User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 2

• G1: - Content that literally makes no sense - random letters, words in nonsensical order that no one can understand.

  IMHO, this really could be the same as G3, the only difference that G3 is purposeful defacement, whereas G1 is not. Outright mistakes are g2. A good rule of thumb is if it's in good faith or has any coherency (in English or otherwise), it is not G1.

• G2: - "Test" = trying out the systems to see if it works and/or how it may work without any real application otherwise.
• G3: - Purposefully defacing Wikipedia in a way that is patently obvious to the administrator and would be to the community at large.

  E.g., "penis penis penis penis", "Cassie the Unicorn is the name of a pink unicorn that, despite all predictions, has been found in the northern province of British Columbia", "The nuclear explosion of March 2010 destroyed the entirety of the South American continent."

• G4: - Repost of XfD deleted material (CSD and Prod not included) including under another page name excluding userspace moves for explicit improvement (but to done only in order to circumvent the deletion).
• G5: - Material created by a sockpuppet account of a banned/blocked user.
• G6: - Performance of uncontroversial maintenance that cannot be done without deletion.
• G7: - Pages created and blanked and/or requested to be deleted by author in good faith with little to no content added by others, excluding redirected pages with significant content by another user and excluding talk pages.
• G8: - Pages dependent on another page which doesn't exist and serves no purpose in and of itself.

  Anything other than a repeat of the policy make it hard to comment: talk pages without a corresponding pages excluding user talk (still relevant pages should remain), subpages, images without an image (commons images excluded), bad redirects included obviously stupid names (e.g., I am commander and chief, bitch -> Barack Obama, without such a quote ever existing).

• G9: - Something done by the Wikimedia foundation.

  Unless instructed to do so by the foundation or upholding such a request, I will never be using this.

• G10: - Outright attacks and pages with BLP-violating material.

  If the page has BLP/attack issues that can be removed to satisfy the said policy, a removal is preferrable.

• G11: - Spam that would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic.

  Something that would require less than substantial effort for a rewrite, these should be rewritten. E.g., a page with company-speak language that can be removed and the rest is coherent.

• G12: - Obvious copyright violations.

  Note: the checking of WP mirrors is important.

  Copyright violations that would not be violations with proper attribution should be attributed (e.g., copy/paste from another WP page).

  Cases that are not clear-cut go to WP:CV.

• Note: If there is a version of history that can be reverted to without the offending problem for any of these categories, this should obviously be done. In extreme examples (BLP, coypvio), overseers should delete the history.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Y1. There is a fine line determining whether a "hoax" article should be deleted per WP:CSD#G3 or taken to WP:AFD. What is/are the determining factor(s)? [making a list is just fine]

A: 1) In BLP cases: if it cannot be substantiated and is controversial, it should be deleted until further substantiation can be made. And 2) in other all cases, it must be obvious, as would be considered as such by the community at large (I must disagree that this is a fine line - consensus is sometimes hard to gauge). Caution must be on the side of not deleting (Prod/AFD is the other option).

Y2.The main author of a fairly decent article (let's say B class) gets in a dispute with other editors who edit the page somewhat infrequently. The main author subsequently requests speedy deletion of the article per G7. Do you honor this request? Explain.

A: No. The main author is not the only author with significant contributions.

As a rule of thumb, bad faith G7 deletion requests should never be honored. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Y3. What determines whether a article is a copyvio? (Hint: Not all pages copied word for word from other websites/external sources are copyvios. Think about how this could be possbile.) [I'm looking for a specific answer here]

A: If an external source is not a copyright violation if it is 1) a PD source or 2) a cc-by-sa or cc-by with proper attribution or 3) a compatible license which is properly followed or 4) be a site mirroring a non-CV site. Notably, even if a copyright notice isn't posted, since 1978 the copyright is automatically in place (cf. {{PD-Pre1978}}): thus a page must explicitly state its PD/CC/other license or be old enough it doesn't matter (e.g., pre-1923).

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A text is copied verbatim or near verbatim from an external source. The only times I can think of off the top of my head when it wouldn't be copyvio:

1. The source is PD.
2. The source license is a compatible with Wikipedia and follows proper procedure (e.g., cc-by-sa with proper attribution).
3. The text is copied from a source which is itself a copy from a source which is (1) or (2).

Everything else would be a copyvio. Unless I missed something, let me know if I did. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just remember - an article is a copyvio only exists when an editor claims someone else's work as their own, regardless of license. But yes, I was looking to see you understood the licensing aspect as well. Good work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User pages

• U1 - Pages in the user space which the said user requests be deleted.

  Of course outrages things like moving a page into your space and U1 doesn't apply. User talk is only in right to vanish.

Remember, deletion of a user talkpage is to be taken on case by case basis. At any rate, we rarely delete user talk pages by user request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• U2 - For a user that doesn't exist, save for doppelgangers and users who changed username.

  Although I personally wouldn't recommend the doppelganger option unless the system disallows the creation of said username.

• U3 - Non-free image galleries.

  Self-explanatory. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just on a side note, the reason for the existence of this criterion can be traced to WP:NFCC#9. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories

• C1 - Categories unpopulated for 4+ days, save categories that are intended to be transitory ({{helpme}}, e.g.,)
• C2 - Spelling errors/typos, renaming to fit conventions, renaming to fit conventions for a category tree. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

• R2 - Redirect from mainspace to any namespace except Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal.
• R3 - Redirects for implausible typos or misnomers, save for pages with a useful history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates

• T2 - Templates misrepresenting policy and disclaimer templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• T3 - Duplicated templates, included templates substantially close to a duplication of another template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Portals

• P1 - Portal subject to speedy deletion were it an article.
• P2 - Portal containing under 3 suitable non-stub articles, or for which header is a stub. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)