User talk:Daveydweeb/Admin coaching

This shall be the place where my ninjaadmin skills are honed to... uh, awesome. --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehehehe, I wasn't aware that making seperate user talk pages appeared orange, that's nifty. Anyways, I figure we know each other pretty well =D, so is there anything you want to ask about Wikipedia/adminship/life before we start? Yanksox 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I won't really be able to start in earnest until after November 8 (my final exam, History Extension), but I'll go on some newpage patrol after lunch and see what I come up with. I'm sure there'll be some pages there that I'm uncertain about. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's all cool. You've been around the project, so you're starting with alot going in your favor. So, I'll start you off with a few questions:

1. Why do you want to be an admin?
2. Do you find anything about adminship confusing or weird?

Crappy questions I know, but some sort of a starter. Yanksox 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, questions. Right, let's get started...

1. I'd like to be an admin because -- as noted in that RfA, ages ago -- I often find myself spending time expanding existing backlogs at WP:AFD and CAT:CSD (the latter of which, right now, is at 98 pages). I'd like to help clearing out that backlog, and since my RfA failed on the grounds that I wasn't yet experienced enough to do so I thought admin coaching would help to develop some more experience so that I could actually help over there.
2. Nothing about adminship itself is particularly confusing to me, although other things outside the scope of coaching -- like peoples' admin standards (ie, regarding edits to the article space, and so on) -- can be a little surreal at times.

Hope that helps. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good answers. Considering you stated you have an exam to study for, I'll let you come with anything you want to talk about. Meanwhile, I'll draft some questions and start my thesis statement on Spinoza (ugh). Yanksox 01:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll get back to you once I've done some more newpage patrol. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

I thought it might be worth recording the various articles I nominate for speedy deletion, to make sure there were no major problems in doing so. They are, from this afternoon (in between editing the Wikipedia Weekly podcast):

1. Blush Restaurant and Bar under {{db-spam}}, warning the user here. There doesn't appear to be a generic speedy warning tag, so I wrote that warning on their talk page manually -- did I perhaps miss something at Template messages/User talk namespace?
2. Above you under {{db-nonsense}} (originally I marked it as userfy, by mistake). From my above deletion, I realised that I could use {{Firstarticle}}, done here.
3. Brian D'Souza as a {{copyvio}}. Warned user here.
4. PK-PenguinKnights, prodded as a potential hoax. User notified here.
5. Mock Duck, as {{db-repost}}. I'm not sure about this one, because Cyde's deletion summary was "Sourcing problems; please rebuild from a larger variety of different sources.", and I don't know how the article changed since its creation. As far as I can tell, the article is a hoax, since I don't have access the sources provided.

   I've asked Cyde, the admin that deleted it originally, to have a look. Also, I've told the creator that I was doing so.

   Aaaah, crap. Look what happened. And on my first day of coaching, too. :( Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll update this as I go. --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh darnit! I wish I got here earlier. The first two, you did fine. Keep in mind, that db-spam is usually for some big wonderful advert that popups in seconds. If the article has been around for a little bit, I would rewrite it. Also, CSD A7 will become your best CSD friend. If something doesn't assert importance and not notability, you can delete it. Notability is something you don't take into account unless it's AfD or PROD worthy.

Now, I'll let you in on a secret I told Cholmes75, when I go through CAT:CSD, I replace every speedy deletion that I'm uncertain about what to do with a PROD. If you need to think about it for a little bit, or need to research it, it is not a speedy candidate. PROD is an excellent substite for CSD since contested PRODs got straight to AfD for consensus.

In terms of the copyvio, I usually blam any cut and paste jobs since it violates the GFDL.

Now, to Moby Duck. You were wrong here to nominate it for CSD, deletion process is something that requires community consensus (XfD), not one admin. I actually would have reverted you or replaced this with a PROD if I saw it. I'm glad you took it to AfD for consensus, though. Don't let everything bother you, just keep going forward. You can only progress from your errors.

So, I think the number one thing you need to realize is that if you are unsure of speedying it, you should PROD it or AfD it. PRODing it is best, though. If you take this route you can state it's a contested PROD without infulencing the discussion and get pure consensus out of it. Yanksox 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was after. I worked out that I was wrong after a while, but wasn't entirely sure where to go from there - this'll be something to learn from, certainly, and I'm grateful for your PROD secret. :) I won't be able to spend much time patrolling until after my upcoming exam, but we'll see how I go then. Hopefully, this time it'll end in fewer RfCs... Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mock Duck

Copied from Talk:Mock Duck as you stated you would like:

I think this whole thing was a big misunderstanding. Basically from what I can see, it is the source, ie, Jay Robert Nash, which is in question. In this case, db-repost was not correct. As the original action was both not a "speedy deletion" and not an "in-process" deletion, it should have been referred back to the deleting admin for a statement. The AfD never needed to happen. I know this has not been concluded, but Jay Robert Nash and User talk:Cyde#Mock Duck may give some temporary closure to the situation. Ansell 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here, and copy this anywhere Ansell would like. I understand now -- of course -- that the db-repost tag was totally inappropriate (well, I won't be making that mistake again... :) ), but it was unfortunate that this incident started in earnest before either Yanksox or Cyde (the deleting admin) were able to respond to my requests for their opinions. I guess things just happen this way, and it was unfortunate that it turned out so badly.

Now, this whole incident raises a question I'd like to ask, directly related to this admin coaching: now that Mock Duck has been deleted, what is to be done with its talk page? I suppose it would be best to leave it for a week or more to ensure that there is no more discussion, and then delete it per {{db-talk}}, but this seems like a convenient time to ask about it. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be most helpful to you to keep discussion here btw, but thanks for the note on my page :)

In response to your query, I would put all discussion about deleting the talk page on hold indefinitely. This situation is kind of unique, as the page was more "temporarily deleted" while sourcing issues are being sorted out, as opposed to a deletion due to the subject of the article in any way. IMO you are correct in your assumption that it is not such a bad thing to leave a talk page alone after a deletion for a few days if it generated discussion, although the AfD talk page is also available to facilitate this discussion. Mock Duck is not actually such a bad article. It is an interesting story of an old time gangster, who apart from the current nature of sources, could quite easily be accommodated by all of the Wikipedia policies.

This situation is an interesting learning exercise for all involved, however, the typical policies which you refer to are not likely to be useful. Its great that you know what the usual courses of action are in each case, however discussion and making sure you understand the circumstances behind each case will never hurt. Ansell 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ansell, this is most certainly a unique situation. I understand, yet at the same time, don't understand the reason for the deletion. I would actually leave the page up, but I think a better solution would be to userfy it someplace so that someone can work on the article with sources that work/can be verified. Yanksox 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I guess the most important thing about this particular incident has been my initial mistake in placing {{db-repost}} on the article without knowing that it was a mistake to do so -- in the future, I'd just take it to PROD or userfy it, and tell the deleting admin that I'd done so. I think that would have avoided the flamewar and subsequent RfC. Even if this was unique, that's something valuable to have got from it.

I'm off to do my history extension exam (final school exam ever, yay! :) ), so I'll be on patrol again in about seven hours' time. I'll try to avoid you having to deal with another incident like this, first thing in the morning... Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More patrolling (2006-11-07)

Okay, exam done (it was fine), and now it's time to go on patrol again. In the interests of brevity, I'll only list the deletions I proposed - there were quite a few that just required wikification, stub-tagging and so on, which probably don't need as much attention. Here's what I found:

1. Get Medieval, tagged with {{notability}} since it doesn't appear to demonstrate notability, but it was deleted immediately before I told the creator about it. If it hadn't, I'd have left it on my watchlist for a few days before taking it to PROD.
2. Bisdak sa Visayan (Bisaya), which I would have simply redirected to Bisaya (not knowing exactly what the article was about, I figured it would be safer to simply keep the link). However, it was tagged {{db-web}} while I thought about what to do. So, I went to welcome the user anyway, but found the message left by Omicronpersei8 (talk · contribs) to the effect that the user had recreated a deleted article - when no entry for that article was in the deletion logs. I asked Omicronpersei8 about it.
3. Pennaach, about an "internationally awarded" dance troupe. Since it asserted notability, I tagged it with {{notability}} with a comment in the edit summary. I mentioned it to the user here. It's now on my watchlist, so if nobody else deletes it, I'd give it a few days before taking another look -- and possibly PROD it then.
4. Nancy LaMott, I didn't tag with anything, since it was recreated after being speedied rather than through a discussion. So what do I do with this one? I placed {{recreated}} on the user's talk page, though.

Thanks for taking a look at these! :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first one was recreated by Radiant!, notability tag is fine. As for the deleted article it's fine, if it's recreated just check it out for notability. The third one, I would PROD asking about notability and to try to get consensus on it. The fourth one reaks of copyvio, but I would copyedit it since she appears to be notable. The deleted version is different, but I think she may slip WP:BIO. You might want to take it to AfD for a consensus on what to do. Keep in mind, revamping is usually more desirable than deletion. You can keep posting new pages that you have questions over, I'm also going to talk about the other aspects of the admin tools when I come back. Yanksox 12:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll prod number three in the morning, both to give it a little more time and so that I can spend a little time checking for myself; the fourth I'll either try to clean up, or else AfD it (again, in the morning). It's getting quite late here, but I'll be up fairly early to get back to work.

Would it be alright with you if I just posted pages for which I had specific questions, or would you prefer that I post all my deletions (or, hell, all of them)? This page can always be archived, but I'd rather not force you to do more work than is really necessary, so whichever you think would be most useful is fine by me. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be good to post pages that you have questions with. Yanksox 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a good choice with Nancy LaMott. It seems the user has expanded on the article this time as there should have been no way for an admin to delete the page previously using A7 given even the initial draft of the page this time, although given a chance without hassling from admins ;-) , they have developed the page well. I just wikified the page a little, still could do with more though but it should not be prodded without significant reasons from here on. Ansell 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that one went well, then. I took another look at it earlier this afternoon and decided to just leave it, because by that point it had been developed enough that it certainly didn't qualify for speed, and I wasn't sure it'd be deleted out of an AfD. So, I'm glad that one worked out well -- it seems I'm at my most efficient when I do nothing at all. ;) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality not quantity my friend! Ansell 10:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess this page is popular. Anyways, do you have any questions before I drop a quiz maybe today or tomorrow. Don't be fooled by the term of quiz, it's just something to gauge a general idea of where you are. Yanksox 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, no -- I'll keep thinking about it. A quiz would be very helpful, though, and if I can think of any questions by then I'll append them to it. We can ask each other. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Heya, I finally worked out that I do have a question or two. Here we go:

• On patrol just now, I found the article Ermira, by User:Ermirab. I was originally going to tag it with {{nn-bio}} then inform the user with {{welcome}} and {{firstarticle}}, but was preempted when an admin redirected the page to the individual's userpage. Is this a usual thing to do? I ask because it leaves a link in the article space to a userpage, so I just wonder what kind of situations this action would be appropriate for.
• James Ashman was taken to speedy while I was writing a prod explanation for it, despite the fact that it asserts some kind of notability. To me, this would be enough to save it from speedy deletion. In this situation, is it best to replace the template with {{prod}}, or leave it be? Or rather, what leeway is allowed for a user to replace deletion notices with ones that they believe to be more appropriate? (Both a very specific, and very general question. :)

Cheers! --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The first one is called userfying it. If you think the user mistook it for a userpage just redirect it to their userpage and blam it. The second one, was a definite speedy. It did assert importance but it was nonsensical. Yanksox 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I haven't had much time to spend at Wikipedia of late, but I did just come across the AfD for Kurt Benbenek, which raised concerns of sockpuppetry. I took it to WP:ANI here, asking for some input from administrators. I'd appreciate your comments on this. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work, seriously. Yanksox 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done, my son, erm, student

You have gone beyond coaching and you are most likely going to be an admin. Well done! Yanksox 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah, thank you. :) I'm really pleased with how this has gone. Would it be cool with you to leave this page in place, and invite feedback for the future to be left here? Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)