User:StephenBuxton/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Articles Stephen has worked on 2 Admin Coaching 3 introduction 4 AfD and your other edits 5 Things I like in your edits 6 The Questions 7 Reading progress 8 Advanced notice of absence 9 Peer Review 10 Speedy Deletions 11 AfD/DRV Exercises 11.1 AFD Execercise 11.2 DRV Exercise 12 Checking on Status 13 Policy and guideline questions 13.1 Commentary on policy and guideline questions 14 Timeline 15 Two three months later 16 Co-nominator? 17 Discussion 18 Helpdesk 19 3rr/name exercises 20 Question about Admin help 21 Entering May 22 Long weekend 23 WP:AOR 24 AFDs 25 Nearly there 26 Good luck 27 Will need to postpone RFA 28 My Nom

[edit] Articles Stephen has worked on

Hey Stephen, I've added this to the top because I want people who look at this coaching to be able to find this easily. Whenever you work on an article (in more than a trivial manner) add a link here so that people can easily see articles that you've made a material contribution to.Balloonman (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradley D. Simon. Following an XFD on this article (I originally voted delete, then switched to keep when sources were added to prove notability), I volunteered my help in improving the article. I should point out that I don't know anything about this person other than what the links provided say, but I can at least help with the overall layout and tone of the article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Magic (illusion) - I know I said I wasn't going to edit magic articles as I didn't want to be drawn in on edit wars about revealing secrets (I personally think the secrets should be just that - secret), but this page seems safe enough. There was a lot of POV, OR and peacock wording on the page, and tidying it up should be safe enough. I am trying my best not to let my own personal experience in magic guide how I amend the article though - that way would lead to me adding more OR. StephenBuxton (talk)

Harry Houdini - the section covering his death jumped about in chronology, so I tidied it up in to a more logical order

[edit] Admin Coaching

Hey there Stephen, I was just checking you out as a possible coachee... I don't think you are quite ready yet, but you are definately headed in the right direction. The two things that you really need to do to help your chances are: 1) get more involved with XfD's 2) write articles/contribute to existing articles. If you do those two things it will help your case.Balloonman (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Stephen,

I've taken a closer look at your edits and would be willing to be your admin coach if you are interested. If you are interested, you need to create a coaching page. This is usually done off of your main page by using the /admin coaching convention. I do have some significant concerns:

• If you can only edit from work, what kind of work do you do that lets you edit from work? Most companies do not allow people to surf the web like this.
• You have a significant lack of mainspace edit history. While you have a solid record regarding vandalism, Vandal only nominations are a dime a dozen. Right now, if you were to run, you would probably fail due to lack of article creation/contribution.
• There are number of areas where your expertise/understanding of basic policies and procedures. Before going for adminship, we would really need to tackle those gaps. Being an admin is not about knowing all of the policies and procedures out there---but you do need to be able to demonstrate that you know how to find the answers to questions. [Your question here] could kill a potential Rfa--it is related to one of wikipedia's core policy's. I know the original question was asked before you became a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but your follow-up question doesn't indicate that you knew the answer as of 2 weeks ago and since the original was not signed it looks like the original post was just made! Thus, my first homework assignment, find the answer to it! What might be the arguments allowing you to add it? What might be the arguments against it? What do you think you should do? Also, why did you remove the BBCProject banner from that page?
• I don't see you being ready for an RfA for at least 2-3 months... you have to demonstrate an understanding of policies that I don't yet see in your posts (there were other cases than the one I cited above, but that was the most blatant one.)

If you accept my offer to be your coach, transclude this post onto the coaching page.Balloonman (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks, I am definitely interested. First off, let me address your above points.

Puzzle Panel - I have no idea why the template got deleted. I was not aware that I had accidentally deleted it. I have a feeling I know what the answer is - but before I post what I think it is, I will go and research the answer.

Editing at work - the company I work for has a nice policy regards to internet useage. In a nutshell, personal use during breaks, before and after work is permitted (although certain sites are automatically restricted), during work time is not. As I live alone, I often stay back for a good hour or two after work and have a nice session online. Once I get things sorted out at home, and get a computer up and running, access will also be from home too. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

Just so you know who I am, I have been an admin for about 6 months. I tend to be most active on Poker related articles, but have my foot in other arenas as well (Catholic/military/busker related ones mainly.) Lately, I've been doing more admin related activities. As far as real life is concerned, I work for one of the Big Four accounting firms, practice martial arts, and used to be a professional children's entertainer. Married two children (one who is 3 months old.)

You are my third coachee. My first coachee hasn't run for RfA yet, but I believe he is deserving. It will not be a slam dunk because he doesn't edit in enough areas. My second coachee was a high school student. His RfA passed, but not without some controversy. I felt as if his RfA should have been unanimous, but it wasn't. You are my third coachee, and to be honest with you, you need more work than my first two coachees did. Right now, if you ran for RfA, your candidacy would go down in flames. That being said, I think in 2-3 months that you can be a viable candidate. The two areas that may kill you are XfD and you lack of main space edits. Prospective admins are expected to have an understanding of what it means to help build the encyclopedia. While Vandal Fighting is a legitimate and necessary task, many people at RfA want to see somebody with experience writing/developing articles. Thus, I have two assignments for you:

1) You've indicated that you can't do the research to really write articles at work, thus my first homework assignment... and I have ideas on this... what else could you do to help improve articles? Where could you go to find articles that you could help with without having to do research? 2) You asked whether or not it would be appropriate for you to add your name to an article that you were involved with. Look it up. IF you don't know where to go, start with Wikipedia Policies.

1)Wikipedia:Requested articles provides a list of articles that have been requested, I can look through the list and see if there is an article I feel confident about creating. I have found (and need to look into more depth) User:SuggestBot which can find me articles to edit based on past edits. I shall have to see about giving it a try, although with the number of vandalism reversions I have done, it would be interesting to see what it comes up with...

Edits not requiring citations can include checking redirects, spelling mistakes, bad grammar, adding categories, removing NPOV and blatant OR (as opposed to just uncited references). I personally would rather see an uncited reference that almost certainly is true than someone's opinion as to how two films/characters/storylines are similar. I believe in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but not to the point of spoiling Wikipedia.

The requested articles section is an idea, but I suspect that most of the articles you will find there will require additional research. Most of the subjects that you know enough about to write an article will have already been written. Plus, you don't want to write garbage articles. If you are going to contribute to the encyclopedia, you want to do so in a meaningful way. Ultimately, you want to be able to take pride in your contributions. But from a practicality point of view, in RfA's people like to see at least one FA and/or several GA's.

There are a couple of places that you can go to find articles that need help and will give you exposure to mainspace edits. Places to look: Peer review, FAC, FAR, GAC, GAR. Each of these places will have articles that have editors who are working on improving them often with the thought of getting the article to GA or better status. Ultimately, I would like to get you to help some of these articles get to the next level, but first I want you to take a look at each of those processes.Balloonman (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2)I would say now that it is ok to add myself. I have declared that I am adding myself, thus satisfying COI policy. Whilst I am not a notable person (and even if I were, creating an article about myself is definitely against WP:COI), I did appear on a notable programme. To leave out our names would mean that the article would never truly be complete. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those grey areas. You clearly are not notable, but you appeared on a notable show. Does that mean that the article should mention you? Was your appearance on the show notable for some reason? Would the average person looking at the issue agree that your appearance was particularly notable to the series for some reason? Take a look at WP:BIO. How many people have appeared on "the Price is Right?" Do all those people warrant mention in the article?

Even though COI allows for some edits on articles, it is often a good idea to seek the input of others. When in doubt post it on the talk page, like you did, and if somebody else thinks it is worthy adding, then they will add it. The fact that it wasn't added after 18 months, makes me question if your appearance was particularly notable. Plus, what happens now if it gets reverted? Or what happens if somebody sees that "stephenbuxton" added "Stephen Buxton" to an article. It may be true, but how many people will assume it is simply vandalism?Balloonman (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I do have a copy of the Radio Times for that week that does list me as one of the contributors to that programme. I guess I should dig it out, so I can at least add a citation for it. As to listing everyone on a programme - I think this is a tricky one. On the one hand, Wikipedia does tend to shun lists, especially where a list can potentially have no end. However, lists have made the featured article status - such as the list of Simpsons Episoses. I would hazard a guess that if something is likely to generate a never-ending list, it is to be avoided. Something that is always going to be a finite list may be used. However, I am still not entirely sure if my inclusion on the list is still valid. I agree that A list of all Price is Right contestants is going to be deleted within a matter of minutes. Including a list of regular contributors to Puzzle Panel within the article is acceptable. Somewhere between the two, there is a line that defines what can or can't be used. Now, all I need to do is to determine where that line is, and make sure I do so before I get put forward to RfA. No pressure then :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually when you see those lists, they are lists of notable individuals. A list of guest stars on the Simpsons will include the likes of Sting or Paris Hilton, but it wouldn't include somebody is is non-notable---even if they were a guest star. As for your appearance, it might be notable if something unusual happend or if the show usually pitted famous people on it. For example, I doubt if Iron Chef America would list every world class Chef who has been a challenger. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that they did a special episode where, for the first time, an everyday housewife to competed with the Iron Chef's. Then, while that housewife may not have been notable, the circumstances surrounding her appearance may be.Balloonman (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD and your other edits

1. There is a common guideline that is cited in regards to your AfD edit [here.] It is on Neologisms... look it up.Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Read it - thanks for making me aware of that policy. It has also opened up a whole range of policies, all held within the manual of style. Looks like I have a bit of reading ahead of me... (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Starting to get the hang of Neologisms - Military Brat is one such neologism (having a nose on your user page...), but I am pretty sure I understand why this one is acceptable. It qualifies as there have been recognisable sources that not only use the term, but have written about and studied the term as well. Going back to the Television Commercial Donut article - had the article cited something like, shall we say, a BBC programme made about the advertising industry and included in there an explanation of the phrase, along with perhaps an in-depth look at the consequences of such packages, then the article would probably be classed as notable. However, if the article had been a direct copy of the hypothetical TV programme, then deletion would still follow, because of copyright violations. If the article had been purely a definition of the term, but still citing the tv programme, then the article might have survived, but would need a rewrite, as Wikipedia is not, as has been mentioned on numerous occassions, a dictionary.StephenBuxton (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   One thing to remember is the difference between a Policy, Guideline, and an Essay. The piece on Neologisms is an Essay not a policy. Policies have the most weight and should be followed. Essays have very little (if any) binding weight. They are the OPINIONS of one or more editors... now some essays are more accepted than others (this one is fairly well accepted in the AfD community.)Balloonman (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Comment on the closing admin's rationale for this debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso (3rd nomination) that you participated in?Balloonman (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   I back their decision. The article was created a little prematurely, as he was on the cusp of being notable. However, as had been pointed out, the Crystal Ball method is not enough. I personally am in favour here of a little bending of the policy (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). However, I concede that too much bending of policy can lead to setting of dangerous precedent. Still, as was pointed out to me, the article can be restored easily enough. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   XfD debates often look at what wikipedia is not. It is a good page to have some familiarity with.Balloonman (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

3. You warned User:Iwannafyou about vandalism... what about the user name?Balloonman (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   (I will be going through your other comments and answer them in detail, but here is one that I can respond to nice and quickly) I was going to report his/her username to the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention page, but I don't think I did in the end. I think it was because I noticed that it was already on the Vandalism page, or it was blocked quite quickly, so there didn't seem to be any point. As well as being a recent changes patroller, I will often hang around in the User Creation log page. Extremely dubious names (such as that) I would report. It also gives me an opportunity to drop a welcome message on new users page once I see they have started editing. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Just a heads up, ALL CAPITALS IN EDIT SUMMARIES, even if justified, can be seen as incivility.Balloonman (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
5. I was taking a look at your recent AfD's. Namely, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of New Songs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeus (band) The fact that a Festival may meet the minimum criteria for being kept as an article does not mean that winning said competition conveys inherent notability. For example, I'm highly active in the WP:Poker project. There are number of significant poker events around the globe every year. Many are national titles (including the US Poker Open or National Head-Up) that are more than worthy of having an article about them, but winning one of these events does not convey notability to the contestants. In fact, the participants of the Poker Project believe that the only events that convey inherent notability are the World Series of Poker, the European Poker Tour, and the World Poker Tour. Similar comparisons could be made about other competitions which are notable enough for their own article, but do not convey notability in themselves. You might want to check out the criteria on notability---namely that notability is not inherent. Also, take a look at MOS:LINK I do like how you appear to be revisiting your AfD !votes. I think that is very important... if somebody provides reason to change your !vote, then feel comfortable doing so. The important thing isn't always to get it right the first time, but to learn from your mistakes.Balloonman (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   The reason I keep popping back is so that I am curious to see the outcome, and how it compared with my original vote. If it is the same, then I can possibly assume that I am getting to grips with Wikipedia policy. If it differs, then I can see what areas of policy I need to review. The way I see it is that you set me these AFD tasks for a reason, so it is up to me to get as much out of it as possible. A short while after writing my comment about the fact that both the band and the festival articles needed each other, I re-read (and took in) the bit on one of the policy pages about how the existence of one page does not lead automatically to the existance of another. I'm still not totally convinced that Zeus (band) can't exist without the festival though, as WP:Music does state that a band needs to have won a notable contest. If the festival isn't notable enough to warrant an article, then how can the competition be notable enough for the band to allow inclusion. I'll have a read of MOS:LINK in a bit - work is about to start ... StephenBuxton (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Things I like in your edits

1. You always use detailed comments.
2. Your votes in XfD's are more elaborate than most (you do need to participate in more as part of your prep for RfA.)
3. I see a lot of welcomes to newbies.
4. You give warnings to users and report them to AIV appropriately.
5. When you encounter a vandal, you appear to review his/her other edits and another example

[edit] The Questions

These are the basic questions that are asked during the RfA process. Answer them as if you were going up for an RfA now. Hopefully, the answers you give today will be different from the one's you provide when you actually are nominated, but I want to see where you are today and what you are thinking about. It'll give me a better idea as to how I might be able to customize coaching to fit your needs/desires.

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: When I first applied, it was so I could help get vandals blocked. Since then, I have started looking at other things too, just to help prepare me for when someone volunteered to coach. I started adding welcome messages, and got people asking me for the odd bit of advice. I always try to help, but it has made me realise that there is so much I need to learn. Your opening comments about me not being ready yet for admin came as no surprise! I still want to fight vandals, but having had a taste of some of the other sides of Wikipedia, I would like to be able to help people who need helping - not just those who ask me, but those who need it (see my comment about User:Agustinaldo below).

In summary - fight vandals, help newbies. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the keys to passing an RfA is to be seen as an Admin. If others think you are an already admin when you run for admin, you have a better chance of passing. Helping newbies and helping in other areas is one way to achieve this. Ultimately, admins don't really have any more authority/power than non-admins... we simply have a few shiny buttons (that don't really shine) at our disposal. Two places that you might want to start paying attention to are WP:ANI and WP:help. While ANI is "Administrator notice/incidents" numerous discussion occur there that are of interest (and with your desire to fight vandalism might be of interest to you.) You don't have to be an admin to participate in the discussion---heck, you don't even have to be an admin to respond to some of the request (Eg a person comes to the page asking for a neutral party to warn a person who lacked civility can be done by a non-admin.) You could also help out admins by researching incomplete reports. The help desk is a great place to learn policies and to help people out. Again, you don't have to be an admin to participate there, but doing so will help others better judge how you will perform as an admin.Balloonman (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As you've rightly pointed out, I haven't made that many edits to Wikipedia. Something that did make me smile was when an article I contributed to (Jaws (film)) became a featured article. I had read an obituary on the BBC online magazine, and I saw an interesting fact in there about the use of the tuba instead of the French Horn. I added the fact and cited the website. I accept that I did not cite it properly - this is certainly one area that I need to improve! Still, it was nice to see an article I contributed to (albeit briefly) become a featured article. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see you become more involved with helping articles get to GA/FA status. You may not be able to do the research on the subjects, but you can still help them out... that is why I suggested taking a look at GA/FA/DYK/peer review/etc.Balloonman (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

A: I have never been in an edit conflict with anyone, and touch wood, it will stay that way. I prefer to deal with other editors in a friendly manner. One exchange I am particularly pleased with took place on the Otis Redding talk page, discussing whether or not something was ironic. The end result - we still both disagreed as to what was irony, but the article was modified in such a way that we were both happy.

The closest I have ever come to an edit war was when I stumbled upon one whilst doing the Recent Changes Patrol. The edit caught my eye because of the insulting manner of the edit summary. I posted a few "be nice" warnings, then I reported it, and the page was locked for a week to allow for discussion. (NB - Had I have been involved in the edit war, I would have followed the Request for Arbitration process. As I knew nothing about either side of the argument, I felt it best to report it straight to the administrators). Anyway, I popped back over the next few days, but no activity in the talk page. After the page was unblocked, the edit war resumed. I reported it, and then posted a plea for sanity and decorum (the post is still there). So in answer to the part as to how I would deal with conflict in an editing situation, I would deal with it in the way I had suggested they deal with it. If no concensus could be reached after discussion, I would move on through the rest of the arbitration process.

The upshot of the edit war was apparently down to a rather abusive editor who apparently was a sock-puppet of a previously banned editor. Once he was blocked, the edits went on without problem.

I wouldn't say that any editor has stressed me out, but a couple have made me frustrated. The first was User:D. This editor is very good at reverting vandalism. What happened was that I reverted a vandal, and gave them a warning - I think it was probably a level 2 warning. In checking their contribution history, I saw several edits that day, most of which had been reverted by User:D, but this editor had not posted any warnings. Had he posted warnings, the vandal would have had sufficient warnings to allow Admin to block him. As in cases like this, I decided to take time out from vandal reversion, and post a request on the user's talk page. I had done this a few times, with good results

What I found was that about half the page was made up of other editors requesting that he warn vandals. I re-iterated the request, and got a dismissive response. I then went back and made a more impassioned plea for the warnings, expanding on other posts as to why it should be done. A little bit later on I added another post (my last on that page) asking him how long he would be happy reverting one particular vandal. In hindsight, a rewording of that post might have been better, but I did want to get my point across. I got no response, and decided to just leave it. This editor still reverts the vandals, but does not warn. I've told myself that at least the vandalism reversion gets done, and to go off and worry about something else.

The second editor that frustrates me is User:Agustinaldo. I came across this editor when I saw a post that reeked of OR and libel on the Dakota Fanning page. I reverted the edits and posted a general warning, but the edits did worry me. Over the next day, I looked back at the other edits this user had done, and decided that I should say a few words to him about the post.

I also looked though a number of other edits that this user had done, and I did revert even more, as these were full of OR. One of these edits resulted in a post on Talk:Frenzy (Transformers), to which I responded. I also posted an offer of help on their talk page, as I noticed that out of all the edits this person posted since the start of the year, nearly every single one was reverted. This was what frustrated me so much - the user is obviously commited to trying to improve Wikipedia, but because they were having trouble distinguishing between believing somthing to be true and proving it to be true, all their work was going to waste. Whilst I have not had a response from them, I have noticed a few self-reversions. I'll be keeping an eye on their edits, and will probably post again on their page soon. I have also eased up on reverting their edits - I don't want to come across as a stalker or look like I am victimising them. I am making sure that if I do revert, I am not doing a straight-forward reversion (or if I am, not using the default edit summary for reverting their edits). Edits [like this one] I have left. Yes, I know it is OR, but the case for it is very strong, and it is no worse than the uncited comparrison between the cartoon's title and the film Bonfire of the Vanities. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the issue with User:D were the editors he wasn't warning anonymous IP's? Some people hold to the notion of WP:FEED. I generally won't give a warning to an IP that is not actively vandalizing as a result of FEED.Balloonman (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading progress

As my reading will take a little while, and will ultimately look like I am not doing anything, I'll list the articles, policies and off-shoot articles as I read them.

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Offshoot articles: Currently half way through reading User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and carried out exercies User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: exercises in textual flow StephenBuxton (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Finished User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.StephenBuxton (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them.StephenBuxton (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Half way through Read User:AndyZ/Suggestions. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Read User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Read User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article StephenBuxton (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great... remember one of the reasons why I want you to get familiarity with these subjects is so that you can help out... both as a possible reviewer or, if you see a subject that interests you, as a contributor to the article. Working well with others and helping get articles to FA/GA condition is something highly regarded during RfA's. You're a wonderful vandal fighter, but the best vandal fighter usually won't pass an RfA without a decent history of article writing.Balloonman (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Peer review StephenBuxton (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Read Wikipedia:Featured article review StephenBuxton (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Read Wikipedia:Good article criteria

Offshoot articles - read Wikipedia:Good article nominations. ReadingRead Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles StephenBuxton (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC). ReadingRead Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles StephenBuxton (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC). Read Wikipedia:Good article criteriaStephenBuxton (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

That brings me to the end of the (initial) reading list you set me earlier. Whilst I am waiting for my next task, I'll wander over to the XfD and join in a few discussions... StephenBuxton (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Now the million dollar question... did any of those areas sound like something that you might be interested in helping out in? What I really want to see is some participation in article development. Right now, you are wonderful vandal fighter, but you need some experience working on articles. Many RfA !voters are reluctant to give the tools to pure vandal fighters. You don't have to use these approaches, but the reasoning behind suggesting them was to find a way that you could contribute to articles aspiring for GA/FA with your limited access to the internet. By watching Peer review, GAR/GAC, FAR/FAC you might find a subject that interests you that you could help with while others focus on the research.Balloonman (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Peer Review sounds like a good place to start - A reasonably developed article needing work on, probably with more instances of grammar corrections and Wikifying than articles up for FA or GA. Whilst I (at the moment) would probably miss most, I will at least see others find and correct them. This should help me see what needs correcting in other articles. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Peer review articles can be anything from a true stub to something that is all but ready for an FAC. Try to identify the editors who really know what to look for and learn what they are looking for. But find a few articles that you like and start working on them. See if you can help bring them up to GA---FA often requires more than one dedicated editor.Balloonman (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll hang fire on doing peer review until after I get back, as I would like to follow a process all the way through. Until then, I'll do some more XfD contributions. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. XfD's are very important for an admin candidate. A few things to keep in mind as you participate in XfD's

1. NEVER !vote with just keep or delete
2. Always explain your !vote (and do so with more than just "per above". What above convinced you?
3. Take a look at WP:N and WP:BIO and perhaps some of the other notability articles.
4. Try to !vote at the start of some discussions and at the end of some.
5. Pay attention to your voting pattern. Are you a deletionist or an inclusionist? Eg, are you voting DELETE or KEEP too often?
6. While AfD and CfD are the normal venues for deletion, consider some of the other venues.Balloonman (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced notice of absence

Just so you know, I will be absent from Wikipedia from this coming Friday through to Monday 17th March. If I get the chance, I might pop on briefly at my local library. Mind you, I am supposed to be laying a floor during that time, and have a weekend course that involves a few nights away, I am unlikely to be able to manage anything. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note... based on your previous information, I probably wouldn't have thought anything about it as I know you are primarily doing this from your work computer.Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, I was thiking that this friday was the friday before the 17th... so I thought you were only gone for the weekend.. thanks for the note ;_Balloonman (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. Anyway, I'm back now, ready to go! I'm going to wander over to the peer review section, find an article I fancy, and read through what's been done so far. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

James Bond (film series) has caught my eye - I am a fan of the series, and I know I have one official reference book of the series. I also have the box set of DVDs, each with copious notes for the films. The article is quite well written, but could stand with a lot of grammatical changes (one paragraph I saw, for example, was made up of just one sentence).

However, before I go barging in, is there some wiki-ettiquete that I should be aware of? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically just jump in and help out... remember that there are people who have been working on the article so be conscious of their efforts. Don't make any major changes without discussing them---perhaps introduce your thoughts first at peer review/the articles talk page. Remember while there is no "ownership" of articles, it take skill and patience to collarborate on one. Whoever posted the article at Peer Review did so because they are looking for help---take a look at the Peer Review and at the articles talk page. (How old is the article? If it is less than 5 days old or was recently just a stub, you might want to consider nominating it for DYK. Has it been rated GA yet? Is the author trying to get it to FA status? Has it gone through a GAC/FAC yet? Who are the primary editors? Is there anybody who seems to be "the main" editor?Balloonman (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been about much this week - real life took over. I'm going to be over at my parents this weekend, so should hopefully have time to do a decent bit of work on peer review/article improvement (they don't mind if I disappear onto their computer for a nice good long surf :-). What I will also be doing in future is where I have a few minutes or so, I'll pop over to the XFD area, and take part in the debates there - or if possible, try to get the first vote in. That way I can't be seen to always vote the way everyone else is. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletions

Here are the standard Speedy Deletion excercises that User:EWS23 came up with. Follow the directions below at your liesure.

The following is a test I have designed to make sure that admin coachees understand the policies of speedy deletion. The "articles" here 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 to your coaching page and comment on each 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!) 00:44, 10 December 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!) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Halo 3 trailier

• Union Millwright

• Webs

• Neil Haverton Smith

• Fall Out Boy

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

• Note to fellow coaches: You're welcome to use this exercise or even expand it if you'd like. You probably have a good opinion on what the "right answer" is on each of these, but if you want my take on it, you can check out the first time I administered this exercise here. (Note to coachees: Of course there are a lot of ways to "cheat" on this exercise, including clicking on the link I just mentioned. I feel you get the most out of this if you do it on your own without help from others. We often learn best from our mistakes.) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Had a few minutes to spare before work, so got started on it.

• Halo 3 trailier

Tricky - appears to meet the criteria for A1. However, Halo 3 is a notable game. At the time this was created, I would think Halo 3 was still a way off. WP:Crystal might have applied at that time, but with the amount of publicity the game got, it would have met the notability requirements. Rather than delete straight away, I would look to see if anything was written on the Halo 3 main page, and convert to a redirect.

It definately doesn't qualify for A7, but A1--not enough content for an encyclopedia might apply or possibly G11-blatant advertising. That being said, I would probably redirect to the main article or nominate for deletion/prod it.Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Union Millwright

CSD under A3 - only external links here.

Easy one.Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Webs

Delete - Meets A7 (not notable), and borders on G11 (blatant advertising).

Agree, G11 and A7 are better reasons than the one listed.Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil Haverton Smith

delete - Meets A7 (not notable). Google didn't get me anywhere (other than someone elses coaching page...honest, I'm not just copying!). Had this person been notable, I would have removed the bit about him going out with his cousin as that was unsourced and potentially libellous (and explained my actions on the talk page).

Was it my coaching page? But there is actually a better reason than A7 to delete this one---G10 this is clearly an attack page. As for explaining your actions on the talk page, the talk page is going to be deleted, but there is a place to comment when deleting an article. It's not much, but you are given a small space to explain the deletion. Take a look at this to see how much space you get. Also, look at the authors contribs to make sure s/he isn't vandalizing other pages.Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yours, it was here that google picked up. Slight misunderstanding here - what I meant regarding comment on the talk page was if the article was notable (and therefore not going to be deleted) I would add a comment in the talk page explaining why I was removing the potentially libellous section. However, as the article was clearly going to be deleted, the comment is rather acedemic. Just trying to live up to my reputation of rather complete comments! (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

Keep - they do meet the notability requirements. They have won a major award, and been nominated in another. Both were verifiable. They also have appearances on multiple notable shows.

Again this might be a bad faith nom or vandalism. Check out the contributors other posts.Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was something I meant to add! I did see a nomination for deletion on some other article a while back. The page hadn't been edited for a few months, and I noted that the nominator did not follow what I thought would be common courtesy and let the frequent editors know about the nomination and give them right to reply. I did that instead, by dropping messages on their talk pages. It was then I learnt (from one of those editors) about single purpose accounts (all this particular editor did was nominate this article), and that I should have just removed the deletion tag. I can understand about the concerns of single purpose accounts, but having spent a fair amount of time on the User warning template page and seen the warnings about removing deletion tags, I guess I have a bit to learn about when I can or can't remove tags.

Thinking about it now, I would say that I did do the right thing. I made sure people had the right to reply, and I had made a note on my calendar to go back a day or so before the end of the deletion depate to check that due process was followed. What I should have done was go back after a couple of days and see what the original nominator was up to. I would have seen that it was a single purpose account, and therefore could remove the tag, explaining why in the edit summary. Am I right in thinking that a Bot checks up once or twice a day and updates the XFD pages accordingly? Or should I have removed it myself from that page? StephenBuxton (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The bots are a relatively new thing. I know that they are now notifying frequent editors of articles that their articles are nominated for deletion, but I don't know how often they do so or under what criteria---Eg are they nominated on a daily basis or not. Which leads me to a homework assignment for my bot expert coachee (OverlordQ)!Balloonman (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Keep - notable person. I would mark it up as a stub, and if necessary (depending on when this stub was created in relation to the events depicted) add a tag to state that it was relating to a current news event. I would also add a note in the discussion page recommending links/references to at least three independent news articles. If I had a bit of time to spare, I would also do a quick typo edit.

The way I would answer this today differs from the way I actually answered it. I would definately check to see if it was real, in this case it is. It does need tags, but an argument could be made under BLP to delete!Balloonman (talk)

I should also add that in all cases above, I would do a quick search within Wikipedia to see if there were similar pages, either to see if additional deletion actions were required, or converting to redirect pages as required. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD/DRV Exercises

The following is a test Balloonman designed to make sure that admin coachees can assess AFD/DRVs. Most of the cases are actual cases that were closed one way and overturned by DRV. All of the cases were at AfD or DRV.

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it. Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. You can also click on the article link itself to read the article as it stood at the time of the AfD/DRV. Write whether you would delete the page or not based upon the discussion alone. If you would, explain why you would. If you would not delete it, state why. Remember to pay attention to the date/time the article was listed for AfD and assume that you are editing shortly after the most recent comment.

Do not use Wikipedia to see if the page still exists or if it was deleted. For best results, once you've made a decision about a page, don't go back and change your answer based upon subsequent exercises. But if a subsequent review has you questioning/changing your position, discuss mention it under the latest question.

1. Exercise 1
2. Exercise 2
3. Exercise 3
4. Exercise 4
5. Exercise 5
6. Exercise 6
7. Exercise 7
8. Exercise 8
9. Exercise 9

DRV

1. DRV Exercise 1
2. DRV Exercise 2
3. DRV Exercise 3
4. DRV Exercise 4

[edit] AFD Execercise

Exercise 1: GDI technology of Command & Conquer

cautious keep. At the moment, it should be deleted. I would give the editors chance to save their article, but pointing them to WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:FICT. In particular, with the latter article, I would make sure they read and understand the section Summary style approach for spinout articles. If they can edit the article to meet it, with more emphasis on real world and citations, then the article could be kept. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing about AfD's is that you are looking at consensus via strength of argument via policy/guidelines. Just because the majority of !votes said to keep, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to keep if the delete votes are stronger and policy based while the keep votes are "weak." This was actually, a case that I closed, and I closed this as a keep despite personally thinking the article should be deleted.

I wasn't looking at consensus, I was thinking about what the article contained. Thinking about it overnight, I am starting to think that deletion for it would probably be the way to go. I hesitate before deleting it because a lot of effort has gone into it- it is just a shame that it was done in such an uncyclopedic manner. StephenBuxton (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 2: Leo J. Meyer

delete As it stands, the only notability is down to his awards. If the article were to be rewritten to emphasise more as to why he was notable (or perhaps explaining what he did to gain his awards), then there is a chance that the person would meet the requirements of WP:BIO. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The big problem that I have with this article is that the references are lacking. If references could be provided, then I would have not problem keeping it. I included this article for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates an alternative to closing an AfD or voting on an AfD. Rather than closing the discussion Redfarmer relisted it for further discussion. When he relisted it, it could have easily been closed as a delete, but he probably didn't like that option so he relisted it. An option for number 1 would be to relist the issue for discussion. The second reason why I selected this article was because I felt that this represented a case where consensus could be over written by sound reasoning. Based upon the observations made in the "strong keep" I would have had no problem with somebody citing them as proof of notability and thus deserving of an article---eventhough the 'count' said otherwise. Closing debates isn't necessarily about counting votes---it can also be about the strength of the argument. To me the final argument was compelling---perhaps that's because I'm a military brat.Balloonman (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 3: Richard Denner

Merge with David Bromige. The only notable thing I can see on there is his collaboration with David Bromige. A google search didn't reveal anything that screamed to me as notable... except the actual article on Wikipedia (I didn't read it, though). I had a good read through of the exercise article trying to find some justification as to why it should have been kept, but couldn't. So I will still stick with the merge option, and ponder as to why the outcome was actually different.

I should add that I am trying to avoid google searches with this exercise, as it is all too easy to see what the outcome was, and thus influence my vote. Please be assured that Googling would be high up in my to-do list of any AFD I participate in. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article interesting... the guy who argued for keep is one of the few wikipedians who has an article about him on Wikipedia. He is a staunch inclusionist. It is good to know about people with agenda's such as Nicholson Baker. There is also a group whose sole purpose is to {{rescue}} articles from potential deletion. This group is knowledgable about deletion policies and often saves articles that otherwise will be deleted. I also picked this case because you will see a lot of articles with one or two votes like this one. Where there isn't much said in the AfD debate. I don't think a merge would be appropriate at this point, although you could !vote for a merge. If you are interested in how/why this was saved, take a look at the DVR related to it. The DVR is incorrect in many of the claims, but it does show why it was saved.Balloonman (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I read that essay with interest. I applaud their sentiments - I think it is better to save an article than to delete it. I will add one or two buts, though: If the article would meet notability, but is written so badly and is liable for deletion under WP:BIO (like that cannibal from the CSD exercise), then rewriting it is much better. If an article is being saved because the motivation is that articles should never be deleted no matter how trivial, then this is wrong. I love trivial facts. I'm a fan of the TV series QI which is full of useless facts and trivia, and find most things facinating. I love the minutiae of detail. Doesn't mean to say that I agree that everything should be kept though.

I've had a look for the DVR, but can't see it. Could you point me in the right direction, please? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 4: Moreno Valley Mall

Delete Per WP:COMPANY. I cannot find anything of note in there that warrants an article, and to be honest, nothing to warrant merging it into the other articles I looked at: The parent company General Growth Properties, the location Moreno Valley, California or even regarding Security guards. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that "super regional" malls are inherently notable. But this goes to a long standing dispute on Notability. Some camps believe that "inherent" notability is important and should be defined by people who are familiar with the subject---in this case people who work on the shopping center's project beleive that 1 million square feet of retail equates to notability. The other camp believes that there is no such things as inherent notability. These two camps are constantly at each others throats. It is why a lot of wiki-projects have their own "criteria for notability." WikiProject Poker came up with our criteria of notability because we wanted to "define" what we considered notable both to argue for certain people, but more to eliminate non-notables. Our attempt to 'define' poker players who are inherently notable created a huge flap. Officially, the Poker Player notability guidelines have no official status, except that they are an "essay" of the Wikiproject. Another example is professional atheletes. The problem, however with these "essays" is that sometimes they become ingrained as fact within the AfD process. WP:BIO now states that anybody who has played in a professional sport at the highest level is inherently notable. That means, that the person who in 1934 was called up to play in a single baseball game, had one at bat, struck out is by definition notable enough for an article---even if said person never did another thing in their life! Likewise, when these Mall articles come up, there is "precedence" that even if the mall isn't notable, if it fits certain criteria, it will be salvaged---if for no other reason that people from the project will come to it's rescue. NOTE: It is not considered canvassing to notify wikiprojects when a page with one of their tags is up for deletion... in fact, some consider it rude not to.Balloonman (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 5:Soviet technology of Command & Conquer

Keep and then reviewGive the article a chance to be rewritten to being in-line with WP:INUNIVERSE. If it can be edited accordingly, then fine. If not, then I would re-open the AFD. This is also the way I think the article from the first exercise should be handled. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See response below.Balloonman (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 6: Vanderbilt, the Netherlands2

Initial comment Before checking on google (as this is the only way I can determine notability), WP:NPT states "A city/town/village must show a verifiable notation in multiple atlases".StephenBuxton (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Texel. Multimap, Encarta (plus one or two other maps) did not show Vanderbilt, but did show Texel. WP:NPT states that non-notable places can be placed in the notable region. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The logic used to preserve this was a little bit faulty. Not all places are inherently notable. It is a common practice that places that are larger than say a village are are notable, but a place with 50 people wouldn't be. If it were verifiable, it probably isn't even worth merging into Texel. There isn't anything worth mentioning!Balloonman (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 7:User:Balloonman/AfD/Allied technology of Command & Conquer

delete Deja-vu! The thing about these exercises is the lack of page history to go with. Obviously, Page history (along with google-searching) would play a huge part in decision making. I probably would have noticed that the notability tags/fiction tags/etc had been up for a while on this and the other articles from earlier exercises. The editors had sufficient warning to get the article fit for saving. It is unencyclopedic, it has no notability, and it is written as if it were In-universe. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I ran into these three exercises shortly after becoming an admin in the order presented... and not back to back to back. I kinda of went through the same process that you did. I reluctantly kept the first one, then deleted the second and third. After seeing the 2nd and 3rd, I went back and relisted the first one to get a broader perspective. In hind sight, I could have easily justified deleting it referencing the other two discussions. The point that I wanted to bring up here is that our actions aren't done in a vacuum. How you close one of these might have a bearing on how you close the others! Would it make sense to keep one and close two identical articles? Similarly, there may be precedent that you are unaware of that might be used to override a deletion down the road.

Exercise 8: Denver police officer shooting (2005)

Keep. Reading through the nominations, it looks like it was nominated by a single-purpose account. Notability if the event isn't in question, so it may have been a bad-faith nomination, possibly even vandalism. Though if that were the case, I might have expected one of those "delete after 5 days if not removed" tags on there (whatever they're called - suffering loss of short term memory at the mo...). I would assume good faith though, and post a polite message on the nominator's board, pointing him/her to the appropriate guideline (WP:N/CA, for example). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep and perhaps a warning against the person who nominated it. This should result in further investigation---particularly since a few people have indicated that this is a bad faith nom resulting from my nominating an article for deletion. In real life this was taken (by another party) to ANI. The person who made the nom became one of my big supporters during my own RfA.Balloonman (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 9: List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Talk about a hot topic! All I can say is I am glad that I've already read the book... Anyway, what do I think. The information in the article isn't notable enough for a single article. I know WP:USEFUL isn't enough of a reason, but it would appear that a lot of people do find the information useful (or maybe just like knowing that the information exists). I also am aware that In-universe articles do run the risk of being removed.

However, as has been pointed out, (and I do remember this being on the radio, as I was cursing JK Rowling for days afterwards) the announcements of various deaths by JK, along with the "who is it?" coverage in the popular press, does give it real-life notability. So the table, in context, does have a place on Wikipedia. The question then remains, where do we stick it?

I would opt to merge back into the Deathly Hallows (book) article. I would ensure that it was placed in context with the real-life noteworthy related events. The table would probably make the article too long, so I would ensure that it includes a hide/show option, with it set to default as "Hide", rather like the info boxes you can see on the Eighth Doctor page for the Audio adventures. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answer. This is a very tough one, one that I probably wouldn't tackle in real life until I had plenty of experience on my own. It's one of those cases that you just know will probably be taken to Deletion Review and will probably result in numerous posts on the closing admin's pages.Balloonman (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV Exercise

Exercise 1 - I'm trying to get my head around that image exercise. Image rules have never been a strong point for me, and as I have never had an urge to add images to an article, up till now it as never been a problem. A quick question though, hopefully to help put all this in context: RFU was mentioned in the nomination - was the person who loaded the image blocked, and is now requesting unblock? Was the image to do with Rugby Footbal Union? Or did the nominator of the DRV get his acronyms in a twist? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm at work right now, so I can't really look into this right now... but these are excellent questions... I'll have to take a look at it... and might need to change the excercise. (This is a new assignment that I just recently came up with, so you are entering unexplored territory!)Balloonman (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review this yet? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm going to have to replace it... Balloonman (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 2: Jim Jagielski

Looking through the comments, along with reading the article as it stood, it appears that SorryGuy removed the AFD, stating WP:SNOW (love the images on that snowball page, btw). It does appear that this person is notable, shame that it was by and large written by himself. Having said that, it does read as an encyclopedia entry without too much POV. Anyway, is he notable? It appears so. I'm not a computer geek, but even to me it does seem that he has been significantly involved with enough notable stuff to warrant the article.

However, the question here is about what would I do about the Deletion Review? It looks like it came to this stage as it was removed from AFD after about 18 hours during the Christmas period when very few people could make a comment. Mind you, as it says on the AFD page, it isn't about consensus/majority votes, it is about making sure that the article is a valid one. It appears that the AFD would not have reached a delete result, so relisting it would be pointless. I therefore endorse closure decision. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I would have gone that way as well, but the claim to notability is such that I could see the reason for relisting it.Balloonman (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 3:Vanderbilt, the Netherlands

So the original AFD was closed very quickly, within an hour of opening? Speepy keep through WP:SNOW might not have been a valid reason for closing the AFD as it did not meet the criteria for WP:NPT. It also appears that the place might not even exist. For those reasons, I will vote relist. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 4:Vanderbilt, the Netherlands3

I would guess from the text this is the relisted AFD. Originally I said I would redirect to Texel at the first AFD. However, it appears that the place is a hoax, so the article should be deleted. A warning note of the appropriate level would need to be added on the original editor's talk page.

I would also check the contributions of the original editor and see whether or not they created anything else, or "contributed" in a dubious fashion. If it was a registered user, any edits would have come from that person. Any unsourced comments that they added would be removed along with a comment in the edit summary "cannot trust unsourced edits from this user". If sources were added, I would do my best to verify them, or put a request on the article talk page for others to verify it if I am unable to do so.

If it was from an anonymous editor, it may not be so easy. This would depend on the number of edits that has come from that address, or if that user comes from a shared IP address. I may just check the edits for that day/hour, depending on the volume of edits or likelihood of multiple editors. If I am not certain if an edit is valid, and it is still on the article at the time of checking, I would put a comment on the talk page asking for the other editors to verify if the edit is valid. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent response.Balloonman (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checking on Status

Hi Steve, two things: 1) Next weekend I will be travelling to Vancouver where I will be one of the guest speakers at an industry convention. I probably won't have access to the computer for 5 days or so. 2) Don't forget to work on building some articles. Your answers to the excercises so far have been solid and I really like your !votes in the AfD's, but one of the issues RfA people have is that they want to see some experience building articles/the encyclopedia.Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy and guideline questions

As an admin nobody expects you to know all of the rules, but they do expect you to be able to research the policies and guidelines--show me that you can do the research and navigate them. These questions deliberately do not include links and some are deliberately vague and open to interpretation. If the question is vague, demonstrate your expertise of the subject by covering the different options. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay), please answer the following:

Nice questions! I'll work my way though them in no particular order. Some of them (like the one about personal criteria for admin) I think I will keep adding to as I think more about the questions. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. Also, just so you know, I will be travelling from Saturday to Wednesday and probably won't have time to look at wikipedia during that time. And again, your top priority is to get article writing experience, it doesn't matter if you never work on an article after becoming an Admin, people at RfA's want to see admin's who are familiar with the practices/exercise of writing articles. They want to know that the admin candidate has the ability to sympathize with the article writer, so while you do great anti-vandal work, I can't understate the importance of article development.Balloonman (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are boss - have fun! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to drop in sometime on the RfA process just see what it is like. Read how people are answering questions, what people are looking for, etc. You'll find that some people are tougher than others in supporting. Why are people being rejected? Why are people being approved? It'll give you a better idea of what to expect---it'll also give you an idea on how others answer the questions that are posed to them.Balloonman (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

The wording is deliberately narrow, so that there is very little chance of editors disagreeing as to whether or not an article should be deleted. Reading between the lines of WP:CSD, I would say that it was to limit the number of articles going to XFD that would fail WP:SNOWBALL. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Only those articles that clearly deserve to be deleted should be speedily deleted. They are written in the tight manner so that only articles that have no chance of surviving an AfD are speedily. It ties into the parameters of AGF---there should be an assumption that an author deserves the chance to defend their articles.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

WP:XFD, as I mentioned above. Before then, there is WP:PROD. Anyone can tag an article, and if after 5 days no one disagrees, it can be deleted. If someone does disagree, then the tag is removed. After that point, should someone still feel it needs deleting, the WP:XFD process must be followed. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Of course, you can also improve the article!Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

There is a list of very useful templates that can be used for warning users for vandalism and the like: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. It just so happens that in each case, level 3 is the first time blocking gets mentioned. Persistant vandals shouldn't (unless in extreme cases such as vandalism only accounts) be blocked unless they have been recently warned against blocking.

When I warn, I always assume good faith, and start at level 1 (unless I see that the user is recently back from a block, or has done a particularly nasty set of vandalism, in which case I go to level 2). If they have recently been warned by someone else, I will go to the next level of warning. After warning them, I will generally keep an eye on their contributions after that, and for each vandalism act, I will add the next level of warning. Although they could be blocked after level 3, I usually wait till 4 or 5 before notifying the administrator, which is done here. The policy on vandalism warnings is here, and the policy for blocking is here. The level 3 warnings aren't just for vandalism (though that is probably the most widely used); warnings can be for other things, like spamming, the 3 reversion rule, incivility, and so on. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons why level 3 is important is because most admins won't block somebody unless they get at least a level 3 warning. This guideline can be ignored in certain cases. For example, a person who is warned announces an intention to continue to pursue the pattern until they are blocked or a person whose actions are so grievous that an immediate block is necessary or the person is a known sock/vandal.Balloonman (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Incivility, breaking of the 3 reversion rule (no more than three identical reverts in a 24 hour period), spamming, vandalism (though if they are established, it is probably because someone has hacked their system or they are just trying to prove a point - that is a no-no!). Sock puppetry is another way. Basically, they can be blocked the same way as any newbie, although I would suspect the ways I listed here are more likely to be the causes than random acts of vandalism. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an experienced editor can be blocked for the same reasons as a newbie. There are only two minor differences. First, while a newbie might be templated, there is convention not to template the regulars. Some believe that essay is wrong, but the general view is that an experienced editor should be notified via a more personal non template message. Second, while you should always take care before blocking somebody, you might want to take that extra step to make sure you understand what is going on and that the regular is in fact in the wrong. In other words, you don't want to make an enemy of a regular.Balloonman (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I have on a few occasions reverted an edit, then gone to leave a note and seen that the person is probably a genuine editor. In those cases I always revisit the page in question, and the editors too, just to see what is going on. One such case can be seen here. The original edit was this, my initial response was this and I rectified it with this, along with a polite explanation on their talk page. 62.173.88.59 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I did use the template in that instance (you can see the full conversation in the archive here, but I should add that nowadays when I come across what appears to be a bit of vandalism (e.g. massive deletes) from an unlikely editor, I generally use a personal note, or will add a note after the template. 62.173.88.59 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

For a first offence, 24 hours is the norm. For further offences, the length of blocks will increase incrementally. For an IP address with serial offenders, blocks of up to one year can be enforced.

Actually, IP's are often blocked for a shorter period of time than a named user account. The purpose behind blocks is not to punish somebody, but rather to prevent vandalism, and blocking IP's is generally tighter than named accounts because IPs can be shared. One should only under extreme cases block IP's for an extended period of time. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses

Follow-up question: The guidance to block editing from IP addresses for extended periods of time doesn't include what type of IP addresses?

Thanks for asking that question - saved me an awful lot of potential embarrassment! I've had a look deeper into this business of blocking IP addresses, and I wasn't aware of WP:SIP. As I am now, one of the first things I will do once I get the admin tools is print off that list of IP addresses, stick it by my PC moniter, and cross check before blocking.

Now to actually answer the question... there is a list of sensitive IP addresses that should not have lengthy blocks. If I were to block them, I *must* contact the Wikimedia Foundations Communications Committee. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: What about schools? What is the guidance on schools and IPs?

There is no specific guidance for schools and other multiple IP users (such as libraries, businesses, etc) other than what I have seen on WP:IP. All it recommends is that you consider anon block or school block, and that you should not do it for too long, and no more than a year. From my vandal fighting, I have seen blocks used on schools with high anon vandalism start at 24 hrs, and then go up to 36 hrs, 72 hrs, a week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and a year. When it gets to a year, the soft block option isn't usually used, so account creation has to be done from another IP address, or get their teacher to contact Wikipedia to ask for an account to be created. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

As the name suggests, an editor may make no more than three reverts (full or partial) on an article in a 24 hour period, so 4 edits is the violation. There are exceptions, such as vandalism revertion or the removal of libel or copyrighted material - no limit on those (though if that material keeps getting put back on there, page protection/blocking may have to be considered, depending on the circumstances).

If an editor were to do more than 3 revertions in one day, but spread across more than one article, this isn't a violation of the revert rule - but it might be an idea to keep an eye on that person, in case their motives are disruptive.

An editor can be blocked for 3RR by doing less than 3 revertions if it is clear that they are just being disruptive. For example, they revert an editor 3 times, for no apparent cause and then disappear for 24 hours, come back and do the same thing again. This is still a violation of the 3RR, and as such they can be blocked. WP:3RR has the full policy. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

Initially warning signs are in the editing style (simmilar typos, grammatical error's of the same type, same style of TYPING, keyboarderrors, etc.). However, this is not enough proof, but it can indicate that there is something going on. Suspected cases can be listed at WP:ANI. You should also tag the suspected accounts. WP:SOCK lists the full process.

If necessary, you can request a check user at WP:RCU. The policy on whether or not a check user action is appropriate is on this page.

GoodBalloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"? A tool that I wished I knew about months ago! When I installed AVT:Lupin's anti-vandal tool, I finally discovered it. If you are reverting someone's edit, you are only reverting one edit at a time. If they have made multiple edits that need reverting, it can take time. However, with rollback, it will revert all edits in one go until it reaches an edit by a different user.

It is a useful tool, and timesaving too. However, it did occur to me of a possible flaw. Let's say that someone is in a computer room at school, and makes a legitemate edit to Wikipedia (as an anon user). The person at the next terminal over sees what the person is working on, goes to that article, and vandalises it (also as an anon user). Using rollback will revert both the vandalism and legit edit (assuming that no other edits occurred in between).

This is one of the reasons I will always check the page history after reverting. If I see that I have rolled back multiple edits, I will always review each of those edits. I don't think it has happened to me yet, but should I discover legitimate edits being reverted, I will re-instate them.StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answerBalloonman (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

Condoms versus rythmn method? (grin - sorry, couldn't help myself)

Protection is where no editing can take place in the article space by anyone. Pages are generally fully protected during edit wars to give editors a chance to discuss on the talk page what should be on there. Non-controversial edits (such as typos, correcting links) can only be made by putting a request on the talk page first.

Semi Protection is used where there has been recent high multiple IP vandalism on a page - though not usually on the Featured Article page.

To request page protection, go to WP:RFP. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Look up protection. Your answer isn't quite right. Remember that the key isn't that you know the answer to the questions, but rather than you can find the answers.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Read through WP:PROT.For fully protecting, I was partially there - I think my answer on content disputes was correct. However, I did miss out on: History Only review (may be used during a deletion review, if a previously deleted page is restored for the purposes of the review); User Talk block, where an indefinitely blocked user keeps abusing the Unblock request tag and/or hurling abuse at everyone and their dog; Office Actions, where the foundation staff block a page whilst some other event is going on, such as libel or copyright action.

For semi-protection, I think I was pretty much there. I have found further guidance on semi-protecting at WP:ROUGH. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: actually, what I am looking for is in relationship to who can edit a protected and semi-protected page.

Ah. Protected pages (i.e. fully protected) can only be edited by Admin. Semi-protected can only be edited by established users. That is to say, Anon addresses and new users are the ones that are prevented from editing. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

Semi-protection is used, generally for a few days up to a couple of weeks, if there is high volume of recent vandalism from a multitude of anon addresses, and individual blocking is not feasible. Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive action. If an article has a history of repeated need for semi-protection, indefinite semi-protection may be considered. However, these articles do periodically have the protection lifted to see if the need for it is still there. The admin who lifts the block needs to keep a close watch on the page.

I've read through WP:PROT, and I cannot find any reason why a page would be fully protected due to vandalism. If people are trying to get around the blocks by registering new accounts, they still won't be able to edit the page as new users cannot do that on semi-protected pages. If a page is being repeatedly edited due to recent events (e.g. the death of Mark Speight, where his body was found but not formally identified for a few days)), this is more of an edit war than vandalism, and full protection until details are released is appropriate. But full protection for vandalism? I cannot think of a justifiable reason. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

Ignore all rules??? I can do that?!? Way-hay! When I get the admin tools, I'll make a list and get SERIOUSLY busy with the block button! Bwahahahahahah!!!!!

Or not. (Calm down Stephen, breathe deeply. Play some whale music. Now answer the question sensibly)

I see Ignore all Rules is helpful guidance for the nervous editor, along with WP:BOLD. You don't have to learn all the rules, which will probably save someone the best part of a month's worth of reading. If you know something that will improve the article, then add it.

What you can't do with IAR is use it as an excuse for disruptive actions. My silly (and rather extreme) comment at the start of this question is an illustration of the sort of thing that you can't justify. If used sensibly, then IAR is a very useful tool. Used badly, and the user may end up losing a lot of friends...

As to where to use it? I wish I was aware of its existence back in June/July last year. I added a fact on Homer's Barbershop Quartet about one of the singers, Dan Jordan. It just so happened that a few years back I spent the day with him and his quartet (not the Dapper Dans, a different one), and I found out that he provided the singing voice for all of Dan Castellenata's characters, except when Barney sang the Irish Lullaby. I added the information, along with a comment in the talk page explaining where I got the information from. A while later, I saw that it was removed. If I remember rightly (it was a while ago), rather than put it straight back in, I requested on the user's talk page that he could explain why it was removed, and added a further comment to the talk page (which I did forget to sign - whoops!). The other editor explained why it was removed. I didn't argue at the time, as the points appeared valid, plus I didn't want to start an edit war (I knew I would lose!). I did try and find a source of some kind, but to no avail.

Now I know about IAR, I suppose I could go back and argue about how my addition is valid (citing IAR), but I have decided against it. Apart from anything else, it is OR, and I have been removing enough OR from other pages to open myself up to shouts of hypocrit. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see the discussion on the talk page at Talk:Homer's_Barbershop_Quartet#Dan_Jordan_sings. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're reasoning was superb, your example was not. I like to say that the reason why we have IAR is so that when there is something that makes sense to do, we can do it, even if we can't cite the rules to do so. It is a means to avoid wikilawyering.

Despite it's name, it doesn't mean that we can actually ignore the rules. Your example, has several problems. First, it is not verifiable. Second, it is Original Research. Third, since it deals with living people, it could be a violation of BLP. One of the keys with Wikipedia, isn't "Is it true?" But rather, "Is it verifiable?" Just because you know something to be true, does not make it something that can be added to wikipedia. Core policies should almost never be broken, it is the guidelines/accepted essays where you are more likely to find leeway with the rules.

So, let's challenge you again, can you think of another scenario where it might be appropriate to IAR?Balloonman (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a better example. On Jaws (film), I added a fact about the tuba, having seen an article about the tuba player. I wasn't that hot then on citations, nor on what made for good prose in an article - hadn't read WP:MOS or. I thought it was relevant, so I added as best I could, along with a note in the edit summary asking if someone could format the citation correctly. Sure enough, someone did. Had I not ignored the rules, there was no guarantee that the fact would have been added. The change in question can be viewed here, and the corrected version by a kindly experienced editor is [here. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

If the page is being created by one user, then that user can be warned, and if this carries on, then a block of an appropriate length can be used. If it is an article that has been created by different users, then creation protection could be considered (WP:SALT).

I saw a while back, but I cannot find it now when I need it, a list of articles that have been created and deleted multiple times, that may still be created if they become notable.

It occurs to me that creation protection, like many of the other tools an admin has, should be considered carefully. It may be that the person is on the cusp of notability (like that footballer who's AFD I participated in. It had been created a few times, in good faith, and to creation protect that would be pointless. However, if people were to re-create it every day, then creation protection should be considered. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

First, check that the name you want is available. There is a list of names at Special:Listusers you should check first. Redlinked names cannot be used - all that means is that perhaps the user hasn't created a page called User:testuser, or it is a deleted user page of a blocked user, etc.

Secondly, is the name you are creating within the Wiki guidelines? Best check the name policy.

Thirdly, is it a new account? If so, you may wish to consider creating a brand new account rather than asking the bureaucrats to do the change.

Fourthly, how about changing your signature instead? You can keep the user account as it is, but your "public face" changes.

Depending on the reason why you wish to change, the article Right to vanish may or may not be a useful read.

If you've satisfied yourself with the above, add a new request on WP:CHU (ensuring you are logging in as yourself, not anonymously), making sure that the name starts with a capital letter, and that there are no underscores, as these will be replaced by spaces. Also ensure that the reason you want to change your name is included, as this will delay the change whilst the Bureaucrats await your reason.

Other things that can delay the change is a name that could disparage a group (at the time of writing this, User:Ebuz610 wants to change to Sensblow as: "Ebuz610 is pretty random. Being a Leafs fan, I believe that Sensblow puts the message across". This has garnered the response: "how about a kinder, gentler username? Saying a rival team blows is rather gauche")

...and then wait for the change to be approved/denied.

If approved, there is nothing stopping anyone else from using your old log-in name, so you may wish to re-register with the old name to stop anyone else using it.

Anyway, that's how it is done. Nothing there for an admin to do, right?

Wrong!

Although Bureaucrats are the only ones who have the authority to make the changes, assistance can be made by non-bureaucrats. Administrators can, for example, check to see if the user has made deleted contributions. Assistance like this can help speed up the name change process. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

14 What types of names can be blocked?

This changed a few days ago - confusing names are not automatically blocked. Names that can be blocked are names liable to cause offence, names that are of organisations (giving the implication that there are multiple users of one account), real names that are not your own (i.e. calling yourself User:BritneySpears rather than User:BrineySpearsFan. Names likely to cause offence, likewise trolling names (eg if a user was to call themself User:StephenBuxtonWhatAnIdiot) are also going to get blocked immediately.

Names that have been used in good faith, but still are a bit dubious should not be blocked straight away, but a message put on the user's talk page asking them to consider a different name. The policy on usernames is discussed at WP:U. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-Up: What are your thoughts on the name User:Yuckfoo?

Good question - is this a clever spoonerism (like the Kenny Everett character Cupid Stunt)? Or is it an actual name that has an unfortunate double meaning (like the car Nova means in some languages "Doesn't go")? Rather than report, or even warn the user, I would first go and look at their User page for a clue. If it appears that they are from the Far East, I wouldn't be too worried. If it isn't apparent, I still wouldn't be too overly concerned - it may be that they quite like the idea of a jokey name. It wouldn't surprise me af a Monty Python fan has called himself User:BiggusDickus.

If they deliberately chose a name to cause offence, it would be a lot more blatant. They would probably be vandalising as well, in which case it would be obvious when I check their contributions (this would be my second check). If they are doing good edits, then my next thought would be is "Am I being too over cautious?"

It occurs to me that there may be a danger for newbie admins that we may go (unintentially) looking for problems. It may be a case of "When you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail". In this instance, I might be worried over nothing. If someone is going to be offended, they may well have said so on the user's talk page. I would check the page and page history to see if anyone has complained. If they are a long established user with no complaints, I would leave it alone. If they are a new user, I might caution them about the name, but no more than that (at this point), and leave it to them to respond. If they have had recent complaints, but nothing was done about it, I would step in and have a look. I would probably also add their name to the Holding Pen for dubious names (linked from the Names for Admin's attention page).

Right - those are my steps, let's try them out! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Step 1 - User page check. No clues there - on to step 2 StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Step 2 - Contributions check - not a vandal, quite the opposite. A lot of vandalism revertions. So the next question would be - has anyone taken offence? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Step 3 - No one has taken offence as far as I can see. I see no reason why I would want to take any further action. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is a problematic user in my opinion. Your methodology was excellent (but the user deletes that are critical of his user name. At least two admins, a non-admin, and a crat have contacted him about his username. The problem with this user is that he doesn't participate in the project much. He disappears for months on end, then comes back and makes some great edits. *I* eventually decided that *I* was going to leave him alone. We could force him to change his name, but such action would be done while he was gone. If we did that, then we might loose a quality editor when he does contribute. Thus, while I think his name should be changed, this is a case where I ignore the rules about offensive names.Balloonman (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

When I come across libellous material, I remove it straight away, and warn the user - I did that on Dakota Fanning and Hounddog (film), and then left a note on the user's talk page.

Let's assume that the user disagreed, and reinserts the statements. The other regular page editors agree with that user, and see no problem with the edits. In that case, rather than get into an edit war, I would follow the process on WP:LIBEL, which is to contact Wikipedia. I would do that rather than go through the dispute process due to the potentially very hefty court fees that Wikipedia and the users concerned could face should legal action be taken. I haven't seen any other action that administrators could take in these instances, so I have just stated the policy route. Are there any other actions that administrators should/could take? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember truth is the perfect defense against libel. Thus, the question becomes is the libelous material true and verifiable? With libelous material, the source has to be very credible and a statement of fact---so and so is an idiot is an opinion not a fact---and as such must be cited to somebody. Now assuming that the material is uncited and libelous, there are two things an admin could do. First, block the user or protect the page.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

I think this is a case of taking a good look at the circumstances before going in all guns blazing. Wiki policy (WP:NLT) is that people making legal threats may be blocked. However, it occurs to me that there may be more than one scenario that can result in someone making legal threats.

Scenario 1: A couple of people are conversing in a bit of Wiki Love, and one of them takes feigned umbridge at a comment and threatens to sue. My action? None (unless I am involved in the conversation, in which case I'll respond in a manner appropriate to our conversation, but not in a manner that could leave me open to sysop backlash :-).

Scenario 2: Someone is in an edit war on a page, and threatens legal action (not to me, though). My action? Point them in the direction of WP:NLT, and suggest WP:DR as an alternative. If that solves it, then fine. If not, and the editor still spouts off legal threats, then I would block.

Scenario 3: Someone is in an edit war on a page with me and threatens legal action. (I've avoided edit wars so far and I intend to stay that way. I therefore hope that this scenario remains academic) I would not block the user - I would be too closely involved. I would suggest WP:DR, and point out to them WP:NLT. I would also report it at WP:ANI - my philosophy on blocking (not just on legal threats) is that anything where blocking is a potential outcome and I am personally involved should be reported at WP:ANI.

Scenario 4: A legitimate reason. This may be through copyrighted material, or libellous statements on an article page about them. I would urge them not to make legal threats, but to contact Wikipedia for Wikipedia:Libel problems or go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for copyright issues. It is their right though to take legal action. If they do that, then they should be blocked from editing until the matter is resolved. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at wp:doltBalloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting (and frightening scenario). That particular set of events hadn't occurred to me - I will bear it in mind in the future though. Something kind of similar has happened to me in the past, where I reverted some major deletion without thinking, and it turned out that this editor was reverting vandalism. I apologised, and always make a check of the content that is being changed first. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice bit of serendipity - you draw my attention to WP:DOLT, and I come across the actions of User:84.68.161.193 on Out of This World (card trick). Anyway, I dropped him a line on his talk page. He may not ever see my post, but hopefully I have managed to diffuse the situation if he did come back and make further complaints. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

1. Someone who has shown that they are unlikely to abuse their powers
2. Someone who needs them (You can be a very good wikipedian without needing to be an admin)
3. Someone who understands fully the policies and guidelines in the areas where they will be using the tools
4. Someone who is big enough to admit it should they make a mistake, and can work to correcting that error
5. Someone who meets the criteria laid out in Rudyard Kipling's poem "IF".

   OK, a bit silly that one, but the intention here is to say that the person is reliable, can keep a level head, especially in the middle of a heated debate, and is a general all-together good person.StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know where the poem is online, you might want to link to it... Others might view this.Balloonman (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - see above. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be taken too seriously, but I did rewrite If with admin criteria in mind. Have a read of it, if you have a minute or three to spare: User:StephenBuxton/If. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

17a FOLLOW-UP Question: In your opinion what is an admin?

An admin is someone who has a few extra buttons in their toolbox to enable them to do a few extra tasks. They have no other status than that, really. Obviously, to get the buttons, they have had to prove that they know a fair amount about Wikipedia policies and so on, and they have worked hard to get the buttons, but I don't see being an admin as being some Wikipedia super-user. Quite the opposite - I see being an administrator as someone offering to help others, and in the process, opening themselves up to being moaned at by others.

However, I am willing to put myself through that. Why? It will mean that there is someone else to help with clearing admin backlogs. One more person to block vandals (so less people about to vandalise. One more person to help with all the other thankless tasks that administrators have to do. And if someone, sometime in the future puts a barnstar on my user page, then I will be happy. And if they don't? I'm not doing this for the barnstars - I'm doing it in a form of "Pass a good deed forward". If I can be helpful to one person today (hopefully more, though), then these people will hopefully be nice to others tomorrow. And those people can be nice to even more people the following day, and so on.StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answer. Being an admin isn't about the tools. IMHO, an admin is a person who helps the project and helps others help the project. When I !vote in RfA's I will often vote for people who don't meet my criteria, but are already admins in their behavior and demeanor. Being officially recognized as an admin doesn't give one more authority, it only gives you additional tools/responsibility.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

I'll answer this first how I think it should be done, then I'll go and see what the official stance is on the matter.

I would revert the edit, and then drop a polite note (not a template - a tailor made note) on their talk page asking them not to do it. I would not add anything about blocking - I wouldn't want to appear threatening. I would remind them about discussing the edits on the talk page rather than risk an all out edit war on the article page.

Should the editor continue to vandalise my page, I would ignore it for a period of time, probably overnight, maybe even 24 hours. Yes, it might be something that was libellous or disgusting, but I think too many revertions would be the equivalent of "feeding the trolls". Hopefully in that time someone will have seen the edit and reverted it - the Recent Page Patrollers are pretty good at spotting things like that, and one of them is likely to drop a warning on their page.

If no one has reverted it in that time, I would revert it myself, and probably add another note on their page. On the article talk page (if I haven't already done so by this time), I would suggest that we follow the Dispute Resolution route. I wouldn't protect the page, I would probably put a request for the page to be locked by someone else.

I would also put a comment (if no one else has been reverting the vandalism and it is still going on) on WP:ANI asking for a third party administrator to keep an eye on the vandalism. One thing I do not want to do is block the other person - that way lies the dark side! Seriously, I am aware that administrators should never block someone that they are in a dispute with, no matter how much they are provoked. If the other person is in the wrong, then there are plenty of other administrators out there who can take an objective look at the situation and take the appropriate action. It may be that I was being a complete arse and (whilst not deserving to be vandalised - WP:POINT and all that) I needed having the error of my ways pointed out by the other administrator. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you been reading my comments in past RfA's? The only comment I have, is that you are free to undo vandalism on your page immediately. But I definately agree that you shouldn't block the user yourself especially as you were involved in a content dispute with said user.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't looked in at RfA yet - been concentrating more on editing in mainspace. That is on my to-do list! StephenBuxton (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Slightly different scenario, you warn an editor that you have not been involved with about vandalism or 3rr violations. That editor comes to your page and vandalizes your page what do you do?

Revert first. If that editor had been warned at level 3 or higher, then I would block them. If not, then I would give them the appropriate level warning, and keep an eye on their contributions, and take the appropriate actions. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on policy and guideline questions

Phew! That certainly did test me - thanks for the questions! It has certainly opened my eyes wider to what administrators can get up to... and to think that about a year or so ago, I thought all they did was block and delete.

Anyway, before I answer those standard RfA questions, I will have a good think about how to answer them over the weekend. Some of the things I found out from the above questions has broadened my horizons, and a few of them (such as WP:CHU/A) have caught my eye.

I would like to become an admin to be useful, and the questions you set me have certainly shown me where administrators can be useful! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Just so you know, I'm thinking that you are getting close to a run at Admin... perhaps around the end of the month?

1. I REALLY want you to focus on article development---you probably won't have enough edits to satisfy some of the RfA voters, but I think we can overcome most of their objections by showing them that you were willing to take direction during your coaching. Again, IMO, this is the MOST important thing that you can do right now.
2. I'd also like to see you get involved at either the help desk or ANI, don't spend too much time at either one, but do try to visit them regularly between now and your run for admin. Exposure there will serve you in three ways. First, it will help others to see you as an admin. Second, it will help you show the community civility and policy knowledge. Third, you will learn a lot from the experience.
3. Keep your feet wet with XfD's.
4. Finally, I want you to start watching the RfA discussions if you're not already. Pay attention to the concerns people have. What questions are being asked? What are the good answers? You don't have to get involved with the discussions, but if you do, don't just vote "Support/Oppose", give a reason for your !vote. You only need to check the RfA pages once or twice a week at most. I just don't want you jumping in there without knowing what you are getting yourself in for!

If there is a question that you are unsure of or an issue you want to bounce off of me from those pages, feel free to askBalloonman (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. I shall try and take a more structured approach to how I use my time on Wikipedia - I shall see about doing a day of editing, a day of answering your questions, a day for XfDs... and so on. This weekend I am trying to do some editing, but the library computer keeps on crashing on me. Anyway gotta go - computer about to boot me off. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two three months later

It's been two three months since I initially asked these questions. But let's see how you would answer them today. Before you answer them, read my guidance at User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA.

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Vandal fighting, definitely. This was the original reason why I wanted the admin buttons - to aid me in my Recent Patrol work. Along with that, I would also help out with Page Protection and Username Violation. Those three are areas what need to be watched in conjunction with each other. When I revert vandals, I will always look at their contributions, the page history of where they have edited in case of other vandalism (say due to a recent news story). As I also periodically hang around in the Newly Registered Users page, I can be there to watch for a new user's first edit. I will then see if it is a sensible edit, in which case they get a Welcome message, and maybe a bit of advice if they have had problems. Vandalism will be met with a quick and polite level 1 warning. New users with dubious names get dealt with appropriately. New articles can be dealt with appropriately if it is spam, an attack page, or a bit of help if it is a nice new article.

I haven't done much vandalism fighting or welcoming of newbies of late, as my coach has got me busy in other areas too!

These other areas I have been looking at have given me further incentive to get my mop, as I have found other areas that I would like to help out in. The main one has to be AFDs, and I would like to expand the assistance I have been giving to help with the closing of AFDs.

I would also like to do more work at the Help Desk. I know you don't need to be an admin to work there, but I think it would help. Questions such as "Why was my page deleted" can only get limited responses from me, as I can only hazard a guess as to why it was deleted, or at the very least let them work it out for themselves by directing them to WP:WWMPD. By being able to view these deleted pages, I can give a more tailored response.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Helping to keep Wikipedia free from vandalised articles is possibly my best contribution here. People who think it is hilariously funny to replace entire articles with "I woz ere!" (or worse) need to be dealt with in an appropriate and prompt manner. I believe my thorough vandal-fighting manner of seek-warn-then-report has probably been my best contribution to Wikipedia.

As far as article content writing, I will admit that I have not done as much as a lot of other RfA candidates. I have worked on Magic (illusion), removing a lot of the POV and heavy bias that was there. The Harry Houdini article had a messed-up chronology surrounding the events leading up to and following his death, so I tidied that up too. An article(Bradley D. Simon) that I had originally voted to delete as non-notable (but changed to keep when suitable sources were found), needed a lot of work. After the AFD, I volunteered my services to the main editor of the page to help clean it up. I knew nothing about the subject (I still don't, other than the available source information linked from the article), but I figured it would be good for me and the article if I could help with the tidy-up work. I did a fair amount of tidy-up work for a while. Unfortunately, the other editor stopped contributing, so I was unable to do much more. As I haven't found any other sources for this subject, so my work on it has stopped for now.

I realise that my lack of main article edits will probably count against me at RfA with some people. The reason is that I do not believe that I am a particularly strong creator of encyclopedic prose. Wikipedia is wonderful resource, and has many fantastic writers working very hard at creating top-class articles. I want these people to carry on editing in a stress free environment. Editing articles isn't as much fun for me as helping others. I would much rather spend an hour or two vandal fighting - removing those nasty bits of prose that these people litter the place with - than spend five minutes trying to compose an opening sentence to an article. My time spent on tasks like vandal-fighting is much more worthwhile, I believe. If I can do that, then hopefully the ones who can actually write articles will be able to spend more time doing that than cleaning up the vandals' mess.

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

A: Edit conflicts are very rare occurances for me, not just because I don't do much article editing. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith and taking the stance that the other person also wants what they think is best for the article. I can only think of 2 instances where I have been directly involved in an edit conflict. I've listed the most recent below.

This was regarding the posting of secrets on magic-related article talk pages. First, a bit of background: Initially, I didn't go to any magic articles because I did not want to get caught up in any edit wars. Being a magician, I have strong views about magic exposure, which aren't necessarily in line with Wikipedia policies. So rather than get drawn into conflict, I stayed away.

In the end I did go to the Magic (illusion) page, and did some cleaning up. Whilst there, I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic, and decided to check it out. The page included guidance on magic secrets. In summary - unsourced secrets to be removed straight away with a note on the talk page, sourced secrets to remain in the article. This appeared to be a good compromise stance to take. So taking the WP:BOLD approach, I went out and started removing secrets like this one, and posting notes on the talk page like so.

As I often do a couple of days or so after editing articles, I revisited the articles to see if anything was going on as a result of my edits. I saw on the talk pages of the articles I had cleaned up the removed secrets being added by User:TenOfAllTrades, with posts like this. Rather than deleting his posts (as editing others comments in talk pages is very wrong), I posted a question on his talk page. The conversation went as follows (apologies - this happened over two talk pages, so I'll just post the links): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The post on the project talk page mentioned in the last post can be found here, and User:TenOfAllTrades' responded thus.

As there was never a huge amount of activity on the talk page, and I wanted to make sure that any consensus reached would be agreed upon by as many magicians as possible (thus limiting the chance of future edit wars), I decided to drop a post to all the other members of the magic project. There are less than 30 registered participants, not so many that I would run the risk of violating WP:CANVAS. One such example may be read here. To ensure that I did not violate the canvassing policy, I dropped a post on TenOfAllTrade's talk page letting him know. I received this reply, which did come as a bit of a surprise. I responded thus. Coincidentally, just as I posted my apology, my coach (unprompted by me) was posting a response to TenOfAllTrades on my talk page.

Anyway, I decided not to pursue the note dropping, and instead see how the debate would progress. The full debate may be viewed here. I did raise it at the Village Pump for further input (and informed TenOfAllTrades about it), but got no input at all from them at the pump. At that point, I decided to take it to RFC. The RFC may be viewed here. Throughout the RFC (which did take a while to get momentum) I kept TenOfAllTrades informed of the progress. The main reason for dropping him notes all the way through was because so long was taking between stages, I was worried that he might not realise that anything was happening! These posts may be viewed here.

The RFC has now closed, and the result was an expansion of the guidelines. You can see the change here. I took the bold step of updating the guidelines myself before everyone had commented, as the draft guidelines had been posted for a long while with only one comment. Mindful of this change, I did drop a note on all RFC participants' talk pages letting them know that the RFC was closed, but that they could still comment.

As my answer to question 3 is rather long, I have created a page where you can see how I dealt with the other edit conflict I was involved with, along with an edit war I attempted to bring peace to, and how I dealt with the only user to have ever caused me to step away from my keyboard before I typed something I would regret. You can read these at User:StephenBuxton/RFA Q3.

Wow, the quality of these answers is SO much better than what you gave me three months ago. I've seen a lot of growth/change in you and your contributions. You may not be the strongest candidate that I will nominate, but I have to say that you will be the one that I am the proudest to nominate. I'll answer your questions below in more detail later (I have to run) but I do think you are ready!Balloonman (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would try to cut it down a little... it is way too longBalloonman (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your comment - will see what I can trim.

I've trimmed a lot out of it, is it enough? I'm rather reluctant to trim too much out of the second edit conflict, mainly because of the accusation of canvas policy violation - I want to ensure a complete picture of the lead-up to it, as well as showing what happened next. If you think that is still too much, I'll have a go at trimming further. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In Q3, I would probably just knock it down to the second conflict. Get rid of the others. Perhaps you can reference this page as where you talked about other issues, but on the actual RFA just deal with the recent one.Balloonman (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted - made a sub-page where I have put the removed bits of Q3. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co-nominator?

Two questions:

1. Do you want to have a co-nominator during your RfA?

I think it would be helpful. Do you have anyone in mind? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking if there was anybody that you wanted to have as a co-nom. Somebody whom you have worked with for a while (preferably an admin.) Co-noms aren't required.Balloonman (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you want to go for an RfA now or wait? You can almost assume that tenofspades will probably oppose you based upon your recent discourse. I don't think the issue is big enough to kill your RfA, but it might hurt. Personally, I agree with your stance, and suspect that most neutral observers will as well. That being said, there is no telling how the RfA community will respond.Balloonman (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I would rather wait until the issue is completely closed, and the decision on the project talk page has been agreed (even if TenOfAllTrades doesn't make any further contribution to the discussion). I would suspect that those voting in the RfA would like to see how I handle a disagreement through to conclusion before deciding. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. In that case, you are in the drivers seat. Tell me when you are ready. At that point, I'll do one final look over and then write up your nom.Balloonman (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

You've had an ongoing discussion with tenofspades on the removal of magic. Suppose you can't reach a resolution and suppose that nobody at wikiproject magic gets involved. What other options do you have?Balloonman (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently exploring the option of WP:VP to see if anyone can come over and comment. I'm giving it a few more days and then I'll put a request at WP:RFC.

Although no consensus is being reached at the moment, it is heartening to see that (a)the discussion is civil, and (b)I'm not the only one who has recognised that a bunch of magicians discussing magic is a tad biased (grin). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helpdesk

I like how you've been helping out at the help desk. Keep doing "adminly" type things... editing XfD's, and article work. Let me know when you are ready. I have no problem with your taking your time to run, the best thing you can do is get more experience/article writing under your belt.Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr/name exercises

Nishkid64's other blocking situations (username violations and 3RR). For 3RR reports, just indicate what action you would take (if any). If you choose to block for username violations, differentiate between soft blocks and hard username blocks (account creation disabled).

Example 1 XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.

Example 2 YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.

Example 3 ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.

Example 4 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.

Example 5 User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.

Example 6 User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.

Example 7 Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?

Example 8 Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

Example 9 Username: RealTek, Inc.

Example 10 Username: Bitch78

Example 11 Username: Iwannafkuup

Example 12 Username: Asswipeface

Example 13 Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

Example 14 Username: CroatoanBot

Example 15 Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Open comment on 3RR: I would in all cases double check what was being reverted. If it was vandalism, libellous or copyrighted material being removed/reverted, then I would not take any action against the user, instead I would thank them. I would then look at the motives of the person warning or reporting them. I am assuming that the following examples are revertion of good faith edits. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 1 XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.

Give another warning at next level up. If the warning they had was a recent final one, then blocking may be appropriate. As to what sort: If IP address, soft-block. If registered user, hard block, but not indefinite.StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 2 YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.

Partial reverts is still a no-no. So answer I gave for part 1 is just as valid here.StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 3 ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.

Put a note on their talk page thanking them for their self-reverting, and keep an eye on their edits.StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer. Self reverts are not a violation of 3RR. Suppose he made a revert and then self reverted, he would save himself from a potential block.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 4 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.

By separate reverts, I assume this means that they have reverted on a different article? If so, no action other than to keep an eye on their adits. It may be that they are trying to game the system. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be a poorly worded example. The 3 consecutive reverts means back to back to back---eg reverting of self. Thus, a total of 3 reverts.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't violated 3RR, but close to. Thank them for self-reverting, and keep an eye on them. Would also consider polite education of 3RR reporting policy to person who reported them, whilst thanking them for their vigilance. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 5 User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.

This editor really does seem to be playing the system. Have they been warned? Soft block for IP address, full block on registered user - length to be determined from past block history and contribution history. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up Assuming no prior blocks, how long?Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:3rr, up to 24 hours. If it is a shared IP address, I would consider a much shorter length of time, as it could affect others. If it is one of those sensitive IP addresses, very short block coupled with notification to the Wikipedia foundation people. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 6 User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.

Potentially playing the system as example 5, or it may be the result of an edit war. If playing the system, I would act as example 5; if edit war, as example 7.

Yes, 3RR is a guideline, if a person is demonstrating a game the system attitude, then a block may be necessary. Please pay attention to the type of edits being performed tho and whether or not it is 2 people in a war together. BLATANT anti-vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR---by blatant, I may consider an edit to be vandalism, but a neutral observer may deem it a content dispute. If it is blatant, then the neutral observer would deem it vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 7 Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?

Page protect (musn't forget the appropriate tag about current version not necessarily being correct version), and encourage content debate on talk page. If no resolution, then move on through dispute resolution process. Depending on the nature of the edit war (civil or otherwise), warnings may be needed on the editors' talk pages.

EXCELLENT answer!!!Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

General comment on usernames. I would always check their edit history for spamming and/or vandalism. If they aren't doing that and are editing sensibly, then a polite comment on their talk space about changing their username may be in order (or with new usernames, asking them to re-register with a more appropriate name - don't bite the newbies!). Looking at the examples below, I suspect that the edit histories will be showing some spamming and/or nastiness, so the responses are as such. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good attitude! Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 8 Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

Username matches real organisation. If spamming, would consider hardblock, otherwise softblock. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if the account has been spamming the website, you might leave account creation open. If the account has been spamming website, consider disabling new accounts.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Should one of those "has been" be "hasn't been"? StephenBuxton (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 9 Username: RealTek, Inc.

Username matches real organisation. If spamming, would consider hardblock, otherwise softblock. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 10 Username: Bitch78

Name liable to cause offence, although the term "bitch" has become far more widely used and as such it might be for a genuine editor. Would review edits, and ask/soft block/hard block depending what I find. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While it isn't as offensive as it used to be, it probably deserves an indef block. You are much too nice ;-) Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you sir (*curtseys*). As I learn more and more about the role of the mop-holder, I am reminded more and more about the words of Peter Parker/Spiderman's uncle: With great power comes great responsibility". Should I be awarded the mop, I will be cautious to begin with about how I use the tools, making great reliance on WP:AGF, so the answer I gave here stands - this is following on from that discussion we had earlier about User:Yuckfoo. As I gain more experience, I will almost certainly be wielding the mop with more confidence and instinct. For the time being (or at least until my skin thickens up - heh heh heh) I will be acting rather cautiously. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 11 Username: Iwannafkuup

Name liable to cause offence - softblock (or hard block if being a vandal). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer, but FOLLOW-UP please explain what you mean by soft/hard block. I think you know, but I want to make it clear that you do!Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 12 Username: Asswipeface

Name liable to cause offence - softblock (or hard block if being a vandal). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 13 Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

Confusing/random usernames are no longer justification enough for blocking, so a polite note on their user page would be in order. However, if vandalism is also happening, hardblock.

Your answer actually had me look up the current policy on user names! You are exactly correct! Confusing names is no longer justification on it's own for blocking. As is the rest of your answer! GREAT job!

Example 14 Username: CroatoanBot

First off - is it actually a bot? If not, soft block as it is a misleading username. Secondly, is it an authorised bot (see WP:B)? If not, consider soft block. Is it a malicious bot? If so, hard block.

Good answer, again depending on your answer to the follow up question above about what you mean by hard and soft blocks!Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example 15 Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Sounds like a small company that might have more than one person using an account, which will require a soft block, along with the appropriate message on their page. Even if it isn't the case, it is still a name that maches an organisation or company, and soft block is appropriate. If spamming, hard block is likely to be more appropriate. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You knocked these questions out of the park! GREAT job!Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks... However, I like to think of this as a case of me having a good tutor who has been pointing me in all the right places. I'll do the follow up bits when I have a few more minutes to spare. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of block levels: Soft Block - used for IP addresses (and registered users with inappropriate names but otherwise good editors). Editing disabled, account creation enabled. Registered users from that address can still edit. Hard block Editing disabled, account creation disabled. This prevents creation of an account from the IP address that the vandal last used, and any subsequent IP address the user tries to log on from.StephenBuxton (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Admin help

Something I've been meaning to ask you for a while now is regarding help from other administrators who speak different languages. I took part in a couple of deletion discussions for Zeus and some Slovenian festival, and I noticed you did to. Your involvement was to bring in an administrator who spoke the language and could review the notability, User:Tone I think it was.

My question: Is there somewhere on Wiki that lists administrators and the languages they speak, or the areas of expertise that they have? Or was it a case of you had met this admin in the past and knew who to go to? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought of something else I wanted to ask you about - what do you do if you see an administrator doing things that they shouldn't do? In that XFD, one admin blocked another completly inappropriately I felt (and Tone did too, I seem to recall). The admin was in a dispute with this other user and blocked him without sufficient warning. It was for deletion of comments, which including deletion of a comment on their own user page, and removal of a character or two from the admin's comment (which was actually a self revertion).

Aside from the fact that the user wasn't warned sufficiently, it wasn't justified, and it was with someone they were in a dispute with. What should I do if I see something like that happen?

I saw what Tone did, which was to comment on the XFD page. I personally would be inclined to revert the block (although I know that is something that is frowned upon) and do a sanity check on WP:AN/I, notifying the wayward admin what I had done. Or should I just leave a polite message on the admin's talk page asking them to reverse their actions (although in the meantime this blocked user has lost the chance for a right to reply in the discussion)?

What would you do? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the discussion, it's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of New Songs StephenBuxton (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions. As for how I knew about Tone, I actually stumbled across him at the same time that your discussion in the XfD's was going on. I brought him into the discussion because I felt that we were getting a "he said-she said" story from two people and couldn't evaluate the weight of the subject. Thus, I asked Tone for his input as a person who could independently provide insight into the discussion. That being said, a potential way to identify people who speak the language would be to use the user boxes. By going to one of the users who participated in the debate, you can find the user box for Slovene. Click on it and find other users who speak Slovene. A neutral message to some of them might be helpful. Before posting a message, I would first try to find an administrator on the list and find somebody who is active. Eg asking help from somebody who hasn't posted in 3 months may not be beneficial. While being an admin is not required, it does show a certain degree of trust from the community. In this case I happened to stumble across a person who was both an admin on the English version and the Slovene version of Wikipedia.

As for the admin block... Courtesy generally dictates asking the blocking admin for a response before undoing a block---even when it appears unjust. Perhaps there was more to the story than you or Tone was aware of? Thus, a message on the blocking admin's page. If he/she doesn't respond within 15-30 minutes, then you can go ahead and unblock if you are certain that the block wasn't justified. If there is question, you can always post on AN/I explaining what and why you did what you did to get other, more experienced admin's, input on your over-ruling the first admin. Or asking for others to input on the action of the first admin stating that you think it was unjustified, but wanted input from others before acting. If there is ANY question about what I do, I will take myself to AN/I to ensure that I am acting within general community guidelines. Every time, except once, the AN/I community supported my action. The one time they disagreed was a time where I didn't make the change, but requested somebody else do it. Generally, my experience has been when dealing with a person who is blocked and has a discussion concerning said block ongoing at AN/I it is to unblock that user so that they can participate in the AN/I discussion.Balloonman (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entering May

Hey there Stephen,

Again, just tell me when you are ready to run and I'll write up the nom. In the meantime:

1. Continue your discussion concerning magic and try to reach a consensus on it.
2. Continue your contributions to article building.
3. Continue your pariticipation in XfD's---you are doing a great job there. I love your reasoning.
4. Continue to participate in things like the Help Desk.
5. A new task for you. Close an XfD or two. Find a few XfD's that should be closed as unanimous/Snow KEEPs. (Do not close any that need to be deleted or where a delete vote has been cast.) And close them.

Being an admin, is, IMHO, not about the tools, but about serving the community. Your attitude and involvement with the project is significantly different from what I saw 3 months ago, and I think it will go a long ways towards getting you the Mop.Balloonman (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Has it really been 3 months....? I will have a go at doing the XFD closing - is there a lesson anywhere as to how to go about doing that? Like what templates need to be used, what needs to be deleted, recorded, etc? I've had a look on the XFD page and a few of the linked pages, but I can't see anything. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it (with some help from the Help page...): WP:NAC. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That was actually part of the challenge... sometimes finding the instructions can be difficult!Balloonman (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WRT the magic discussion, I've now raised the discussion at RFC, and awaiting the bot to update the list. I have also let Tenofalltrades know about it. I haven't commented in there yet, as it is getting late, and I would like to go home :-). StephenBuxton (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long weekend

I'm going to be away until Wednesday next week, and it is unlikely that I will be able to get to a PC in that time. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... I was just coming by to let you know that I hadn't forgotten about you... again let me know when you are ready.Balloonman (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AOR

A question I've seen from time to time at RFA is about whether a candidate will make themselves open to recall. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this? In my mind, it seems like a slightly odd thing to have, and possibly even unnecessary. I mean, if I get given the mop, I will be automatically putting myself under more scrutiny than I am at the moment. I would like to think that if I do make a blunder, I am approachable enough to be told where I went wrong and what I should have done. I have no qualms about that - after all, isn't life a learning process? But to voluntarily put ones self up for recall seems over the top - by accepting the mop, I would have thought you are automatically opening your actions up for peer review, along with the acceptance of what your peers and the crats will do should you go astray. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are asked, give an honest answer. There are some who WILL oppose you if say you won't to put yourself on the list, but there are some (fewer) who will oppose you for saying you will. Personally, I think it is a stupid question and I think asking it a useless category. A few months ago, a candidate pointed out that there has never been somebody removed from adminship via AOR and that there are currently adequate measures in place to desysop people who have messed up. Just take a look at, the Undertow's experience. In less than a day, an issue was raised on ANI and was taken to the Arbcom. The Undertow voluntarily desysop'd himself as a result of the ruckus. If a person needs to be desysopped, it WILL happen quicker than an AOR would every allow. AOR is, IMHO, a feel good measure that has no real teeth.Balloonman (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs

Can I just say a big loud THANK YOU for suggesting I get involved with AFDs? I'm loving it! Not just the opportunity to learn more about the policies in Wiki, but the detective work too! I love puzzle solving and writing (got some puzzles published in BBC MindGames Magazine), and I am finding AFDs a lot of fun with the seeking out of justifiable evidence for or against the original nomination. Even admitting that I made a boo-boo with a !vote hasn't dissuaded me from these discussions. Once (if) I get my mop, AFDs is DEFINITELY a place you will find me... and if I don't get it, I think I'll still hang around there too. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

...and if anyone reviewing my coaching page would like to know what I meant about a "boo-boo with a !vote", check out this AFD. You may also want to look at my posts here and here. < smugness >I also got a nice compliment too</ smugness>. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nearly there

I think the RFC at Project magic is coming to a conclusion (thanks, BTW, for your unexpected but totally welcome input!), so I guess that the time for my RFA approaches...

I might be able to get internet connection at home (will be checking up about this in the next day or so). As I would like to make sure I am about at the start of the RFA to answer the initial questions (I did read your essay about conduct etc at RFA :-), it might be as well to see if I can get access at home.

If it turns out that it isn't possible, then I guess we had best work out when would be a good time to make sure that we are both about. I'm guessing we are in different time zones - I'm in the UK, which is currently GMT+1 (British Summer Time).

Until the start of the RFA, I'm going to carry on with the AFDs (really loving those!), help desk, and the tidying up of articles that I happen to come across. I know my article editing hasn't been as strong as you would have liked - but hopefully it won't count against me too much. I feel that my other contributions to Wikipedia are strong - vandal fighting, AFDs, CSDs, Help desk, etc. Strong enough? I guess we'll find out soon enough... Oh yes, and I'll carry on with the standard set answers for RFA.

If there is anything else you think I should have a look at between now and the RFA, please let me know!

However the RFA turns out, I would like to say a huge THANKS!!!! for putting up with me and helping me get to this stage. Even if I don't get the mop, you can be assured that I will take away everything I have learned from your coaching and apply it to all my future work on Wikipedia. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The big reason I wanted you to get involved with article writing was to get a sense of what it feels like to give your heart and soul to the project. To feel strongly about an issue and have others disagree with you or want to undo what you believe in. Your encounter with the Magic Project has done just that. Your perceptions of the project are going to be shaped completely differently today than they were 3 months ago because of this experience. Thus, while I was hoping for more "content" building, your involvement with Magic accomplished my goals in a better more complete manner than I expected.Balloonman (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If the RFC can be closed this week, then I should be able to transclude this on Friday. I finish work at lunch time and should be able to spend a good few hours responding to comments. My access at the weekend though will be limited. However, I have ordered broadband, and should have that in about 2-3 weeks. If you think it best, I can hold off until then.

If it ends up that the RFC isn't ready for closing by Friday, it's no big deal. I'd much rather have a satisfactory close-out and a delay in starting the RFA than rushing the closure and end up with loose ends. Getting the mop isn't the be-all and end-all, getting consensus is. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck

It's 2 am my time... I'm going to bed. It'll be 7-8 hours before I get back online and if I'm not mistaken, you plan on having your RfA up and running by then. Good luck. Make sure you are avaialable to answer questions for 2-4 hours after you post... oh,I just thought of something... you do have internet access over the weekend right? If you don't, then you should wait until Monday.

I'll be able to get online on Saturday for short bursts throughout the day. Sunday however is out as I'm tied up all day. Next week, I won't be able to do any evening for more than an hour, which takes us to Friday... and then you're off for a week. I'll see how much time I'll be able to devote tomorrow to the RFA. If it is a reasonable amount, then I'll run the RFA. Failing that, I guess I'll have to wait until you return from your trip. By that time I should have internet access at home, so this won't be an issue anymore. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will need to postpone RFA

Damned real life has reared it's ugly head, and something has come up that I need to address now. This will probably take a fair amount of the afternoon, thus will almost certainly leave with insufficient time to be about for the RFA. Realistically, I suspect the RFA will need to be delayed until after your trip. This may be no bad thing, as my mind will be on this other matter until the 11th June. Briefly, what's happened is that I have just been notified that the date for the Decree Nisi will be on the 11th (my wife is divorcing me), and I have only just received the letter telling me about the court date. I now need to urgently get a statement off to the court via my solicitors, and they need it today. Even this is touch and go as to whether or not the court will accept it, as they should have had it at least 14 days before the date of the court case. As the solicitors only received it on Thursday, and the deadline was Wednesday...

Anyway, I don't mean to drop all my problems on you - I'm just letting you know why things are going to be delayed. Ho hum. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally got it done, it but took too long. Haven't even got a couple of hours left that I can spare for this RFA before I have to jump in the car and head home. Ah well, I shall just have to take the optimist's view that I now have a little bit longer to wow RFA voters with future edits... StephenBuxton (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Nom

Before accepting a nom from me, you should see User:Happyme22/admin_coaching#FYI. If you want to discuss, I'll be happy to do so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to this. As it happened, I did catch some of what happened at H2O's RFA. Before the weekend, I saw masses of support. I didn't add my name to it, for the simple reason that I would have added my support was because you were his coach. I felt that adding my name might have implied that because your name was a coach, the candidate would be suitable (I still believe that), and I didn't want people to think I was sneakily canvassing for my votes. I was going to post a congratulations post on H2O's talk page after his successful RFA. After the weekend, I popped onto the RFA page to see if it was still running or had closed successfully... to find it had been blanked.

I looked back through the history, and saw that things had gone a bit pear-shaped. Probably was no bad thing that my RFA wasn't going on at the same time - it looked like you had more than enough on your plate without having to worry about mine.

OK, things didn't go as well as you had hoped. The way I see it was that you were adamant that H2O shouldn't do it till August - it still went ahead, and peer pressure pushed you down that path of nomming, even though you do say to your coachees not to go ahead before you say so, or you will oppose. However, you did nominate, and I can see from reading between the lines that it was tearing you up. In the end, you decided enough was enough, and you withdrew your nom and opposed. Only having read all the posts in the final condition, not chronologically through the page history differences, I cannot tell where abouts your comments came in the pear-shape, so I can only assume from your comment on Happyme22's coach page that your change in support was possibly the catalyst for everything going wrong.

However, does that make me respect you less? Unlikely. You were forced into making a bad judgement. Everyone makes mistakes - it is what you do about it afterwards that counts. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I expect that what you wished you could have done was not add your nom, and not make any posts at all on the RFA at all - H2O wanted to go ahead with it, and so you should have let him. If anyone asked why you didn't nom or support, you could have added a neutral statement along the lines that you believe that he would be a good candidate for the mop, and is well on the way to receiving it, but not quite yet: there are still a few incidents that are fresh in people's minds that would go against him at RFA, and you feel a bit more time is needed for him to prove to everyone else that he is mature enough for the tools. (Anyway, that's my guess of your stance, I don't mean to put words in your mouth)

Anyway, what's done is done. I think you are a great coach, who really knows how to put people through their paces. I read back over my original answers to the three standard RFA questions, and I can see that you have really changed my outlook and attitude towards Wikipedia. So yes, I would still like you to nominate me. It looks like there is going to be a couple of weeks before my RFA runs, so maybe things will have calmed down by then. I am reluctant to just go and ask someone else to nominate, as I don't want to appear pushy or like I am canvassing. However, if I were to ask someone, I would probably ask Tenofalltrades. He has seen me in action, and yes, I did rile him up a bit early on in our differences of opinion, but if someone like him could co-nominate you, I feel that our position would really be strengthened. I won't ask him though until after the RFC is over.

So chill, take a deep breath, I still think your words and support are worth something. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If Ten were willing to co-nom you that would be great. As he was the person with whom you had your conflict and at one point warned you about skating the boundaries of canvass, his nom would go a very long ways. I have no problem with him co-noming you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, asking somebody to co-nom you isn't considered canvassing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also to answer your question, I get back on Wed next week---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, hope you have a good week! I am unlikely to be about on Wednesday, and will not be on at all on Thursday (probably), but I dare say our paths will cross on Friday. Have fun! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)