User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring

Before we being...[edit]

... a few points I want to make:

Despite the name of the programme, I will not be coaching you for adminship; becoming an admin is not an exam - I prefer to think that I will be mentoring you. I will ask you questions (some of which may be similar to what you did with Juliancolton) - but just as important (as far as I am concerned) is the attitude and application of policy/guideline as the actual answer: often, there is no single "right answer"!
You do not necessarily need to leave me a message saying you have completed something on this page (although you are welcome to do so, of course), as this page will be on my watchlist. However, if you see that I have not responded on this page within 4-5 days of your last edit, do feel free to remind me! Although I will normally get on Wikipedia most days, due to family commitments, it may not always be possible (or I might just miss it on my watchlist, as there are a lot of items on it!)
If you are going to be away for more than a week, just let me know - that way, I will know that you are not ignoring this page, or have given up! Real life being what it is, things may prevent you continuing - just let me know, as a courtesy!
This may seem a bit self-important, but if I am going to mentor you, then I would not expect you to go for RfA, unless I am the nominee! If someone else approaches you, then ask them to contact me about being a co-nominee - I have no problems with that (on my RfA, ukexpat co-nom'd me - he'd approached me, and I referred him to Julian!).
If you have any questions, or disagree with something I say, please tell me! - I will not always get things right, and as an admin, I've made mistakes (thankfully, they've been pointed out to me, almost always in a polite way, and I've been able to correct them). I used to be a teacher, and I always found that I learnt a lot from my pupils - I expect this process to be as much about learning myself as helping you!

Let's get started[edit]

OK, let's start off with the standard questions you'll get on an RfA, plus a couple of my own:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: CSDs, AfDs, article restoration and image restoration or deletion in accordance to things we receive in OTRS. I'd also hope to do vandal fighting and blocking but that certainly wouldn't be the main part of what I intend to do.

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

A: I don't have a best contribution in the sense of one big event (although I am proud of my DYK with the Lisa McPherson Trust). I think my best contribution has been a long history of saving BLPs from deletion through finding sources which are in-depth and relevant. Recently (now and the few months before what I will dramatically refer to as 'the break') I'd also add the number of images I have added to Wikipedia.

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've had a few minor skirmishes but never a large conflict with another editor. In every instance I haven't had any particular stress, I've simply politely (and occasionally firmly) let the other person know why I have chosen my point of view, what would change my mind, and what I feel the relevant policies are.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

4. How do you feel you've improved from your previous RfA in January? Do you feel like you've addressed all of the problems pointed out?

A: I know what A7 means now! Or at least I'm 90% sure I do. It's whether or not the article denotes the significance of the subject, nothing to do with notability criteria. (Oh dear god I hope I got that right). I've really been trying to focus on getting to better grips with CSD and AfDs, and looking a little more before I leap.

The other two big problems in my RfA seemed to be that I was a sockpuppet (I have a CheckUser which disagrees!) and that I was too crazy to edit. If nothing else I think the break that I took when I was sick (rather than editing) has shown I can be trusted, even with the limited tools that I have, to not edit/abuse things/go off the rails all over the main page when sick.

Although it wasn't mentioned too much I've also been hanging out on ANI more, and I've posted there a few times with no problems and I have attempted to write articles, although this is still very much my weakest point.

5. RfA has been described as "a feculent sinkhole of hatred and rage", and adminship as "hell" - why do you want to become an admin?

A: Because not being an admin is getting in the way of me improving Wikipedia. OTRS gets lots of emails regarding copyright and deleted articles/images and at the moment I have to ask the closing administrator who is not usually an OTRS member to restore/delete on good faith alone. They do, and they're all lovely (to me), but it takes a lot of time that could be better spent closing more tickets. There are plenty of other things I can do on OTRS that don't involve admin rights, but I am good at OTRS, and I can be better with the admin tools.

Also, have you seen the AfD queues some days? Someone has to go in there.

A good set of answers! It'll be interesting to see if you will change what you will say over the course of this mentoring! OK, let's get on -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Experience[edit]

(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this) Have you ever:

!voted in an RFA?
- No

It might be an idea to do this, for two reasons: firstly, it helps to know what editors are looking for in their admins (although to be fair, you don't need to participate for that, you can just read!) - for example, at the moment, a lot of editors are looking for admin candidates who have created a lot of articles; secondly, people will recognise your name if you go for RfA yourself - they'll be able to say to themselves "Oh yes, I've seen him around - he gives good reasoned arguments/he is crap at giving reasons for things..." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP?
- A couple of times

Which page(s) - and what were the results? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I requested temporary semi-protection for King of Shaves and Little Rock Nine, both of which were granted. Very recently I asked for semi-protection for Andrew Krystal. Instead the user in question was blocked. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

had an editor review?
- Yes! In fact you were the person who reviewed me.
used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle?
- A lot

Actually, X!s tool says that it's 14.53% of your edits, not "a lot" as far as I am concerned! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh :( Well I feel as though I'm used to them! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

contributed to an XFD?
- A lot

Could you give a couple of examples of xfD contributions which you feel show your reasoning/policy knowledge well? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with what I did with Mark Portmann. There's also Marhedge and I still stick by this one.Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

answered a question at the help desk?
- No never

It can be very useful: I've learnt a lot from it, both from other editors' replies and from researching to provide answers! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

uploaded an image?
- Yup! Lots of images
mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
- I've done a few very brief dispute resolutions in ANI. Nothing major.
participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
- I have, although not that often
taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
- Inclusionism, moderate eventualism, moderate status-quoism, communityism, communalism, sysopism, wikipacifism, admins are janitors, neutrality is an unobtainable absolute (which doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it!), semi-factionalism, Proceduralism
helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
- Never
requested and received/been denied for Rollback?
- I have rollback rights!
had a previous RFA?
- I had one in January and I failed, but not miserably!
Written a good article?
- No

Do you plan on writing a Good Article? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd very much like to write a good article. I've been thinking about this since you asked and I'd also quite like to get a FA photograph if I can. I've got quite a collection sitting around. Mostly though, I feel as though I'm aiming more realistically when I say I'd like to get as many DYKs as possible.Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Created any featured content?
- Oh god no. I wish
Written a DYK?
- Yup! The Lisa McPherson Trust!

I have added a couple of comments, and added a couple of follow-up questions (in red, so that they stand out!) - if you could answer those, it'd be great. Meanwhile, here are some more questions...

Footprints[edit]

Right now, I'd like for you to pick a few administrative areas you'd like to participate in. You can change these later or add/subtract any areas as your interests change. The areas you choose will be the ones I will help develop in the next phase and will most likely be where you would want to work as an administrator - I can guess what you'll probably say based on your answers above, but take your time and think things through before deciding! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The ones I'd most like to participate in are AfD & CSD. Vandal fighting comes a close third. Having said that! In the big scheme of things, having more knowledge in dispute resolution would really help me both as an editor and a potential admin. So although it's not something I intend to do very often, it is something a well-rounded editor should do on occasion. So I would like to add that to the list, but at the bottom. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's start with some AfD stuff first... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

AfD[edit]

Please link to relevant policies/guidelines/essays as appropriate

1. How would you close the following AFD's?

A 1

Delete - Straight off the bat that has to be a delete. There's no real-world notability there whatsoever. Same counts for the other articles which were also nominated for deletion there. (Although they are interesting!)

Remember, your role in closing AfD is to consider the consensus, not to make your own decision - if you feel that strongly, you need to !vote instead of closing (I've done that before!).

B 2

Delete - I would have to close this as a delete, the arguments for just carry a lot more weight with regards to policy, especially the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article in its current form doesn't do nearly enough to justify the arguments laid out in the Keep votes.

However, if I came across this I would severely shorten the article and then vote for a weak keep. I managed to find two or three articles regarding this man from the Associated Press and his obituary appeared in the New York Times which I think is enough to establish notability, even if it's a fragile one. So I think because I could potentially save it, I would sacrifice my ability to close it.

I like the fact that you are relying on policy here - it is important to look at the arguments with the policies and guidelines in mind. I also like the fact the you "would sacrifice my ability to close it" - sometimes, pruning an article with the addition of good RS is better than deleting it - I'm all for saving articles if we can, although as you can see from my history, I'm not screamish about deleting articles.

C 3

Because there are so few votes and the nominator even seems to be on the edge, I think deciding this one has to be a judgement call. Personally I would delete it. There is very limited local coverage of his events and almost no coverage of his work (although he has won awards). There doesn't appear to be enough to establish notability through reliable sources even if the article was kept.

I'd either close this as no consensus (with the nominator being unable to "decide whether there should be a wikipedia article about the subject or not.", and one keep and one delete), or I'd relist it - it would possibly meet the criteria at WP:RELIST. Personally, I would say that it is not a judgement call: there is no clear-cut consensus here.

D 4

(As a note if I had the option to leave this open for a little longer I would, more votes needed!)Delete but not because of the weight of the arguments either way. Dear god those are awful arguments. On the one hand you have people saying 'Well, it's a stub so...' which is patently absurd and on the other hand you have people making a claim to notability that A) The article doesn't make and B) isn't backed up by anything whatsoever (I checked). Delete because the subject has no claim to notability at all.

Again, note that your role would be to judge consensus - your opinion has no say in the matter! If you want it to, you have to !vote and not close. However, in this case, "delete" would appear to be the consensus - not just numerically, but also based on the arguments presented.

E 5

Delete The arguments from the first article still stand just as rightly in this article. There is no real-world notability here and it didn't even make a pass at it (though one user disagrees the sources that they've given can hardly be called secondary or tertiary).

The only thing I would say is that arguments at another AfD should not always influence the AfD you are currently closing. You don't even need to look at them to judge the consensus here: the 3 keeps are all the same argument: "page has been tagged for less than a month" - which has no policy- or guideline-based argument. If you ignore the "per reasoning at the other AfD", there are still policy-based 'delete's which are clearly the consensus.

F 6

I would want to close this as a Merge but none of the votes support it. None of the votes are correct either. As far as I'm aware places aren't notable based on the fact that they exist (unlike say, schools). So I'm really not sure what to do with this article other than leave it for a better consensus (please tell me I don't have to keep it).

This is a judgement call, as there is no specific guideline about geographic locations' notability. There have been attempts, but they have stalled (for example, see Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations)), discussions (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_62#New_level_of_geographical_notability? in Feb/Mar 2009 - and there is also an essay at Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Personally, I would relist this - but if it had been relisted with no further comment, I'd close it as "no consensus" - it can be hard to justify a consensus when only 3 people commented.

2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?

A. If someone has merely voted without giving any argument you can discount that right away. Similarly, any argument not based on policy or common sense can be discounted immediately. Other than that though all opinions should be taken into account when reviewing an AfD. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The notes at WP:AFD say Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). (emphasis mine) Also, if a user who is banned from the subject area (see Wikipedia:List of banned users and Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Users_subject_to_restrictions) takes part, their contribution can be ignored - and reported to ArbCom. Also, sockpuppets' comments/!votes should be discounted, if they have !voted in the same AfD as their sockmaster.

OK, the main thing I would say is that you need to remember that when closing AfDs, you are not making the decision on whether to keep or delete the article (or merge, etc) - you are judging the community's wishes (see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)

More deletion stuff[edit]

Right, more deletion stuff...

3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?

A. If it is a double re-direct it should be deleted. If it is a redirect it can either be left (e.g. someone is looking for Steve P Apple and they get redirected to the moved page which is Steve Apple) or deleted as appropriate.

Basically, it can always be deleted (see WP:R#DELETE) - unless there is a suitable article which would be a valid target. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?

A.Personal opinion. Reason for deletion should include policy quoted in the AfD or a general summary of consensus.

The only thing I'd add is that if the deletion is for BLP reasons or a personal attack, the actual reason should not be given (e.g. instead of "Deleted as personal attack, as it said that Fredericko Johannes Example is gay", just use "Deleted as a personal attack page") -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

A.There are a few dangers with speedy deletions which are mitigated somewhat by the strictness of the criteria. For example; some content is niche or unfamiliar to an en audience, and may appear non-notable. But if someone can state the significance of the article’s subject, then community members may investigate further before deletion and hopefully end up with an article which is fitting for en. Wikipedia. There are also some new articles which may be written by people unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works. These articles may be written from a non-neutral perspective, or like an essay, but there is something in them which can be extracted and used to create a new or shorter article which has a place on Wikipedia.

The speedy deletion criteria being so strict also really helps uphold the principle of WP:BITE.

Good - also, there is the fact that unlike other processes (PROD, BLPPROD or AFD), there is little (or, often, no) chance of discussion before deletion - and as only admins can then see the article, it prevents other editors from doing much. Although PROD/BLPPROD do not have formal discussion, there is a week/10-days in which editors can discuss it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

6. What should one do if a {{hangon}} is placed on a page nominated for deletion?

A.Talk to the person who put the {{hangon}} template there. As an editor you should talk to them about how it can be improved, whether it can be improved, and what policies are in play. You should also discuss the possibility of moving the page to a userspace if it cannot be saved in its current form.

It depends on:
1. If a message is then left on the talk page! If the tag was placed there and you see the article an hour later, and there is no message, then there is nothing to discuss.
2. If the message gives a reasonable reason to not delete the article. If the message says "Keep, he is an up and coming talent", then this would not be reason to keep the article. If the message says "Please keep - I have two books I am looking at right now that I can cite, please wait 10-15 mins for me to add refs", and it's been 2 mins since the message was left, then it is reasonable to wait!
3. If you can find references/can improve the article yourself: in which case, do so, and remove the SD template!

A lot of it is using common sense. Look at the article:

- is it out-and-out advertising? If so, delete and then leave a message to the creator explaining in more detail why it was deleted, and how to go about writing it in a way which would be suitable

- is it a BLP problem? If so, remove the problem bits (or rewrite), decline SD, and leave a message on the creator's page explaining the problem (also, if necessary), RevisionDelete and/or request suppression of the edit(s) which contain the BLP problem, if it is defamatory or potentially libellous

etc... Common sense is the key. Sometimes, you can improve and discuss with the creator, other times you can delete and discuss with the creator - other times, you will delete and then block the creator!

One of the key points of being an admin is treat each situation on its own merits -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

7. Why is it so important to check the page history of an article before you speedily delete it?

A.It might be that an article has been vandalized, and it may have not been a candidate for speedy deletion before it was vandalized.

That is one case, but just as importantly - there might be a previous version which would be acceptable: the article may not have been vandalised, but "updated" by a fan of the subject - so reverted to a previously acceptable version is a better way forward -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It could also be an article which is currently being heavily worked on by its author, which means that in a few minutes, if you leave it, it won’t be a candidate for speedy deletion any more.

Good! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

8. Please state what actions you would take if finding the following articles listed at CAT:SD. Take your time and make sure to evaluate all of the external links in the articles.

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Law High School broadcasting

Decline the A7 speedy deletion. It has shown the significance of its subject. It may not qualify under WP:N but it isn't an A7 candidate.

Good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Sam's Soda Shoppe

Decline as A7 and then tag as G11. It does indicate significance but it is blatant advertising and there's nothing to be saved from that.

Good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Steve Q. Smith

This one depends on what the sources say. I might: Decline as A7 and then work on the article. If there are at least 2 sources for him then there should be enough there to make a legitimate article which doesn't have too much weight on the bad stuff. You can simply remove the last link.

But I might also: Delete as A7, there is significance of the company noted here but no significance of the subject. It all depends on what the sources say.

I'd say to keep as long as the first reference mentioned the stealing funds, not just the foundation going bankrupt. If the source only mentions the latter, then the BLP problem ('stealing') would need to be removed. You might also want to see if the final statement can be sourced to an independent reliable source - if so, then that can be used; if not, then the final statement should be removed - and it might make the whole too little to justify keeping -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Jon Starks

Delete as A7. There is no significance of the subject shown, only of his company.

I'd agree unless the source given also verified other information, in which case the other facts could have inline citations as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Getting Away With It

Decline speedy delete. Their single is number one on the charts. If that doesn't indicate significance then nothing does. Of course you'd have to remove the other information but that's ok!

Good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Marketingandbusinessonline.com

Delete as A7. There's one source about the company but nothing in the article to establish significance.

I agree - although I would look at the creator as well - they might well be an SPA. It is also possible to delete this as G11 (promotion) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?

A. A PROD is a way to request the deletion of a page which is an obvious candidate for deletion, but doesn’t meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. To this end it is different from XFD as the person who put up the PROD doesn’t consider it necessary for the community to discuss the issue.

You missed a key word: uncontroversial, although this was implied in your final sentence. The nominator needs to be reasonably sure that it won't be controversial to nominate the article for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

10. What is the appropriate length of time that should pass before deleting a PROD?

A.It should usually be a 10 days uncontested before a PROD is deleted

Not quite! A PROD can be deleted after 7 days - the 10 days is BLPPROD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

11. Who can remove a PROD tag?

A. Anyone! Although if you wish to remove a BLP-PROD tag then you must add at least one source to the article beforehand otherwise the PROD can be re-inserted.

Good. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Phantom, just wanted to say that I haven't been feeling very well this week and I expect to be back in the saddle tomorrow. My apologies for not being here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I don't expect you to be always here - there are times when I may not respond for up to a week without letting you know that I'll not be online - when you are ready, continue! There is no particular rush, after all! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at your responses tomorrow or Friday, when hopefully I'll have the time to respond in a considered manner! Meanwhile, here is a question which you can think about and answer - it'll be interesting to come back to this later and see if there has been any changes to your answer:

Awkward question from Phantomsteve

If you were to go for RfA right now, what do you think would be said by your opposers?
This is actually a really hard question for me to answer. I think they would say that I don't have enough content edits, and that sometimes I don't look before I leap and that I don't have enough community involvement.
How would you reply to the opposes you have mentioned at 1?
Well I haven't been doing a lot of content writing but I do a lot of content editing (e.g. adding sources to things when there aren't any there). I double check all of my work, so although I may tag something and then figure out that it doesn't deserve to be tagged, I always revert it within a few minutes. And last but not least, I have been on ANI somewhat and I have gotten involved in community projects like Unreferenced BLP Rescue (which I should really add my name to) and AfDs. But furthermore community based issues are not going to be the focal point of my administrative work (apart from AfDs, which I have been on a lot).

I have a lot on during the next few days, so there is a chance that I may not get to look at your responses to the CSD/PROD stuff above until the beginning of next week, but I will endeavour to do so before then! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know, it gave me time to think about my answers. I hope everything is ok! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your answer to the awkward question above! We'll come back to it at a future date, and see if anything has changed! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick follow-up questions[edit]

Back to PRODs:

When can a PROD not be placed on a page?
When the deletion would be controversial or requires a discussion by the community.
- Or if the article had already been PROD'd and it had been either contested, or deleted and restored. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is it important to check the page history of an expired PROD, before deleting?
Because the article may have been in a state previously where the PROD would not have been acceptable but also because a PROD may have been put on there before. An article cannot be PRODed twice.
- There is also the possibility (as I have seen once or twice) that a vandal will edit in an expired PROD notice. With the history, you will see if the PROD is more than 7 days old or not -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
An article is PRODed and deleted. A few days later, the creator contacts you, asking for you to restore the article. What do you do?
Look at the article and look at the concerns raised by the PROD. If there's something worth saving, offer to move the article into the user's space and tell them what needs to be worked on before they should post it up again.
- <bzzz> incorrect! Seriously, no - if someone comes to you (anyone) and asks for it to be restored, then it is restored - it counts as a contested PROD (and so controversial). However, if you feel that the article should still be deleted, you could then take it to AfD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Fighting[edit]

I am going to go onto AIV/blocks, and page protection now (but don't forget the quick follow-up questions above!)

Page protection[edit]

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

A.There was a protracted edit war on the page! The page was being vandalised so heavily that to do anything else would not be sufficient protection (/Stephen Colbert mentioned the article on his show!)! It is a closed !vote/discussion page and people keep coming back to it to try and get the last word in!

Good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?

A. If a person is recreating a page again and again without making changing to the content (e.g. they made an attack page or advertising page under CSD criteria), SALTing the earth is a good idea. Likewise, if it's a libelous/disparaging BLP article which is repeatedly being created after discussion has been closed on the matter, SALTing would be a good idea.

Good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.

A. When there is an edit war regarding the title of the article (e.g. It should be IBM and the Holocaust! Not IBM and the Holocaust (book)). When a discussion has occured regarding the title of the article but it is disputed. When a proposed or reverted change of the article title would be severely misleading (see IBM book vs non-book).

The official answer is at WP:GREENLOCK:

Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism.
Pages subject to a page-name dispute.
Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard.

You got #1 and #2 - your 3rd example is really an example of the 2nd example you gave, I think -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?

A. It depends on what has occured! If they are getting heavy levels of vandalism on both their talk page and userpage, I might protect both. However, in most circumstances I would protect the userpage and either temporarily semi-protect the talk page or not protect the talk page.

Yep - as a rule, if an editor requests protection of their user page, there will normally be vandalism there, so semi-protection is the norm, but if there is a lot of vandalism from different auto-confirmed account, temporary full-protection may be required - but this is extremely rare. Talk page protection is also a rarity - it should only be for a very short time if there is extensive vandalism from IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?

A. Oh err. I guess I might do that if it was an extremely hotly contested deletion review where other people needed to see the article in its entirety to make a decision, but then I don't see why I couldn't just put it onto a userspace page. Seems a bit silly to restore an article when people are debating whether or not it should be restored. Maybe that's just me?

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring it can be very useful - so that non-admins can actually see what it looks like! There is a template which would be placed on the page ({{TempUndelete}}). I generally restore it to my userspace, but personally I don't fully protect them - but if there had been a lot of vandalism/reverting on the article, then I would: the purpose of restoring it is purely to let people see it when considering whether the article should have been deleted or not - not so that it can be edited. When I've restored for this purpose, the article has been left alone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

General[edit]

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?

A. You should first check to ensure that the complaint was a valid one (e.g. no one is making anything up or exaggerating), then check the ensure that the user has been sufficiently warned about their vandalism and that the vandalism is an ongoing problem (i.e. they're doing it now, not 6 months ago), then you should decide what length of block would be appropriate given the circumstances and then, if they've passed all of that, block them.

See follow-up below

2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?

A. If the vandalism is old, if they haven't been sufficiently warned, if the 'vandalism' is really a case of a new user not knowing what they're doing.

Good, although the "not knowing what they're doing" can be hard to judge!

3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?

A. Never!

Good

4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?

A. It depends on why they want the wikibreak. In most cases I would say no and direct them here and I'd do that because a block-log is a bad thing to have and also because it uses up resources and takes away any choice they have in the matter.

But then again, if it's someone who takes Wikibreaks because they're sick in the head and they're worried about editing whilst they're having an episode, I'd consider it. You don't want someone to have their IP blocked because they've been editing whilst sick and then not be able to edit on their account when well!

No! WP:SELFBLOCK specifically states that blocks cannot be used to enforce a Wikibreak - as you said, they should be directed to WBE

Yes, WP:SELFBLOCK says that, but it seems to imply that administrators can do it at their discretion without too much of a backlash, or was I reading that incorrectly? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?

A. I'd leave a message on the administrator's talk page asking them for more information on the block and explaining why I feel that the block was inappropriate.

See follow-up below

6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?

A. You check their contributions and go about painfully reverting them all. Apparently this is easier with sysop tools. I would also report the bot to ANI and ask if someone could create an appropriate filter to stop it happening in future.

Good - incidentally, as an admin you'd have a "rollback all" button.

7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?

A. Go to ANI and ask the opinion of the community and other administrators who should be able to give you feedback.

Good - also, re-read WP:BLOCK. As a rule, I'd say that if you are unsure then you don't block - but asking at ANI is a good way to get advice about anything admin-like which you aren't sure about

8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?

A. Leave a message on the talk page asking for the person to prove who they are (in whichever way that is possible) and immediately reporting the incident to ANI for discussion.

Again, ANI is very useful - other admins might know the blocked one well and give advice. This is a reason why it is a good idea for all editors (but especially admins) to have a Committed identity.

9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?

A. Block them immediately, let them know OTRS exists, and state that we will not be unblocking them until either the legal threat has been retracted or it has gone through the proper channels (OTRS lets them talk to our lawyer and retract their statement officially, either way it's useful)

Blocking first, yes. Refer them to WP:NLT, which says that they should either email the user (if their issue is with a specific editor) or contact the WMF if it is a problem with Wikipedia in general - don't mention OTRS (it's how it might be dealt with internally, but the end-user doesn't need to know that)

10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?

A. I don't see anything wrong with this username. Ok, it makes no sense, but it wouldn't make for a particularly bad signature. I would however watch this person as anyone with so little regard for their username might have just as little regard for their edits.

10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"

A. This I would have a problem with. I'd first ask the person to change their username and explain that having a username that long would be disruptive to the project as a whole (e.g. your signature will take up an entire page), but I think that if they refused I would take it to request for comment to be safe. It's not really offensive and the disruption is minimal, but I still don't think it's appropriate as a username.

Good - the longer name is covered by WP:UNCONF as a 'confusing' name because it is lengthy. However, discussion is preferable to a block.

11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?

A. Block. Company names are not allowed in any way shape or form. That goes double if they're editing their own company's article or otherwise promoting themselves on the project. Obvious COI along with lots of other things.

Good - even without any edits, this could be blocked. Discuss with the user on the talk page (as they can still edit that when blocked)

12. A new user account is created with the name of "RyanPosthelwaiteismetoo" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?

A. If it's someone who is trying to impersonate Ryan Posthelwaite the administrator, then block on sight until they can 'prove' that that's who they are. I would also inform the confirmed person that they are being impersonated. Directing them to OTRS with a nice explanation saying why I've blocked them and I hope it can get resolved will also help and is AfG.

Personally, I would block it unless there was any indication that it was created by Ryan - for example, if the creation log shows he created it, no worries. If he has edited his page or this account's pages using his main account identifying it as his, then no worries. If none of these are true, I'd block it and ask Ryan to contact me using his main account to confirm that it is his.

13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?

A. A hard block takes out the IP address and the account and stops both from editing. A soft block simply stops an account from editing.

Yep, near enough: hard blocks prevents anyone (other than IPBE or admins) from editing from the IP; soft blocks allow a logged-in user to edit from the IP.

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

A. A level three warning is the first warning where you stop assuming good faith and start to assume that the person is knowingly vandalising the project.

Good

Some follow-ups to the above...[edit]

1a When (if ever) would you consider blocking someone who had not received the full set of warnings?

A. If they were a confirmed/obvious sockpuppet, username is a violation of the username policy or they were an unregistered bot. I would also do so if someone like Grawp were to come along again.

5a The administrator is not online for a few days, or has indicated on their user/talk page that they will be away for a few weeks. What do you do?

A. I would try to email the administrator first, but if that didn't work then the old favourite: Take it to ANI. Seeing as I won't know the administrator's opinion on the matter, a community consensus would be appropriate.

Nishkid64 part I[edit]

Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck! Assume that the current date/time is 19:59 UTC 12 March:

I can't see any contributions for this 'user' so I would like to add the caveat that had I been able to see what they had done, I might've judged these differently. I'm also just going to assume that these are all different users and that they're not on group IPs as I can't see that information either. But I am considering these things! For the record! :p Also, if it's 19:59 UTC at the moment, then some of this stuff happened in the future. That actually makes this exercise a lot cooler, but it does mean some of my answers won't fit with the time given.

Of course, that should have been 20:01 UTC... my bad!

1. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

A. The account has vandalised four times, and although they haven't been given four warnings, they have been warned repeatedly. If this is a first offence, I say a 24 hour block is in order with a stern note asking them not to vandalise again.

Sounds good

2. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

A. Again, I'm assuming that this is a different user. In this case, I would say that they should be given another warning before they are blocked as they weren't given the all-important third warning that assumes they are vandalising. However, four very quick successive bits of vandalism does imply that they will do it again quite soon. Best to watch this user's contributions and wait for the next one. Maybe (if there's time) even leave another final notice with an extra note on it asking them to stop and letting them know what will happen if they don't.

Sounds good

3. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)

A. See this looks like a school to me, because it's someone who keeps coming back to vandalise a page at the same time(ish) on disparate days, but I can't see any way for me to check that in this exercise. If it is a school, I think I'd block it for 48 hour soft-block but also leave a note letting the school administrators know that they can stop their school being able to edit the website.

If it's not a school though! They haven't been warned appropriately as it hasn't been warned multiple times in the last 24 hours. If they continue to edit disruptively (for say, a week) then of course block them, but this isn't enough time to know that the IP user is the same person.

Good. The 3-day gap is probably because of the weekend, and so the school would be closed!

4. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

A. Indefinitely block but also let the school administrators know (on the talk page) that they can block the school from editing Wikipedia, and that that may be a better option.

Would you block account creation as well? Also, how would you let the school administrators know that they can block the school from editing Wikipedia - how would you advise they do that in such a way that people can still read Wikipedia but not edit?

There's a button on twinkle that lets you put the notice on the talk page to say how to view but not edit Wikipedia. I've been trying to find the template page for the last hour and I can't, but I know where it would be on my account if I had the tools! Really sorry about that.

5. XX (talk · contribs) Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

A. If it's an account purely dedicated to vandalism and it's not an IP address which could possibly be shared, then an indefinite hard-block should be made immediately.

This is not an IP, but a user account. As such, an indefinite block is warranted

6. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shared IP last received a vandalism warning (uw-4) at 19:00 UTC on March 11. Someone from the IP has made 4 vandalism edits at around 12:00 UTC on March 12, but has not received no final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

A. It depends on how long this has been going on for. If it's one of these accounts that has three warnings for every month then a week-long block would be in order. This will protect articles for a short while and also hopefully mean that the vandal gets bored and leaves us alone (which helps prevent disruption!). If they won't stop after the block then a longer block would be in order.

Good

Nishkid64 part II[edit]

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).

Assume that with the 3RR reverts, they are not reverting obvious vandalism

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

A. I'm guessing that this is all within 24 hours. In which case they should be blocked for 24 hours to prevent further disruption.

Good

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

A. It still counts as edit warring in my opinion (also, pushing the limits deliberately to make a point). Block for 24 hours. Unless the parties involved are actively communicating with each other, and that's why this one was a partial revert. In which case, good for them!

Good

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

A. They self-reverted. Ok, they still violated 3RR but they showed contrition (or the start of it), give them a little while and see if they violate it again but don't block them on account of this.

Good

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

A. 24 hour block. They reverted five times in 24 hours (I'm guessing this is the same article for all of them). That constitutes as edit warring in my book!

Good

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.

A. Firstly, does the user know about 3RR? Have they been warned? If the answer is no, best to explain this to them and see how they react before you take any action.

If they do know: A week long block. They haven't broken 3RR but they obviously have intentions which are not going away. Reverting consistently over a number of days shows that a 24 hour block would not be enough to deter them from future disruptions. Might be seen as harsh, but I think in this circumstance it's the only suitable measure to prevent unnecessary disruption.

Good

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

A. Report to 3RR first and then block if appropriate. I would lean towards a 24 hour block anyway but it is on the line so I'd like to get community consensus first.

Good

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

A. Protect the page! Report everyone to 3RR/Edit warring. Attempt conflict resolution on the article's talk page. Warn everyone. Don't block anyone unless they break 3RR.

Good

8. Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

A. Indefinite soft block with a notice advising that they can't have a username promoting a commercial webpage.

Good

9. Username: RealTek, Inc.

A. Indefinite block. Soft block if they are doing normal editing. Hard block if they are editing to promote themselves/spamming

Good

10. Username: Bitch78

A. You know I half want to say that this could be a kennel club but I think that's pushing the limits of plausibility. It's an offensive username, but not as bad as some of the others here. I'd say indefinite soft-block.

Good

11. Username: Iwannafkuup

A. Indefinite hard block. Personal threats and offensiveness all in one go! Well done that man.

Good

12. Username: Asswipeface

A. Indefinite hard or soft block. Again, offensive and from that username it doesn't look likely that they're going to be making constructive edits any time soon. It depends on their edits.

Good

13. Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

A. Confusing but not long enough to be obstructive. I'd leave a note on their talk page but they don't deserve a block for this.

Good

14. Username: CroatoanBot

A.Is this a registered bot? If it is then fine! Is it an unregistered bot? Then it needs to be blocked anyway. Is it not an unregistered bot but it is a username which suggests that it would be a bot? Then indefinite soft-block as they are more than welcome to make another account without the word bot in it.

Good

15. Username: AndysAutolandCompany

A. Again: Indefinite block. Soft block if they are doing normal editing. Hard block if they are editing to promote themselves/spamming

Good

A little break...[edit]

We'll get back to admin-y stuff soon, but let's look at something else for a little while:

Answers to these need to provide links to policy pages, have a good argument with solid reasoning, and be thorough!

Is this Wikipedia?[edit]

What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

To me that image symbolises how most casual users interact with Wikipedia. The problem with the image is the label 'Actually useful stuff'. What they mean by that is traditional encyclopaedic content, which is a very different matter. Casual users might use Wikipedia for the occasional essay or dissertation (which they shouldn't, but we'll go with it), but they use us the majority of the time to access the type of content that's featured in the image. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia, we have a wealth of information, (hopefully sourced), on subjects traditional encyclopaedias can't hope to include.

That's not to say that it's all good. There's a lot of Cruft and CruftCruft and Vanispamcruftisement, and that's a problem because it takes away time and resources from what we're here to do. But one should always remember that the people who write cruft articles are usually incredibly enthusiastic new editors and we mustn't bite them.

Fun and Humorous?[edit]

Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?

I am firmly in the middle ground. I especially like the comments there about us neither being emotional robots (which I sometimes think WP:NPOV means to some editors) or therapists here to hold editors hands. Everyone has what they like to do, and it's important that we encourage them to do it. There's nothing wrong with being a Wikimole, so long as you are helping the overall goals of the community (which should be to build an encyclopaedia) through your actions. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with taking a break from editing once in a while to spread some Wikilove either.

- What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly or "bad" userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed?

This is an incredibly difficult topic that, as far as I'm concerned, has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, you have WP:HARM, which I agree with wholeheartedly when it comes to articles, but am not so sure about when it comes to Userboxes. Surely being pointless is the entire point of Userboxes. You can make them useful (as I hope I have on my page), but you're really fighting an uphill battle there.

Of course should a userbox, even a 'funny' one, cross the WP:CIVILITY line, then all bets are off and it should be removed.

But then you have the other hand, the one that says we're we're not censored. The one that argues that userboxes, even when they are talking about controversial material, should be allowed. Personally, I think that anything which causes disruption in the community should be taken away. Even if it's just a silly userbox; saying something like 'I love abortion!' is going to get you in trouble wherever you are and again, we don't need time and resources taken away from the aims of the community.

- Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?

What Cabal?
Yes, yes, oh god yes! Or at least, as far as my understanding of them goes. They don't do anything except make people paranoid and they're a very important piece of satire on the idea of WP:CONSENSUS. If someone is in a discussion that has gotten a bit heated, or feels persecuted, there's a light-hearted way to let people know that everyone has felt like that at some time in their Wikipedian careers and that we understand, but it's not true.

Re-confirmation[edit]

What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)

Having watched ChaseMe be an admin for three years now, and having seen what happened at my RFA. I'm a little wary of re-confirmation if done for the wrong reasons. I can see someone wanting a check-up if they haven't received any feedback for a while, and I can see someone wanting re-confirmation after receiving a lot of negative feedback for a long time, but some very vocal members of the community tend to be a little hysterical. I have a sockpuppet investigation to prove it.

That's certainly not to say that it isn't a good idea. It's just to say that should you ever want a re-confirmation after say, a bad upset or mistake which caused a lot of drama, I don't think you would get a fair hearing at all. Not because the majority of users aren't sensible and well-reasoned but because those who aren't are so very vocal about it.

So essentially, yes, it's a very good idea for administrators to be open to community feedback, and for them to receive it on a regular basis, but I think that in the heat of the moment they may not be the best process through which an administrator should go. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, but some people treat it as such. (Sorry I couldn't find much other policy to back up that rant)

A request for user review seems to be a better option.

The Power of the Admin[edit]

How important do you think administrator duties are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why? Furthermore, what extra influence do administrators have compared to other users?

No one is more important than anyone else on Wikipedia, regardless of what they contribute. A vandal hunter couldn't efficiently do their job if there wasn't someone to block the vandals. The administrators would have nothing to delete if there weren't content editors. Content editors wouldn't be nearly as effective without the aid of skilled editors correcting their edits. Everyone is a cog in the machine and if you were to take away any one piece of it, it would stop functioning as a whole.

Having said that, I do desperately think we need more administrators who are willing to work on the backlogs which currently exist (or even sometimes exist, just look at XfD on a busy week). I think the criterion currently set for administrators is too high given that it is truly WP:NOBIGDEAL to be an administrator. I think we're discouraging people from reaching for the tools due to so much pressure and the standards set, and that that is a really big problem.

There is only one area in which administrators wield extra influence on Wikipedia and that's to new users. I thoroughly maintain that to people who don't know the special rules which apply to Wikipedia, they see administrators as similar to moderators on forums. In some ways they are (they can block people), but in the biggest way possible they aren't. That is to say, unlike a forum moderator who can do what he/she pleases, an administrator should have both policy and community consensus behind their actions. But newcomers don't know this, it's one of the reasons WP:BITE is so important.

Again, having said that, they also tend to wield greater influence than many other users in practice. But this is only because they are long-standing and trusted editors, not because they have a mop.

OK...[edit]

I won't comment on what you have said above (or what you will respond in the next section of questions), but I may refer to it later on... I've some ideas of "interesting" opposes I could raise based on what you have said here! OK, here are some more general non-specifically-admin questions for you - after this, we'll get back to admin-stuff like 3RR and user rights...

Banned Users[edit]

In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead).

Not automatically no. Looking through that example, it was pretty clear that the guy was editing in good faith on the Simple English Wikipedia. The other users might have suggested a checkuser on suspected sock puppet accounts, or made a note to watch his edits closely, but he'd done nothing to deserve a ban on the Simple English Wikipedia. That seems like a horrible violation of WP:AGF to me; I know that can only stretch so far, but we should give all our editors a chance until they prove they don't deserve it. Even then, we should look to rehabilitate them if possible.

Ageism[edit]

Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

I don't think so. So long as a person can show that they are mature enough to handle community interaction and 'adult' subjects like sexual articles, I don't see why there should be an age limit at all. There are people in their thirties who can't look at a picture of a penis without sniggering and there are people in their teens who can calmly mediate a dispute. It should be about your abilities and not your age.

False Credentials[edit]

"I have a JD, so I should know the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan Laws, and how they should be used in the article"

Do you believe that this claim should need some kind of verification? I could say to you right now that I'm 23, live in Vermont, and have a Doctorate in Biochemistry, but this wouldn't be true whatsoever.

Also, should lying about an editor's real life situation have consequences?

Clinton got a blow-job, and then lied about it. Why did that mean he had to be impeached? Because (the argument went) he was in a position of trust, and as such his ability to lie with such a blasé attitude to his electorate diminished that trust so thoroughly that he was unable to do his job. I didn't agree with that argument in that particular case (politicians lying? Never!), but it's a valid argument for people in positions of trust to consider, and that's what adminship and 'cratship is, a position of trust. Having said that, lies should be seen to on a case-by-case basis.

The example of the 'JD' above is a case in point. That lie means nothing, because having those expertise means nothing on here. People might ask you for advice, but unless you've got arguments and sources and knowledge to back up your claims, they're not going in the article. And if you do have those things, who cares if you lied about having the JD? You've improved the article, you've helped the community, and we're all better for it. No one cares about your RL credentials.

Reward System[edit]

What is your opinion on a reward system for editing (besides the reward board)? This would be along the lines of gifts/cash per edits, gifts/cash per FA and GA, volunteer hours per edits, etc.

I don't believe in a reward system for editing past what we already have in place. Having large (or tangible) rewards for editing can only really lead to corruption, and I know some people edit for companies already but it would just exacerbate the problem. And it's not just the articles that would suffer, community consensus and trust would suffer too. You look at MMOs and you see people buying gold and spaceships and swords online when they didn't 'earn' them because they see them as status symbols and want to look impressive and dedicated in the game. Wikipedia is not a game. You should not have a status symbol at any point. I don't want to see someone (and I know it's already happened) selling their admin account with 3,000 gifts on it, so that somebody who has never edited before can come in and play at 'winning the game'.

Sorry, that was a bit impassioned, but I can't stand that thought.

Fail[edit]

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

Wikipedia is the 7th most popular website in the world. Ask around with the people you know and see if they use Wikipedia. I guarantee you the answer will be yes. This, to me, is a sign of tangible worth to the global community.

I think both essays raise good points, and they should be taken into account. But I also think that both essays are flawed as Wikipedia is a continuous process. Sure, we occasionally save 'stable' versions but there is no 'finished product'. That's one of the great things about the project, but it also means that we are continuously failing and succeeding to various degrees at any given point. It's just a case of balancing the two out until we have a workable compromise, and I think we've got that right now.

The one point in WP:FAIL that I think really does need to be address is the 'Size and strength of the core community'. The numbers show that we are stagnating at the moment. We need more editors because the number of articles we have is constantly growing and the more people that are helping to maintain them the better. This doesn't seem to be too big of a problem yet (although the various backlogs would disagree with me), but it will be if we're not careful.

Registration[edit]

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

No, not at all. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit and I think requiring registration to edit would be a large hindrance to that. We have plenty of IP addresses who constructively edit and do so on a regular basis and they shouldn't be penalised for not wanting an account. Similarly, I completely disagree with the earlier trial that tried to make it so that some edits would need to be approved before going live. There were a few very good legal arguments for it but it goes against the core principles of the project and I don't think we should sacrifice those, no matter how large we get and no matter how much pressure is applied to us. (Or should I say, not until the pressure becomes so great that to not bow to it would mean a discontinuation of the project)

Pile-on RFA's[edit]

Do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? WP:BITE? Why or why not? Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this? Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?

No, I don't think that voicing a strong opinion is a violation of WP:CIVIL in and of itself, but it can be. You can take any RfA and easily distinguish between people who are calmly voicing a strong opinion with well-reasoned arguments, and those who are violating WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. You're more likely, I've found, to see people violating WP:CIVIL than anything else. For my part, I like to leave constructive comments, even if I've put 'strong' before my oppose, and point out what is good about the editor as well as why they aren't suited for the task at hand (or what's good about the proposed policy/admin action/xfd but where it is flawed). I think it would be nicer if more people did that, but more realistically I think it would be nicer if the community acknowledged and dealt with incivility masking itself as a reasoned argument more often, even if it's just with a quick note on the talk page.

User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring

Before we being...[edit]

Let's get started[edit]

Experience[edit]

More questions[edit]

Footprints[edit]

Deletion[edit]

AfD[edit]

More deletion stuff[edit]

Quick follow-up questions[edit]

Vandal Fighting[edit]

Page protection[edit]

Suggested reading[edit]

Blocking[edit]

General[edit]

Some follow-ups to the above...[edit]

Nishkid64 part I[edit]

Nishkid64 part II[edit]

A little break...[edit]

Is this Wikipedia?[edit]

Fun and Humorous?[edit]

Re-confirmation[edit]

The Power of the Admin[edit]

OK...[edit]

Banned Users[edit]

Ageism[edit]

False Credentials[edit]

Reward System[edit]

Fail[edit]

Registration[edit]

Pile-on RFA's[edit]