User:TheNewPhobia/Admin coaching

home

talk

contribs

awards

complaints

wiki

userbox

count

esu

edit

This is for my admin coaching with Keilana.

---

OK, I'm going to start you off with the regular three questions, please answer completely as possible.

1. What admin areas do you intend to work in?

A: If I were an admin, I would help clear out deletion backlogs and close AfD's. Also, I would work in UAA, AIV (which I need to do more work in), ANI, CSD, and XFD. I feel I could help clear out the massive backlogs that sometimes occur in these areas.

2. What are your best contribs, and why? Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A:I feel that most of my contributions are equal, but I am proud of my contribs to Nicktropolis, which I created, and my vandal reverts, which I don't really know why I am proud of them. Other than that, I do not feel any of my contributions are really special. Also, you will notice my edit count is lower than it really should be because of NP patrol, so my edit count should be around 2800, not 2600. Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

3. What conflicts have you been in, and how did you deal with them? Also, have users ever caused you stress?

A: [I added the second question above] I have been in conflicts with other users, but not any recently as I mostly am doing vandal reverts and NP patrol at the moment. Users don't really cause me stress, unless they start threatening me. Thank you for !voting! Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! I'll ask more difficult/indepth questions later. Keilana 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some questions from —Animum (talk)

Would you block a user after…

…a {{uw-vandalism3}} was issued?

A: No: User was not sufficiently. I would only block after level 4 or 4im.

N A level 3 warning counts as a final warning in addition to the obvious level 4 or 4im ones. —Animum (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

…a {{uw-bv}} or {{blatantvandal}} was issued?

A: It would depend if the user had been warned before. Also, if the user stopped after the warning, I would not block.

Y N If the user stopped, yes, you shouldn't block, however, {{uw-bv}} and {{blatantvandal}} do count as final warnings as well. —Animum (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

…a {{uw-blank2}} was issued?

A: No: Not sufficiently warned

Y Good. —Animum (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

…a {{uw-vandalism4im}} was issued?

A: Yes: User was sufficiently warned.

Y Good. —Animum (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

…a {{uw-blank4}} was issued?

A: Yes: User was sufficiently warned.

Y Good. —Animum (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards, —Animum (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

More questions from Keilana:

4. Do you think you've satisfied the concerns raised in previous RfAs? Please list them, and state what you've done to resolve the issue.

Maturity - I believed I have improved, and I apologize for the ANI controversy.

Edit count - Raised.

ANI post - Apologized.

Those were the main problems, and I think I have improved on all three.

5. What's your opinion on IAR in relation to NPOV?

I think WP:NPOV is fine as it is, and should not need WP:IAR. If it did, we'd have blatant advertising everywhere.

So IAR shouldn't exist? Could you please expand upon this?

6. An AfD has been open for more than 5 days (ie. It’s admin judgement time, and you’re the admin). It has 3 deletion arguments (plus the nom) which all cite WP:BAND. There are also 6 keep arguments, 2 of which cite WP:MUSIC, 2 which cite WP:NN, and one who claims it’s notable as he saw the band “performing live at bigdayout”, and one who says “keep ~~~~” How do you close the debate?

I would close it as no consensus as there were a very close number of !votes on either side that were constructive.

So you'd keep the article? What about the rationales of WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND? How do they apply in AfDs?

I would not count the “performing live at bigdayout”, and “keep ~~~~” as they were not constructive rationales. WP:BAND and WP:NN, in my opinion, are fine if there is an explanation why the user chose to cite the policies.

7.If you could change any one policy or guideline, with no chance of reversion and no backlash, which one would it be, what changes would you make, and why?

I think that Wikipedia should allow ads, but the company will have to pay WP for adding it. I'm not saying there should be blatant advertising all over the 'pedia, but I think that it could earn the Foundation extra money in case they go broke, and it may reduce the amount of time the fundraising banner has to be up. I think there could be smaller ads than on average websites, but I think they should be [show/hide] because many users oppose ads on Wikipedia.

8. On the subject of MfD, do you think it is justifiable to keep Portal:U2, considering that it is unlikely to ever be considered comprehensive enough to reach FPo status (per criterion one of the FPo criteria)?

No, because I know that not every portal will reach featured status, and they don't have to. If it is an underpopulated portal, I would delete it, but other than that, nope.

Wait, I'm confused. Do you think it's justified? Also, at what point would you delete an underpopulated portal?

If it had probably below 10 users, I would consider it underpopulated. (Maybe too lenient?)

9.(Minor history lesson precedes question, this is from User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide) A few hours after the last edit he made in August as Giggy (ie. Before the enforced wikibreak), Durin (talk · contribs) (who has since left, I think) tagged User:Giggy/Australian Cabal for speedy deletion. If you encountered that tagging whilst patrolling CAT:CSD as an admin, what would you have done?

I think anything in userspace is fine with me, BUT it has to be civil and can't fail WP:NPA.

Well, it was deleted for spamming other people's userpages. Looking at its history, do you think that such humorous things are acceptable?

Ah. I did not know that. If it was spamming, I would have deleted it and blocked users who were mass-posting if necessary.

10. Following up on the answer to the previous question, what is your opinion of User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal?

Same as above, even though global warming does need to come to attention still for some people.

See my above comments.

See my above comments. :P

11. Is there anything in particular you would like me to talk about, or make mention of, in your nomination speech? When do you plan on running? Who else is co-noming?

I plan to try again in January or February, because my last RfA was in the middle of November. I think that's a bit too soon to try again. My edit count is a bit lower than it should be because of NP patrol. I made my first few edits in February, making 5 edits that month, and in November I had 955 edits in that month. (editcountitis) However, my point is that my edit rate is rapidy getting faster. That's about it.

OK, do you think that edit count is more important than quality?

No. Sometimes I have a little editcountitis, but usually I look for quality, not quantity.

12. Have you contributed sufficient encyclopedic content to have earned the mop and bucket?

I believe so, but that, in my opinion, is for other users to decide. There have been no opposes because of this, so I assume I'm fine.

What encyclopedic content have you contributed? Any DYKs? GAs? Featured content?

I do write articles, but many do not meet DYK criteria. I have fought to get Nicktropolis to GA status, but I can't find enough refs. That's really it. Most of my edits are vandal reverts.

Answer those, I've still got a few left. Good luck. Regards, Keilana 18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One more:

13. Do you think you've participated in admin areas enough to warrant the mop?

I think my admin-related participations are fine except for AIV and RFPP, which I need more experience in, but I would be willing to help at any time.

Even more questions

OK, you asked, you shall receive. Most of these are paraphrased from User:Husond.

1. You didn't really expand on your IAR position as I asked earlier, please see my above questions.

I believe that NPOV policy is fine as it is, and should not need to use WP:IAR except in a very few cases. Other than that, I believe NPOV is a very firm policy that should not need to be ignored.

2. Give examples of cases where you'd decline and remove a block request from WP:AIV.

I would decline if (1) the user was not warned sufficiently, and (2) if the user had only been making ovious good faith edits.

3. Give examples of cases where you'd decline requests for semi-protection at WP:RFPP.

If the user was calling the article his/her own article, then I would decline as a violation of policy. Also, if there was no reason given, then I would decline. Finally, if there was no apparent reason to protect (vandal attacks and the like) I would decline as I believe that protection should only be used as a last resort.

4. A user requests semi-protection for an article, but you choose to fully protect it instead. Why?

If it was being attacked by established users that were socks of a banned user, I would probably fully protect it. That is the only case that I can think of that I would fully protect instead of semi-protect.

5. A fellow administrator has speedy deleted an article under WP:CSD#G11. One day later, you notice that an anonymous user has recreated the article. Should you delete the article under WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#G4, both, or do something else?

I would delete the article criterion G4 if it was an article that was not needed in the encyclopedia. If I felt that it would be useful, then I would rewrite the article.

6. You're an admin, but you choose to request protection for an article at WP:RFPP instead of doing it yourself. Why?

I would probably do that if I needed help from a more experienced admin or if I needed consensus from the community.

Keilana 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered. —Jonathan 19:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Homework

Jonathan, you've answered the questions OK, but I think you need to go over policy a little more. Your homework is to read WP:ADMIN and the administrators' reading list. Hopefully this'll help. Regards, Keilana 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done; I have a cold, thus I couldn't really read, but I got it done! Jonathan 14:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that should help you. Your next assignment is to find 10 reports to AIV (please provide diffs) and tell me if you'd decline the report, and if not, how long you'd block for. Keilana 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here they are:

report 1 - I would block for, say, 24 hours for persistent vandalism after final warning.

report 2 - I would do the same as above, but block for 48 hours.

report 3 - I would block indef for vandalism-only account.

report 4 - I would block for 10 hours for being a blatant vandal.

report 5 - I would not block, because the user was not sufficiently warned.

report 6 -I would block for 10 hours for vandalism after final warning.

report 7 - I would block for 10 days for continuous vandalism after final warning.

report 8 - I would block for 1 day for vandalism after final warning.

report 9 - I would block for 1 week for continuous vandalism after final warning.

report 10 - I would block indef for vandalism after final warning and vandalism-only account.

 Done, finally. ;) Jonathan 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from Anonymous Dissident (I hope you don't mind particularly)

• Do you understand why the article "SharpOS", which you created earlier this month, was speedily deleted, and what criteria it was deleted under? Some may argue that your creation of an article that meets this criteria for immediate deletion shows an inherent misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria and process, and would therefore be unfit to handle the deletion button. Thanks, and I wish you good luck in your adminship campaign, if you will. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all; this is a very good question. I do understand criterion A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. I was planning to move the article to a sandbox for building, however, obviously that didn't happen. Criterion A7 means that the article does not indicate notability of the article's subject. I believe that this was a mistake on my part as I was beginning to write the article when I had to leave about 5 minutes into the process of writing. That was spontaneously decided by my mom as I was writing the article, thus, I had no future notice of me having to leave to go shopping. I returned to find that the article was nommed for speedy deletion, so that is the reasoning of this being a mistake on my part. I believe I will be able to handle the delete button very well, as I plan to help out with speedies and XfD's, and if I can't really decide to decline or keep, I will hold off to see what a more experienced administrator thinks about the situation. Thank you for understanding, if you will. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea

OK - here's a tip. A few of us who do alot of writing are concerned that there are folk who think the idea of having 'editors' who write, and 'admins' who clean up etc. is a good idea. This worries us as we feel that folk who don't write alot will sometimes not consider what is involved in creating and maintaining articles - these may include flyby nominations for AfD moments soon after an article is created without waiting for more info to be posted, nominating or voting in AfD based on quality or..well I can't think of others right now but you get the idea. Remember the whole point of WP is building it, which logically has to come before deleting. It is also a better way of building edit count than getting in arguments at AfD alot. If you've had anything happen that folks might 'oppose on, you may want to pop out a few DYKs, a couple of GAs or even an FA to really shift your cred' well into a credit zone with a few more editors.

Just some thoughts on a flyby.. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from AO.

1. Do you oppose or support WP:IAR? Why?

1A.

2. Could you please choose a Start/B-Class article of your choice, and copyedit it, perhaps add more sources (using Template:Cite web) as well?

2A. I've been working on Nicktropolis since before you asked, and I have gotten it (at least) to a GA candidate. I have added more sources, made the writing smoother, updated images, etc.

3. Similar to Keilana's question above, can you find ten AIV reports of users that should NOT be blocked, and explain why they shouldn't be blocked?

3A. --not done--

1. This revision of AIV - The first one should not be blocked due to insufficient warning.