that XfD per SNOW. If kept, it is always possible to have a second XfD in case the administrator makes a bad judgement. If deleted, a concerned user may bring it to the attention of DRV. In any case, I can only see myself applying this clause in very exceptional cases, where the end result is to some extent obvious.
5. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
A. The policies are as they are because they reflect current consensus on ideas of how Wikipedia should be and how editors should behave. If I were to change policy it would not reflect consensus. Therefore, I would not single-handedly make changes to policy, though I would make proposals for the community to deliberate upon.
Ok.
6. What did you do to prepare for this RfA?
A. I went through admin coaching by User:Malinaccier, continued my general work on the encyclopedia, and helped on various disputes that I have found throughout the encyclopedia.
Sure.

[edit] Quick question

I noticed a lot of your responses are single-word "yes", "sure", "ok", and "yeah". I'm just wondering if these represent various degrees of satisfaction with my answers, or whether it indicates approval and that if I really needed to revise my answer you would bring it to my attention. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm just trying to mix it up a little. If I think you can improve your understanding of something I'll tell you or ask a further question. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Outside comment again, I was noticing the same thing... Malinaccier, just a comment from the peanut gallery, it might be helpful to elaborate on how/why the answer is good and how/what might be said/done to improve the answer. I hope you don't mind my input. I really want coaching to work, and it bothers me that this RfA failed so quickly.Balloonman (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV Fork is when an article is created in order to give undue weight to a certain point of view in an issue that would otherwise be covered neutrally. One recent example of a POV Fork's AfD in which I participated had to do with the issue of John McCain's eligibility to become president, having been born in the Panama Canal zone. The article had been created in order to give the impression that the issue was more serious than it actually was. Because of this experience, I would most likely nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, but if I were to come across an AfD fork with unclear consensus that appears to be leaning towards deletion, I would likely delete the article.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A.
  1. Stick to the facts. If your edits are likely to hold a bias, then only make edits that you can verify with acceptable 3rd party sources.
  2. Avoid a conflict of interest. If you edit articles whose subjects you have a personal relationship with, such as a school that you attend or a city in which you life, it is best to avoid editing the article unless you are aware of a possible bias and strive to make your edits as neutral as possible. If you feel very strongly about an article, don't edit it at all unless you are making only copyedit, reverting obvious vandalism, and adding verifiable, well-sourced facts.
  3. Look at all points of view and try to find a middle ground. If you understand where both sides are coming from, it is easier to make neutral edits because it is easier to understand exactly what is considered neutral to both sides.
3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
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.
Not neutral. The word erroneous conveys the editor's personal point of view that this belief is ridiculous.
2 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 criticized by notable cell-biologists such as...
Perhaps heavily and notable give too much weight to the point of view held by cell biologists, but as it is this statement is appropriately neutral, if sourced.
3 Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
This statement needs to be very well sourced in order to justify the use of the phrase "the most widely accepted." If it is, then the statement is neutral.
4 Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
Neutral, as it attributes a point of view to a specific person.
5 Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
Obviously non-neutral and should be removed, or modified to say something such as "Pro-life activists believe that abortion is wrong because they claim that it kills god's children."

[edit] Page protection

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A. If there is a content dispute between an anonymous IP and an autoconfirmed user, then semi-protecting the page would lock out the IP and allow the autoconfirmed user to continue to make their disputed edits. Thus, fully protecting the page would force both of the editors to discuss their dispute, rather than giving one side in the dispute an unfair advantage.
Good answer.
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. A page should be SALTed when a page has been recreated and deleted several times without anything being done to fix the issues that got that page deleted in the first place, or when it is clear that a page with that title cannot be used for legitimate purposes.
Yessir.
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A.
  1. When a page is a target (i.e. George W. Bush) or an obvious potential target for page move vandalism (such as today's featured article)
  2. When there is a current dispute that has not reached a resolution on the name of a page
  3. When it's clear that there will never be any legitimate reason for a page move, such as for policies, certain Wikipedia namespace pages, etc.

These are all good.

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 would semiprotect the user page at that user's request, if the page has been subject to repeated vandalism. However, I would not protect the user's talk page at all unless there has been very recent, very heavy vandalism from multiple IPs.
Good.
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. If it might benefit the discussion to allow non-administrators to see what the article looked like upon deletion, then an article may be restored and then fully protected to ensure that the content stays the same as it was at deletion. The protection would be indefinite, either being removed upon an overturn decision of the deletion, or being deleted along with the page if the original deletion was endorsed by consensus.
Yes.

[edit] Deletion

1. How would you close the following AFD's?
1
Consensus appears to be keep, but the arguments are very weak on both sides. I'd likely give my two cents and let another admin close this discussion.
I'm glad you understand that you can still comment and leave it to another admin. Good answer.
2
I would close the AfD as no consensus, seeing as most want the article deleted, but those who want it kept make much better arguments.
That's good.
3
Close as a keep. Having few third party sources isn't in of itself a criterion for deletion. The subject appears to be notable, which was the main concern.
Good.
2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A. One may generally disregard comments and !votes if they are made by single purpose accounts, or if they have been made by banned users.
Yes.
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A. If they can't be redirected to something similar, they should be deleted.
Good.

Besides answering these, I'd like you to take a look at WP:DGFA.

Already have. :)
Good. Have you taken a look at WP:ARL? I want you to have read just about everything on that list by the end of coaching.
Yeah, I've gone through some of the stuff there, especially some stuff that has helped me answer the questions on here.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A. Personal information, attacks and libel, and information subject to copyright infringement.

[edit] Miscellaneous

1. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
A. Pretty much fair but tough, as I am now. For example, only in cases of extreme vandalism have I ever started with a level three warning, and only in Grawp-like pagemove vandalisms would I jump immediately to an "only warning". As an administrator, I would continue to maintain fairness in this manner, but vandalism should be made clear not to be tolerated.
Sounds good.
Actually, I have to expand this a bit. If I find a very blatant personal attack on an article that requires oversight, I make the revert, give the user an only warning, and then make a request for oversight, as I did with this user. You won't be able to see what I warned him for, since that revision was just oversighted. But ever since I learned about oversight (which was maybe a week ago), I have reported about four revisions that needed to be deleted.
So if I come across what I saw there again, which was a page blanking for blatant personal attacks and libel on someone who hasn't divulged their identity, I would even skip just the only warning. I'd block that user straight off. That kind of thing is absolutely intolerable on Wikipedia.
2. Why is account security so important to administrators? List and explain three ways to protect your account from compromise.
A. Account security is extremely important to administrators because it prevents compromising of an administrator's account, which can lead to really bad things, like the deletion of the Main Page, for example.
To protect accounts from compromise, you should:
  • have a strong password. "password" is definitely a no-no. A combination of letters, numbers, and special characters that is not easy to guess would be preferable.
  • don't edit from public computers - at least, not from your administrator account. You don't know what's on a public computer that could be recording your account information.
  • don't let anyone look over your shoulder. It's not actually that hard to be able to tell what somebody is typing in on the keyboard, even if it does come up as stars on screen.
All good ways. Nice answer.
3. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
A. If an administrator's account appears to have been compromised, attempts will be made to contact the administrator and confirm that they are or that they are not in control of the account at that time. Also, administrators may need to be contacted for private matters relating to the encyclopedia, such as revision deletion that doesn't qualify under oversight.
Don't forget that blocked users may contact you for unblock.

[edit] Phase 3

Let us delve into the realm of Wikiphilosophy. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Wikipedia?

  • What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
    This image symbolizes to me a very cynical view of Wikipedia, one I'm sure many people agree with. I'm not one of the people that agree with this image, since this image makes very clear distinctions between the good and the bad, and that's not always the case. The difference between my view of Wikipedia and this view is the size of that little sliver there that says "actually useful stuff". Any legitimate article can be useful to somebody. If a legitimate article has been useful to someone, has enlightened someone, or has even caused someone to laugh (for truth is stranger than fiction), then we've done our job as an encyclopedia. Even exploding whales have their place.
Well said. Exploding whales...:)

[edit] Fun and Humorous?

  • Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?
    Like I said earlier, everything in Wikipedia has its place. Fun and humorous items belong in their own place in the encyclopedia (however, such items should obviously not be in the mainspace if they are not legitimate articles: they belong in either project space or userspace).
    In that essay, I, like most others, would fall under the middle ground position. I edit the encyclopedia from time to time, adding content to and creating articles. However, I willfully embrace the community parts that the essay claims the "orthodox" editors do not find acceptable: userboxes, barnstars, BJAODN, and wikignoming, to name a few. I don't find it necessary that Wikipedia needs to be divided into these two groups, since I see no distinction but rather a continuum.
Well put.

[edit] Adminship poll

Are there any polls here that you feel strongly about? Which ones? Why?

To be honest, I don't really feel strongly about any of these.
Alright :)

[edit] Registration

In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain.

Of course not. While most vandalism edits I see are done by anonymous users, the converse appears not to be true; anonymous users as a group tend to make constructive edits more often than not. Furthermore, it wouldn't quite be "The Free Encyclopedia" if users had to register to edit. I know that that phrase intends to convey the idea that the information on Wikipedia may be accessed and used free of cost, but I believe that the philosophy of Wikipedia extends to the freedom of information contribution and sharing. Disallowing anonymous IPs from editing would stifle that free exchange of information, which is the core concept of the entire Wikimedia Foundation.
Well-reasoned.

[edit] Admin favoritism

What is your opinion on the fact that admins often get preferential treatment from non-admins? Upon becoming an admin, what would be your response to favoritism based on your status?

I don't really think it's fair that admins get preferential treatment at times. Sure, passing an RfA is indicative of the community's trust in that user, but beyond that adminship isn't a trophy. There are terrific users that haven't been able to pass RfAs, for one reason or another. And there are other terrific users that don't want to be administrators, for whatever reason.
To be honest, I would probably not even notice being given preferential treatment for being an administrator, but if I do I would simply remind those guilty of favoritism to assume good faith in defense of the non-administrator, and remind them that administrators are simply users with a big mop, really.
Very good answer. I believe we're ready for Phase 4 :)

[edit] Phase 4

[edit] What do you think we should go over?

Are there any areas you would like for me to go over in more detail? You can also ask me any questions here that have occured to you. Malinaccier (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing that I can think of right now to go over more or ask you. If something comes up, I'll be sure to let you know here, though. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where to go next

I'm not really sure what we should go over next either. I believe you have a great understanding of how Wikipedia works and the key policies regarding it, but other RFA contributors will probably look at your relatively low edit count in a poor light. I'd personally like to wait until you have reached ~1200 edits to the mainspace and ~500 edits to the projectspace. I would also like to wait until you have been actively editing for 6 months (which is three months away). Hopefully you will get an FA at Civil Air Patrol by then. In the meantime, I'd like to drill you with some tough deletion questions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all parts (although I doubt I can make FA on Civil Air Patrol; I'm just not the type of editor to do that. I'll definitely try, though). But anyway, so we're shooting for a July RfA? —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd guess so. No firm dates though. Malinaccier (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion again

I'd like you to judge whether these articles should be speedily deleted and tell me your reasoning below. Assume they are in the mainspace, and even though these don't have a page history, remember that it's always important to check the history of articles about to be speedily deleted. Props to User:EWS23 for the following:

  • Halo 3 trailier
    Speedy delete per no context. I really can't see it becoming a legitimate article anyway.
  • Union Millwright
    Speedy delete again, no content except for external links.
  • Webs
    Speedy delete, no meaningful content or history.
    Under which criterion exactly? (A5, A6, etc.)
    Actually, upon rereading it this appears to fall under G11 as blatant advertising.
  • Neil Haverton Smith
    Speedy delete, as this appears to be an attack page. Unless this is very well cited, I can only assume that "Neil Haverton Smith" is somebody that this article was intended to disparage: "...and going out with his boyfriend, who is also his cousin."
  • Fall Out Boy
    Keep and remove the speedy delete tag. I know for a fact that Fall Out Boy is a notable band.
    Assume the band name was "Running Away" or something you had never heard of. Why would this article be notable?
    Well, all of the members of the band have their own articles, so if they're deemed notable enough to have their own articles, surely a band that encompasses all of them is also notable.
    Ok.
  • Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
    Delete because it's pure vandalism.

Alright. These are pretty good.

Could I get you to participate in 10 XFD's and list them below?

Sure. I'll just add them as I go along. This may take some time (A few days, I guess. I don't want to just rush in there and stack up ten really quickly. That defeats the purpose of what you really want me to do.)
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrossish
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global censorship of Youth's books
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit (2009)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pass the Peso
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camera Can't Lie discography
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimeo
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UltimateIRCd
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychosomantic
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armchair Martian
  • Comment. Good job so far. I haven't seen any "Per-nom" !votes which is encouraging. Try to provide a little more of a reason rather than simply "OR". State for example "OR because unreferenced" or whatever your criterion is. I'd like to see how well you understand the individual policies, rather than how well you understand "sheep voting". Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • These were good. I can tell you understand the deletion policies pretty thoroughly. Keep up the good work. Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the meanwhile...

While we wait on your XFD's...Would you care to answer a question?

What is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia? How will your actions reflect this?

The role of administrators on Wikipedia is simply to use the sysop tools in order to protect the project from harm and to upkeep the encyclopedia. Administrators are the primary force in dealing with vandalism, conflict resolution, and the removal of material that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies. As an administrator, my actions will reflect this because I resolve to use the sysop rights granted with adminship only for the betterment of the project itself.
Good.

[edit] Assuming good faith

(Don't worry, this isn't in response to anything you did.) Although it is very important to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE now, it will be even more so when/if you become an administrator. Every action that you take will represent the project itself. Your behavior will become synonymous with how Wikipedia is in the eyes of New Editors. Therefore, the utmost care must be given to deletion and blocking when regarding these people.

Keeping the above in mind...

A new user creates the article "John's Auto Shop." Assume that it is written in perfect prose, with a neutral point of view, and with adequate sources. But the one problem is the subject is not notable whatsoever. In what way would you deal with this that would leave the writer with a positive view of Wikipedia?

Before putting the article up for deletion (AFD), I would leave a note at the author's talk page letting them know that I don't believe that the subject meets notability guidelines, and give them time to respond. If we can discuss, that would be terrific. Otherwise, I would make sure that when the article is nominated for deletion, the user is properly notified and linked to the discussion in order to argue for their own side. In any case, I would thank the editor for their contributions, possibly through a welcome template or something. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and make sure not to use a templated message when telling them their article doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Good answer. Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

What standards will you have for granting rollback?

Just simply have a quick look through the user's talkpage history and their contributions. If they are an experienced, active editor (probably with greater than a month's experience, it'll be pretty arbitrary), and they haven't been involved in edit warring or otherwise disruptive edits, I will probably grant the user rollback. If the user has used scripts such as Twinkle or Huggle, and utilizes their rollback functions within guidelines, then I know that person understands the use of rollback.
Good. Can I have you look this over. It's generally quite helpful for new admins, and I think it would be a great way to prepare you for dispute resolution.

Actually, tell me about your RFC with Malleus. Why you initiated it, what you learned from it, etc.

I was actually wondering when you were going to ask me about that. At what point did you come across it?
Basically what got me started on the entire fiasco was this comment that Malleus made on an RfA. I felt this was inappropriate, so I reminded him to maintain civility. It was this reply that got me started, however, since I perceived that to be a gross incivility. The next few diffs in the sequence detail the resulting conversation: 1234.
Then came the resultant conversation on Malleus' talkpage: it's all in this revision.
It's all to complicated to list here in entirity, and spans across my, Malleus', and Keeper76's talkpages and etc., where it finally died at the bureaucrats noticeboard.
But out of this experience I learned something that I'm sure will be very valuable as an administrator: don't create drama for the sake of drama. As the relatively inexperienced editor I was (and I guess still am), I utilized the Requests for Comment page for an incident that was rather trivial in hindsight. What resulted was a lot of unnecessary wikidrama.
I also learned the concept of net positive, which I also realize made it an even poorer decision to file an RfC. Malleus is pretty much known for his extensive contributions to GA and FA, and quite frankly is a valuable asset to the project as a whole. Failing to realize this, I created a request for comment in scrutiny of a relatively minor matter.
I think that you jumped ahead in the dispute resolution process on this one. I can see that Malleus was incivil, but you should have just dropped the matter. As you have learned, drama for drama's sake is bad, and net positives for the project (an extension of WP:IAR of sorts IMO) often are accepted for their good. Now that I've seen everything out of your point of view, I believe that it's even more important for you to review this in its entirety.
As an administrator, you will be insulted over and over again for your beliefs, decisions, actions, and anything else you can think of. During an RFA, criticism may be even worse. Your post on WT:RFA about your changing views of Malleus is good, it shows you aren't holding anything against him or anything else. Probably the best thing to remember in these times is to WP:AGF, remain WP:CIVIL, and to WP:FORGIVE. DRAHMAZ IZ BAD. :)
I've looked over the NAS page, and will be going back to it time and time again to gain a better understanding of the material on the page. Frankly, there's a lot there. But I've gotten the gist of it, and it pretty much affirms some of the stuff I said regarding the RfC.
Nothing can be done about it now...So let's move on...

[edit] Copyvios

How would you deal with a copyvio? What if the article that was a copyvio was a new page? What if it was a high-visited and old page?

Copyvios are pretty serious. If a new article comes up that's a complete copyvio, that is potentially very harmful to the project, and so such a page is speedy deleted. After speedy deleting it, I would of course place a message on the author's talk page, informing them that copyright violations are not acceptable and that any contributions to Wikipedia need to be in one's own words. I would, however, invite the user to continue contributing to Wikipedia. If a highly visited and old page is found to be a complete copyvio as well, I would most likely blank the page and then see if I could rewrite the page using the source copied, but in my own words, essentially rewriting the entire article.
If new copyrighted material is added, you can simply revert to a later revision and place a note on the talk page citing the copyrighted material.

I looked through your last 500 edits, and almost all of them were geared toward vandalism reversion. I would like for you to work on articles a little more. Have you signed up for User:Suggestbot before? Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have signed up for Suggestbot before, and I've pretty much found that it's not helped me very much. In any case, I just made some very significant edits to Civil Air Patrol here, and am involved in a peer review for that article, which I submitted. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The high level of antivandalism work isn't a problem, is it? My article work is kind-of on hold, except for Civil Air Patrol, seeing as I don't really have anything I can add now to other articles, and there as of now has not yet been any reply to my request I sent to a photographer to release images so I can use them in L-Tronics. L-Tronics themselves have stated that they do not wish to release their photographs (at ltronics.com) under GFDL, but were willing to let me use them for the article only (which is a problem, since we legally cannot do that). —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a problem, but as you can tell from many RFAs, most want a candidate to have experience in article building. Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN—an admin's greatest resource

As stated in the section header, WP:AN is one of the best tools that an administrator has access to. On this noticeboard, you can get other administrators to review blocks you are unsure about, inform you about a policy that you are looking into, and get other admins to help you out.

There is no shame in asking for help—even after you have become an administrator. You will generally find that almost any admin is open to questions from their peers. Accepting that you need help also makes you stronger in many's eyes, and I would not trust an RFA candidate who refused to ask for help.

You can also get general help from other admins including myself. Like I said, almost every admin is open to offering feedback, an opinion, advice, or whatever help you need.

Roger, understood! —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Air Patrol is now at FAC!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Civil Air Patrol. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright! I'll keep an eye on it. :) Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malleus

I assume you will be commenting on his RFA, but I'd like to give some advice. I would suggest not commenting, or at least going neutral. This would show some maturity IMO. At least think about it first.  :) Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After 10 hours, I realized that I don't need to worry. You'll make the right decision without kicking up any excessive drama. :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I already noticed and decided not to comment prior to seeing what you said here. I would have supported, actually, but it's pointless now. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My first reaction was like "he's gonna do something stupid. He's already initiated a RFC on Malleus," but then I remembered how you described it earlier and realized that you'd be fine. Malinaccier (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't blame you for feeling that way (as in your initial reaction). I still do stupid stuff. I always will. I got myself into a hairy situation recently over what I perceived to be vandalism on Donny Long, which escalated over AN/I, BLP/N, and RFPP. I found the situation losing control, with the subject of the article threatening legal action, and other editors reverting his changes. I decided that in this situation it was best to blank the page (which remained so, fully edit protected, for just over a day) and let someone uninvolved defuse it. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion is good. How did you get into said situation? Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically doing antivandalism patrolling, made this reversion, and moved on. That IP was reverted once more by another user. And then a new registered user, User:Donnylong, made the next edit, which I reverted here. It basically escalated because I believed it was simply a personal attack, and it required not much more than revert and warn. It kinda escalated when the legal threat surfaced, and I reported the issue to AN/I and simultaneously requested page protection. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

←It looks like a typical case of BLP. My thought is that you should have taken it to ANI earlier maybe...BLP is a touchy subject, so it's best to be safe and go there early on. Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

You know, I can't help but wonder just how it would go if I were to run sooner. After all, this seems to be going pretty well. —  scetoaux (T|C|ER) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you. I'll start writing the nomination statement now. Malinaccier (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heck, I don't know. I'm tempted to try, but I'm hesitant. What do you think? —  scetoaux (T|C|ER) 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, it's not like I don't get a second chance. I'd like to go ahead and try it. I can always run again 3 months from now if it doesn't turn out. —  scetoaux (T|C|ER) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok! :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

←Is there anything in particular you'd like me to include in your nomination? Malinaccier (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I can think of. Maybe a count of deleted contribs? I've done a lot of CSD tagging... —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Consensus is that you went too early. I suggest we discuss this and what we can do next. What are your thoughts about the RFA? Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling at this point is simply utter frustration at my own inability to wait. I had felt all along that I probably wouldn't pass, but I didn't prepare myself for how the RfA itself was going to go. Kurt's oppose is honestly something I've not seen before on any RfA, and it's been bothering me.
I honestly don't know how much more coaching can help me. I believe that for now it's probably time for me to figure things out for myself in the next few months, decide when I'll run again, etcetera. I do plan on having another before the end of the year, late August at the very earliest. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
From now on, coaching will be what Balloonman calls an "ongoing editor review." Every once in a while, I'll go through your contribs (or whenever you ask me) and just answer questions you have. I should've stopped you from submitting an RFA, but I thought you had a good chance and I let you go. I've been thinking up things for my coaching system based on this, and I won't let my coachees down again if I can help it. If you have any questions, just place them below. I'll drop in from time to time to review your editing. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I still ask questions and do the exercises. But the focus is the "Ongoing editor Review." I also ask my coachees to make a "footprint" in 1 or 2 adminly areas... AND participate in XfD's. I don't believe in sending them to do x number of peer reviews or Y number of certain tasks, I want them to establish 'footprints'. Feel free to take a look at my talk page to see what I do during coaching... but I do try to give feedback at least once every two weeks or so (except for Tan who is ready for RfA but just has to put in his time.) The coaching for Dihydrogen or Happy would be the two that I would suggest looking at.Balloonman (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)