User:Giggy/admin coaching

See also: User:Giggy/Coach (with Husond, in May 2007)

Hi Dihydrogen Monoxide,

I've looked over your RfA's, talk page, and edits and I do think that you can be an excellent admin---I honestly thought you were already. That being said, if you were to go up for an RfA today, I would probably oppose. Mainly because of the same concerns that were raised in your previous RfA's. That being said, there isn't anything that can't be 'fixed with time.' Your previous RfA's failed for specific reasons:

• The first one failed primarily due to inexperience.
• The second one failed because of your essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars and posting of private conversations.
• The third one due to the allegation of colussion involving good articles. There were other issues such as changing your name and your views on who should/should not be an admin. But those later points probably would have been overlooked if not for the Good Article fiasco.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2 was killed due to an incivilility at an RfB, an editor review and concerns about lack of maturity/poor judgment. It was also hampered by the fact that it was your fourth RfA in less than a year.

I would be willing to be your admin coach with some ground rules:

1. Applying for an RfA is like applying for a job. It doesn't matter if you are qualified for the position and would do the job well, you have to convince others that you can be trusted. This means acting in a way that conforms to the societal norms of the position desired. This is at the heart of acting in a mature manner. It means doing things that you might not want to do. As you are still in H.S. people are going to be four times as sensitive to maturity issues as they would be to somebody in their 30's.
2. You indicated that you weren't planning on running for adminship again for a while. I agree. I think you have to show some definitive changes to convince others that you are ready to be an admin. That means getting serious now and letting others see you as an admin. You want others, even your detractors, to say, "Yes, I see definite changes and he's addressed my concerns." Then you have to live by those changes to prove to the world that you weren't making them just to pass the RfA. Thus, I wouldn't run for Adminship for at least another 4 months. (I have some ideas on how to reform the negative image that some have related to your judgment/maturity.)
3. That you don't run for Admin until I say you're ready (or if we terminate our coach/coachee relationship until at least August.) I will not nominate you until I am convinced that you have addressed the concerns brought up in your previous RfA's and can demonstrate such changes to your critics. If you accept me as your coach and run before August I would oppose.
4. I am probably one of the tougher Admin Coaches out there. I want people at RfA's to see my name associated with a coachee and not even think twice about supporting the candidate. I mention that because we are going to be working on your image/reputation, which is not going to be easy. It is easier to get somebody article writing experience or to coach them on policies and procedures, it is a different thing to get a person to "grow up" in the eyes of the community. I might have you jump through some hoops that you might not want to (but I'll always be open to alternatives.)

If you are interested, the first homework assignment for you is to clean up your UserPage and subpages. Review them and ask, "How would a potential boss view these pages? Would a person reviewing these pages hire me or not based upon what I wrote? What will they think of my maturity/judgment reading this?" If it would reflect poorly on you, then fix it. (And yes, if I were to be reviewing your User Page now as a potential admin candidate, I might use it in my rationale to oppose!) EDIT: I LOVE your RfA criteria page! Balloonman (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Notes

March

In addition to admin coaching, I use this page as a place to keep track of issues that I like/don't like in regards to my coachee's edits. (I try to monitor their edits because I don't want to be surprised during an RfA and I want to be able to give appropriate kudo's where necessary.)

• User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA is excellent... I feel the exact same way!Balloonman (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it was something that I had put a lot of thought into, and, as I used to be one of those who had been harassing him somewhat, something I found interesting to write. The response to it was slightly disappointing, as it basically turned into an argument over the meaning of the word "troll", which wasn't my point. He might be a troll (I don't think he is, and I don't define it in a way that suggests he is) but his RfA commentary is perfectly valid, in my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Don't you dare! ;-)
  • Well, since you've read that, I don't think the strategies noted there would work! ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Man you were slammed for passing a questionable article in what appears to be was a quid pro quo exchange. But reviewing your edits, your GAN reviews are superb! Keep up the good work, don't repeat that mistake!Balloonman (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was a really unfortunate event, and since then I've really put a lot more work into my GA reviewing (and generally participated a lot more around the GA area) in the hope of trying to regain the trust of the community there. Something I've tried to emphasis is that we didn't agree to pass each other's articles, and that I have no interest or opinion in the relevant area there (Soviet Occupation). I sure won't repeat that mistake any time soon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you said that. You learned from this incident and are trying to redeem yourself in that community---that is a sign of maturity/taking responsibility that we are going to highlight during your next RfA. My philosophy is that we don't hide shortcomings, but you take them and turn them around. What did you learn? How did it change you? What have you done differently as a result of your past mistakes. Those are the questions people want answered. (That goes for other mistakes that may come up---if you own up to them in advance, then people don't hold them against you. If they discover them later on, it becomes an issue---such as your past RfA not mentioning your previous RfA's as Giggy. It might not have been intentional to omit them, but it didn't sit well with people.)Balloonman (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April

• Remember your mantra, Responsibility, Civility, and Maturity.[1]Balloonman (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Noted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Excellent edits on ANI... also I really like your comments on the RFC for Cabals.Balloonman (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and thanks. It's something that I feel strongly about, so hopefully I'm making a difference. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Just checking out your recent edits, you've been active in a number of adminlike places. You've made numerous edits on ANI, most notably, page protection, a number of edits on Wikipedia:Adminship poll, numerous votes at Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership, even edits on Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. I think you're doing great---a few edits like you've been doing every day to some of these places will give you a lot more experience than most of us have. Heck, I'd argue that you have a wider footstep than most admins and already know more than most of us. Unfortunately, with 5 failed RfA's we have to make you stand out so far above the rest...Balloonman (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also, from the edits that I've seen, you've been living by your new motto: Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. Even some of your stern comments in an Arbcom case shows civility/maturity/responsibility.Balloonman (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

May

Hey there Water, I've looked over your last 1000 edits (which goes back to the start of the month.) I have a few comments:

1. Remember your mantra, Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. I've definitely seen the improvement in Civility and Responsibility. Maturity is an area where you can still work to improve. You like to have a good time and enjoy yourself, but sometimes I see your sense of humor manifesting itself at places where it shouldn't. I've seen it on a few of your AN/I comments and RfA noms. Jokes/humor among friends is one thing, but when trying to establish an image of "Maturity" you need to pay attention to the audience. What are you trying to do? What image are you sending? On WBOSITG's RfA nom, the humor hit me as inappropriate for what you were trying to do.
2. The diversity of areas where you were involved these past two weeks has dropped off a little over the previous time I reviewed your edits. That's ok, but I'd still like you to establish a firm footprint in an adminlike area such as AN/I. I saw a few edits there, but a stronger footprint would be great. I also saw a few edits at Article Rescue. Again, a place that a stronger footprint would go a long way. Establishing footprints in these areas would go a long way towards cementing Responsibility. At the same time, I'm not as worried about Responsibility. You're establishing a solid reputation at the GA/FA projects that we can make a strong case already. I just like the idea of being able to say, "This was an area that his coaches challenged him to expand his involvement and he did so."Balloonman (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Review 24 May

1. Nobody is ever going to accuse you of playing politics or acting in a manner simply to get the mop. I really do not know what to think of this. For the most part I agree with you, but do realize that by being outspoken in this way you are generating opposes. First, you are mobilizing people who you are critical of. Second, you are planting the seeds of people who are not familiar with the issue. I mention this because this is at least the second time that your blog has me somewhat concerned. Again, you are free to continue writing it, just realize that in so doing, you may hurt your chances down the road.

   Yes, I expect opposition for that. But it's all about conscience—I'm not to type who could, or who would, say "yeah, that sucks, but I'll shut up so I can pass RfA". It's not right. And if that's the price that must be paid, so be it—I can edit articles without adminship. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Glad to see you are still active in ANI. Keep it up. But with all of your edits, I'd still like to see another area where your involved.Balloonman (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Business Trip

I'm going to be going on a business trip this weekend and probably won't have access to wikipedia for about a week... keep up the good work... and remember your manta... Responsibility, Civility, and Maturity.Balloonman (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

*repeats 100 times* I'll do so! Enjoy your trip, I'm sure Keeper and Keilana will keep an eye on me. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Home work Assignments

A quick note about the homework assignments... these are intended to be done over time... there is no rush to have them done tomorrow. To change people's opinions about you, it will take time and showing changes over time.

First homework assignment

Y — I hope! I went back to an older version of my userpage, combined with some newer stuff. A lot less silly, admittedly...tell me what you think. I've now gone and cleaned out a bit of my userspace, too. I blanked User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall, though I intend to put some sort of criteria there at some stage (perhaps with your advice?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, you should highlight you /articles page on your main page somehow. Second, you need to work on your /clutter page.Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The /Articles page is linked to via the images in the top right corner...I don't really care to make it more prominent. It's also linked to from my talk page, and I almost certainly will link to it in my Q2 answer. As for the /Clutter, is there anything specific you're getting at in relation to that page? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page an ask yourself these three questions: 1) I want to prove to the community that I can be trusted with the tools. Is there anything on the page that says I might not adhere to policies/procedures? 2) I want to show the community that Their assessment that I am immature is wrong. Is there anything on the page that is High Schoolish? 3) I want to show the community that their assessment of incivility is wrong. Is there anything on the page that may be perceived as incivil?Balloonman (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point. I've gone and reformatted the page removing some of the material you've noted could be taken issue with. Now there's babel info, WikiProject and WP:ADOPT info, a few other things, and that awesome picture of Pedro's son that summarises quite well why I work hard on this project. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Homework Assignment

One of the knocks against you is maturity/judgment. I want you to become involved in a place where maturity/judgement are necessary. One of my guiding principles in an RfA is that a person doesn't have to have the buttons to be an admin. You want others to see you as an admin---don't claim to be one if you're not, but that doesn't mean that you can't 'act like one'. If they already accept you as an admin, the voting "Support" becomes a whole lot easier. (If you noticed some of my !votes, I've voted "support" for people even though they don't meet my official criteria---why because they already act like admins...to me an admin is somebody who is trusted by the community and sought out to help others because they are helpful. The tools are not what makes an admin, they just help the admin do their job better.) To that end, I'd like to see you become involved with ANI and/or the Help Desk.

I'd also like to see you become involved in an area that really challenges you. I'd like to see you become involved in some controversy! Perhaps at third opinion? Request for Comments? Article Rescue? Wikietiquette? If you can participate in these areas, and maintain civility, you can go a long way towards proving your maturity and civility.

Note, you don't have to spend a ton of time working on these, just make a point to get involved here and there over the next few months. Make a solid footprint. The rationale behind this assignment is that maturity is about doing things that you don't necessarily want to do and doing so in a responsible/grown up manner.Balloonman (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point here. I have done a bit of Help Desk work and Mediation before, never was overly fond or overly successful with either of those. I have the article rescue page watchlisted but I just can't find the time/enthusiasm to check the category every day...if they could get a bot to update a list of articles tagged with {{rescue}} I would definitely be more active with that. So on that note, I'll watchlist ANI and try and help out there a bit more. I've been semi-interested in RFC in the past, but I'll take another look now, though I don't expect to spend much time around that because the format of the thing (and, I guess the idea of it) isn't one that particularly appeals to me (whereas ANI seems to a bit more). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm open to what exactly you do (ANI/Help Desk) are merely two suggestions, but the two things I want you to do is find a place where a) you can help others and b) be seen as an admin. I also prefer if it it was someplace where it highlights your knowledge of policies, procedures, and general wiki how-to.Balloonman (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, based on your comments, I've watchlisted ANI and will take to commenting regularly there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh about RESCUE, if that is an area of interest to you, you don't have to check it every day (none of these things have to be done daily). I'd rather you check it on regular basis and do a few jobs good than checking it daily and doing a lot of jobs "ok". Quality is more important than quantity.Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely, I see your point. I'm a rather forgetful person, and if I don't make a daily habit of visiting rescue I'll probably forget to ever do it...so we'll see! Anyway, I commented at ANI yesterday a bit, tried to help resolve a dispute/defend an editor being accused relentlessly of sockpuppetry. Hopefully I made a difference. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Homework Assignment

Ok, one of the things that killed you in your recent RfA's was an editorial review of The Random Editor. It looks as if the two of you had some issues prior to your Editorial Review and you let those issues cloud your judgment. Could you explain the history between the two of you prior to your review?Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...well, we got on OK, and we were both in similar situations, I guess you could say. Going back to that "Passing RfA" essay you mentioned above, I think we both were in (well, in retrospect I'm almost certain I was, but if TRE reads this I don't mean offense to him, this is just my opinion) the position that the essay promotes, one of gaming the system, editing mainly for adminship, in a sense. It's harsh, but that's how I feel about myself back then (I wrote that essay while thinking about how I had edited) and to a lesser extent him.

Shortly after WP:RfA/Giggy was unsuccessful, some real life stuff came up which caused me to have to get my userspace deleted and leave for a while, then come back with this name. When I came back, I co-nominated him, and around the same time, Pedro. Late in Pedro's RfA, TRE said something about it being close to WP:100, and (I guess I was developing the admin-only-editing opinion that I have now) this pushed me over the edge and I ended up neutral on his RfA.

After he passed, he asked me to ER him...this was after he had left a series of messages which I thought were just plain weird (and out of character) on my talk page (1 2). Here he asked me for an editor review, which I eventually got around to doing...and yeah, that's pretty much it.

After that, he renamed to Eye of the Mind (talk · contribs), and we probably spoke once more...and then he deleted the Main Page. Haven't seen or heard from him since. This has already been said in public, but he assured me he didn't leave because of me. I don't know if that's true or not, but yeah...

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the thing that got you in trouble was an editor review, I want you to do at least 8 more editor reviews between now and your next RfA... and I want there to be at least two per month. I don't think this will be a problem for you as you seem to be a fan of editor review.Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to try to get another editor review in this month... ;-)Balloonman (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Month	User Name	Editor Review	Coachee Comments	Coach Comments
April	NHRHS2010	WP:ER/NHRHS2010 (diff)	Someone I've interacted with before around RfA, and someone I really feel sorry for at times. His heart is in the right place, he just sometimes has trouble expressing himself...hopefully my comments helped. 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)	Overall I think it is a good review. The only comment that I would have is that when recommending places for people to get exposure, I generally try to give them the idea of a type of place to gain that experience. Wikipedia has enough niches that others may be attracted to areas that you didn't even know existed. As for GA being a place that people like to see in potential admins, you should take a look at my RfA. There are some that do not like GA participation. I was more hinting towards writing, rather than reviewing (as I believe came up in yours) articles. We're an encyclopedia, and those who understand and work towards this (as my RfA criteria says!) are those who are more likely to be trusted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
April	Think outside the box	WP:ER/Think outside the box	09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)	A little on the short side, but that's ok. Your input was insightful and you provided links indicating that you actually investigated the person you were reviewing. Over all, good job.Balloonman (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
May	Steve Crossin	WP:ER/Steve Crossin	05:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)	You might want to go back and clarify some of your points here. Especially in the section where you are advising him to slow down. Some of what you were trying to convey was lost on me. I wasn't sure of what you were suggesting.Balloonman (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
May	RyRy5	WP:ER/RyRy5 2	01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)	Your question about the award center is good, but you might want to elaborate on it. Why might it not be the best idea? Why do many people (myself included) see it as editcoutintitis and a real negative.Balloonman (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Homework Assignment

One of the knocks against you is maturity/judgment. I want you to become involved in a place where maturity/judgement are necessary. One of my guiding principles in an RfA is that a person doesn't have to have the buttons to be an admin. You want others to see you as an admin---don't claim to be one if you're not, but that doesn't mean that you can't 'act like one'. If they already accept you as an admin, the voting "Support" becomes a whole lot easier. (If you noticed some of my !votes, I've voted "support" for people even though they don't meet my official criteria---why because they already act like admins...to me an admin is somebody who is trusted by the community and sought out to help others because they are helpful. The tools are not what makes an admin, they just help the admin do their job better.) To that end, I'd like to see you become involved with ANI and/or the Help Desk.

I'd also like to see you become involved in an area that really challenges you. I'd like to see you become involved in some controversy! Perhaps at third opinion? Request for Comments? Article Rescue? Wikietiquette? If you can participate in these areas, and maintain civility, you can go a long way towards proving your maturity and civility.

Note, you don't have to spend a ton of time working on these, just make a point to get involved here and there over the next few months. Make a solid footprint. The rationale behind this assignment is that maturity is about doing things that you don't necessarily want to do and doing so in a responsible/grown up manner.Balloonman (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point here. I have done a bit of Help Desk work and Mediation before, never was overly fond or overly successful with either of those. I have the article rescue page watchlisted but I just can't find the time/enthusiasm to check the category every day...if they could get a bot to update a list of articles tagged with {{rescue}} I would definitely be more active with that. So on that note, I'll watchlist ANI and try and help out there a bit more. I've been semi-interested in RFC in the past, but I'll take another look now, though I don't expect to spend much time around that because the format of the thing (and, I guess the idea of it) isn't one that particularly appeals to me (whereas ANI seems to a bit more). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm open to what exactly you do (ANI/Help Desk) are merely two suggestions, but the two things I want you to do is find a place where a) you can help others and b) be seen as an admin. I also prefer if it it was someplace where it highlights your knowledge of policies, procedures, and general wiki how-to.Balloonman (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, based on your comments, I've watchlisted ANI and will take to commenting regularly there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh about RESCUE, if that is an area of interest to you, you don't have to check it every day (none of these things have to be done daily). I'd rather you check it on regular basis and do a few jobs good than checking it daily and doing a lot of jobs "ok". Quality is more important than quantity.Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely, I see your point. I'm a rather forgetful person, and if I don't make a daily habit of visiting rescue I'll probably forget to ever do it...so we'll see! Anyway, I commented at ANI yesterday a bit, tried to help resolve a dispute/defend an editor being accused relentlessly of sockpuppetry. Hopefully I made a difference. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fourth homework assignment

We haven't officially "accepted" each other as co-coach/coachee, but I would have a much better feel based on the answers to these questions. If you prefer not having me as a co-coach, let me know on my talk, and you of course don't have to answer them. (Unless Balloonman makes you :-)

1A. Why are you an inclusionist?

A. I'm an inclusionist...because I see Wikipedia’s strengths in different areas to others. There isn’t really that much difference between inclusionists, deletionists, citationists, and everyone else – they all want this to be a high quality encyclopaedia. They just define “high quality” in different ways. Inclusionists realise that we aren’t Britannica, but that we are what our editors are interested in. Deletionists would like to see us writing about the “real world” notable stuff, and that’s fine. Citationists just want whatever they can see a source for, and that’s fine too. (And forgive me if I’m misinterpreted these).
I think that as an online project that has a lot of teenage contributors, it's better for us to be realistic to our writers and just write about what we like, rather than to be "forcefully" steered into Britannica-style writing about 600 year old wars and extinct elephants. Perhaps that's because I edit a lot of pop-culture stuff, if you will. I've got nothing against, no issue with, those who would prefer that we wrote about real encyclopedia things, it's just not my kind of thing. Something that does bug me though is those who rarely do anything on articles, but instead just hang around AfD endorsing the deletion of the majority of them. But that's another story! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to 1A I like your perspective, you've made some good comments here. I'm pretty sure I agree with you, with perhaps one exception. You stated it's better for us to be realistic to our writers and just write about what we like, rather than...Brittanica...600 year old... without addressing who the Encylopedia is for. The encyclopedia isn't for the writers (not explicitly anyway), it's for the readers. We write for others, not for ourselves (which is the implicit reward, and why we do it without pay). Deletionists and inclusionists, at a purely philosophical level, have the same endpoint in mind: a compendium of human knowledge that is clear, precise, accurate, detailed, sourced, and reliable. A gift, presented to our readers. Deletionists are trying as fervently as inclusionists to make it the best gift possible. And they both get carried away doing it (both groups "hang around at AfD"). There are as many "trigger happy" inclusionists there as well. As an admin, you will be expected to determine what the community of writers believes is best for the readers of the encyclopedia, by deleting what they tell you to delete, and by keeping what they tell you to keep. I've heard a lot of mumblings about deletionists having some kind of advantage, I would differ with that and say the inclusionists actually have the advantage (just ask, per guidelines, how do you close a no-consensus deletion debate? It could just as easily be the other way). All that to say, I'm glad to see in 1B that you would follow the community's wishes, regardless of your own. As far as closing XfD though, remember you don't have to close anything. If you see a debate that is closing (by consensus) a different way than you would personally want it to close, don't close it! Not necessary at all! !Vote in it instead. My general rule of thumb for closing any debate is that I am dispassionate about the article or the article's subject. When I'm closing, I don't give a rat whether article x gets kept or article y gets deleted. Just "following orders like a janitor should". I will not close anything related to topics I care deeply about. To easy to be biased, to easy to get challenged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to response... You've put it better than I did, and I agree with you on most points. Yes, the encyclopedia isn't for writers (it's for readers), but at the same time, the readers aren't writing it, and we are volunteers. Thus we shouldn't be forced into writing what they come here to read. But that's my POV, and yeah, I'm not going to go against the community's opinion just because I think differently. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1B. Will your inclusionist philosophy unfairly bias any admin actions that you may decide to partake in, as far as deleting pages and closing XfDs?

A. No. Mainly because I'm not that big on the whole inclusion/deletion thing (as noted above), but because I'm big on consensus. For mine, it trumps all. Call me a consensusist, if you like. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Why did DHMO RFA #2 fail?

A. Because I made some poor decisions which demonstrated some poor judgement. The Majorly chatlog, the TRE review, (I deny Majorly's 3rd point about me revealing one of his socks, because it's simply bollocks) the GAN stuff that Bishonen presented in September, and this diff, which I find rather disappointing in a sense (that people can't let it go even though I've definitely changed my behaviour in that regard. But it takes time, I know). I have seen numerous requests for an satisfactory explanation of the Bishonen evidence, I would intend to provide a full write up, at some stage...possibly somewhere in the next RfA. I don't know for sure, but I definitely want to put it somewhere where people can read it and consider it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3. You have earned profound respect from several editors and admins based on your prolific, valued, and varied experiences here, your terrific essays, and overall pleasant and refreshingly smart commentary and meta-logic. You also have some highly respected editors and admins that may never support you as an admin candidate. What have you done/what are you doing to maximize group A and minimize group B? (Short version of the question: What are you doing to rectify the problems/opposers in DHMO RFA #2?)

A. Good question. Regretfully, I can't think of much that I have done, in retrospect, that would have moved people from Gp. B to Gp. A (rather, I imagine some of my work has strengthened the stance of those in Gp. A, which is appreciated, but not as useful if we're thinking about it in this way). I imagine those trenched in Gp. B are there because of my maturity, and I understand that. So I guess trying to be "mature" and show it is a big thing, and that's something I have been trying and will continue trying to do. The ANI stuff, etc., that Balloonman has suggested will hopefully be beneficial in this regard.
I don't want to assume any bad faith, but I imagine there are some who are, or have moved to, Gp. B because I have opposed their RfXs...there isn't really much you can do about that, I guess. I'd rather say what I think, give my opinion on important matters, than be an admin now, because ultimately the project's future is more important that me being given the tools. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated and likely unnecessary, I really really wanna rename this page to Water/balloon. But I won't.  :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More Questions (can this be called the 5th homework assignment?)

1. What is your opinion on IAR? When would you cite or not cite it in an admin decision?

A. IAR is pretty darn useful if you want to improve the encyclopedia without going through pointless bureaucracy. After all, process is important, but process for its own sake should be avoided, and just getting the job done is generally a better solution than discussing it infinitely. Ideally, IAR should never be cited, rather, just ignore the rule! A good example of when it should be used, though, is when someone has made a report at WP:AN3, but where all of the warring users have agreed to stop and discuss. In that case, even though they've broken 3RR, a block would be silly, and ignoring the rule and letting them discuss the issue would have the most benefit on the encyclopedia. It should not be cited in relation to BLP content, or to OTRS stuff (I can't think of any others off the top of my head). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military brat (U.S. subculture) is another place where it is better to IAR. Generally, you don't have a dab (U.S. Subculture) on articles unless there are other articles of a similar nature. In this case, there isn't research on other countries but leaving this as just "military brat" would create other problems. Thus, even though the rules say not to use a disambig label, practicality says otherwise.

That being said, while ignoring all rules is an important policy, one should remember that rules should only be ignored in exceptional cases where there is a solid reason for doing so. The scenario you provided isn't breaking the rules, but rather adhering to the rules! While the templates use strong language, admins are not bound by them.

The reason that I find IAR to be valuable is that it limits wikilawyering. If it didn't exist, then the person who knew policy/procedure would always get his/her way because they would be able to point out all of the reasons why their position should be taken. But with IAR, the other person doesn't have to know every rule but can appeal to common sense. "I can't point to the specific policy, but I know it has to exist and if it doesn't then it should."Balloonman (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Where should IAR be applied almost never?

A. BLP and NPOV issues don't have any realistic IAR exceptions that I can think of. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

3. What do you think is the most important quality in an admin, why, and do you think you have that necessary quality? Please be honest...

A. The most important quality...hmm...well, going by my RfA criteria, it'd probably be an understanding and appreciation of WP:ENC and WP:IAR. Civility, AGF, and helping to calm situations are also good virtues. I hope others think I have these...I certainly think I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your answers. Cheers, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

:) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, IAR is pretty important to me...good answers, I'm quite pleased with them. Nice job. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Homework Assignment---Policy and Guideline Questions

Take your time with these:

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

General comment: I saw how quickly you responded to these questions last night. It was both impressive and disappointing. Impressive because it shows that you know the policy and guidelines. Disappointing because in some cases if feels as if you rushed the answer without thinking about it too much. Remember the mantra, part of maturity is thinking about what you do before you do it. When you answer questions on the RfA, take your time and think about them. Look them up, and give complete answers. I'll go into more details later... for the most part the answers are "ok" but they aren't "great"---and with you level of expertise, I want great!Balloonman (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On second look, the answers are actually better than I thought... I must have been half sleeping when I posted this...Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it took me at least 40 of the 49 minutes between Q and A, for what it's worth... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

They are strict to prevent disagreements on what does/does not meet criteria, with the aim of only being used in obvious cases. Thus, if there's a disagreement on an item meeting the criteria between reasonable editors, the criteria should never be applied (rather, XfD discussion should take place). From WP:CSD; These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion.

Btw. tell me if you object/have concerns about me quoting to supplement my answers. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, part of the rationale, IMHO, is to ensure that articles that have a snowballs chance in hell of passing an RfA are not speedily deleted. Unfortunately, IMHO, CSD'ers are often too quick on the gun to delete some articles.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where you say RfA, you mean AfD, I assume? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

Proposed deletion, but only for uncontroversial deletions. Anything in which there could be disagreement should go to XfD for discussion.

There is another option... one that is almost always missed... improve the article yourself!Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, obviously, but that's so mundane, and hence I would obviously try that first. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The level 3 assumes that the user being warned is not acting in good faith, and is a "cease and desist" notice. However, it is not a final warning, and so gives some leeway, if you will, rather than saying "right. You're gone."

I think I need to reword the question somehow, but the point that I am looking for (an nobody ever answers with this) is that most admins will not block somebody until a level 3 or higher warning has been issued. (Of course, that is only a guideline, not a requirement.)Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see. Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly what you were hinting at, but it's hard to say without giving away the answer... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Cases of sockpuppetry/CheckUser related things, obviously. Other instances...if they've gone off the rails and started vandalising...if they're being disruptive through personal attacks, etc...that sort of thing. I good give a yay or nay on some specific cases if you like.

This is a question that I'd like you to expand upon.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

Some IPs are blocked for up to a year. However, you should always show caution becuase IPs can change ID easily. They should never be blocked indef. (I don't intend to do a lot of blocking, but WP:IP seems to cover it if I would ever be in a position beyond straightforward AIV vandalism.)

Follow-up: There are two types of IP address that get special attention. What are they and how do they differ from typical IP addresses?Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They are the sensitive IPs listed at WP:SIP. There's two categories there (government, etc., and toolserver), but if that's not what you're referring to, then...open proxies? Anyway, in the case of SIP - the foundation must be contacted after blocking those government ones, so that any communications issues can be pre-empted. For the toolserver, you need to ensure you disable autoblock so you don't block any bots or anything. Open proxies (if that's what you're talking about, as I said, I'm not sure) are blocked for lengthy periods, but can be unblocked if the proxy closes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about schools. They are often blocked for longer periods up to a year for repeated vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're right. Never thought about that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Technically, if you revert 4 times you've broken 3RR. However, you can be blocked for edit warring without breaking 3RR (goes back to what you said before about wikilawyering vs. IAR)...3RR is there as much to prevent "27RR" (back in the old days). Edit warring is the real problem, not the number of reverts.

Nod, I once ran into somebody who announced his intention of continuing to revert the correct version, for a biased version. Promising to get himself blocked if necessary. Needless to say, the next reversion earned him a block.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

There is no way for me to be certain. However, some ways to check suspicions are using a tool which I've been searching for for ages but can't find...you can also request CheckUser, or bring your suspicions up at WP:SSP for discussion.

Good enough.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it! [2] Out of curiosity - you say "good enough"; was there anything in particular you were hoping for? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really... it simply indicates that you could have elaborated a little more, but it's good enough :) Balloonman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

It is a function (described here) that allows you to revert all edits by the last editor to a page.

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

Semi protection only prevents anons and accounts less than four days old from editing/moving pages. Protection prevents all accounts except administrators. Semi protection can thus be done for IP vandalism, etc. Protection should be used for content disputes and the like, or in the case of sleeper account vandalism.

GoodBalloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

If it's anon vandalism, and it's significant (ie. just reverting won't cut it) and from multiple IPs (ie. a range block won't stop it) then it can be semi protected. In cases of sleeper account vandalism to a similar degree, and where blocking the user won't suffice, it can be fully protected.

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

It's difficult to guess an IAR circumstance off hand...I've mentioned the 3RR one previously, my limited imagination is preventing me at the moment. Again, feel free to ask and I'll give a yay or nay. (It's always a nay for BLP/NPOV related things.)

My position on IAR is that IAR can be invoked when the course of action is obvious, but the policy rationale isn't. For example, Military brat (U.S. subculture) is a case of IAR. Typically, one doesn't use the parameters of a parathesis in an article unless there is a main article from which it stems. But in this case there is too much research on U.S. military brats and no research on others to make a balanced article without the dab. Leaving the dab off would create an article that deserves a tone of tags. The dab was reached via numerous discussions, but the only policy validation for it would be IAR.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good justification (that seems familiar...(after previewing) oh yeah, you mentioned it above too!). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

You can "salt" (WP:SALT) the page. I understand you can also protect against recreation (rather than the transclusion style of salt I'm familiar with on Commons).

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

They request a name change at WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U (depending on the existance of the target username), and this is processed by a WP:CRAT.

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Per WP:U, names that are offensive, disruptive, or confusing. Blatant usernames can be reported at WP:UAA and blocked, but not-so-obvious cases should be discussed at WP:RFCN.

Follow-up: what are your thoughts on user:Yuckfoo?Balloonman (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive. I suppose if someone did they could raise it at RFCN. I don't see the name doing any damage to the encyclopedia (which should be the thought that underlies every block), so I don't see a reason to block it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuckfoo is a person who I see as a little problematic. His name, IMHO, would normally be one that is prime for deletion as it is clear what he intends... but that being said, he is an excellent editor. His case is complicated by the fact that he edits for a day or two and then disappears, so whenever he is warned or asked to change his name, he is gone for a few months. We could force him to change his name while he was gone, but then we'd loose an excellent editor. Thus, IMHO, this is another case to ignore the rules. Keeping him happy and involved in the project is more important to the project than forcing him to delete a potentially offensive name.Balloonman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I wasn't aware that he had been asked to rename - as I said, I don't find it offensive...but yeah, I see your point. Definitely, letting him stay on is the best solution. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

If it's on a living person, remove first, then discuss on the talk page. In other cases, depending on how libel it is, it can stay and be discussed, or be removed and discussed. In any case, caution should be taken with all forms of libel, for legal issues.

Follow-up: What policies guide this? Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP for living persons (in which case all negative unsourced material should be removed). WP:LIBEL for everything else (and it basically says nearly the same thing).

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

Legal threats should be reported to ANI, and the foundation should be contacted. I wouldn't be certain in such a situation, but there are users who watch ANI regularly who would know what to do. Relevant policy is WP:NLT, and blocks per legal threats are common (until the threat is withdrawn).

Take a look at WP:DOLT as well. But letting a more experienced person deal with this type of scenario is, IMHO, a perfectly acceptable course of action.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I hadn't seen that page before. Thanks for the link. Yes, I do not intend to overlook legal threats - rather, to bring them to the attention of people who have a better idea of what to do about them than I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. Understanding and appreciation of WP:ENC and WP:IAR, ability to assume good faith and be civil, and a focus on article work are the main points.

Love your criteria.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Revert it - don't give them bait. If they continue, report to ANI, as I don't block users I'm in a dispute with.

that's no fair... you've read my comments on RfA's on this haven't you ;-) But yes, one should never use the tools with somebody with whom they are involved. How about a follow-up question.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I read a fair bit of RfA ;) Something asked occasionally is if it's a COI to block someone vandalising your userpage (a similar issue here, kinda). COI is for articles...but in the real world sense of the word, I wouldn't call that a conflict of interest, no. A vandal is a vandal. (I was going to answer with this, but then realised you said content dispute, which is a big no-no.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar scenario, you give a user a level 3 warning for violating a policy. He then vandalizes your page, what do you do?

Leave a level 4 warning for vandalism. If he was in a content dispute with me and vandalises again, report to AIV. If we were in no content dispute (eg. I was just on RC patrol or something), and he does it again, block. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for expansion on any question. I've tried to not blab on too much on any of them, but I'm happy to go into more detail if you wish. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility, Civility, Maturity

Just a mental note that I'm placing here for a future nom. I've been recently very impressed with your objectiveness, and "RCM", with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your view, and rewording of your view, have gained wide acceptance and it has even been suggested that perhaps you should write the "cabal" guideline. Most impressed by this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been suggested I should write the guideline? Ooh boy, where? :) I have watchlisted User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy and commented on it, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misinterpretted. MoP said he was working on something in your endorse this summary section, and then Andonic said "he'd support this as a guideline". I assumed he meant he'd support you as writing the guideline, but perhaps he meant MoP. I've watchlisted the User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy as well. Either way, your opinions seem to hold high regard there (and elsewhere). I recently saw an RfA where several editors said, more or less, per Dihydrogen Monoxide. That's a good sign! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, less confused now! Yeah, I went ahead and made some changes to MoP's userspace page, hopefully looking to go ahead with that some time in the near(er) future. Things going well. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

So, now that this has settled a bit (and it came and went very quickly much to your credit!), how 'bout a bit of reflection? Maybe a paragraph here about the evils of Wikidrama, the pros/cons with blogging Wiki-related issues? Disclaimer, I believe you handled the entire mishap gracefully and maturely. Disclaimer #2, I've read your blog, the relavent talk pages, ANI, so I know the "timeline of events". Disclaimer #3, as I've stated before, I strongly dislike all off-wiki "commentary" (be it blog, review, IRC or even e-mail) of on-wiki events/editors/etc.  :-) So, there's the assignment! Reflect! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew. This might take a while. Mind if I get back to you in about 24 hours? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I mind greatly. You fail miserably. </sarcasm>. Absolutely fine, no rush. (Wouldn't it be ironic if I rushed you in an assignment called "reflection?") Take your time, B-man is still OOT. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Offline reflection, which did take quite a while, follows. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've raised quite a good few points in your question, so my answer will be a good deal more than a paragaph.

Evils of Wikidrama

The problem with "drama" is that it easily detracts us from our goal (yeah, this one, which I mention quite a bit!). Human nature is generally to be inquisitive; to see what's going on, what people are making a big song and dance over. It's very rare that said song and dance is made over expanding and referencing an article - certainly, not if this is being done in a constructive and collaborative manner. More often, the song, dance, and drama is taking place over disagreements, arguments, or sometimes, just plain sillyness, often referred to as Wikidrama. The problem with this is that having a lot of people all come to look, see what's happening, and voice their opinions, can inflame the situation more often that solve it. Even people who are skilled at resolving issues can have great difficulty doing so (and sometimes, end up doing the opposite) if they're up against an inordinate number of people who all want their opinions heard, and acted upon. Wikidrama makes compromise, or "consensus", /much/ more difficult. "Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians." etc.

Wiki-blogging

It and of itself, I wouldn't call it inherently bad. We have m:Planet Wikimedia, after all, and it's not a house of abuse or anything like that. The problem with blogging, compared to onwiki commentary, is the level of accountability present - blog comments can be edited or deleted without a trace (more on this in relation to the specific case comes later), while (except in the case of oversight) this can't happen onwiki. In that sense, if you want to make up some rumours that Jimbo slept with Rachael Marsden, but later found that he didn't, you could erase this off your blog and pretend it never happened (there are still google cache issues, but that's the gist). So what this comes down to is the idea that the medium itself (althought it might not have been intended this way) is built towards a "climate" of not-so-much accountability for the things you say on it. And that is a problem if used the wrong way.

How I handled the mishap

I was quite glad when I read your comment here to see that the relevant ANI section was already archived. I also thanked El_C after he archived it, for doing it quickly and trying to minimise the drama that otherwise could eventuate. I had a few people I already regarded (the_undertow, Tiptoety) give their opinions (which I respect and have taken into serious consideration), and I've developed a good deal of respect for Cenarium as a result of this, and the cabals RfC. (I also appreciated Cohesion's comments...and in a way it was interesting to see that he had probably been around longer than anyone else involved...but that's another story, and I'm not trying to justify antyhing...). Something I would note, as mentioned above about the medium, is that I have not touched the blog post since. When it was first linked to, I could have edited out the "mean stuff" or just deleted the whole darn thing, but it's still there. Not saying that this makes it OK, and by leaving it up, I inevitably open myself up to more criticism in the long run...but by hiding it, 1) it's likely someone would repost the material somewhere else anyway, and more importantly, 2) It wouldn't be right to hide from what I did by abusing the power of the medium I used. It'd be like oversighting all the stuff that got my last RfAs opposed. There was no PII or anything else like that on the post - just my (sometimes harsh) opinions - and so it should stay as a record, both for others who wish to judge me, and also to remind me of how not to behave.

Anything else to say?

I've said about a million times in various places that I've apologised. I have apologised. Compwhizii subsequently reverted/removed his farewell message from his user/talk pages, and his comment here indicates he emailed me. I won't disclose the contents of the email, obviously, but the fact that he's returned is positive and is something I was (ultimately) glad to see. I hope he will be more careful in the future - I'm sure he will, he's a good kid. He's got the best intentions. We all do. But sometimes it's hard to see these intentions for what they are, because we sometimes act in a way that seems to be not-so-well-intentioned to others. He treated that newcomer poorly (I stand by that, and I think he agrees that he did...that isn't the crux of the issue. Certainly I won't lie and said he treated Drmiko the way we should all treat newbies), and I commented on it in an innapropriately harsh manner. I think he'll be more self-aware when communicating with new users. I'll excercise more self restraint in publishing my opinions.

We all take something positive away from this. Or, in the words of a song on from what will soon be my next FA (note; positive blogging!), "mistakes don't mean a thing/if you don't regret them". ^{Feel free to copyedit!!}

Hopefully, that covered everything for you. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW...just looked up the discussion and while I completely agree with your blog post in spirit, it doesn't mean that I agree with the tone. Unfortunately, this might affect your RfA chances... and your blog will almost definitely be reviewed by people now. Remember your mantra, Civility is in there. I know that you were posting on an injustice that you saw. (CWii's behavior in this regard was deplorable and he should have been given a stern warning!) If you had made the same post, without linking the comments or mentioning CWii's name, then you could have probably gotten away with the exposition on the behavior. But since you mentioned the user's name and linked the poor behavior, your commentary took on a different tone. Unfortunately, CWii's behavior here has a negative connotation for other 13 year old editors... heck, it has connotations for other editors under the age of 18. Many people are reluctant to trust them with additional authority because they can act rash and immature.75.53.101.247 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely satisfied with your reflection, H2O. (and I'm assuming the IP is Balloonman? Sure sounds like him....Moving on....( trying to think up another good question... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was me... I thought I was logged in. But I'm glad to hear I have a distinct voice ;-)Balloonman (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say distinct...*whistles innocently* ;) But in serious, thanks for your comments. I had a lengthy conversation with the_undertow, who commented there and on my talk page re. this (and who was probably my first wikifriend with whom I'm still in regular contact), and we spoke about this a great deal. He's an adult. He gives good advice. It's good to have someone like that to talk to. Keeper; looking forward to it...I'm trying to stay out of trouble to make your job harder! ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seventh Homework

A few weeks have passed, let's go ahead and get another exercise out there. Again, we are in no rush on these as we still have a few months ahead of us before we throw you to the tigers, but here you go:

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).

Note; all block responses assume nobody else is in the same boat...if quite a few have 3RRd, it's better to protect and force discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't intend to spend much time on username stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Update...just realised not all of these were warned! The stuff I've struck is what I would do if they were warned. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

If the user makes no indication that they are willing to stop and discuss, and if nobody else is in the same boat, block.

A block would be appropriate here.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Define partial revert? I don't think that'd be block worthy, but I'm unsure on exactly what's being asked.

Suppose you and I are edit warring over 3 points---A, B, and C. We are reverting each others texts back and forth regarding these three points. After the warning, I change C back to the way I want, but leave A and B alone. Thus a partial revert.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see...well, that's still edit warring on your part (and on mine if I revert C back), so block would be in order (or protection would be preferable if I revert too). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I forget whose RfA it was on, but Keeper made a great point about protecting a page when two people are in a dispute/edit war. If you block them, then nothing gets done for a day. If you protect the page, you might get the two parties to discuss the issue. I thought it was an excellent point worth remembering.Balloonman (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it was was Pedro, not KeeperBalloonman (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering where I said that. Not that I don't agree with it. I woulda said it myself, but I used My British meatpuppet to do my bidding instead. Caught! Fail! :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

If they self revert, chances are they're willing to discuss. AGF, don't block.

Leave a handwritten warning explaining 3RR etc.

Self-revert would also be a sign that they realized they messed up and rather than getting in trouble, they are 'fixing' their mistake.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to be edit warring...if they don't agree to stop and discuss, block.

Leave a handwritten warning explaining 3RR etc.

Three consecutive reverts would be one revert---it is them reverting themselves over and over again... so technically, they've only made 3 total reverts.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Edit warring; if they don't agree to stop and discuss, block. Wikilawyering (not quite 3 reverts) doesn't cut it.

Leave a handwritten warning explaining 3RR, edit warring etc.

A block may be appropriate here as well. But a warning is probably the preferred choice.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Edit warring; block (by this stage, will they ever agree to stop and discuss?).

Leave a handwritten warning explaining edit warring and asking them to stop. Also suggest some other form of dispute resolution for the article.

You are much too nice... I'd probably give the guy a firmer template warning. Templates have the advantage in that everybody recognizes them. Hand written notes open up the door for "was that a level 3 or 4 warning or not?"Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Protect page. Blocking 5 people is just silly, but edit warring shouldn't be ignored.

Nod.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 8 Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

Promotional, would probably need to block, but it's good practice to talk to them first and get the idea of why they chose the name, and if they are willing to change it.

Block especially if they are spamming using the account. This is a clear violation of naming policy and they can appeal the block. Creating a new account is free.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 9 Username: RealTek, Inc.

Promotional. If they work for RealTek, encourage them to change it, and warn them about COI editing.

Again, this can be blocked without much concern. Promotional user names can be blocked on sight.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 10 Username: Bitch78

Not UAA blockable (bitch is a token some women wear with pride, and 78 could be an year of birth); contact the user and ask them what's up with that, and take to RFCN if they are blunt or "bitch" about it.

I personally would block it.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 11 Username: Iwannafkuup

Not UAA blockable; I doubt if there is something bad enough to block over. Took me a while to work out why it was suggested...

This is a definite block. It is definitely inappropriate and meant to cause offense.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 12 Username: Asswipeface

Possible UAA block, definitely should raise at RFCN.

This is a definite block. It is definitely inappropriate and meant to cause offense.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 13 Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

RFCN; not such a big deal that they need to go straight away.

Used to be that confusing names could be blocked on sight, but that policy has recently changed.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 14 Username: CroatoanBot

Assuming it's not a bot, block.

CorrectBalloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 15 Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Same as RealTek etc. above; ask to change, and warn about COI.

Again, this can be blocked without much concern. Promotional user names can be blocked on sight.Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would hardblock any of these names. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

you are too nice ;-)Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Eight Homework Assignment

The following is a test EWS23 designed to make sure that admin coachees understand the policies of speedy deletion. The "articles" here are actual cases that he came across while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through my deletion log to see if it was deleted, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it. Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.).

P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In these cases, the page history won't tell you anything, but remember that in real cases the page history is important.

• Halo 3 trailier
  • Delete; video game trailers are not independently notable. If this trailer made news (which, if I recall, it did), the information can be noted in the development section of the Halo 3 article.

• Union Millwright
  • Delete; I did some searching and was unable to find anything to assert notability—the external links provided don't do it, and there would be no way to write a neutral verifiable article based on what's given (and on what Google gives, which is basically the same thing). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at this there is an alternative possibility, what is it? Gnangarra 07:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Um... I really have no idea... thought about this for a while, checked what others had put for this question (via whatlinkshere), and still have no idea. Can you help? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • this should point you into the direction I'm thinking. Potential articles occasionally get put at a non-notable name as such renaming, merging and redirecting are alternatives. In this case the sources are potentially useful for another article, and redirects are cheap and they can also be salted if necessary. Whats the other article? Gnangarra 11:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Webs
  • Delete; nonsense of some sort. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neil Haverton Smith
  • Delete; again, I found no other assertion of his existence, and it does read somewhat like an attack page... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fall Out Boy
  • Easy keep as highly notable band (nowhere near A7). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
  • Keep and rewrite. The current article sucks big time but there is [3] notability out there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Fall Out Boy and Nathaniel Bar-Jonah both have articles, the others don't. Not that it's overly relevant. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answers all around.Balloonman (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Something you'll like

[4] and commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Giggy (bureaucrat). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm going to pull an Al Gore and demand a recount... Balloonman (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I was going to give you another homework assignment, but can't remember what we've had you do so far. Where did you put the archive? I could probably find it, but don't want to have to look.Balloonman (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of this page. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

rfa

writing this one handed---baby in arm.

you want to run for admin, i'm not opposed to writing a nom, but you need to answer the following question first:

your past rfa's failed due to immaturity and the sense that you were overly eager to get the tools. when you were accepted as a coachee, part of the agreement was to prove your patience and break the trend of opposes due to numerous rfa's in a short period. Are you prepared for people to oppose you because you couldn't wait until August per your original agreement? Why shouldn't they oppose? Why shouldn't they see this as impatience/immaturity wanting the tools now? Again, I have no problem with writing up a nom for you, you deserve to be an admin. You should be my coach, not the other way around! Do you want to run now, and run the risk of needless opposes, or wait a little longer and quelch some of those opposes? Running now, might feed the opposes, waiting takes the sting out of their position. The choice is ultimately up to you, but do realize that you may garner opposes for running now.Balloonman (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, one thing that does have me a little worried is your recent blog relative to The_undertow.Balloonman (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"You want to run for admin..." - that's the thing. Honestly, seriously, I barely care. I'd like to help the encyclopedia and many people have asked me to run for adminship as a way to do this. I don't find myself needing to request admin help on a regular basis (though there are times when I need them, and I would use the tools if granted) and I would spend most of my time writing articles. But if people think I should be an admin to help the encyclopedia, I figure I may as well—I no longer want it for myself or anything like that.

To be honest, I had totally forgotten about the August thing. Just looked back at the top of this page and noticed the comment "If you accept me as your coach and run before August I would oppose." Would you? We have slightly different outlooks to RfA I guess; to me, time is immaterial. You can resolve prior-RfA-issues in a week, or you can fail to resolve them in a year. It's what happens in the meantime, not how long that meantime takes, that matters to me. Hence I ask; do you think I've overcome the issues you (rightly) raised on 29 March at the start of this coaching? To me, that's what counts, as opposed to an arbitrary time limit. If others see fit to oppose over this, that's their entitlement—I've been known to defend people's right to oppose for whatever (like the Kurt essay you're familiar with). If people read my willingness to help out after quite a number of people (>10) have pleaded for me to run, as power hunger, immaturity, or impatience, I'm fine with that. It's not a big deal, and I know "the truth", or at least think I do—I don't consider myself to be power hungry etc. etc.

The way you've put it in your comments (putting aside the the_underow one; we've discussed this a bit and I'd rather not dwell on it as much out of respect for him as anything else), the main opposition issue you see is in "not so much time since last RfA". If that's about it, I'm not bothered by when it goes—I figure there's no harm in giving it a shot. Worst comes to worst... the RfA fails and I go write some more articles. When you look at adminship that way, it really is no big deal.

As the coach (I dunno if you saw my essay on coaching, but I really am not fond of that term; User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On admin coaching), the final call is probably yours. I'm ready to go if you are, and I have no objections to going for it. I've been inundated with co-nomination offers but I'd rather have only 1, 2 max, so I'm going to go ping a few people now about this. Thanks for everything you've done so far, it's much appreciated. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Got your "ping". I would be honored to co-nom, but not offended if you get a stronger offer, say from a strong article builder for example, of which I'm most certainly not. I've also been nominating quite a few lately, which has its good and bad points. I have two nominations that will likely hit in the next week or so. I had 4 running at the same time last week (3 of 4 passed easily, the other was Malleus), so I might be running the risk of dilution in some eyes. I would hate to see an oppose from someone as "too many noms from Keeper", not that that would hold water in most people's eyes, just that I would rather be a strong supporter and not have my voice nullified. Keep me posted, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, at this point in time, I would not oppose. I do believe that you are ready and the only reason why I haven't nomed you already is because of the arbitrary time line. The question becomes, who do 'you want to nom you? IMHO, you generally shouldn't have more than 3 noms. When I see more than 3 it becomes overkill. Because of your history, you might be able to get away with four---especially somebody like LaraLove. Lara's comments about your "GA Tit-for-tat" were what killed one of your previous RfA's. If you could get her or somebody from the GA project who can speak to how you've redeemed yourself and become invaluable to the process, that might help squelch any opposition over that issue. My thoughts would be to have me as your primary nom---you know that I might not write the best articles, but I have a knack for noms :-) I would also get Keeper to write a co-nom. Get somebody from the GA project to speak specfically about your reputation there since the "indescretion". And possibly one more person---I know that Anonymous Dissent has expressed interest.Balloonman (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, thanks for that. It's up to you, but be warned, I'm nominating your RfB regardless. ;)

Balloonman, I contacted Keeper, AnonDiss, and Daniel after posting yesterday's comment. I just emailed Lara now, good suggestion. Daniel whipped something up at User:Daniel/Sandbox/1 last night, other then that it's still open I guess—if you want to write one up, you do have a knack for them! :) I say go for it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've offered to nom you like three or four times in the past couple months. I've not retracted that offer. If you want me to be a co-nom, let me know. Lara❤Love 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 has been started.Balloonman (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting it to go live so soon... I thought you wanted to get Keeper and A-D's nom in there as well? Oh well... I did move Daniel's nom to the primary spot---I actually think he said what needed to be said better than I did. Thus, I changed my nom from a primary nom to supporting one... I think it would have been too long as it was originally.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)