User:SatyrTN/Admin

Notes for Me

Feel free to drop a line to me anytime you like and I'll do my best to answer :) - Alison ^❤ 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that most admins are quite willing to help out with questions about adminship (including me ;) ). Personally, if I have a question or want review, I go on IRC (see WP:IRC) and ask in #wikipedia-en-admins for comments or input. Hope that helps, Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you signed up for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins? That's a good place to contact experienced administrators. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[I]t really is no big deal. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with spam issue...

So what's the process for dealing with this situation? On the one hand, there's a page with what can certainly be labeled spam. But it's in user-space. And the speedy tag was placed there by an IP. And that same IP has labeled five more userspace pages that might be spam. Help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The anon is correct in every case. G11 means that namespace is irrelevant, all of that is spam, and should be deleted. --Maxim_(talk) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you *but* WP:SPAM says articles - though G11 on WP:SPEEDY says "pages". I'm new at this, so I want to make sure I'm not missing anything :) When I wasn't an administrator, I kinda assumed my userspace was mine to do with as I would (within reason, of course). Does spam cross that line? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it does; from the general criteria at WP:CSD "These criteria apply to all namespaces, and are in addition to namespace-specific criteria in following sections." Also WP:CSD is a policy while WP:SPAM is only a guideline. Basically when any page is spam that doesn't have a good revision to go back to, you may delete with G11. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The thing to do is not to take a simple mechanistic approach. There's a spectrum of behaviours and intents, and a range of appropriate responses. If the account is named after the subject, and has zero contributions other than repeatedly putting the same text on several pages in various namespaces including talk pages, and doesn't engage in any dialogue, then it's clear that the person using the account simply wishes the text to be ubiquitous and isn't here to do anything else apart from abuse Wikipedia as a free web hosting service for advertisements. I've zapped all of the advertisements and revoked the account's editing privileges in such clear-cut cases before now. Conversely, a quite legitimate (albeit unusual) use of a user page is as a staging area for developing articles before moving them into the article namespace. Such a person would be editing in good faith, and an appropriate response would be to tweak the userspace draft more towards how an article should be, or place a note on the user's talk page pointing xem towards the relevant content policies.

      In this case, there's not enough information to determine which of the two this particular person is, and our Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies and Wikipedia:Assume good faith guidelines apply.

      For enlightenment on criterion #G11, and how and why it came to be a speedy deletion criterion, read Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 13. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, All! I'll keep that in mind in the future, and very much appreciate the input! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)