User:Cyclonenim/Admin coaching/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction[edit]

As we agreed upon, this will not be a structured coaching and will be like an extended editor review. To begin I would like to get a feel for what you're interested in. Take your time, these need not all be answered at one time.

Questions[edit]

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. I think I'm a bit of a dark horse around (explained in question 2) but I'd have to say my best contributions are my creations listed on my user page, and the things I've helped take to FA such as subarachnoid hemorrhage. I've also created the neurology task force (previously the WikiProject Neurology) as part of WikiProject Medicine.
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. Unfortunately not, I wish I had the patience to, but I prefer to edit several things at once and as such I rarely take on an article all the way to GA or FA. Instead, I tend to edit various things and help others take their projects further.
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. 5-10%, roughly.
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. Not heavily, but I have made contributions.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. My main problem compared to other RfA candidates is that I don't solely focus upon admin tasks. I'm an editor first and foremost, I only want the tools so I can help improve the encyclopaedia further through editing. I'd like to spend lots and lots of time in AfD, CSD, RFPP etc. but I can't make that interesting enough for myself. Instead, I edit articles and come to these areas when necessary. For example, I recently requested physical therapy for RFPP.
6. What kind of editing habits do you have? Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
A. I almost always check my watchlist first, then check my previous contributions to look for replies to things I've posted elsewhere on talk pages etc. Then I'd check to see if I had a little orange bar at the top and check those messages. Finally, I get on with the tasks I have set in my mind.
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. I love the idea of free knowledge, I get so irritated when materials I need aren't free so it'd be great to one day have a free, comprehensive resource. It also helps me in my academic studies and interests.
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you regularly participate in?
A. I'd probably only require access to blocking functions, AfD, CSD and RFPP. I can't imagine I'd go anywhere else for the time being but I'd be interested in expanding to UAA and some other areas.
9. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. I don't think I'd avoid anything, but I'd be unlikely to step into UAA at first as mentioned above, or anything in particular which is unrelated to my usual article work. I think I need to read a lot into RFPP.
10. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. Undeletion, image work, merging page histories and granting access to tools like rollback from the top of my head. All things I can't really experience until I am actually an admin.

From what I can see, you're basically a well-rounded editor. Some will say that you are a jack of all trades--master of none, but being well rounded isn't neccessarily bad. I did notice one sort-of red flag in your answers: "My main problem compared to other RfA candidates is..." This suggests that you think this coaching is for passing RfA and not to improve your skills. This coaching is intended to improve your skills as a Wikipedian in hopes you will make a good administrator if called upon. I just want to make sure you understand that, and in a bit I'll take a look at your contribs and throw together a review. Cheers, Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh sorry I didn't mean it to imply that at all. What I meant was that from my observations of RfA, most candidates tend to focus upon one area. I don't do that. I guess problem was the wrong word as I don't see it as a particular negative in any other sense other than losing a few votes because some people are bound to oppose because of it. But it's not something I want to change. I look forward to seeing your review. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 00:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Review I[edit]

Alright, I'll get to it:

  • You say that you wish to go into deletion as an administrator, but going through your contributions I see three instances of contribution to deletion areas within your last 500 edits. I will take a look at these now:
  • Another area you are interested in you say would be access to blocking functions. You've done a good job with vandal-patrol througout your time editing. In the last month's worth of archives I haven't noticed any problems relating to vandal-fighting and you appear to have a good grasp on it.
  • Can we discuss this?
  • Your refdesk work looks very good. Keep it up!
  • We may also want to discuss your participation at WP:RFA. Some users confided in me that they had concern over opposes you have made there. Keep this in mind when !voting there.
  • Of course your old RfA exposed a few past problems. Like I have said, the general advice given there was "get some worthwhile experience in adminship areas, and to take your time when editing and making decisions."
  • My suggestions:
    • Become a little bit more active in the areas you are interested in (deletion, anti-vandal patrol).
    • Take your time when editing. The goal is not to go fast, but to get it right. This is especially important in dealing with new users and at CAT:CSD.
    • Continue to enjoy yourself when editing. Don't go out and edit solely for adminship.

--Malinaccier (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'warning' on my talk page came from a long series of events with a disruptive editor who was trying to desysop Jfdwolff (talk · contribs)because JFW wouldn't allow him to make his disruptive edits. There were numerous discussions, requests for comments and Mihai, the user involved, eventually took to placing a warning on my user page for being disruptive. I believe it led from this post on his talk page: linky. Anyway, he seems to have calmed down at the moment which is good news for us all.
As for users bringing up concern at some of my votes, that doesn't really suprise me. I've had a few instances where I've sincerely disagreed with certain votes and felt the need to comment on them. I never thought I went out of line with those comments except in perhaps one instance with Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) after his RfA. We have since made better terms. —Cyclonenim(talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for explaining these! Malinaccier (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD participation review[edit]

Overall a very good job. I would suggest commenting on about three or four deletion discussions a day, and making sure to check up on your comments. This ensures high quality comments (as compared to quantity) and allows you to continue editing normally. Good job!Malinaccier (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed you voted to delete the article every time. While this is not always bad, do not be afraid to !vote "keep" from time to time. Also, you do not need to nominate articles for deletion to be an administrator. I actually think that a person who goes out of their way to nominate articles for deletion a bit unhelpful. If an article comes up in your browsing that you think needs to be deleted, nominate it. If not, don't go looking for bad articles--there's no requirement of nominating articles for deletion to be a good administrator. Keep it up! Malinaccier (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking through these, glad to know I'm making the right decisions. I'll be a little more careful with 'per' voting next time, though. I noticed myself that I'd voted delete everytime. I think this was because it's a lot easier to identify an article for deletion rather than one for inclusion. In addition, most notable articles which I could have vote kept had already had votes for keep added, so I wouldn't be adding much to those discussions. I'll keep up with the AfD participation for a while, and maybe expand a bit into CSD later. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Good plan. Contact me if you have any questions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind having a look at some of my recent AfD votes? More deletes, I'm afraid, but there is one merge vote. I can't find anything to contribute to articles to keep, yet. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been really busy and on vacation recently. I'll check out those AFDs:
  • Good at [1]
  • Good here:[2]. It's true that it's the thought/meaning of the barnstar and not the name.
  • [3] could have been a merge. It's true that there were no sources and it was written like an ad, but it would have been better served as a section in an article. Also remember that article quality is no reason for delete, but a reason to improve.
  • This was a valid nomination.
  • This AfD I actually commented on when I saw it (though to keep). I disagree with your comment, but your reasoning was valid. Just one note: Usually one should comment to merge and redirect rather than to delete. This saves the page history.
  • Good commenthere.
  • [4] was good. This shows that you really do pay attention to everything in the article you are commenting about. Some don't look past the text to the references.
  • This was not the best comment. The article does not establish notability, but through google it can be seen that the subject is notable. It is understandable that you overlooked the google search, but one important thing about AfD is to not do "drive-by comments." Instead, watchlist the AfD and check up on it once or twice to see if you missed something and also to respond to any comments left by other users.
Generally a good job. Sorry I haven't had much time to get online lately. When I'm more active I will review you in other areas besides AfD. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments :) No worries about the late reply, 'Rome wasn't built in a day' after all. I'm sorry I kind of messed up on the last one, can't really make an excuse but I'll learn from it. Have you got any areas in mind? By the way,Lankiveil (talk · contribs) expressed an interest in admin coaching me too. Would you be opposed to him commenting here, too, every so often as a reviewer? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Lankiveil can co-coach. The areas I would like to review are general ones, or any other area you wish for me to look at. Cheers, Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing really, I'm not sure what else I'd like to do as an admin apart from AfD, CSD, AIV and RFPP. The only thing I can think of going through at the moment are some scenarios for CSD and RFPP to see how good myintuition is.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're wanting to work with AfD, have you considered participating in some of the other XfDs, like WP:CFD or WP:TFD? WP:MFD is always an interesting place, as many of the pages brought there are problematic but do not have clear policy reasons to keep or delete. You need to think on your feet there and common sense, rather than an ability to cite policy is often what's required. These places usually see a lot less traffic than AfD does, so editors who know the ropes there are quite valuable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC).
I've participated in a few TfDs (here is the one I can find straight off, and another here) and I've nominated a fair few of CSDs over my time but I can't find any in my immediate contributions, so it's clear I need to participate there a bit more.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 07:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A few basic questions[edit]

I'd like to start briefly by asking a few questions about why you're interested in becoming an admin, what you'll do when you get there, etc. The answers themselves are not what is important, it's the thought processes behind them that I'm really more interested in.

  1. Why do you want to be an administrator?
I want to be an administrator so that I can carry out tasks that I need to do in my day to day editing without asking another administrators to do some of the work for me. For example, I need the ability to protect pages, to delete pages and to block vandals who are disruptive to the work we do here. I also like to help out a project by getting more involved in it's processes and I believe the best way to do this is to take a step up in the janitorial ladder. For example, I'd eventually like to help at OTRS, but for this you would need be a trusted administrator on your project first.
  1. What would you do if you were to be nominated for RFA, but the discussion failed to reach a consensus (or even worse, found a consensus that you should not be promoted)?
I feel that if my nomination did not reach consensus, I would work on the things brought up in the oppose and neutral sections in order to reapply in a few months. If the community brought consensus that does not want me promoted, I would most likely stay as an editor for a few years, I may even never reapply. It's not essential for me to become an admin, but I feel it's in the community's best interest for me to be one.
  1. Do you think you'd be less active as an editor and article builder if promoted?
As explained in previous questions, I only really intend to get involved as part of my editing; however, if I choose to expand later on, I may drop out of editing a little. In any case, I'll remain an editor to some extent as it is the sole reason I'm here in the first place.
  1. Under what circumstances would you dispute an "Oppose" vote on your RFA?
If I find a vote to be made in error (not intentional, may I add, but if it is I'll bring this to people's attention) then I probably would reply providing evidence against this error. If the oppose is well intentioned and correct, I would not reply unless the editor made a specific request for me to do so. I'd also dispute any entirely offensive opposes that have no basis.
  1. Do frivolous questions have a place on RFA?
The very definition of 'frivolous' is 'silly', or 'irrelevent', so no: I do not believe they have a place here.
  1. Would you be interested in running for higher office (Bureaucrat, Arbitrator, Checkuser, etc) if your RFA is successful?
No, not immediately or even in the near future. I may choose to later in my wiki-life but I have absolutely no need for such tools just yet.

CSD related questions[edit]

You have said that you're interested in working with CSD. As this is an area that I involve myself in rather heavily, I'd like to grill you in a bit of detail about it. Again, there are no right or wrong answers here, I'm more interested in how you come to the answer, and hopefully I can provoke a little thought as well!

  1. You have said in the questions above that "I'd like to spend lots and lots of time in ... CSD ... but I can't make that interesting enough for myself", yet you've also said in question #8 that you'd work in this area. Why do you want to work in an area that you do not find "interesting"?
    Sorry, I think I explained that badly. I don't find it that interesting, there's no discussion involved, but I do need to participate upon passing of RfA because I'll use CSD in my daily work as an editor and anti-vandal. If I bump into a nonsensical page, I'll delete it.
  2. What, as you understand it, is the purpose of the CSD A7 criteria?
    This is to be used when an article doesn't only show no notability, but no indication of why it could be notable. Therefore, lacking sources is not a reason to delete under CSD A7; however, an article which makes no attempt to even explain it's notability in terms of where the subject has been published within it's content, could be classed under A7.
  3. Under what circumstances (if any) would you speedy delete a page (article, category, template, etc) that did not meet any of the CSD criteria?
    I'd instantly delete legal threats, attack pages (either of celebrities or general public) or copyright infringements. Otherwise, it can go to AfD or PROD.
    So you would not delete these under G10 or G12 then? I was looking for circumstances outside existing rules. Also, what do you mean by "legal threats"? Legal threats against Wikipedia or the Foundation? Why would they need to be speedy deleted?
    Sorry, you're right, attack pages and copyrights can be deleted under G10/G12 respectively. Legal threats I define as any threat to take action under a court of law, whether it be against an individual or against the Foundation. Per WP:LEGAL, threats against either Wikipedia or the Foundation should be deleted to ensure that preceedings take place under the correct circumstances. This is usually accompanied by a block, too.
    Also, I forgot to mention WP:BLP violations. Any unsourced or uncertain statement (good or bad) about an individual with a Wikipedia article should be removed immediately. For example, a page solely about an individuals life and unsourced should be deleted. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP[edit]

Are there any available scenarios for requests for page protection? It's very likely I'd go into this area as part of my editing so I'd like to test my application of policies here. Cheers, —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How about some general policy questions? I don't have any scenarios set up, but these would be helpful. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A. I would fully protect an article if it is involved in a severe content dispute that results in edit warring, or because the article is a high traffic article which is undergoing severe, consistent vandalism by autoconfirmed accounts. Otherwise, full-protecting a page isn't the best way to go as it's against Wikipedia's spirit of "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. Pages can and should be SALTed when a page is consistently being recreated after deletion. It should only be used when actual events have occurred that require creation protection to stop, rather than just protecting likely-to-be-vandalised pages without any reason.
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A. Wheel warring, naming disputes and high-traffic pages with no need to be moved such as WP:RD/S, WP:AIV, WP:ANetc.
4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
A. I would protect a user page if it was undergoing heavy vandalism, the same with any page on Wikipedia. However, I'd only block the user talk page if the user was blocked, or in rare cases where the user has left Wikipedia but usually that can be solved with talk page deletion.
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. I can't say I'm familiar with deletion review so I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it's to prevent the article being tagged for deletion again in the immediate future. I really don't know?
Answered questions. The only one I'm unsure of is question 5, I think. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The answers are good, but the answer to #5 is to allow non-admins to review deleted material without being able to edit for the purposes of determining notability of deleted content. Otherwise, good job! Malinaccier(talk) 19:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD examples[edit]

90% of CSD cases are straight open-and-shut cases, but there are of course, always borderline cases. It is important that admins are able to get these right, as there is not really any oversight or checks on admin powers in this area. I'd like to take you through some scenarios of situations that may or may not require admin intervention.

Please go to User:Lankiveil/CSD Zoo, and review the eight scenarios listed. These are for the most part based upon actual examples of articles that have been nominated for speedy previously. Assume you are an administrator on speedy patrol, and you come across these examples. Please summarise, on this page, for each example, what actions you would take, and why (and please don't edit the pages themselves). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Coma (song) example[edit]

I came across something very similar to this the other day; however, it was at AfD. I don't think I'd delete this under any CSD criteria since it does have context, despite it's lack of references, so it may be notable and verifiable with work. However, if I could find no reliable sources, I might PROD the article instead since it fails WP:NSONGS, third paragraph.

Green tickY Correct, while this is a very short article, it does contain enough context to avoid deletion, and the tag on it is not correct, because songs are not eligible for A7.

John Smith example[edit]

Delete under G10, this is an attack page and constitutes a BLP violation, unless there are reliable sources (which the article does not refer to at all) in newspapers making this guy notable. Per WP:BLP, unsourced violations should be deleted at once.

Even though there are two sources on the article? (I have basically anonymised the name here because of BLP concerns, so pretend the two "references" in the article lead to actual articles on newspaper items that state that a person by this name was arrested)
Sorry, I didn't think they were footnotes but instead what the creator placed there. I'd still say delete because of notability concerns, but I'm not sure under what category. Perhaps A7 (biography)? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you'd probably get away with A7. Personally, given the sources, I would refactor the article to make the language a lot more neutral and clinical, and take it to AfD citing BLP1E. I'll still mark you Green tickY Correct though =).

Electric Grandpa and the Haunted Goldfish example[edit]

Should be deleted under A7 (band), as well as failing WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY.

Green tickY Correct.

哀鸽 example[edit]

Aha, like the Coma (song) example, I made a mistake like this in the past, too. Articles written in different languages should not be deleted under patent nonsense (that was the mistake I made). In this case, I would try to establish if the article contained anything useful by finding a translator (either human or machine). If worthwhile, this article can be transwikied and then deleted from en-wiki under A5.

Green tickY Correct. Well spotted, this one frequently trips people up. You may wish to tag articles like this with{{notenglish}} and list it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.

Jane Smith example[edit]

This isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, there's too much potential for notability when I search Google. If necessary, it could be taken to AfD, but I'd bet with a bit of searching we could find a potential source.

Green tickY Correct. In addition to an assertion of notability through winning the award, it's almost always better to give the benefit of the doubt to an article if doubt exists, rather than just deleting it. This example was based on Katie Doherty -where the speedy was declined.

Homework example[edit]

I'd delete this under A1—there is no context, it's unsourced and is very, very likely to remain that way.

You would probably get away with this, although A1 is a bit of a stretch. Is it eligible under G1, as tagged?
I thought it wasn't eligable for G1, because the criteria for G1 states that the category does not apply to "poor writing" or "implausible theories". —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 10:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Green tickY Correct.

CyberBot example[edit]

I'm not really sure but I don't think that this should be deleted under A1 since there is context. I'd be tempted to delete under A7 since it makes no attempt to establish notability, and remains unsourced.

You're partially correct, it should not be deleted A1 because there is context. However, it is not eligible for A7 either - have a read of the criteria and see if you can tell why.

Napalese national rugby union team example[edit]

Delete as stated on tag, no sources, no notability, Google search reveals nothing.

Red XN Incorrect. This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. In particular, not having sources is not in itself a reason for speedying, and notability is asserted through being the national team of a major international sport. It does not fit under any of the criteria, despite being of pretty limited usefulness.

Hope these are okay. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good, in that these are examples of some of the trickier situations you might encounter. My golden rule at CSD is that if I have any doubts whatsoever about deleting an article, I shouldn't. For many categories, particularly A7, no real harm is done if the article sticks around for a few days while it gets PRODded, so you shouldn't be in a rush to delete if you're not sure. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC).
I agree. In practice, for a while, I wouldn't be deleting controversial articles in any case. As I've stated elsewhere the primary reason I need to learn this is so that I can delete non-controversial articles in my daily routine here.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 10:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD Review[edit]

I'm glad to see you're doing well in the CSD area. I'm going to take a look at your AfD participation now:

  • Good. Also note that such pages can be deleted under A2 of the Speedy Deletion policy.
  • Good. You may be pleased to note that others are quoting your deletion reasons :).
  • Good nomination.

Good. I like to see that you're commenting before other !votes are added.

  • Good.
  • Good.
  • Very good. I already covered this, but I want to bring it up again. Just because an editor added sources does not mean it's notable then. Please also note that the result was to Merge rather than delete. Sometimes it is best to save an article's information about a non-notable subject for a section of a more notable article.

You've gotten very good at contributing to deletion discussions. As Lankiveil suggested, I believe it would be beneficial to actively expand to other areas of WP:XFD. Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm glad to hear I'm doing well on both fronts. I'll see if I can get a bit more involved in TfD and CfD.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing habits[edit]

I feel I should clarify my habits, giving you two an insight into what I do here most, and when I do it. I'm primarily here because of my interest in medicine, and to research into it as it's my life ambition. As such, I'm mostly active under WikiProject Medicine. Although, that said, I do copyedit any article which someone asks me to and I try and border out to other interests occasionally. When I'm not editing articles (which interestingly is becoming more and more often) I tend to focus on deletion aspects of the encyclopaedia, and also changes in how Wikipedia is run (i.e. WP:RfA, RfB and the like, as well as, occasionally, the village pump).

In regards to when I edit, I edit most days and sporadically throughout the day whenever I've nothing better to do with my current cesspool of a life. That said, I'm more active in the evenings, weekends and wednesdays when I've a lot more spare time. I make no pretences, however, that my real life comes way ahead of Wikipedia in importance to me (shock!) so occasionally I will lay off editing for a while if I've something very important to achieve there.

I feel that, now, I should point out what I've got ahead in the next month or two. Over Christmas I'll probably end up editing more out of boredom, but to balance the equilibrium my college decided to put my exams all through January (from the 9th to the 23rd) so I'll be pretty damn inactive around that time. Afterwards, things should get back to normal (or as close to normal as above that is possible). Hope that's alright with you guys, I hope to perhaps run for adminship again in February if all is going well and you think I'm ready. Let me know :) —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This should not really be a problem - if you look into my own edit history there's a big hole in late 2007 from when I was travelling the world, and I edit a lot less at the beginning of the week when I am busy doing real-life things, than I do at the end of the week when I've more free time on my hands. This didn't cause any problems for me during my RFA run, and if you can explain a short block if anyone queries it, you should be okay as well. February sounds like a good timeline to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

A mistake I should probably look into[edit]

This nomination seems to have been incorrect, I was almost certain that it failed WP:ACADEMIC but alas, no. Was it just my judgement? —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 21:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what you missed or did not understand is that WP:ACADEMIC does not supersede other aspects covered at WP:NOTABILITY(and perhaps she does meet WP:ACADEMIC, but I'll take a look at that in a bit). What this means is that while she does not meet the academic guide for notability, she does meet the criteria for another guideline--in this case WP:BIO outlined inthis section. In fact, this is explained atWP:ACADEMIC itself:
On another note, the professor may have passed WP:ACADEMIC. Why did you think that she failed numbers four and seven? Was it lack of research? Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. Malinaccier (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I genuinely believe I hashed up on my judgement in this case, misinterpeting the scaling of guidelines and as you said, takingWP:ACADEMIC to be more important than WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. I believe I just glanced at WP:ACADEMIC and didn't put much thought into it, since I'd already tried to speedy the article (which in hindsight definitely was not the right way to go). Hopefully I can learn from this. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
On the topic of the speedying, putting an A7 tag on a just-created article that is still being actively edited usually is not a very good thing to do. Many editors build articles up incrementally in the mainspace, rather than developing them in userspace and moving them in; as this one was. The article was probably technically a valid target, but you should always give a new article a few minutes to see if more is going to be added to it.
I wouldn't worry about this overly, because as Malinaccier said, everybody makes mistakes, and you seem to have accepted and understood what happened in this case. Just something to keep in mind when you're on NPP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC).
I think it's taught me a good lesson on being too hasty. Deletion is certainly an area where you don't want such a tendancy to develop. Hopefully it won't happen again but as you said, mistakes unfortunately do happen. —Cyclonenim(talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD exercise[edit]

I know this isn't my area, but go ahead and take a crack at these:

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.

Law High School broadcasting[edit]

I don't think this is a candidate for speedy deletion seeing as the article has asserted notability with a reference, saying that they won a national competition by a major broadcaster (NBC). Perhaps a candidate for AfD or PROD later on, but not speedy. I woulddecline this request.

Good.

Sam's Soda Shoppe[edit]

I would delete this, but not under A7. Although about a 'real' organisation (no references to back that up, though), it makes an attempt to show it's notable. I would delete this under G11 as this is blatantly an advert ("Prices are cheap starting at $.95 for a 12 oz. bottle" and "Stop right in today!" did it for me).

Good.

Steve Q. Smith[edit]

Decline speedy, makes an attempt to assert notability with references, and is well sourced. Depending upon the quality of those sources, it could be a candidate for AfD or PROD. If I actually stumbled across this article, I'd fix it a bit whilst I was there by removing the "By John L.", and possibly rewording too.

Good.

Jon Starks[edit]

I would not delete this under A7 since it makes a reputable claim with a source (that the guy made over $45M in the last year from his business) and he's also supposedly married to a supermodel, someone who is far more likely to be notable. This article requires further investigation, and I'd probably take to AfD.

Good.

Getting Away With It[edit]

Decline speedy, makes reputable claims backed up with sources. I'd place a clean-up tag or fix it up myself, but if the claims turn out to be true (i.e. backed up by reliable sources), they deserve inclusion.

I'm not sure about this one. Check the sources by clicking on them and tell me your impressions. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I got confused with yours and Lankiveil's system (he didn't put real references in, so I assumed notability). Although the fist reference could not be used as a reliable source, and should be removed, the second is a reliable source and permits the band to be notable per #2 at WP:MUSIC ("Has had a charted hit on any national music chart"). I'd still decline this speedy, I think...—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 10:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Marketingandbusinessonline.com[edit]

Decline speedy, it's recieved coverage in large broadsheet newspapers (Washington Post and New York Times). This can be taken as a sign of notability and therefore fails deletion under A7.

OK. I don't believe you checked every one of the sources, but one of the major newspapers did cover it though the others check out as bad references. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go, look forward to your replies. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Make sure when really checking speedy requests, look at the references provided (some in my examples check out as fake). Otherwise, you did well except where I pointed out. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Checking references is usually the first thing I do. I think I got confused between two systems here. Clicking on ref one now shows that that reference is irrelevent to the statement, and therefore it should be removed. However, I'd still decline this speedy.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity[edit]

Sorry about the somewhat lack of activity here over recent weeks, I simply haven't got much to talk about! I'm carrying on in my general business here, so if something comes up I'll ask but so far not much has happened this new year.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

General checks[edit]

The other day I had a lapse in judgement and tried to fix a move by copying and pasting onto the redirect... bad idea. Luckily,Seresin (talk · contribs) has fixed it for me, but I think it's clear I need to be checked on my general knowledge of admin tasks around this place, as well as knowledge in CSD and AfD as we've been doing above. Could one of you arrange some questions? Many thanks in advance. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I might not be able to respond here until after Thursday, exams and all that jazz. —Cyclonenim(talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for my recent inactivity, rest assured I've not forgotten about you! I'll try to get some questions arranged for you by Thursday on "general tasks". Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC).
Sounds good to me! Look forward to it, thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm running a bit behind schedule here, an unfortunate amount of real life (tm) intruded. Tomorrow is a public holiday here, so I should have time to do it then. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC).
Not a problem, it's been a particularly real-life-heavy week for me too. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my wireless has gone down so I'm going to be pretty much unavailable until it's fixed. Sorry for the delay.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

General Checks, Episode the first[edit]

  1. When would it be acceptable to use a fair use image of a living person in an article?
    The only example I know of is when a person is dead, but admittedly I'm not an expert on fair use images.
  2. What do you make of this situation?
    Wow, first time I've seen anything like that. It seems YellowMonkey's defence was that the users only contributions were to talk pages, seemed to have a fair knowledge of policy already and were disrupting articles, in which case I can see why he'd administer a block, but I feel that indefinite blocking a user without certain proof of their intention to cause disruption is a bit too heavy handed.
  3. A newbie editor with a poor grasp on English has just been blocked for vandalism, and approached you seeking an unblock. Upon examinating their contributions, it is clear that all of their edits are good faith attempts to contribute, albeit in broken and unintelligible English. The blocking admin is nowhere to be found. What do you do?
    In that situation, assuming he hadn't ignored numerous warnings to be careful with his grammar, I would unblock the user in good-faith, and leave a notice for the blocking admin at their talk page, explaining my position and why I've unblocked this user. I'd welcome further discussion, but explain that I believe blocking a good-faith user is detrimental to the project.
    Good answer. Assume that the user's talk page is full of editors asking the user to be more careful with their grammar, offering to help proofread any contributions, and other good faith attempts to assist. There is evidence that these posts have been read (although possibly not understood). Would this change your approach?
    I think it would, as I wouldn't undermine the blocking admin in that situation. If a user does not understand English well enough to recieve general messages from other users, they probably belong more at their home project instead. The only idea I have in my head would be to try and leave the user a message in their home language using a translator, but that's not always clear straight-off. Either way, a message should be left saying that they might well fit in more at their home project.
  4. I notice you've been doing some work around AN/I with a civility case. This is good! What would an editor have to do, in your opinion, to go "too far" with incivility?
    I'm not entirely sure how I got involved in that dispute. I believe Hervegirod (talk · contribs) came to my talk page thinking I was an admin, so I decided to get involved anyway (after, of course, informing him that I wasn't). Anyway. I feel that it's not necessary for a user to swear in order to be uncivil, but I also feel that one or two statements out of frustration with another user aren't breaches of incivity. I feel (using that word a fair bit today, but it works) that personal attacks constitute immediate 'too-farness' with incivility.
  5. An editor posts to WP:AN3 claiming that a long-standing user with a clean record has violated 3RR. Upon examination, the edits are certainly not useful, but may not meet the criteria for vandalism. What do you do?
    If this were the first case I was dealing with, I'd bring it up at AN since more experienced administrators can help teach me the process. I feel that if the user has breached 3RR, and the edits don't meet any of the exceptions laid out in the policy, then it's irrelevent that that user is a long-standing one because they have breached policy, and in fact should be more aware of these policies due to their increased time here. Perhaps I'm too liberal but if it was this users first breach of 3RR, then I'd probably give them a written warning and walk away. If it's clear that this is not a one-off instance, then I'd administer a block for 24 hours or longer (depending upon how often this breach is occurring).
  6. What does semi-protection do, when may it be used on a page, and what is the maximum length of time it may be applied to a page that is being heavily vandalised.
    Semi-protection prevents unregistered users (IPs) and non-autoconfirmed users from editing a page. It may be used in persistent vandalism by these types of editors, when a page is being edit-warred on, abuse of the {{unblock}} template or article discussion pages which are subject to continous disruption. It shouldn't be used as a preemptive measure. There is no maximum length of time, as some articles which are highly vandalised (such as George W. Bush) are indefinitely protected.
  7. There is an article is on an English football team. It was originally started by an American contributor who used American English, but an English user has changed multiple phrases in the article to British English. The original editor has reverted the change, and an edit war has broken out. Both editors are now at the 3RR threshold. Who is (the most) in the right?
    In general, types of English variation should be ignored. However, when an article has sufficient relation to one type of English (such as an English football team), the article should be written in British English. Neither user should be breaching 3RR.
  8. Do you believe that there is an increasing problem with declining public participation in Wikipedia? If so, what do you think should be done to counter the problem?
    I don't believe that problem exists just yet. There are still many, constructive new users joining and I'm not sure anything could be done anyway other than advertising, which would be viewed by many as an inappropriate use of funding.

There will be more later, but take as much time as you require with the above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

Hope these answers are okay. Thanks for the questions! —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Not bad, if I have one piece of advice, it's that adminning (and editing in general) is not an exam. If you're not familiar with a particular policy (such as the fair use image policy, which I have to confess I'm not over myself), you're allowed to look it upbefore you act! Admitting that you're not sure is good, but looking it up to get the actual policy would be better. Note that I've added a follow-up for Q3 above, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC).
I've replied to your follow-up question. Also, I did attempt to look up fair use policy at WP:FAIR but all I could find was if the person is dead, and checking again, if its a band or artist which has disbanded. Otherwise, I'm still lost on that particular area. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 14:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD review[edit]

I recently commented on this andthis, and I was wondering what you two's thoughts were? The first is impecibly more complicated than the latter, as it involves a borderline notable subject. The latter, doesn't, but I was curious as to your thoughts of me striking the creator of the articles multiple !keeps. —Cyclonenim(talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of these look fine. There wasn't really anything even slightly bad about the first AfD. You did a great job at looking for sources (except for the BBC mishap, but that's minor)--the only issue there was that the nominator was trying too hard to get the article deleted when they should have stopped and realized that it was a benefit for the article to remain on Wikipedia. You handled the second one well--many users overreact when they see that an editor has !voted multiple times on the same issue, but you stayed calm and collected. I think you've got the hang of AfD. Keep up the good work! Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD review[edit]

Recently, I nominated the following for speedy deletion. Was wondering if one of you could check them over:

  • Less immigration - probably better as an A3 than an A1, although both are a little bit dodgy, as it's coherent, the subject was identifiable, and possibly a good faith effort. {{prod}} can be good for these ones.
  • Ben Notaghan Green tickY Correct.
  • 30 Seconds To Production Green tickY Correct, I particularly like that you fixed the article up first, presumably to see if itcould be made into a better article.
  • Is live a game? Green tickY Correct.
  • Tibilletti Green tickY Correct, normally you should tag these articles with {{notenglish}}, but in this case, as it only said "This is the first version of the page" in Portugese, you made the right call.
  • Jos'h Green tickY Correct, arguably also a G3 or a G10.
  • Svetlan Stefanov Green tickY Correct.
  • Milen Marinov Green tickY Correct.
  • Set'Akat Green tickY Correct.
  • Luiza Cala Green tickY Correct.
  • Venci Pavlov Green tickY Correct.
  • Photo card cafe (this one definitely needs reviewing, as it wasn't deleted), G11 is by its nature subjective, but I usually reserve it for really blatantly promotional stuff. In this case, there was no contact number, email address for press enquiries, shopfront address, direct links to the website, or other red flags that I usually associate with irredeemably promotional articles. Note that sometimes it's a viable course of action to simply stub promotional articles rather than outright deleting them, if it looks like the company or product might be notable. I probably would have declined this speedy as well.

Thanks :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

11/12 is a pass mark, and the one you missed was borderline, so well done! Just watch those promotional things and keep in mind that sometimes there is an alternative to deletion that you can pursue. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC).
Ah fair dues, I can live with that :) I can't quite remember what the first article was, but I'll try to remember PRODing the more controversial/subject of doubt articles. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting the train rolling...[edit]

I've started asking my previous RfA's opposers for comments regarding my current Wikipedia status and their overall thoughts to me running again. It seems all current respondees are happy for me to run in the near future, which I intend to do, but not until I've got the clear from you two that you believe it's the right time. I want to wait until all your concerns are resolved, and get a bit more work in at areas like UAA and AIV, then perhaps consider being nominated? Thanks :) —Cyclonenim(talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you're ready now. I'll throw some questions about blocking up and after that we'll look at a nomination! Malinaccier (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that you're ready as well, but the one spanner in the works is that I'll be in lovely Dubbo from the 15th of Feburary to the beginning of March. So, unless you want to wait around, I'll probably not be around for the whole period, as internet access can be spotty in western NSW. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC).
Oh, I'm sure I can wait until March, it's not like I'm in any rush. I was just keen to get the ball rolling, per se, in terms of finding out what others thought. This month can be my final work-up period to RfA, where I will focus quite heavily on administrative areas where I intend to work as part of my editing such as AfD and CSD, building up as much experience as possible. Does this sound good? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:08, 14 February 2009 (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. Firstly, I would need to check that the user has been sufficiently warned to stop their actions, whatever they may be, before even considering a block. A final warning or only warning template must be placed on their user talk page before a block is used. Secondly, I would check to see whether this was an IP or a registered account. If the former, the vandalism must be currently ongoing. Also, if an IP is to blame, I should check whether or not this is a shared IP address or a 'frozen' IP address belonging to one person, as this can affect block duration. If the account is registered, then longer block sanctions may be used.
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. If vandalism by an IP address is not currently ongoing, then it should not be accepted (i.e. if a few days old). 3RR requests shouldn't be answered at AIV, instead they should got to 3RR. Sockpuppet investigations should go to SAA. Likewise, disruptive behaviour and inappropriate usernames should be reported to the correct areas (AN/ANI and UAA respectively). Repeating the first question, I would not conduct a block when the user is insufficently warned. I would also have issue with blocking an editor whom I feel has done no wrong, although I'd probably bring this up at AN.
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Got this at my last RfA... never. They inflame the situation, bad idea IMHO.
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. I would not perform a block to enforce a Wikibreak. Instead, I would direct them to less strict measures such as the script which can be used to enforce such a break. I can't remember the exact link, but it's listed at WP:TOOLS somewhere.
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A. It's important to bring it up with the administrator who blocked the user, either before or after you do the unblocking depending upon circumstance. If the blocking admin is unavailable for several more hours, it may be best (assuming not too controversial) too unblock the user and explain to them what's happened, and explain to the administrator why I've undone their action. I'd encourage further discussion when the administrator is back online. If the blocking administrator was available from the start, I'd start discussing the topic with him/her before unblocking the editor.
There you go :) —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Good so far. Malinaccier (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. After blocking, I would bring up the issue at ANI to inform others. I'd probably also start trying to revert vandalism.
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. I'd probably just defer to another admin who I know well enough to ask for help, before going to the ANI if I'm stuck. Although, if the block was potentially urgent, I'd probably go straight to ANI.
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A. Inform ANI, that would need to be discussed and desysopping would be incredibly likely unless the administrator can prove he/she was not operating the account. Even then, however, resysopping may be an issue with concerns of security.
At the risk of butting in here, in this case you could probably block the account first, if it's posting what is undoubtedly vandalism. Of course, you should still report what you've done to ANI for further discussion, but minimising the amount of damage the account can do is paramount in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC).
I would undoubtedly block the rouge account first, I just didn't state that because the question asks what I'd do afterblocking :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. I would block them, and leave a message with the explanation along the lines of if you make legal threats against anyone here, including the Foundation, you will be blocked so that legal proceedings, should they occur, can happen without any further escalation here. This is good for both you, and us.
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I would not immediately block this account. Instead, I'd leave a message suggesting that user should perhaps change their username for ease and provide a link to CHU. I'd also wait for this user to edit to ensure it's not a vandalism only account, before moving on.
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A. I would block this under a violation of the username policy.
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. I'd wait for the user to edit to ensure it's not only being used for the purpose of adverisement. If it is, I'd block that account for advertising.
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. This is impersonation, and the user should be blocked. I'd also inform the impersonated user of the block.
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. A softblock uses the settings 'autoblock disabled, account creation not disabled, blocking only anonymous users enabled', whereas a hardblock disables all editing from a user unless they are an IP block exemption or administrator.
14. What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?
A. Level three warnings are the ones just before a final warning/only warning, and I believe they're important because they first give the impression to a user that they could be blocked if they continue. Usually, this is a powerful motive to stop.

Cyclonenim, please look at m:Vandalbot for the complete procedure for question #6. The rest are good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, useful link :) —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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!

1. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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. I'd say 24 hour block in this case, as the user was given adequate (sp?) warning for his actions. However, I'm reluctant to immediately perform long blocks on IP addresses.
2. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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. I do not feel that a block is appropriate here, as they appear to stop after the level 4 warning (which, since no uw-3 was issued, was the first threat of a block). A uw-3 or higher should be issued before blocking in this circumstance.
3. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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. Is this a static IP? If so, then a 24 hour block would probably be appropriate. If this is a shared IP address, then probably not as it could have been used by several people over the course of March. For shared IPs, I feel that a level three warning or higher should be issued on the date of the vandalism. Call me overcautious, however.
4. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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. I can't say I'm too familiar with school blocks, but I believe common practice is that if this sort of vandalism occurs straight away after the previous 3-month block has occured, then you can issue a 6-month softblock as warning is given via template that vandalism from this IP address can result in long blocks affecting everyone, and encourages them to create accounts.
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. Vandalism-only account, indefinite block.
6. xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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. I would not block in this case, as shared IPs (as stated earlier) can be used by multiple users over different days. uw-2 means no block was mentioned, and therefore I feel it unfair on that user to block them. If it had happened on March 11 after the uw-4, then a 24-hour block would be appropriate.
There you go :) —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

These were great. Good job. Malinaccier (talk)19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

1. XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.
A. I would block this user for 24 hours, and place {{uw-3rr}} on their talkpage.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
2. YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.
A. Did not overstep 3RR, and reverted in part. I would not block for this, although an explanation of 3RR on the user's talk page might be useful.
This user should be blocked because a partial revert is included in the definition of 3RR. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
3. ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.
A. I'm not entirely sure here. The user broke 3RR, but self-reverting own actiosn is an exemption listed at WP:3RR. I'm guessing this exemption doesn't apply, as the actions he

originally reverted to violate 3RR weren't his. If so, block for 24 hours and provide {{uw-3rr}}.

Self reverts are allowed and it cancels out the revert that they made originally, so no block. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
4. 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.
A. Not quite sure, but maybe this: although not strictly a violation of 3RR (since reverts separated by another users actions isn't defined as a revert in a 3RR sense) I may well still block for 24 for disruptive editing.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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. If these reverts are disruptive, I would block for disruptive editing and trying to, what it sounds like, game the system. If not disruptive, no block is necessary as the rule was not broken.
Yes, WP:GAME does apply here. Good job. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
6. User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.
A. Edit warring is disruptive, block for 24 hours and provide an explanation to the user.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?
A. If it's severe enough, a full protection of the page might be necessary to prevent further escalation of the edit warring. That was, individual and group discussions can be carried out to try and resolve the issue. No blocks required, presumably, but depends on a case-by-case basis.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org
A. Block indefinitely, advertising in a username is not acceptable.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Username: RealTek, Inc.
A. As above.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Username: Bitch78
A. Block, per WP:IU that offensive usernames are not allowed as they make harmoneous editing difficult.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Username: Iwannafkuup
A. Wait to see if the user edits, if disruptive, block indefinitely. If not, suggest changing username at WP:CHU.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Username: Asswipeface
A. As answer 10, block, per WP:IU that offensive usernames are not allowed as they make harmoneous editing difficult.
Good, though this might fall under a disruptive enough username for a block right away. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef
A. As confusing usernames aren't disruptive on their own, wait for the user to edit. A disruptive, vandalistic editor can be indefinitely blocked. If this user is constructive, I'd suggest changing their username at WP:CHU. If they adamantly refuse, a block would probably have to follow.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Username: CroatoanBot
A. No problem if this is a real approved bot. If not, this is misleading and should be indefinitely blocked.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Username: AndysAutolandCompany
A. Advertising, block per answer 1, advertising in a username is not acceptable.
There you go, hope these are okay. Cheers for reviewing the last set, too.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some problems. I've replied to each individual one. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA review[edit]

Firstly, my apologies for not getting to this sooner.

I've had a thorough re-read of your RFA, and as I'm sure you realise, most of the opposes were based around two things:

  • A low level of activity in some "bread and butter" admin areas. I must admit that I should not have brought attention to AIV, but the way your contributions tailed off here did turn a couple of people off. If you rack up a large number of edits in one of these areas, only to drop it later on, it may cause the cynical to think that you're just doing it to inflate your edit count and "tick the boxes" for an RFA. A better strategy is to consistently do a smaller amount of work in these areas, while concentrating on your strengths. Maybe a bit of NPP, some XFDs, or some vandal reporting work every day, just to keep your experience in these areas "fresh", rather than binging on XFD and then staying away from it for a month.
  • The ParaGreen issue. Morally, you did the right thing by being upfront about it, but it wasn't a good look and it's fairly difficult to make those sorts of comments look rosy. We've all shot our mouths off at some point and then later regretted it, so I wouldn't worry overly about it. As always, if you start getting angry or upset about something on Wikipedia, the best course of action is to go for a walk, do some housework, or do something else other than posting a reply in anger. My own personal guideline is to imagine whether my grandmother would be disappointed in me if she read something that I'd written in here... it's a good way to make me look like a "nice young man" on here. =)

There's also the jc37 issue. I happen to agree with you that XFD (and most other processes) are a de facto vote these days, for better or for worse, but RFA probably isn't the best place to be making controversial statements like that.

With all that said, I think you got a bit of a rough ride there. If it hadn't been for the ParaGreen thing, you'd probably be off being able to delete the main page right now! The good news is that everything that's been brought up can be worked on; there's nothing that existentially is going to stop you from being an admin at some point. One word of advice I'd have is not to "cease article work" - your contributions to articles are the strongest point in your Wikipedia CV, and after all, article work is what we're here for. As I alluded to above, I'd step up my work on "back office" stuff like vandal patrol and XFD, but try to keep up as much article work as possible.

If you want any more elaboration on any of the above, please let me know and I'll be happy to do so. 60.242.244.169 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Hmm, the above edit was me, obviously. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
No worries for the late reply, this month and the upcoming two at least are going to be incredibly busy for me off-wiki, so I'll be spending little time here for the time being. I agree with the points you've raised, and I think that a less direct approach to RfA would be good for next time, i.e. not planning on running in the short term, but only in the long term with a lot more experience behind me. Thanks for your review, I hope to be in touch in coming weeks but forgive me if I'm a little slow to reply to anything here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim| Chat  17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again for the lack of time I've had to contribute recently, this will probably continue into the next month or so. I'll return here once my exams are over. Thanks again to you both for your time. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An update[edit]

Hey guys, sorry again for the lack of update, I've still been immensely busy despite finishing college, and I'm off to uni in a few weeks so I doubt my time will be freed much more anyway. I feel it's almost unnecessary to aim towards becoming an administrator at such a time when I will have no time to use the tools, nor learn policies in their respective areas before an RfA. I think the best option is to leave this page open for when I finally find enough time to work hard at XfD and AIV before running again for adminship. I hope you guys don't mind me postponing these plans, but I don't feel I can keep up the work sufficiently to get anywhere. Let me know how you feel! Cheers. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with waiting. This is your "thing" after all. I do think it would be better for you to be more active before becoming an administrator because otherwise you may not be up to date on the latest policies and processes. So I'm ready to coach you whenever you're ready to be coached. Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll echo the comments above - becoming an admin is not something that you must do, and if you're more comfortable for the moment remaining a regular contributor, then all the better. Let me know if and when you feel that you want to take another run at it, and I'll be happy to provide all the advice I can. Lankiveil (speak to me)11:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC).
Somewhat ironic how my most active day since April/May time comes a few days after notifying you of this. Oh well! We'll see how things go. Thanks guys. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Some AfDs[edit]

Just enjoying the very brief amount of spare time I've got at the moment, and have been reviewing some prior AfDs that I've done since our last little review. Would one of you mind giving me your thoughts on these discussions?

  • Good to cite the points in your argument, but maybe you should explain why the article fails these points.Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Really not much to say about this one. A lot of different angles and stances were taken. Maybe you should have taken a look at the AfD again to see if your opinion had changed, but that's the only suggestion I can give you. Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Generally good. Maybe keep in mind that an article should not be deleted merely because it has advertisement problems (although I see that was not your main focus, just pointing it out). Malinaccier(talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A valid nomination. Maybe you should have checked Google books, but overall not too bad of a nomination.
  • See M.C. Untytled above. Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --—Cyclonenim| Chat  19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. On a side note, I see that you voted to delete on all but one AfD...Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
So in short:
  • Be a little more thorough with source-searching before posting.
  • Come back to check more often.
  • Explain points rather than merely pointing out failures.
Oh and I think the reason I almost always end up voting delete is because the majority of articles that come to AfD get deleted. I don't usually have much time when I'm working at AfD so I'll vote on stuff near the top, and by coincidence that almost always needs to be deleted. There are exceptions, though, like the one above. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
And not to forget: Thanks :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)