User talk:Deryck Chan/Admin coaching

The place for Deryck to do his talks and tutorials with his kind coaches, Firsfron and previously EWS23 and Kimchi.sg.

Ready whenever you are. :o) UTC+8, hmm? I'm UTC-7, so it's basically as far away as you can get, but that's not a problem. Any ideas on how you want to start? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I supposed to have any idea? I don't think so ^^ --Deryck C. 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, No problem. I'm sure Kimchi.sg will have some good ideas, but how about we start off with the standard RfA questions? It should serve as a good introduction to yourself, for example why you want to be an admin, what you do here on en-wiki, etc. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA questions

(Note: Don't worry too much about these, you can always change or tweak the answers for the real RfA; just answer them honestly. Also, all three of us should feel free to add more questions here if we feel it will be helpful.)

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

These are the major cause of my failure in my past RfA: I don't know how to answer them well provided that I don't have good facilities.

For the sysop chores, most people ask for the answer "RC patrol"; however I'm simply unable to do that because I've slow connection that whenever, in the past, I tried to diff a page to see if it's vandalism, and finds it is, and then clicks edit and revert - the history page, afterwards, never show my name but the name of some user else saying "rv/v" or "Reverted edits by ... to last version by ...". Obviously, somebody overtook me and I couldn't revert it myself.

Therefore, last time, I answered page protection and other related stuff. I've noticed that a few articles were locked for no reason and I said I should check out those pages and unprotect them. However, the opposers then argued "does these pages exist?" I pointed to the page which I previously founded protected, but it was unprotected already. Not being an admin at that time, I didn't know there is a way to view protect logs.

For the second question, my "best" article have been defeatured already, sort of giving me no way to succeed. And about the third question... see my past RfA. I answered a previous conflict, and the voters gave me an oppose vote because of that.

The compound result is: I didn't get elected. Perhaps you coaches come because you're to guide me through the answers?

Moreover, I hope we put the RfA thing to the last step of this coaching, because I more desperately need a talk on how to be, not become an admin, for the time being, as I'm already elected admin on another Wiki. At this stage I believe another RfA here is quite out of the question. --210.0.198.76 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• 210.0.198.76 was me, Deryck C.. This is the proxy server I use to bypass the always-enforced IP-block imposed on the shared IP range of my ISP.

Thank you for your candid answer. I certainly wasn't implying that an RfA would occur tomorrow, just simply trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, what you want to do, etc., and I think this helps us quite a bit. Here are a few comments:

• • It's understood that not everyone can RC Patrol, and obviously a slow connection is a perfectly valid excuse for not doing so. If you were to become an admin, the rollback button would certainly help, but given that you don't have the capacity to do it when you're not an admin, it probably shouldn't be one of your "what I want to do" statements. Besides, we need more admins who focus less on vandalism and more on the other tasks.
  • Speaking of the other tasks, the other major admin task you haven't mentioned is deletion. There are almost always deletion backlogs, so if you were comfortable doing those tasks, you could be a very productive administrator with that alone. Are you comfortable with the idea of deleting pages, and how familiar are you with the policies at WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD?
  • Are you now comfortable viewing logs, including protection logs, deletion logs, block logs, etc.? We could certainly take some time to go over that until you're comfortable with it, as it's fairly important for administrators to understand.
  • Don't worry that your best article was defeatured; just because it was defeatured doesn't mean it's a bad page. None of my pages have gotten even close to being featured, and the fact that you were able to write an article that got featured in the first place and have been through the FA process is a major plus in my book. Basically what I'm trying to say is that your answer to question #2 can actually be much better than what mine was on my RfA, so there's no need to worry too much about that.
  • Don't worry too much about your previous RfA. You didn't do that bad, and I think you're much better prepared now than you were back in October. Also, hopefully you'll be much better prepared by the end of this program. :o)
  • Finally, don't worry about having to answer the RfA questions. We will both help you make your answers the best they can be.

I hope my long answer wasn't too overwelming for you- we can take as long as you want to get all this stuff accomplished, and it can be done in many steps. If you feel like responding to some of the bullet points individually, feel free to do so directly under them so that the flow of conversation can be more clear. Thanks for taking the time to read all this, and I look forward to helping you! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read those deletion pages in the past, but I spot that many administators aren't following the rules when the make a decision. Most frustratingly, administrators would rather like to listen to one another's advice about a proposed guideline, instead of a non-admin's argument showing that the existing guidelines doesn't demand the deletion of the article. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Logging System Professional)

Moreover, some people would like to take an advantage of the jet-lag to put up some last-minute arguments. From that deletion I've given above, you can see that my comment wasn't replied in two days, but suddenly two rebuttos appeared right the moment before the closing of the debate. That gave me no time to respond and - of course - the article got deleted.

I sort of disagree against the current deleting procedure as the last person to talk always seemed to win. And this "last person" is chosen by time, not by event.

I think I can help with dealing deletion by giving guideline-abiding arguments and judgements - but only provided that nobody else would twist the rules when I work.

About the logs stuff, now I'm very familiar with the logs - as an admin on the other Wikipedia myself. Deletion logs, protect logs, block logs and others. I know how to read them and what to write on the edit summaries of them.

Really hope for your reply. --Deryck C. 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'd force myself to translate the admin's reading list into Cantonese to make myself read it. --03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the frustration having an article deleted that you felt should be kept, or vice versa; every Wikipedian who has been around an extended period of time knows that feeling. Is the system perfect? No. But the best way to fix it is to abide by policy and do the best personally that you can do.

As far as the AfD discussion that you linked above, I feel I should point out the timestamps. The nominator's response to you came 2 days after your post. About 2 more days after that, another person votes to delete. Then, Essjay's closure came 22 hours after that final comment, a total of about 5 days after your comments. He sees five people plus the nominator who feel it should be deleted, and only two who feel it shouldn't. Obviously yours was the most informed and detailed of the comments, but when that many people advise to delete and the nominator can produce a low Google count, it's a relatively clear-cut delete. So, while I understand your emotions about wanting the page to be kept, and this could certainly be case of the systematic bias of en-Wikipedia, I urge you to assume good faith of all individuals involved.

As far as your desire to do deletions via strict guidelines, that is entirely up to you, and how diligent you are personally. For example, you can see my deletion log, which has a thought-out and applicable policy to all my deletions. Given your desire to abide by policy, I'm sure you would do the same should you become an administrator.

I hope you take all my comments as efforts to help you become a better Wikipedian and potential admin. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I came late into here, I've been deleting stuff in categories of images without source info and on Wikimedia Commons, among other places. :o) Another helpful place you can help in is tagging images - as WP:RCP mentions, Special:Newimages will list newest uploaded images, which you can examine for copyright violations. Our deletion backlogs for images easily surpass that of articles on any day, we could always do with extra help.

I have nothing else to say for now besides what EWS23 has said, except that you should not be discouraged by your previous RfA. Standards have changed much since then, and if you can meet current voters' expectations, your chances of getting the mop will be quite high. Sam Vimes also failed his 1st RfA and recently passed his second. Therefore the 1st RfA can be no hindrance. Kimchi.sg 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The oppose issues of RfA 1 - all easily fixable

I just had a quick review of your first RfA and notice that all the issues can be easily fixed:

1. Oppose votes 2 - 4, 6, 8 - 10 cited "Campaigning in signature" - just don't mention your RfA at all, to anyone, except if they have said beforehand that they would like to know when you're on RfA. Just go about editing as if the RfA isn't on. It was my rule of thumb in my own RfA.
2. Oppose vote 3 cited "I don't see much RC patrol/vandal fighting...I guess I'd like to see a broader particapation." - there are many backlogs even non-admins can tackle, such as articles for cleanup and articles for wikifying. Edit articles to eliminate them from the backlogs, and your involvement in article space will greatly increase.
3. Oppose vote 5 cited "still WAAAAAY too green in the political/user interaction aspect of the job of administrator." - if you tackle the wikification and cleanup backlogs, there will be articles to nominate for deletion, or to report as copyvios. Doing either of these will increase your visibility to the rest of the community, and they will know how well-versed you are in policy before you even mention "RfA".
4. Oppose vote 7 cited "I don't oppose campaigning, but I don't like these complicated signatures." - This has become a hot issue again recently; an editor was even blocked for having an overly long signature. While what exactly constitutes "overly long" is highly subjective, you'd benefit your chances of becoming administrator if you change your signature to something more plain. For example, another new admin Blnguyen simply bolds his name in the signature. This keeps his name highly visible while not making the signature too long (see his talk page for the effect). Experiment a little and I think you can come up with something that is not too long, yet is easily visible.

Regards, Kimchi.sg 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of cleanups. Perhaps doing more towards that direction would give me a better future. Er - for the personalized signature, maybe I should really shorten it a bit - but do you mean the code or the outlook? --Deryck C. 10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover the main reason that people voted my delete were due to influence by other initiall oppose-voters who changed to neutral. You should check out those comments and see what can I do better. --Deryck C. 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I think the code for your signature needs shortening. At 1280x800 screen resolution with browser window maximised, your signature takes up about 2 whole lines in the editing textbox. It's 222 characters in total, excluding the automated timestamp. The bulk of it is <font> tags that can be removed; just settle on one colour and it should be much shorter. Removing all the <font> tags will halve the length of your signature code to a much more palatable 111 characters.

A issue the neutral votes commented on was edit summaries. Please turn on the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option (last one in the Editing tab) in Special:Preferences, as Winhunter's recent RfA showed, edit summaries still matter. Mathbot's tool will tell you your edit summary usage in article space; currently yours stands at "38% for major edits and 74% for minor edits" which is not at all desirable.

Lastly, the expectations of RfA voters change with time. You should start participating in RfAs and related discussion, to gauge the demands of the community. Kimchi.sg 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't use mathbot's tool =.= the fetching socket failed.

For the signature stuff, I believe the esperanza green e contributed to the most of the code on my signature, which demanded me to alter colours and links nearly every character. I've changed to this new shorter signature, see if it looks better. --Deryck C. 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks not bad - 2/3 of a line. --Deryck C. 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Although there's one thing I really have to worry: RfA voters view a long long long history. As titoxd pointed out, in the past a candidate got an oppose vote for a 3RR block a year ago. I don't think my previous history will give me a great chance for another success, honestly. --Deryck C. 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which history is that, may I ask? I don't see anything in the block log, and certainly a single failed RfA changes your chances very little, especially since it was almost a year ago now. Kimchi.sg beat me on the comment about edit summaries, which I was going to bring up. Using another tool, I see that your article-space edit summary percentage is actually quite good, but I think you should really strive for 100% edit summaries on every single edit. Even if that means simply putting the word "reply" when posting on talk pages or putting the word "typo" when fixing spelling mistakes. RfA voters are really picky about edit summary percentages, and it's something that's relatively easy to fix if you're diligent about it. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of that history was pointed out at my first RfA as a reason for an oppose. May I ask, does that mean I have to put down an edit summary on every single edit I do, anywhere, not just articles, but even talk pages, project pages, my own user page, etc, etc. ???

As strange as it may seem at first, most people prefer this, yes. You should consider it for three reasons: 1) Low edit summary percentages will hurt your chances of an RfA, 2) It helps RC patrollers sort through your legitimate edits quicker, and 3) believe it or not, it does come in handy- you may find yourself thinking things like, "where was it that I added that userbox to my page?", et al. It doesn't have to be anything long (a simple "reply" or "reply to EWS23" will do fine on talk pages for the most part), and once you get used to it you barely notice it and it takes very little time. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting used to this habit now. Today I was interwiki-ing a number of articles between here and the Cantonese Wikipedia, and I used an auto-complete edit summary "+interwiki zh-yue" on them :P. So, after edit summaries, what's next? --Deryck C. 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Next steps

Let's see...the Administrator's Reading List is always a good place to start. I'm not suggesting that you should read the entire thing now (though it's a good idea in the long run), but perhaps skim it and see if there are any policies you need some clarification on, or would like some practical experience in. For example, I could put together a collection of pages you might find at CAT:CSD, and you could make the decision whether to keep or delete them based on policy. Just one idea, perhaps Kimchi.sg will have others. :o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little surprized by the contents of the ARL - many of them are manual-maintained logs, or discussion pages, instead of guidelines. It doesn't really look like a "reading" list, but an "event" list. Anyway, I'm gonna skim through those guideline pages in the near future, but not now. I've two articles for the school magazine to complete by 4 Jul HKT. --Deryck C. 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So, we seem to have hit a bit of a lull here. Do either of you have any ideas what you'd like to do next? I'm willing to answer any questions Deryck may have about any of the written (or unwritten) rules that apply to administrators. Also, as I suggested above, I could create any number of scenarios for you to answer how you'd handle if you'd like to test your policy knowledge/execution. Let me know what you think. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite afraid of those unwritten but widely applied rules. You can ask me about some of them and see whether I'm used to them. --Deryck C. 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

OK, Deryck, let's get started! :) Thanks for your patience, BTW. I always like to get to know the people I'm going to be working with, so tell me a little about yourself. From looking at your userpage, I know you live in China, you're religious, you're in high school, and you have two Featured Articles to your name. What's been your biggest achievement on Wikipedia, do you think?

Would you like to go over some CSD practices, or is that too elementary for you? Just trying to gauge where you're at here... Reply at your leisure. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your devotion in being my coach. Well, the best thing I've done in English Wikipedia, and most likely I'm going to put onto my RfA if I'll have another, is the "Reproduction article series". It kicked off being a SCOTW (now WP:SCOTM) on "reproduction" (now biological reproduction), but soon we found out that we ought to split the article into a series of articles. We also merged and grouped the contents with various other articles such as sexual reproduction, et cetera. Although we didn't put a template onto the articles, the "reproduction article series" family are linked together by "main" templates.

The current-day CSD is quite elementary in fact, because the deletion process for new articles has been categorized into three classes: speedy, deletion proposal and deletion debate (AfD). The "speedy" guidelines are clear and easy-to-implement in a sense that anything worth disputing about would be put into the other two categories. In the past I had a long debate about a speedy deletion, but I think nowadays it won't happen again.

If there should be a last remark, then I'd end by saying I hope to run another RfA in the near future, and some level of coaching on it should help a lot. Thank you! --Deryck C. 08:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. So, do you have any questions or comments at this point? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past (I'm not sure whether they still do it today) coaches do mock RfA questions together with coachees (such as that above). Perhaps we can go to that part now, after leaving it blank and deserted for nearly a year? Or do you have anything strange (insider) to tell me that helps with admin work or RfA?

One more thing to tell: I take a lot of photos for Wikipedia (you can refer to commons:User:Deryck Chan). Would that give me an advantage, by any means? --Deryck C. 13:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. I didn't notice this on my watchlist yesterday. My bad. The fact that you've uploaded many great images is something that probably should be brought up in your RFA (as long as all the images are all tagged properly). People like to see you're dedicated to Wikipedia, and this is one great way to illustrate that idea. One other thing that should definitely be mentioned, in my opinion, is your sysop status on the Cantonese wikipedia. Although there are some differences in the policies, if you've already been a successful admin elsewhere, that should definitely be taken into account.

As for coaching in the sense of "mock RFA questions", if you want to practice what you'd say during your real RFA, that's fine; at the same time, I can't give "coaching" on what I think you should say or not say. Make sense? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you shouldn't give coaching on what I should say - it is my RfA, not yours. However, if you can, please give some comments on what I've already written, and what shall be removed (there's some difference between what to remove and what not to include). Thank you for your remarks that being a photographer and sysop on another Wikipedia is something I should mention. I'm going to write my answers below. --Deryck C. 07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sample RFA answers seem just fine to me. At least, I would !vote for you on RFA, based on clear, strong answers like that. It seems like you really know what Wikipedia is about, which is the important thing. I'm not sure what the difference is between "what to remove" and "what not to include", and feel uncomfortable giving advice on how to respond to RFA questions. I'd prefer to stick to admin coaching rather than RFA coaching, as RFA responses shouldn't be "coached". Firsfron of Ronchester 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection problem

Thank you for the comment. When I'm figuring out how to answer the third question, I remembered an occasion which an article faced frequent vandalism, and I wasn't responding fast enough to revert it. As a result, the article stays in the vandalized state for more time than that of the "good" state, and when I asked for semi-protection and attention from WP:AN, the admins said the article was "vandalized less than once every 12 hours" and refused to protect the article. If I encounter similar cases after I become an admin, shall I stick to the policy and turn down the request, or excercise my discretion and act with faith, against the rules? --Deryck C. 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great question. Protection really should be used as a last resort, because some people consider protected pages harmful because it "indicates a lack of trust" on the part of the administration. So, we use page protection (and even semi-protection) as sparingly as possible. An article that is only vandalized infrequently doesn't really need to be protected; instead, the user who is vandalizing needs the standard warnings. If s/he is still doing it, the user can be blocked for the appropriate length of time. Unless there are multiple accounts or IPs vandalizing the article very often, (or one of the other reasons listed at Wikipedia:Protection policy), there's no reason to protect the article, as the situation can be handled in a different way.

Also, consider this: several admins spend a lot of time at Wikipedia:List of protected pages, removing pages which no longer need to be protected. We want to reduce their workload as much as possible, so we only protect when absolutely neccessary. As you say, you should exercise your own discretion, but you should definitely use this function sparingly. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Hongkonger, the case I encounter usually involve Hong Kong-based IPs and Hong Kong articles. The vandalists, like myself, have rotating IPs (and therefore I'm frequently blocked because all IPs in Hong Kong are practically rotated, except when you're using a proxy). In most cases the vandalist will not use a fixed IP nor a username, so blocking IPs does not work. And if other users aren't aware, the article will keep being in its vandalized state - that's why I thought semi-protection is really necessary. Once I asked an admin to protect La Salle College, but was soon unprotected because of the common "<12h" reason. --Deryck C. 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be a lot of edits from Hong Kong IPs: 222.166.160.186 and the like. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing to voice out (no admins have ever been taking action after listening): since the IPs in Hong Kong are rotated, so many of them are blocked as "proxy/zombie" and therefore it's now hard to find an IP in Hong Kong which is not yet blocked. They just seem to bomb me by the statement "please check to see whether sb hacked into your computer to install a zombie" but never thought of the actual situation of rotation. Is anybody out there fixing this stuff? P.S. this is the fastest reply I've ever got from you ^^. I put my last reply up during lunchtime today and right after-school I receive this. --Deryck C. 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know most admins are aware that blocking IPs isn't a perfect fix because IPs change from time to time, or, in the case of some places, change very often. The Foundation is certainly aware of rotating IPs and the problems they cause, and the developers are constantly working on fixes and upgrades to the software. There may come a time when this is less of a problem. Perhaps this will eventually change with the introduction of IPV6, though I do not know.

I try to reply to your messages as soon as I see them. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Which time zone are you from, in any case? --Deryck C. 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in UTC-7 (Mountain Standard Time) or UTC-8 (Pacific Standard Time), depending on the time of year. The area I live in does not observe Daylight Savings Time. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so we're 16 hours away from each other. It is my pleasure to see you replying so quickly even if it's not daytime at your place. On the other hand, do you travel very frequently such that you often hop between timezones? --Deryck C. 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deryck,

No, I don't travel so frequently that I hop between time zones. :) The state I live in, unlike the other states, does not observe Daylight Savings Time, so when everyone else is changing their clocks by one hour, we don't do that. While I am officially in Mountain Standard Time, for half of the year, my time is set at Pacific Standard Time. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question comes to mind. As I have great participation in the article La Salle College, my alma mater, which editions is a complex blend of (normal) contributions, anon/user vandalism, anon/user edit conflict and many others, if I am writing about the third question I'd most probably get the idea out there. However, as Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest suggests, one should not participate in writing about his own organization (I think it's school-inclusive), so will I be bombarded because of suspectedly breaching this guideline? Or, claiming this conflict of interest, can I demonstrate my knowledge about the policies and related solutions instead? I know it's not good to ask anything about RfA, but this is not just RfA; it is related to wikiquette and inter-editor relationship too. --Deryck C. 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, but I don't think it's a conflict of interest here. La Salle College isn't a product you're selling, or an organization you're recruiting for. You've made no additions like "La Salle is the best university in China!" I seriously don't see why anyone would think it's a conflict of interest, and have edited my own college's article. A quick scan of the article indicates there is some non-notable stuff in there, but nothing I'd consider as blatant self-promotion (but you might want to explain what an "old boy" is; I have no idea what that is). Of course, it is still possible that this might be brought up at an RFA. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reply seems to tell me that my explanation is really unclear... La Salle is just a secondary school (high school in american context) and not a university. Maybe we need some explanations ^^ Anyway I've thought of another way out to the question - I'll categorize and analyze the conflicts by type instead of by case. --Deryck C. 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The third question is done. --Deryck C. 11:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Here, colleges are roughly equivilent to universities. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious. Did the RfA requirements soar a long way for the past few months? I read a few nominations and saw several candidates losing tremendously, but as seen from their nomination, they should've passed with a big margin if they ran for the election a year ago. --Deryck C. 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Things are always changing at RFA, as those who !vote come and go. Some users have stricter standards than others. I think the general trend has been more restrictive, but, as always, the main requirements seem to be:

• Active vandal-fighter (or work in another area)
• Civility in all situations
• Participation in XFDs
• "Enough" edits in article space, WP space, and talk page space
• Good answers to RFA questions/Demonstrates knowledge of Wikipedia policies
• No previous blocks
• Won't abuse the tools

When you feel confident you meet these requirements (and can demonstrate it to the folks at RFA), and when you feel you're ready to become an admin, you should submit your RFA. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems that I fail two requirements if my full history was viewed: civility, I was rejected on my first run because of my incivility around July 2005 (does 1.5y means everything is wiped? don't think so), half a year before it; and blocks, I was frequently autoblocked due to rotating IP and therefore would easily be associated with vandals... looks like it's a no-show. --Deryck C. 12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1.5 years ago is quite long enough, Deryck. I wouldn't worry about it. And people can hardly blame you for being autoblocked due to a rotating IP. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree with Fang Aili, Deryck. If you were incivil in January 2005, it's safe to say people aren't going to hold those instances against you. That was a long time ago, and we're all very different editors than we were two years ago. As far as the blocks go, autoblocks don't count against you; I've been autoblocked myself. The only blocks for which people might have reservations against supporting your candidacy would be blocks on your account. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So shall I try it out? I've got really nothing to lose. What missing is just a nomination. Thank you for your great ideas about the problems I've mentioned above. --Deryck C. 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're ready, Deryck, you can certainly request adminship. If you would like, I will nominate you. Sometimes self-noms are frowned upon, but in your case, I don't think it matters: you're always civil (excluding events back in January of 2005), you do a ton of work on the encyclopedia, you're obviously dedicated, and you want to use the tools for deletion and protecting pages. There's really no reason you shouldn't have the tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference problem

Something to ask. When and where do we need citations? Should they appear every paragraph as supporting evidence? Or are they necessary only when controversial / POV statements appear?

Consider the following examples. Lam Tin and Hong Kong. Would the former be over-footnoted? --Deryck C. 12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lam Tin as it appears now does not have too many footnotes. WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources states: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. Determining what might be challenged can be tough. The advice they give is: Think ahead. Try to imagine whether or not people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution.

On Featured Articles, the reviewers are very strict, and require footnotes every few sentences or so. Personally, I think having hundreds of footnotes looks ugly and makes the text harder to read, but that is not the consensus at WP:FAC. Does any of this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The current look of Lam Tin is already cleaned up after some discussions with Graeme Bartlett, who recommended me to split the reference / footnote into two sections: for generic references concerning concrete, factual information I've moved them to a separate "Reference" section; for disputable and probably POV-ed statements the footnotes were retained. About the nomination, it's my pleasure to receive it if you can help. How's your life recently? It looks like about a month had passed before you last replied me. --Deryck C. 11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, Deryck. My watchlist had over 10,000 articles on it, and I simply missed your comment. The nomination is here. Of course, you have to properly transclude it to the Requests for Adminship page before it will show up, following the directions on Requests for Adminship. I will support, as soon as I see it's up. Good luck. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much! >v< --Deryck C. 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Deryck. I've got my fingers crossed for you. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to topic. You said you had more than ten thousand articles on your watchlist. Do you use the "auto-watch every edited page" function? And would you regard having so many things on your watchlist as a feasible way to work? Because recently I've come up with some philosophic thought that the best way to avoid blowing my top on Wikipedia is to avoid using the watchlist, which in turn prevents you from knowing who allegedly or accidentally irritated you. --Deryck C. 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in my preferences, I have "add pages I edit to my watchlist" selected. I did have well over 10,000 articles on my watchlist, but this was accidental. I usually try to keep 2,000 to 3,000 articles on the list, no more than that. However, something in the Wiki software broke, and I was unable to remove thousands of pages from my list (I could click "remove" on an article, and it would say "removed successfully", but it would still be there on my watchlist). I finally made the reluctant decision to click "remove all items" and start fresh. I don't pretend to believe anyone can do a good job reverting vandalism with over 10k pages on his or her watchlist. 2-3k is workable for me.

I don't use my watchlist to see who reverted me; I just use it to prevent pure vandalism and POV edits. For example, I have (or had) all of Wikipedia's dinosaur articles on my watchlist. These articles receive a lot of schoolkid vandalism from students who are looking up information for reports and decide to add their own "facts", like "T-Rex was huge!" or "J.M. loves Melissa", etc. We also get those American fundamentalist people who write things like "Dinosaurs never existed!" or "They are only 6,000 years old!", etc. Finally, we get folks who add old, discredited views (like Diplodocus living in lakes) or POV edits about which dinosaur "should have won" the battle in Jurassic Park 3. If the WP:Dinosaur team members weren't watching these articles carefully, they would quickly devolve into total junk. As we're up to 9 Featured and 4 Good Articles now, that's something I would hate to see happen. Wikipedia should be a place for people to come for encyclopedic information, hence the watchlists. Although people are monitoring Recent Changes, they don't catch all of it.

As far as using watchlists to see who reverted me... as new scientific papers come out, entire articles are having to be rewritten from scratch. Scientific understanding of dinosaurs is always changing, so you just have to have a thick skin when it comes to people modifying the articles. Even though it's a small WikiProject, nearly the entire team is very good about handling this in a mature and easygoing manner.

On another topic, it looks like your RFA is progressing very well: no opposing comments yet, which is a good sign. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So is it a good idea to attempt writing long, compact and comprehensive articles by myself, without any "long-term" help, such as what I'm doing for Lam Tin? And, to what degree, does Wikipedia allow interpretation of historical documents? If I integrate ideas from different external sources into one big idea and write it down here, does that constitute "original research"? And, once again, to what extent do we allow people doing so? It seems weird if plagiarism is strictly forbidden along with original ideas. So there must be a grey-zone for people to use.

Talking about my RFA, I expect a number of additional "oppose"s after Mecu's comment, to an extent that those votes will pull me near the margin. For the "language" oppose, what I can hope is that the crats do not take it into account, so do upcoming voters. --Deryck C. 12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, that my mock exam resumes tomorrow should make my RFA extra tough. I hope you can continue helping me posting replies to explain my stance to others. --Deryck C. 12:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a lot of questions, Deryck. I'll attempt to answer them; I hope I've properly understood your questions.

So is it a good idea to attempt writing long, compact and comprehensive articles by myself, without any "long-term" help, such as what I'm doing for Lam Tin?

I don't see any problem with writing articles by yourself. I tend to write a lot of short articles that are later improved and added to by other editors. And a single editor can easily write (or rewrite) a well-sourced article which meets the Good Article criteria. In my opinion, it is impossible, or nearly impossible, for a single editor to write an article which will pass a Featured Article Candidacy, because of the often hostile environment at FAC, and I no longer attempt to do so.

And, to what degree, does Wikipedia allow interpretation of historical documents? If I integrate ideas from different external sources into one big idea and write it down here, does that constitute "original research"? And, once again, to what extent do we allow people doing so? It seems weird if plagiarism is strictly forbidden along with original ideas. So there must be a grey-zone for people to use.

WP:OR#No_original_research states "Material counts as original research if it introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea." As long as the ideas have been published elsewhere, it's probably not Original Research. "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Citing your sources also, in some ways, prevents plagiarism because you're citing the person who originally made the statement. If there's some specific passage in the article that worries you, I'll gladly take a look, though I cannot promise my opinion would be a consensus view.

Talking about my RFA, I expect a number of additional "oppose"s after Mecu's comment, to an extent that those votes will pull me near the margin. For the "language" oppose, what I can hope is that the crats do not take it into account, so do upcoming voters. --Deryck C. 12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as MECU's comments go, as long as you're aware of Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, and adhere to it, I don't really see the problem. You made a mistake four months ago, but you're not the same editor you were four months ago. We are all growing and learning as editors, every one of us. The language opposition might be discounted, because it's clear from your reply on the RFA page (and your comments on the RFA) that your English is fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, that my mock exam resumes tomorrow should make my RFA extra tough. I hope you can continue helping me posting replies to explain my stance to others. --Deryck C. 12:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mock exam? You mean like a school exam? Everyone here understands (or should understand) that real life intrudes and you can't always be on Wikipedia, even during your RFA, because we are all just volunteers. I will of course help out, where I am able. Good luck on your mock exam, Deryck. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A "mock exam" refers to a series of exam, a rehearsal for an open examination. It is given by the school, usually as the graduation exam for public exam candidates-to-be. In Hong Kong, every Form 5 (=grade 11) student has to take the HKCEE, and this mock exam is a rehearsal version of it. --Deryck C. 08:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Good luck with your practice tests; I hope when it comes time for the real version, that you do well. On another note: so far, your RFA seems to be going well, and there have only been a few opposes (one now switched to neutral). If you become an admin (and it seems this is a distinct possibility) you should definitely go over the Fair Use policy again, just to make sure you've understood it. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA Questions again

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I will help assessing deletion and protection requests if I become sysop. Having unstable and slow internet access, especially after the December 2006 Taiwan Earthquake which damaged most connections between Hong Kong and America, I cannot respond to vandalism activities quickly, therefore RC patrol is hardly my way. However, being a scientific person, I am able to handle logical arguments, which is what deletion and protection requests require - strong and unbiased logical judgement. Moreover, being a Hong Kong Chinese and therefore an ethnic and cultural minority on the English Wikipedia, I can take a more neutral stance when judging debates between sides from different backgrounds. In addition, currently being an administrator of the Cantonese Wikipedia, I am familiar with these sysop-specific operations. Therefore, deletion and protection are the chores I will join if I become sysop.

• Pokes head in.* Just one comment-- you want to avoid words like "elect" or "vote". As is so often said, "[this] is not a vote". RfAs and XfDs often essentially operate like votes, but there is a philosophical and sometimes very real difference between "voting" and "consensus building". Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh thanks very much Aili. I'll edit soon. --Deryck C. 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The "reproduction article series" pleased me most. Starting from a Science Collaboration of the Week (now WP:SCOTM) on Reproduction (now Biological reproduction), along with many other editors, we found the need to split and reorganize various related articles, and link them up through {{main}} templates. After the collboration week, all the articles were properly linked to each other and organized into levels, from a main article to tens of child articles. I was especially pleased to see the articles about reproduction such organized, since without reproduction can no men be survived; without reproduction can no knowledge be passed.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Conflicts come in certain different forms. When another user reverts my edit with an explanation, I assume good faith, rewrite the idea and make another edit proposing the rewritten version. Then I leave a message on the talk page and the other editor's talk page in attempt of a personalized dispute resolution. However, if the other editor is anonymous, it is most likely that I bring up the issue to other editors or even WP:AN, because anonymous users are hardly traceable. In case another editor is against my personal behaviour, I make an apology on talk pages and user talk pages. I confronted all these situations before and I am confident that I will do better and better in the future.