Admin coaching consists mostly of me gauging your ability as an admin, teaching you what you do not know, making sure you are familiar with the processes here, and most importantly helping you improve as an editor. If I don't update three days after your reply, please give me a nudge at my talk page. You game? Let's start.
Primarily, I intend to focus on the noncontroversial partsbackground areas of adminship. I intend to work at WP:AIV and WP:RfPP, as they both need constant attention; especially the second, as sometimes requests can lie there for hours at a time. Also, because of my great amount of work with new page patrolling, I intend to work there, both by doing frontline vandalism deletion and deleting pages tagged for deletion. I would not, however, delete any page of my own initiative that fell into the rationales of A1 or A7, as those do necessitate, in my mind, that a notice be given to the authors of these new pages first.
Also, there are areas where I am thinking about branching out to in the future to other uncontroversial areas, such as Wikipedia:Requested moves or ‘’’uncontroversial’’’ XfDs, especially some of the ignored ones such as MfD or RfD. Before doing so, I pledge that I will reread the instructions for each specific topic over and over again. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
Well, any vandal fighter will tell you of the horror stories, but I think I might have some of the worst. I don't want to go too much into it, but I can tell you it involved pornography spamming, several semi-protects of my user talk page, and several long term blocks for dynamic IPs. If you really want to know, check my talk page history, around mid-August.
Just a week and a half ago, I was Huggling along when I found an IP mass undoing the edits of Cydebot, who had a notice relating to Nielsen's DMCA in its edit summariess. Cydebot had taken down the TV templates that we had to delete and rebuild. The associated Wikiproject had, just 3 days after the original notice, rebuilt most of the templates, something that I was unaware of. I viewed several random reverts of the IP and they were all blank templates that were being readded. I assumed that this would apply for all such templates and I warned the IP and told him to discuss his reversions. The Anon deleted my post on his talkpage, and I unfortunately believed that he was a vandal. I posted on AIV and used the rollback tool to quickly revert his edits. It was only an hour later did I find out that 90% of the templates had already been built at the time and my random viewings were just unlucky hits. However, the issue was quickly resolved; I offered my apologies to the Anon and the user who had to fix my mistakes, and we both walked away from it happy.
To go on a little side tangent here, offering apologies is something that I believe should happen more often, because it sadly happens too little after confrontations. It is something I always try to do when I make a mistake, and I think Wikipedia would be a better place if more people did the same.
I can't recall any more confrontations; my work at Wikipedia has most been in the background, so most of the people that get angry are new editors, who often diffuse after I simply explain something or help out a little with what they need to do, or vandals, who score runs (bad pun, I know). NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
What do you believe are your best contributions?
There are several areas of the encyclopedia at which I believe I have excelled. Without a doubt, my vandalism patrol is what I believe to be my best contribution to the encyclopedia. I have spent (wasted?) many dozens of hours with Huggle and Twinkle. In addition, I borrowedstole J.delanoy's new page patrol script, with which I have spent additional countless hours reviewing new pages. According to my patrol log, I have marked as patrolled hundreds of pages. I also asked an administrator, Luna Santin, recently if I had done all right with my CSD tagging, which I estimate totals around 700 pages. She responded that my last declined speedy was months ago. Allow me to quote J.delanoy here, because it is a quote that I agree with very much. "I am proud of my contributions in this area because, as I see it, one of the greatest threats, if not THE greatest threat to Wikipedia is the attempts of others to degrade or destroy the content of this encyclopedia. I am happy that I have been able to do my part to keep Wikipedia's integrity intact."
Several RfA regulars also like to see solid article work. Writing, however, is not my strong suit. But there is only so much vandalism reversion one can do, so I have made some forays into the world of article writing. Early in my wiki-career, I made some touchups to the article Article One of the United States Constitution. However, those edits were, I feel, relatively minor. In August, I read a book by Jeff Sharra called The Steel Wave, a new release. Noting that it did not yet have a Wikipedia article, I decided to start one. Though it is not much, I think the article is a solid start and I am constantly thinking of going back and expanding it. But my greatest contribution to a this one mainspace list. I essentially rewrote some of the article in several swoops, and two of the other main authors and I tried to make it a Featured List. We failed in our attempt, though I thought I did see a consensus to promote, but I have rewrote some of the rest of the list, and the list is again up for at FLC.
I also have some extra Wikipedia experiences that are kind of back-room type dealings, but they've been rather fun. For the past few months, I have been hanging out in irc:wikipedia-en-accounts and irc:wikipedia-en-help. I've been able to get a lot done there. In en-accounts, I have created dozens of accounts for new and confused users. Since the new antispoof similar username override feature was added a week or so ago, I have also been able to help users in areas that have previous required administrators to get to, and I believe I have showed good judgment when creating these accounts. In en-help, I've been doing two jobs. I answer {{helpme}} tags from new and even experienced confused users and I try to help them out whenever possible. Also, users will occasionally pop into that irc channel to ask for help, and I always try to help as much as I can. For example, a week or so ago, I assisted a distraught fairly user who had essentially been accused of sockpuppetry after trying to enforce a no advert policy. I contacted an administrator in irc and the two of us managed to help out. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Comment I know I'm an awful writer and grammarian. If you ever feel the need to correct sentences, go right ahead ;)
Now, now, don't underestimate yourself. Your answers are very detailed, and I encourage that. As long as what you're saying is coherent, it shouldn't be a problem. bibliomaniac1501:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm a little flummoxed by what you call "uncontroversial" parts of adminship. All tools, especially the big two of blocking and deletion have a large probability of being controversial. In any case, saying that one only wants to work in the "uncontroversial" part of Wikipedia is dangerous...very dangerous indeed. AIV and RFPP may not offer much trouble, but it is a given you will have to make a tough decision sometime in your admin career, whether it be there, or in XFD, or when a user comes with a call for help or with trouble. Controversy is not to be encouraged, but you should not seek to avoid it.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. When I was thinking of that sentence, I was mostly thinking of controversial AfDs, DRVs, AN discussions and the like. I'm going to reword the original.
I do have some experience in helping flumonxed newbies, but I really can't see my myself reading a wall of text and deciding who has the better argument. How does this, currently phrased, sound? NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
That may be so, but still, you will have to know how to analyze close consensus and learn how to handle such big controversial decisions here. bibliomaniac1503:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
One could know how all the process work technically and procedurally, but without an agile mind and a willingness to learn, that knowledge is moot. bibliomaniac1504:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments1 person in discussion
Here's a checklist that you can go through. It's okay if you haven't tried all of them out, and if you haven't done something, try it! You can gain much experience that way.
Communalism > Authorism. While oftentimes articles do have one single author, that author should not be able to own an article. Wikipedia encourages new visitors to help out with content as much as they can, and if their edits are just blindly reverted, they won’t stick around. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree a lot with Wikipacifism. There are some instances where I think it is wrong, such as walking away from a dispute. I think that people should not walk away, but instead seek a third opinion, because if they abandon the debate, odds are that no one is going to notice that it even happened for months at a time. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Administrators are a cross between janitors and important role models, depending on where they work. Most administrators should endeavor to be a janitor, but if they have to be the latter, they should act as some of Wikipedia’s most neutral editors. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Neutral writing is a basic skill, which is easy enough to learn if you are open-minded. I semi-agree with the unattainable absoluteness, but I suspect that people that think NPOV is an unattainable absolute think that every article has the goal of becoming a featured article, and that is what we should aim for. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
So I hope you realized what you probably want to work on before you get to RFA. Here are a few perennial questions.
What is your opinion on WP:IAR? How do you apply it to your contributions? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
My opinion if IAR is that it is perhaps the most important rule that has kept this project going so well. I think one of the most important functions of IAR is its use in Avoiding excessive bureaucracy. IAR is something that I currently do use, although sparingly, in my contributions, in cases like Especial:Watchlist, which was one case where I PRODded (and eventually XfD'd) an article per IAR, which I still feel was the right idea. There might have been a proper obscure rationale for that, but invoking IAR allowed me to avoid wasting time.
I also feel that IAR should be invoked (as it often is) in AfDs. Sometimes, articles that have a clear consensus for keeping aren't closed for a few days. This keeps the notice up on the pages, and may scare off potential contributors who won't want to waste time on an article that might be deleted.
If I am an admin, there is only one time that I can think of when I would use admin powers per IAR. If I had confirmation that an experienced editor was editing while severely intoxicated, I would watch them carefully and would block on the first sight of a bad edit to prevent any future damage to the User's reputation. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what would you need to read up on? What tasks do you believe you would totally avoid?
There are two main areas where I think I'd have to read up on before wading into. One is closing disputed XfDs and the other is dispute resolution. I would love to try to help out in either of those areas though. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
As for areas I would totally avoid...I'm not really sure. I believe that I would try to avoid the drama-filled threads of WP:AN (though not the one that are from people looking for help) as much as possible, but other that, I can't really think of any. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, there is a question I forgot to answer. I believe that my weaknesses right now include a lack of writing ability, as you can see be my poor amount of written content. Also, I was thinking about trying to mediate a dispute, as that is something that can help reduce overall levels of wikidrama, but I have no idea how to go about doing this, or if my mediation will work or not without an admin badge. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work 2202, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
I've used 3O to find this, and I've been trying to mediate. It's been, eh, considering I don't know the topic that well. I think I want to stick to this phase of Admin Coaching for a while, if that is all right with you. If I could do maybe one or two mediations, and then you could grade me, that would be excellent :) NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's very hard to find a resolution that concretely solves the issue. If it could turn out like that, 9 out of 10 times they wouldn't have needed to go to 3O. So it's natural, especially for your first time, to feel like it's going "meh." Your approach looks good though, we shall see how this turns out. Another user I find skilled at dispute resolution is User:Revolving Bugbear. If you ever have any trouble, you can ask him for help too. bibliomaniac1502:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let's say an administrator removes a chunk of information from an article you've been working on, citing BLP concerns, but you feel that it doesn't violate BLP policy. What would you do?
My first move would be to revert, trying to explain my opinion in my edit summary as best as I can. Assuming I cannot convince the admin, I would immediately cut myself off at 1RR and discuss at the talk page. If the issue was really contentious, I'd ask for a 3rd opinion. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an XfD? If so, what is that number? What about an RFA?
In a RfA, enough people pretty much discuss by default. But for an RfA, at least 5 people would be good for an article. That's not a hard and fast rule, but that many, if they all generally agree, means that a rough consensus has been decided. I'll admit, though I have closed uncontentious AfDs in the past, I'm not sure I would close some of the 3-4 people voted (relist it?) or the 10+ people-expressed-opinions ones. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
We'll start with page protection, one of the main tools of the admin. Protection is normally invoked in two circumstances. One is excessive vandalism. Move-protection is seeing increasing use with the rise of Grawp, but normally semi-protection is used against pesky IP and new user vandalism. Very rarely is full protection used for the purposes of vandalism, this is only used when egregious BLP violations or massive autoconfirmed user vandalism occurs. The other case is edit warring. If you do full protect a page where an edit war is going on, remember to make sure you are actually uninvolved, and prepare to administer a third opinion. Some rarer cases include salting, in which a deleted page is protected to prevent recreation, and still rarer are office actions, done by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Page protection is an area that I'd really like to work on as an admin, so this is something that could be really useful, I think. :D
Should you protect a Today's Featured Article? First state the correct policy, any extenuating circumstances, then state your view on the matter.
I once tried to list Jackie Chan for protection while it was on the main page. An administrator at wp:rfpp told me that main articles should not, except under rare circumstances, be protected, per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Exceptions to this guideline are short term semi=protects (1 hour?) in response to vandalbots. Actually, I'm not so sure on the exceptions.
In my personal opinion, the current policy is a good one. Vandalism of a blatant sort that the featured article of the day gets is relatively minor and in any case is quickly reverted by editors with Huggle or other anti-vandalism tools. Having the Article of the Day unprotected illustrates our 3rd pillar really well in my opinion, showing that we trust even anonymous editors to make useful edits to a widely viewed page. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be semi-protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
If the user has autoconfirmed status, I would protect the userpage for sure. Also, if the user's talk is being slammed over and over again by a dedicated vandal with a dynamic IP, I think the correct policy is to protect for a day (or longer? or shorter?) and find an admin who can drop a range block on them (can all admins put rangeblocks or only Oversighters, Stewards, etc?) NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work02:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
As far as userpages go, there's really little reason for an IP to edit them. Therefore, you can spare some protection onto userpages. User talks are a very different matter. Only under extreme cases of vandalism should semi-protection be done on the page, and then only for a day. Blocking should be preferable over this matter, unless the IP is especially dynamic.
Also, to answer your question, range blocks can be done by any admin. However, because they are quite complicated, they are usually left for the checkusers to do, who deal with this stuff most often. bibliomaniac1504:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've scanned the protection log recently, and was astonished to see indefinitely full-protected articles (I did end asking for unprotection on 6 of them, all of which were done, I think). Under what circumstances should I ever put full-protection indefinitely on an article? NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
In edit wars where an end is not in sight, it is not advisable to put a definite expiration date, because if the conflict has not been sorted out, the warriors will just wait for the protection to expire and resume. That is the scenario I believe merits indef full-protection, but there isn't really a hard and fast rule in these type of situations. You should really only do these kinds of protections if you are an active neutral party.
Again, there really is no hard and fast rule; everything follows a case-by-case examination. I usually look at how frequently an article is vandalized, if there are any contributive IPs, and if vandalism is disrupting normal editing. It also helps to see the protection history on the article to determine a proper duration; I usually do 1-2 weeks for first protection, then I steadily up it until it is apparent that the vast majority of anonymous users are not here to be contributive to the article.
When I asked for semi-protection on this usersubpage, you instead blocked the user. I thought a better idea would be to block the user and semi-protect the space, as no one but us should ever really have a reason to edit this page. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work01:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, that was an isolated incident by only one vandal. Unless there's a horde of vandals doing some serious damage, just blocking is really enough.
Let's say a user removes a chunk of information from an article you've been working on, citing BLP concerns, but you feel that it doesn't violate BLP policy. What would you do?
You find out that an editor, who is well-known and contributive, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
Three options, dependent on the severity of the case. One is to file a SSP or ANI report. This should only be done in extreme cases, IMO, as it can lead to hurt feelings and editors leaving the project. The second option is discussing it quietly with the abusive editor in question, preferably via email. In a case where this leads nowhere, an SSP case or an ANI report should be filed. Finally, discussing it quietly on irc with a group of trusted administrators while logging the discussion would be my third, and probably leaned-to idea. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work03:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia without any opposition, what would it be?
I saw that Roux had a Wizard-type thing for Article Creation; that would be awesome.
The autopatrolled group should be given out just like Rollback is, or maybe even like an advanced autoconfirmed.
A "custodian" group level should be added between adminconfirmed and administrator.
Admin Recall, in some manner.
Also, joining CAT:AOR makes a passing recall request mandatory. I hated that crazy Elonka debacle, and I even started (a badly worded and ill-considered) proposal to have stewards just skip over crats and remove the bits from users who fail community consensus.
"The Arbitration Committee is directed to evaluate the consensus of the community in any recall discussion where an administrator declines to step down. Any administrator who resigns during or following a recall discussion is considered to have resigned "under a cloud" and must undergo a new Request for Adminship to become an administrator again."
"If a community discussion (such as a Administrator's Noticeboard Discussion or Request for Comment) shows that an administrator may have lost the trust of the community, as judged by a bureaucrat, the administrator must initiate a reconfirmation Request for Adminship or resign. Losing the trust of the community shall occur if a significant number of good faith editors make informed comments, supported by evidence, at a structured community discussion suggesting that an administrator needs to resign or be reconfirmed. A substantial minority may be enough to bring the community trust of an administrator into doubt. Any such discussions should be organized, supervised by uninvolved administrators or bureaucrats, and kept open for at least a week. If an administrator fails to pass a reconfirmation RFA, a bureaucrat will contact a steward to request removal of sysop access from the account. Any disputes concerning a desysopping request may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee."
Custodian group would just be an agglomeration of different rights that are already available to admins and are uncontroversial. They could be given out in a process similar to an Articles for Deletion, where those opposing giving rights could list reasons why, or Requests for Rollback, where an/multiple admins would make individual calls.
Some useful rights that could be added to this group:
Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled [this applies to new articles, I believe)
Add semi-protected (obviously, full-protection and semi-protection would have to be split into different extensions.)
Remove semi-protected
Rollback
Account Creator
View a list of unwatched pages
Upload by URL
View-deleted [for deletions that occur after this goes live. BLP, G10, and G3 all exempt]
Temporary Block (<1 hour) [Just block, not unblock. An admin would have to oversee for a longer-that-that period)
Temporary Delete (<1 hour) [Just delete, not undelete. An admin would have to oversee for a longer-that-that period)
Alternatively, and probably even better, these rights could be split up into many different groups, as rollback and account creator currently are.
This would give the community both a provisional adminship-tester, as well as just help people out who don't want to go through the rigors of RfA, but still want to help out the encyclopedia. I think that the first of those rights probably could be one of the most uncontroversial and most helpful of those.
I agree with most of your things, especially the semi-protection, but I don't support a few. Upload by URL is probably the worst, in my opinion, because of our high criteria for fair use. I don't really see the use of a temporary block or delete, since these are much more often used for longer than an hour. Viewing deleted pages I have little trouble for a good custodian, but it would be hard to implement the software to disallow BLP, G10, and G3 viewing. (Don't really see the use for barring G3). I think the use of an intermediate would be beneficial, and even better than complete splitting of every single tool.
Well, that's splitting rights into subgroups (like Rollbacker, etc.) does partially solve your problem with Upload via URL. If we gave the right only to users who work in images a lot, that would help them out a lot.
As for the view deleted, it shouldn't be hard. Just modify the delete interfaces with an extra checkbox that says "click to hide history from users with 'view-deleted'"
As for temp block and delete, this could be useful if the time limit was dropped to ~5 minutes, and so when vandalbots strike, they can easily be stopped in the 2-3 minutes before someone at AIV notices. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work23:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Blocking is the second tang of the admin trident. The blocking policy is meticulously compiled at WP:BLOCK. When you plan a block, remember that blocks are preventative. They should seek to prevent further damage, rather act as a punishment. As such, blocks are most commonly used against vandalism. They are also used to stop disruption in the form of edit warring. Be sure to familiarize yourself with what counts in 3RR and what doesn't. A bad block can be very detrimental to the community.
You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
This is an interesting question, and I admit I wasn't sure at all. My gut instinct would be to do nothing more besides rollbacking its edits, but I suspect there is another answer, so I searched for wp:vandalbot, from I found meta:vandalbot. I commonly do what that page suggests anyway though when I report to AIV, so is there another answer? NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, just block immediately, reverse all damage, then give a headsup at WP:AN. If it was flagged, get to a crat and have them deflag.
Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
There are multiple routes to take in this one, I suppose. One is to just quietly discuss with the blocking admin. For particularly egregious blocks, escalate to ANI if necessary? I'm not so sure on this one. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Email or talk page is best. Only go to ANI if you really need to get extra opinions; otherwise, you're just asking for drama.
What if it was a clearly bad block. For example, say an admin who was edit warring with a regular user blocked the second user? What should I do then? Lift the block and apply page protection to what they were editing on? Block them both? Call for an emergency desysopping? In all likelihood, I would never come across this, but, it is always good to be prepared :) Also, say an admin, right out of the blue, blocked another user who had never interacted with him before and who was producing good work? NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
First of all, the most important thing is to not act hastily. Administrators have had to go through RFA; they are very unlikely to do anything stupid intentionally. Only block and emergency desysop when it is clear the admin account has been compromised. In any other case, since edit warring has occurred, this requires a ANI discussion, pronto, because that's a serious case of abuse. Let the community figure out what to do then. Unblock if you feel particularly bold, but if they reblock back, DO NOT start a wheel war.
I would not unblock, I would go for the 2nd chance (I was unaware of the template, partly because I don't do unblocks). I feel that it is unwise to lessen their block; they should take the remainder of the block to look over how to constructively edit and start afresh. However, there is a real danger of assuming too much good faith. Assume good faith, but don't go overboard.
While we're on the subject of blocking, there's a real issue with the RFA atmosphere right now on hating Huggle. In the old days (okay, 2005-2006), vandal fighters were held in very high regard, probably because of the likes of Marmot or Willy on Wheels roaming the encyclopedia like dinosaurs. After TWINKLE, though, vandal fighting seemed to be demeaned into a common chore. And now Huggle and automated editing brings accusations of editing like an automaton. What is your view on automated editing and administrative fitness? bibliomaniac1501:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The detractors of Huggle have a partial point, but I would not agree with them to the extent that Huggle makes users automatrons. I would agree that Huggle, after a while, does not add anything to learning to be an administrator. But it is still a very useful job. I would estimate that there have been at least a few million Huggle edits over the past. They have definitely contributed to the speed at which vandalism is detected and reverted. I think that these actions have seriously helped the reputation of the wiki. Nowadays, people have a few seconds to gloat at their massive page edit of replacing every sixth word with an expletive, rather than minutes. It also gives a peace of mind to a great portion of our anonymous readers who don't want to see that and would also rather just read than trying to figure out how to revert an edit.
However, I would agree with those people in that, with a few exceptions, I myself would not support an administrator-hopeful whose only major contribution appears to be via Huggle. Huggle is a very valid way of helping the encyclopedia, but should be coupled with at least one extra skill to show that a user is truly ready for adminship. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I'm pretty confident that you know what to do when it comes to blocking. Now we'll mix it up a little. Now, you get to ask me any questions you want to know. I'll answer them to the best of my ability. bibliomaniac1505:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
What is your opinion about recall?
I feel that we need a hard-set rule for recall. Wikipedia is now at the size where an Arbcom hearing takes months to settle. As the Elonka affair proved, our floatable standards for recall do us plenty of harm and no good in return.
In your opinion, what would be any downsides to a new community-mandated recall?
I can see the problems that RFC and RFA face at the moment carrying over to whatever recall process we choose. Drama will of course follow, because it is about the revocation of the tools of a user whose trust is ambiguous.
I've mostly settled into maintenance now. I mostly handle stuff at WP:CHU and the other request boards. I check my watchlist at least 25 times a day. Other than that, I just randomly float around, doing what needs to be done, reading my messages, and enjoying my time here.
What should I do if a respected admin starts to wheel war me?
I should have clarified. I have read enough of those ArbCom cases to know that it generally takes two reversions to constitute a wheel war. And just talk with them? That seems like the answer for any dispute :) NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
What is the criteria for applying full-move and semi-move (does the latter even exist?) protection?
Semi-moves are rarely done because of sleeper socks, and because usually there's no way the article would get moved anyway. Really, if an article has no need to be moved, and it is move-vandalized, it gets full-move-protected. It's the most secure way to deal with things.
What is your opinion of the irc channel wikipedia-en-admins? Have you ever been there yourself?
I wouldn't make any decision there. I hear it's a riot over there, but I haven't been there myself. I've only been to #wikipedia. IRC isn't really that constructive. It's just that what people say there can have repercussions here, and that's when everybody notices IRC. So that's why it tend to have a bad rep. Usually it's fairly innocuous, a little raunchy at times, and half of the time off topic.
Does Wikipedia Review have anything useful on its forums?
Every system needs its critics in order to be great. So I agree that it has some use alerting us of the flaws and downsides of Wikipedia. On the other hand, most of the forums is bitching from mostly rightfully banned users.
A few things. The custodianship you mentioned would be a valuable tool for those unfortunate souls doomed to fail RFA. I'd also like to see a concrete way to recall admins, because ArbCom is too bogged down to adequately cover it alone. Finally, and probably most interestingly, I think that there is a way to revive Esperanza and have it survive the correct way. I sense the creepings of severe disillusionment affecting our core as well as decreased account registration, and I feel a revival of Esperanza would work very well in countering the drama.
If I may confess, I just love politics. Governmental politics, wikipolitics, office politics; it doesn't matter, as long as there is drama. I like to stay out of it, but it is usually amusing to watch.
I will participate, but the list is in my head. I don't really have any specific questions in my head right now; the ones I've thought of are already taken. I really admire those who put themselves up to ArbCom, because it is really taxing. bibliomaniac1505:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Deletion is the final tool of the admin trifecta, if you will. There are several modes of deletion processes, and you must be familiar with how all of them work. They include speedy deletion, PROD, XFD, and DRV. Speedy deletion and XFD are probably the most important. It's alright if you don't intend to do something when you are sysopped; I haven't touched DRV since. But you need to know what goes on in them so that you are prepared, just in case.
What opinions would you disregard when closing an XFD?
There are quite a myriad of votes I would ignore. I'll list a few:
Per wp:ban and wp:sock, anything from a banned user or a sockpuppet
Things that are just votes without any reasoning
Per user's POV
"It can be improved, but is not in good enough shape at the moment, so delete"
So let's start with some examples. These are quite tough, so feel free to take as much time as you want. When you consider the opinions, make sure you consider both the general consensus (straight keep, delete, etc.) and the individual rationales. On one end of the spectrum, only considering the general consensus leaves you susceptible to falling trap to specious arguments, while overanalyzing the rationales will muddle your ability to use your discretion.
This was a tough one, and one that would be difficult no matter what. I'm very tempted to close it as no consensus, default to keep, but I think that is not the right call here. I would close this AfD as delete. While the keeps clearly outnumber the deletes, when I analyzed the arguments, I found that many referenced an AfD that was going on at the same time. Since they were so related, I felt that it was acceptable to look at the arguments there too, as many of the votes on the GDI AfD discussion were "Keep, based on my previous statement". There, it seems that the general consensus (looking at the arguments, not the votes) was to delete. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
After reading through this one, I see no clear consensus for either a keep or a delete. It is definitely leaning towards delete, however I would try to express the opinions of everyone involved in my decision. First, I would transwiki this over to a Harry Potter Wikia. I'm not sure how I would do this and retain GFDL though, so I would probably ask a more experienced user to do that for me. Then, I would merge the article with Chronology of the Harry Potter series. Then, I would go off and read one of the sources I found from the article, because it is a fascinating site that I have not visited in several years. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
So far so good. Your rationales are sound, but you might want to look over transwikiing. Try these:
Note that the policy behind this is by no means stable. It is still a matter of great debate whether places have inherent notability. What are your thoughts on this?
I actually had no idea that the policy on this was not stable. Without knowing any arguments against this, I would say that I fully support the idea of essentially copying the important parts of the CIA Factbook onto Wikipedia.
Wow, this one is difficult. I wouldn't even try closing this, but would just relist it instead.
If you had to actually give your opinion on the article, what would you choose then?
If I personally was voting, I'd vote keep or maybe weak keep. The person was around during the 60s and was only fairly notable, so there may not be a variety of online sources. But there were a myriad of available print sources to cite this article. The poet has also written 200+ works, notable enough.
Interesting. The delete rationales mostly call for a deletion based on notability rationales, while the keeps point to a point of minor notability. I would probably close this as no consensus, default to keep.
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion
You did very well on the last section. Those were some tricky AFDs, but as long as you adequately explain your closing rationale, it should be okay. Now I'm starting to run out of things to talk about, so this will probably be one of the last posts on the page. The final question is conducted via email, so make sure you have that activated.
What is your view on IRC? Should administrative decisions be made on admin IRC?
IRC is a great and wonderful tool that is 99.9% of the time, helpful to Wikipedia. I have often made use of it personally, to either double-check edits, word sentences, ask for help, or simply build relationships with other Wikipedians. I feel that administrative decisions could be made on IRC if and only if a copy of the relevant parts of the IRC log are placed on wiki, something that I feel should happen currently.
Why is account security so important to administrators? Is your password secure?
As an administrator, my account could do fairly massive damage to the project if it is unsecured. If my account was compromised, the move over redirect feature could be used to delete even entire article histories and cause other massive damage. To ensure the safety of my account, I have made my password fairly secure (actually, I should probably change it now; it has been what it has been for too long) and I use a declared sockpuppet to log in from libraries and other such places. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to other Wikis? Why or why not?
Nope. We have our own community norms here, and different wikis might have different norms than we do. If they want, they can set up a system where our bans apply to their project, but that is the other Wiki's call, and not ours. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work05:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Do you think that adding a "strong oppose" in an RFA is against WP:CIVIL?
No, I don't think so. Strong oppose, IMO, merely indicates that the user has found deeply troubling things about a nominee. Now, a oppose of no bloody way!!-oppose would fall under violating WP:CIVIL. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work05:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Where do you see Wikipedia in the next three years?
Hopefully, editor count will be picking up and B-class and good articles will be flying off the shelves. I really think that B-Class and GAs are the best pieces of work for the entire encyclopedia, as they offer the most amount of information to our readers for the least amount of our work. Now, that doesn't say anything about the other kind of writers out there (I certainly have never and probably will never write a GA in my life). But hopefully, in three years, the amount of B-class articles will...triple.
My note':Email is enabled. I use my own private email as the one listed under "My Preferences," but I also have a public Wikipedia email, nw.wikipedia AT gmail DOT com, that I use for mailing lists and such. Sending it to the latter will forward it to my real one, so I will get it either way. - NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
