User talk:DOSGuy/Coaching

My strengths as a Wikipedian are mostly related to my work in the mainspace. I have university level writing and comprehension, so I'm able to disambiguate unclear sentences and correct spelling and grammar. I also have excellent memory, so I often debunk assumptions or misconceptions in articles within my areas of interest (such as the user who claimed that Cybertron had only two moons, when I had clear recollection of seeing a third moon following Unicron's consumption of the two Autobot moonbases; or the user who claimed that Abby and Larry got married on Dharma & Greg, whereas I recall almost every line of every episode of my favorite shows, and I remembered Dharma presiding over the ceremony and referring to their commitment as a "non-matrimonial but, henceforth, monogamous relationship.") In other words, I have a high level of recall for trivia, and I remember enough background information to be able to add a reference to support my corrections.

This, of course, has nothing to do with being an Admin. My only qualifications for being an Admin are that I'm a mature adult with a long history at Wikipedia. I'm familiar with the core policies, but I haven't read the majority of the hundreds of help pages. I use common sense to determine what is an appropriate edit, which has kept me within the rules so far.

I'm an idealist, which means that I expect the rules to make sense (that assumption is why I haven't needed to learn most of them). If any rule doesn't make sense, it needs to change. There are, sadly, a great number of rules that don't make sense, and I've contributed to discussions about them. For instance, the current "In the News" policy for deceased persons requires that the death be unexpected, such as an assassination or rapidly progressing disease, which prevented Sir Edmund Hillary's and Bobby Fischer's deaths from qualifying. The current rules would allow Benazir Bhutto's death because she was assassinated, and they would allow Jim Henson's death because he died within a few days of becoming ill. The present rules will prevent Neil Armstrong's death from being mentioned because, at his age, his death won't be unexpected. The rule doesn't make sense, so it must be changed. Deaths that make international headlines don't occur every day, so ITN would not be overwhelmed with obituaries if the rules were relaxed to allow mention of the death of highly notable international figures, even if their deaths weren't shocking or unexpected.

I'm logical and methodical, which allows me to create and support a structured argument when I participate in a discussion. This trait seems to be why others have encouraged me to become an Admin. I don't participate in revert wars or fight with other members. I justify my edit if necessary, and then I move on.

One of my weaknesses is that I'm largely ignorant of Wikipedia policies, other than the core policies. I expect the rules to be logical and sensible, and sometimes they aren't. Every help page links to a dozen other pages, many of which have significant, if not complete duplication of content. It's a bureaucratic nightmare. There are so many rules that no one can know them all, and people can quote different pages to contradict the quotations of others. The study of Wikipedia policy has become like the scholarly study of religion, with various Wikirabbis using one passage to argue against a passage presented by another. You must meditate on the Wikipedia policy pages all day and all night! Meanwhile, the congregation can't be bothered to read their own scriptures because they are too large, so everyone just tries to apply logic and common sense and hopes that the Wikigods will recognize that they tried to lead good Wikilives and made a good faith attempt to edit according their will.

I work for the government, and I've seen how rules and classifications that were created to "make things fair" and eliminate human decision making from every process prevent employees from being able to make suggestions or bring about change, even when change is desperately needed. We've become so slow and ineffective that it takes years for us to correct a bad rule, and we wasted millions of dollars in the interim. An internal survey revealed that over 80% of employees feel that they have no input into their job, and job satisfaction in the government is among the lowest of any employer in the country. We all had to pass an IQ (competency) test to get hired, but I feel that the test should be used to eliminate intelligent and creative candidates. Why hire smart people if you're not interested in their opinions?

Such is the risk at Wikipedia. Already I see disillusioned and dissatisfied editors claiming that their opinions carry no weight, and the service is about to collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy. This is no more true of Wikipedia than it is of the government — Wikipedia won't die any more than the government will magically disappear, but dissatisfaction among the membership is a real risk. Things need to move towards a core of simplicity, and that's what I would advocate if I could. Every day there should be one less help page until only 10 remain. If you can't explain everything there is to know about Wikipedia in 10 pages or less, then something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia and its mission. Once editors feel that rules have been set in place to prevent them from making positive changes (which is a fact in the government), they may lose their passion for editing. I certainly have. When I learned how enormous the help system is, and observed how passionately some editors oppose the RfAs of decent, highly qualified candidates, it became clear that the same culture of bureaucracy and elitism exists on Wikipedia as exists in the government, and suddenly Wikipedia didn't seem so important any more. The point of Wikipedia should be to edit and contribute to articles. How did it ever become more complicated than that?

Where once I actively searched for errors to correct and patrolled for vandalism, now I only use Wikipedia for research, and correct mistakes that I find while reading. This will likely doom any RfA I would submit myself to, which is a shame, because it's exactly the attitude that everyone should have! When it becomes more important to you than that, it becomes personal, and that's where conflict arises. Who should an Admin be? An Admin should be a mature, responsible editor who understands the core policies. If he or she chooses to only edit occasionally, or participate in discussions occasionally, this should be allowed. Wikipedia should demand no more of anyone's time than they have a desire to give. So long as the Admin is editing responsibly, why should anyone care about how many thousand edits they have per month?

And so we reach the great contradiction of Wikipedia, with Jimbo Wales famously stating that being an Admin is no big deal, while Admins will reject any applicant who hasn't participated in projects, edited every day, and studied and debated policy with all the fervor as though Wikipedia were a religion. It clearly is a big deal. If you don't take Wikipedia as seriously as they do, you're unworthy. Elitism at its ugliest. I cannot and will not take Wikipedia that seriously. It's just a resource, not a matter of life and death. I will edit responsibly, mediate a dispute if asked, and participate in discussions on policy if I have a strong opinion. This should be enough, and if it's not, then I will continue to do what I have always done. I will not take offense, and I will not exact revenge by refusing to edit. All I want to do, ever, is contribute in good faith. So many others have offered and been rejected, and the community is the worse for it. As for me, I will participate to the maximum extent that I am permitted to, but it is not a quest. If you coach me and the community deems that I would be more helpful as an Admin, then I will be an Admin. Otherwise, I thank you for taking the time to teach me. DOSGuy (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching match

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Revolving Bugbear as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Revolving Bugbear and explain to him why you want to be an admin.

2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for a highly qualified, coached, editor. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 08:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

coaching

Hello sensei. I've been asked to introduce myself and explain why I want to be an Admin.

It's not a life dream of mine, and I won't cry if it never happens. I consider Wikipedia a valuable resource, and I edit errors or add content when I'm able to. I am apparently trustworthy enough to have Rollback, which I find very helpful. I have, on a few occasions, participated in discussions about policy. The response to my comments has generally been positive, and it's been suggested on more than one occasion that I should strive to become an Admin. I have the time, and perhaps the ability, to contribute more than I have so far. I would like to learn what is expected of an Admin, and acquire whatever knowledge I would need to be qualified for that post. It's supposedly not a big deal, so I'm not sure why any mature, trustworthy regular contributor with knowledge of Wikipedia's core policies wouldn't be qualified, but I have observed that an awful lot is expected of candidates for Adminship, and the vast majority of applications fail. I, therefor, submit myself to your tutelage to learn the ways of the Admin. DOSGuy (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to coach you.

Here are a couple of things you should do before we get started:

1. Create a subpage in your userspace for the admin coaching with a short explanation of what you think your strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedian are. Once you have done this, watchlist it.
2. If you have not already done so, enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under Preferences: Editing.
3. Watchlist my talk page and the talk pages of a few other admins you respect or admire. You don't have to read every comment, but watching how other people conduct themselves will help you immensely.

I would ask that you don't go to RfA at least until we're done (or, if you choose to end the coaching early, after that), as this will make things go smoother all around.

You're welcome to invite other people whose opinions you value to weigh in on the coaching page, but do not feel obliged to if you'd like to keep this small.

Once you have done the above, let me know. - Revolving Bugbear 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode 1

Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. I think you've presented an honest and insightful assessment of yourself, and of Wikipedia itself. I understand the concerns you have, and can't say I don't share at least a few of them. On the other hand, the woods would be quiet indeed if only the most perfect birds sang, right?

That is, of course, where you (and everyone else) come in. It seems daunting, but if you're willing to invest some time and effort, you can effect some changes in the 'pedia. I know it sounds wishy-washy, but remember, even Jimbo was just some guy with some website not too long ago.

What I'd like to do here is go through the tasks an admin takes on, as well as establish a dialogue about the generals of how things work, and I'd like to do so in manageable bites. So what I'll do is, in various installments, give you any or all of (1) some thoughts an ideas to mull over and discuss or percolate as you like, along with a page I recommend you read, (2) a hypothetic exercise to complete here, and (3) an assignment to go live with on-wiki. Once you've finished the exercise and/or assignment, we'll move on to the next set.

There is no rush, of course, for any of these. Take your time with everything I give you -- since there is no deadline, it's better to get these done right than quickly. I will move on to a new section only when you have indicated that you feel comfortably finished with everything I've given you up until then.

If, at any time, you have any questions or comments, feel free to let me know. - Revolving Bugbear 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts: What Admins Really Do

You hear it over and over: adminship is really an inglorious job, the carrying of a metaphorical mop, and you will make more enemies than friends using it. In a way, this is true. Deleting an article may upset its creator. Blocking a user is sure to upset him. Protecting a page may aggravate people fighting over it.

The important thing to remember, however, is that admin actions are not about you. Every admin action taken by every admin should be, first and last, about Wikipedia. And what is Wikipedia? Well, it is a community encyclopedia, which means that it is both a community and an encyclopedia.

Every application of the tools should be preceded by a question: What effect will this action have on Wikipedia? This is, of course, two questions in one: What effect will this action have on the encyclopedia, and what effect will it have on the community. Applying the tools often comes down to walking the fine line between these two answers. Sometimes the answers are obvious, and sometimes they are more complex.

But since it's not about you, it's okay if you don't have all the answers. That's why we have a community, and not just an encyclopedia. - Revolving Bugbear 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Recommended reading: m:Foundation issues

Exercise: Speedy Deletion

A lot of new admins start out on speedy deletion, because it's relatively low profile and often includes relatively straightforward decisions.

Here is an exercise written by User:EWS23 with some actual examples of past articles which were tagged for speedy deletion. Indicate what you would do regarding these articles.

Note that it's very easy to cheat on this exercise, both on- and off-wiki. For your own benefit, I would suggest doing any research regarding these articles outside of Wikipedia and, if you use a search engine, using the -wikipedia modifier. Apart from that, of course, you're free to use whatever methods you like. - Revolving Bugbear 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

EWS23's original message:

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

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (I plan on using these for multiple coachees). Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything (I'm the only contributor), but remember that in real cases the page history is important. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles:

• Halo 3 trailier

• Union Millwright

• Webs

• Neil Haverton Smith

• Fall Out Boy

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Assignment: Get Involved

As an admin, you'll be involved in a lot of back-room things most Wikipedians never pay any attention to. You'll want to be comfortable going into these spaces with how they look and how they work.

Seek out some administrative areas you find interesting and get involved in them. In just about all cases, you don't have to be an admin -- you're welcome to participate in the discussions or bring up issues you think are important.

Some suggestions: Participating in WP:AfD, WP:AN; Reporting to WP:AIV; Tagging for WP:CSD; Commenting on T:TDYK; Anything else outside of the mainspace you find interesting.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Student Response to Episode 1

Thoughts: What Admins Really Do

I was an Administrator on a chess server for 4 or 5 years, which was often a thankless job. Enforcing the rules was about what was best for the chess server, so I never felt bad about enforcing the rules. If I were in law enforcement, I wouldn't let anyone make me feel bad about enforcing the law. People don't like getting a ticket or being arrested, but society as a whole is grateful that someone is enforcing the law. No one liked being muzzled or banned on my chess server, but the victims who were being harassed or cheated were glad that someone was enforcing the rules. I expect the situation is the same for Wikipedia Admins.

I haven't been a member of that chess server since 2004, but many current and former members chat on a bulletin board, and I've joined them. From time to time, someone talks about how lousy the Admins are, and I do my best to explain the rules and why I enforced them. The response has been surprising: many people have said, "You were one of the good Admins." I don't remember anyone feeling that way at the time, but people feel that way now when they look back. The lesson I've learned is that people appreciate the people who do thankless jobs. They may not say so (or even realize it) at the time, but they remember them fondly when enough time has passed to look back dispassionately. When you do the right thing, and do your job well, history "vindicates" you. DOSGuy (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exercise: Speedy Deletion

It sounds like you don't want me to do research on Wikipedia, which may or may not include reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. Rather than wait for clarification, I'm going to go ahead and tell you what my gut tells me to do. I have nominated many articles for speedy deletion, and I can remember some of the criteria anyway.

• Halo 3 trailier

The justification for this nomination was that the article has no context, and is unencylopedic. This is exactly right. The article doesn't explain what Halo 3 is or why anyone would care, so there is no context. More importantly, the article has no content! There is no reason for this tiny piece of information to have its own article. This wouldn't even qualify as a stub. This information could be added to the article about Halo 3 or, if there wasn't one at the time, to the article about the Halo series. The scope of this article (a trailer shown at E3) is too limited to be expanded upon in the future. Given that the article consists of a single, unencylopedic sentence, it is no great loss to Wikipedia to speedily delete it. The author is free to resubmit the content to an appropriate article in the future.

One could make an argument for a "merge" here, but the content here is so slight that it doesn't really even register. If you were feeling generous, you could hop on over to the Halo 3 article and see if the tidbit of information was in there. You are, though, of course right on the deletion. Note also that this page is spelled incorrectly.

The criterion here is A3, or, if you merge the content, R3, as it then becomes a useless redirect. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Union Millwright

I didn't know who or what a Union Millwright is, so I did a Google search. It appears to be a business. As the CSD tag indicates, there is absolutely no content on this page. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, so there is no reason for this page to exist until some content is added. Union Millwright may be a fascinating subject, but this article isn't ready for prime time. Perhaps it could be suggested to the author that he or she should work on the article in a Sandbox until there is enough content to warrant a page on Wikipedia.

Good. No content is A3. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Webs

Patent non-sense. There is nothing notable or encyclopedic about this article. What's worse, it contains an email address, which may be an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise a person, product or service. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page has no place in an encyclopedia.

Good. G1, patent nonsense. A redirect to web would also be appropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neil Haverton Smith

No reason is given for nominating this page, but plenty of reasons are obvious. This article claims to be a biography of a living person, and it claims that this person is gay and dating his cousin. Unsourced controversial content must be immediately deleted from Wikipedia. Even if this information was properly sourced, the article asserts no notability. The subject is 15 and apparently has no significant or noteworthy accomplishments. In my opinion, this article is patent nonsense, and there is no way to edit this article to make it worthy of remaining on Wikipedia. This page should go.

This is speediable, but not as patent nonsense. Patent nonsense only applies to things which are really incomprehensible or have no appreciable meaning. This article has some meaning, although it likely has no hope as an encyclopedic article. This is probably an attack page (G10), and, like you said, there are BLP concerns -- per this ArbCom decision, articles with serious and irreparable BLP concerns may be speedily deleted. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fall Out Boy

In my opinion, this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I have nominated a number of articles about bands for deletion if they appeared to not be notable. In such cases, the bands often hadn't released a single album, and the article was about future plans or releases. Many had only been formed recently. Most articles had limited content.

In this case Fall Out Boy has apparently existed for several years, and has released both singles and albums. There is significant content in this article, and there is even an unsourced claim that the albums have gone gold and triple platinum! If the nominator believes that the article has failed to assert notability, they are welcome to nominate the article for regular deletion, but there is clearly no justification for speedy deletion.

Good. A lot of people may not know Fall Out Boy, but a quick Google test will substantiate this one. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Again, this article presents itself as a biography of a living person, and has unsourced claims that this person is a murderer, rapist, pedophile, cannibal, and presented the remains of a human being as food for human consumption. It is probably untrue (which is why it was tagged as patent nonsense), but that's not even the primary consideration. Biographies of a living person are one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Unsourced controversial content about a living person, such as this, needs to be deleted immediately to protect Nathaniel Bar-Jonah's reputation, and to protect Wikipedia from legal action. DOSGuy (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This answer to this one has actually changed slightly since the test was created -- per the ArbCom diff provided above, this should be immediately deleted and only recreated if it can be sourced. You got this right. In this case, the person turns out to be real and more or less true. It now has an article, but that article, unlike the stub presented in the test, is properly sourced. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Assignment: Get Involved

I have participated in AfD on several occasions, mostly to defend the notability of articles about fictional planets in the popular Transformers universe. I have requested AIV on a few occasions, which has always resulted in action being taken. I have nominated a number of articles for CSD. I have not commented in TDYK, though I did nominate the death of Bobby Fischer for ITN, and participated in the resulting discussion about the criteria for including deaths in that section. The only section that I have no familiarity with is AN. After a quick read-through, this might be an area that would interest me in the future.

I was particularly interested in a message about death threats with respect to images of Muhammad. I have made edits to articles about the prophet Muhammad, and I appreciate that the utmost professionalism must be used in any edit on a subject that is so important to so many people. Riots related to those images resulted in fatalities. Throughout my careers in customer service and the government, I have had to be neutral and respectful of all cultures and religions. This comes easily to me. I want others to respect my beliefs, so I respect their beliefs. I still have to critically analyze claims to ensure that content is neutral, notable and sourced, which I believe can be done without offending reasonable people. If and when conflicts would arise in a situation like this, I believe that I have the conflict resolution training to participate in a discussion, and hopefully help to defuse the situation. DOSGuy (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode 2

Thoughts: The Answers

Part of the instructions of the CSD exercise stipulated that you weren't allowed to use Wikipedia. While this was principally to keep you from stumbling across the "answers" to this exercise, it also forced you to approach the exercise in a specific way: you had to rely heavily on your gut intuition.

Wikipedia has rules. A lot of them. Some of them are quite complicated. However, they all rest on the shoulders of the foundation issues. And the foundation issues are quite simple. Everything on Wikipedia should be done with the foundation issues in mind.

If you keep in mind the foundation issues (as well as the five pillars), and your intentions are for the advancement and betterment of Wikipedia, your intuition will serve you well. If you get a strong feeling about a particular incident, article, or issue, go with it -- not recklessly, but confidently. Every action you take should feel right -- if you can't justify something you've said or done without feeling like you're twisting and bending rules, it really ought to give you pause.

That being said, sometimes your gut will be wrong, and sometimes you just won't know. There are over 1500 admins on Wikipedia, about 1000 of whom are presumed to be active. They can't all get it right all the time. But you have an amazing set of resources at your disposal: It is always okay to seek support from policy / guideline pages or from discussion with other admins, both before and after taking actions. In fact, it is very often encouraged. If you are unsure about a block, a closure, a protection, whatever, there are second opinions aplenty to be had.

• Recommended reading: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset

Exercise: Ignoring Rules

This is more of a short answer question than an exercise:

One of the rules in the "simplified ruleset" above (included the 5 pillars) is "Ignore all rules". If we are supposed to ignore all rules, why do we have them? When is it appropriate to ignore rules, and when should you follow them? You can give a general philosophy about it, but also try to be specific: Can you think of any times on Wikipedia when you have done something that was arguably in conflict with the rules, but for the betterment of Wikipedia? Can you think of an example when you might ignore rules in the context of using admin tools?

Assignment: CSD

It's time to take yesterday's CSD exercise live. Check out CAT:CSD. Your assignment -- and take as much time as you need for this, you don't have to do it all at once -- is to choose at least six articles listed there at some point between now and when you are finished with this.

When you select an article to evaluate, post a link to it here. Say what you would do with it -- if you would delete, give the specific speedy deletion criterion it falls under; if you would not, say what you would do instead.

(Hint: Remember to check page histories!)

Don't worry if an article is deleted after you post it here -- as an admin, I'll be able to see the deleted versions.

You're free to pick any six articles you want, and don't feel obligated to use an article just because you've gone and looked at it. I would, however, like you to find at least one tagged article that you would not delete.

Good luck!

Student Response to Episode 2

Thoughts: The Answers

This is what I was talking about earlier. There are five pillars, and there's a simplified ruleset. The simplified ruleset links to about a dozen other pages that explain, in hundreds of words, what was already well explained in a sentence or two. Users (myself included) feel overwhelmed by the fact that there are hundreds of help pages. The best advice that anyone could ever give to Wikipedia is "Keep it simple, stupid." Since the vast majority of help pages are duplicating content, by virtue of explaining in great detail a concept that was already clearly explained by a couple of sentences elsewhere, the majority of help pages are unnecessary. Getting to a write their own help page was good for someone's ego, but when you create a page that doesn't need to exist, all it really does is frighten people that there is apparently so much to know!

Like I said before, eliminate a help page every day until you're down to 10 pages. Writing an entire page about a single rule is unnecessary if we assume that editors are intelligent, sensible people, and if they aren't, then writing an entire page won't help anyway! If they don't understand the simple explanation, they certainly aren't going to understand the complicated one. It's documentation for documentation's sake. When someone said, "I'm going to make an entire page for a single sentence about Ignore all rules instead of making it a section in an existing help page, the answer was, "Why not?" when it should have been "Why?" It appears that the current attitude is that adding more information can never be a bad thing, but it is. Before anyone writes another help page, they should have to prove that one is needed. The more pages there are, the less likely that a search will bring up relevant results. Every help page should have to justify its existence, and if it can't, it should be merged or deleted. Sign me up for WikiProject Get Rid of Unnecessary Help Pages. DOSGuy (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise: Ignoring Rules

I think this rule is more philosophical than practical. The concept is that no rule can ever be correct in 100% of situations, and rules will need to be changed as Wikipedia and its mission does.

It's an election year in the United States, so I'm hearing "activist judges" and "our Founding Fathers' intentions" a lot lately. The concept is that judges shouldn't be allowed to change or interpret the law and the Constitution in a way other than the way the Founding Fathers intended. The Founding Fathers' 18th century values aren't relevant today! Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and endorsed slavery, and women couldn't vote. Fortunately, the generations that followed had the courage to stand up and say that the Founding Fathers were wrong about these issues. Men are not superior to women, and white people aren't superior to black people. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, and the laws of the land have changed to make them more just, more inclusive, or more in keeping with community standards as those standards have changed. The Founding Fathers were fallible, mortal human beings. It is up to the citizens and, ultimately, the courts to ensure that the law remains fair and relevant.

Wikipedia's founders were, likewise, fallible, mortal human beings who probably had traffic tickets and made incredibly foolish mistakes on exams. They may also have had acne and bad hygiene, but that's beyond the point. Rules can be wrong from the day they were created, and good rules can lose relevance, or become bad rules, as the community and its standards change. So, theoretically, any rule could be ignored if it was the right thing to do. In practice, I'm forced to wonder how often that happens.

In general terms, it would be appropriate to ignore a rule if it was in the best interest of Wikipedia to do so. I'm not sure that I can be specific, though, since the rules have been considered by such a large body of people. It's unlikely that a blatantly harmful rule would survive such scrutiny. I have stated previously that I disagree with some policies, such as the policy concerning death notices on In The News, but I wouldn't break a rule just because I disagreed with it. I would discuss why I disagreed with it, and obey the rule until it changed. I would only ever ignore a rule if I felt that it would be the right thing to do, and would be an uncontroversial decision (that is, everyone else would agree that it was the right thing to do). I'm just not sure why there would be a rule that was uncontroversial to ignore. To the best of my recollection, I have never knowingly ignored a rule, and I can't think of a specific reason why I would do so if I had Admin tools. DOSGuy (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Assignment: CSD

• Danny Choo

I don't know much about popular culture, but even I know that Danny Choo is the Tokyo Dance Trooper. The article definitely failed to assert notability, but I was convinced that enough content could be created on the subject to disqualify it as a candidate for CSD. So I created that content. And kind of failed my assignment. <Ahem> The answer to what I would do in that situation is, well, I would personally assert its notability. I wouldn't do that for every candidate. Moving on.

Actually, this is good -- I'm glad to see you took the initiative there. This shows good judgment. - Revolving Bugbear 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kathleen Deignan

I agree that this article is Wikipedia:CSD#A7. The article is a biography that fails to assert any notability. Unlike the Danny Choo article, I couldn't personally disqualify this article for CSD. Unfortunately, there are 6.5 billion people in the world, and they can't all have a page on Wikipedia. There must be thousands of deans at universities around the world, and the article doesn't state the she has authored any scholarly work or contributed to her profession in a notable way. I would delete this.

This person may arguably be notable (many professors etc at top universities are considered notable in their fields), but there is definitely no notability asserted. It's important to note here that there should be no prejudice against a recreate if the notability issues are addressed. - Revolving Bugbear 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• George Richard Young

This is an easy one. It's a biography of a living person that claims that the person is a criminal, but cites no references. If it were sourced, I think it would be worth merging into an article about "2005 cyclist protection law known as the 3-foot-law". In the meantime, this has to be deleted under WP:BLP.

• Perthyn

I agree that this article is Wikipedia:CSD#A7. There are thousands of social networks, and probably a large number of Welsh ones. There are so many ways that one could prove that a social network is notable, such indicating that the site is large enough to be a publicly traded company, listing membership numbers, notable innovations, or media coverage. This article doesn't even list the site's focus or core audience (other than speakers of the Welsh language), or why anyone would want to read about it. Do people use it to find a Welsh-speaking mate?, is it a MySpace clone?, etc. Until there is some assertion of notability, I would delete it.

Good. Also borderline advertising. - Revolving Bugbear 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Flurg

Patent nonsense (Wikipedia:CSD#G1). Just an incomplete table and a brief definition with no sources. No content, not encyclopedic, and the word "flurg" has conflicting and unrelated definitions according to the small number of Google results that it turned up. The word isn't in common usage. There is nothing that can be done to save this article, so it should be deleted without any regrets.

Yep. - Revolving Bugbear 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I keep waiting for a candidate to appear that I disagree with, but it hasn't happened yet. I disagreed with the Danny Choo nomination, only because I've heard of him and know something about his notability. DOSGuy (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The George Richard Young article is now sourced, and the author has indicated that they are going to add content. I did a Google search and found that there has already been significant media coverage of this event, and I also found a newspaper article indicating that Vermont also wants to have a 3-foot rule. With the possibility of more jurisdictions passing laws to protect cyclists, I believe that this case could get national media attention once this case goes to trial. I still think it would be more reasonable to include this case in an article about the 3-foot rule, rather than create an article about a specific individual who isn't otherwise notable, but I believe the purpose of {{hangon}} is to allow the author to prove notability, which I would allow now that the article is no longer in violation of WP:BLP. DOSGuy (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted under A7 anyway, but the BLP point is a good one. (Generally, we use the guideline that will be notable isn't enough, per WP:CRYSTAL, but your point about {{hangon}} is taken.) - Revolving Bugbear 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode 3

I've noticed that you seem to have some very particular ideas about Wikipedia, and, rather than say something broad and philosophical, I'd like to address some of this. Please don't take any of this the wrong way -- admins need a certain level of self-awareness, and it's better that you start thinking about these things now than later.

You seem to have some particular ideas about what a "good Wikipedian" is and what Wikipedia "is for". That's fine, you're entitled to them, and I won't try and change them. What you need to realize, however, is that Wikipedia will mean different things to different people. This is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, this brings in a myriad of opinions and experiences which enrich and expand Wikipedia. On the other hand, it means people very often disagree.

Admins are a small fraction of the Wikipedia population, and yet they have very significant responsibilities. Among other things, they are responsible for passing judgment on these disagreements when they get out of hand (blocking) or come to a certain level (XfD). This requires an enormous level of tolerance for many and varied views of Wikipedia.

This can be very taxing, and certainly requires a level of dedication and persistence. For many admins this translates into a "namespace shift" -- drifting away from article-writing into the Wikipedia and talk spaces. This is okay; while all users should try to do some article-writing, we need admins to do the things that regular editors can't, or the tools will become useless.

I think you understand these and other matters of an open project well enough, but the essay on your userpage casts some doubt on your reasons for wanting to become an administrator. I realize it's meant humorously, but give some serious thought to why you want to become an admin and whether the messages you broadcast to the community are really in line with what you believe.

With regards to the articles-for-pay, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you abandon this practice. I'm sure you understand that, no matter how good your intentions are, there is the possibility for a conflict of interest. And while what you do may not be technically against the letter of policy, you should give serious thought to whether you believe it is in the spirit of Wikipedia.

• Recommended reading: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators

I've done my best to be transparent about why I want to be an Admin. That is to say, I don't want to be an Admin! I want to contribute to the community, which means that I'm willing to take on additional responsibilities. I don't want the mop specifically, but if the community wants me to have it, I wouldn't abuse it.

I've been quite careful in the messages that I send out. I'm a bureaucrat in real life, and I dread the idea of Wikipedia getting mired in bureaucracy. I'm letting my peers, and anyone who would consider an RfA, know what my philosophy about Wikipedia is. I witnessed an RfA candidate be chastised for saying that she preferred to work in the mainspace than the policy side of things. The issue polarized the electorate. Those who voted in favor were strongly of the opinion that this is the attitude that an Admin should have, while those who voted against felt that it showed contempt for the position. I think, frankly, you have to have a certain amount of contempt for a job in order to do it well, so I'm being upfront about mine.

At work, I'm expected to mindlessly do my job without questioning anything or making recommendations to improve efficiency or value for the taxpayers, or make life easier for employees. As soon as I understood that, I had contempt for my job, and it made me a much better employee. I understood that a job is just a job, and that I should always be on the lookout for ways to make things better for everyone. By bringing my ideas to my team leader, even though we both knew that there was no way to have those ideas reviewed by anyone with any power to act on them, it showed her that I cared about my responsibilities and my co-workers. She trusts me and asks me for help when she needs it. She sees that I care about the community too much to pretend that "business as usual" is good enough.

Business as usual is never good enough! There's a wise saying that goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I don't believe in changing things just for the sake of changing things. What I'm saying is that any organization that doesn't continually evaluate itself is in danger. In my country, Canada, the party with the second largest number of seats is declared "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". How often do "loyal" and "opposition" appear in the same sentence? It is literally their job to oppose the government to avoid letting the government have unchecked power. Every organization needs dissenters. Every organization needs to think critically about itself, or it may become too stuck in its ways, too rigid, or too slow to change. If a critical analysis is needed, I offer mine. I have it to offer, so I offer it.

Yes, I am public about my opinions about what Wikipedia is, but I don't discard anyone else's opinions when I state my own. As a fallible human being, I am frequently wrong. What's important is that I'm not afraid to be wrong! My opinions change as they pass or fail the tests that they face. These are my opinions today, which are subject to change.

• I believe that Wikipedia is a resource. It may or may not be the "sum of all human knowledge", which is an ideal. Regardless of ideals, at its core it is a resource, which I emphasize to keep things in perspective.
• It is a continuing and evolving project which depends on good faith edits by anyone who has the ability and desire to submit them.

• It should not take itself too seriously.
• It should not become a battle of egos or a place to show off your knowledge of policy and skill as a wikilawyer. Disputes should, ideally, be solved with common sense and community "consensus".
• It should not make policy so important that anyone should look down on people who prefer to make edits in the mainspace, editing the actual content of the resource that brought us all here in the first place.

If my opinions will disqualify me as a candidate for Adminship, then I want to be public with them so that there are no surprises. I may, in fact, not be a good candidate for Admin. I don't want to say and do the right things in order to win the mop for bragging rights. If I get the mop, I intend to keep doing what I'm doing, use Admin tools sparingly, and respond to requests for help from members of the community, for the good of the community. I will never have much to say in policy discussions, which is why I want to be completely upfront about that. I'm here to help, nothing more and nothing less.

As for creating articles for money, I would never protect an article that I had been paid to create, nor intervene in an AfD, or do anything that I couldn't have done without Adminship. If an article is notable enough to have been created for free, and it contributes something to the community, then I see no harm in creating it. As for conflict of interest, I steer clear of the article after I've created it. It either survives the scrutiny of the community or it doesn't. So far, it has. DOSGuy (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a point re your "Wikipedia should not" points -- I agree in principle with all three of them. However, I don't think there is a question of "looking down" on editors for focusing on the mainspace. I can't think of a single serious editor in good standing who would hold it against someone if he wanted to stay mostly in the mainspace. However, this comes with two caveats, which are important to realize:

• Communication is essential. The use of talk pages (and user talk pages) is necessary when making large revisions. The community builds the encyclopedia collaboratively, and collaboration cannot happen without communication.

I agree completely. Discussion is essential to resolving differences of opinions. DOSGuy (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Administrators and candidates for adminship must work exstensively in the other namespaces, because the admin tools and processes are mostly related to non-mainspace functions.

- 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that tools are mostly related to non-mainspace functions. Again, I just want to be upfront about the fact that it's not an area of particular interest for me. I want to help the community if I can, but I don't have the time or inclination to move deeply into that world. I can help out in my spare time, but my main area of interest is what I'm already doing. DOSGuy (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Consensus

What is consensus on Wikipedia? How is it determined? Is there a difference between consensus at an AfD and consensus on an RfA? What is the relationship between votes and consensus? Between discussion and consensus?

I'm not sure that consensus is formally defined in either area. For RfA, it seems to require an overwhelming majority. Actually, for both AfD and RfA, it looks like the decision is ultimately up to Admins, who presumably consider the arguments of both sides in making their decision.

Unless it's quantitatively defined, such as a simple majority or a two-thirds majority, consensus will mean different things to different people. As I said before, I don't know if I could define a consensus, but I know one when I see one. I saw an RfA candidate receive what looked like a consensus, but her RfA failed, which inspired me to write the article.

Many communities wouldn't allow that sort of criticism, which is part of the reason why I wrote it. I chose to exercise a right that I value: the right to free speech. I have plenty of good things to say about Wikipedia and Wikipedia staff, but who would read it?! DOSGuy (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one small point -- bureaucrats close RfAs, not admins. - Revolving Bugbear 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part the Fourth

Now that we've done the easy stuff and you've shown that you understand the basics of admin responsibility and judgment, we're going to pick this up a little bit.

Page protection

Page protection is one of those funny areas that a lot of people shy away from because it involves so much subjectivity.

The role of protection in Wikipedia is obvious: to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and stem off disruption. But the Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected proposals to "lock down" the encyclopedia in any way, such as disallowing anonymous editing or establishing an "experts" system. So protection, while it can be a powerful tool for admins, it must be used carefully.

Wikipedia:Protection policy lists these as reasons for temporary full protection:

• Pages experiencing edit warring as the result of a dispute; see Content disputes below.
• "History-only" review of pages during deletion review discussions.
• The talk page of a blocked user – the only page that they may edit – in the event of persistent inappropriate editing. If such a block is indefinite in duration, then the full protection may also be.

Obviously there is some overlap here between when protection is warranted and when blocking is warranted. Generally, the litmus test is "Which will be more effective in ending the conflict and stabilizing the article?". Note, of course, that regardless of the answer to this question actions must be consistent with the relevant policies.

Sometimes semi-protection may be used, if the problem is obviously IP disruption. However, if there is a legitimate content dispute between IPs and registered users, semi-protection will result in a de facto endorsement of the registered user's viewpoint. This brings up an important point:

Protection should never be used to take sides in a content dispute. When in doubt, remember the following points:

• Never revert a page before or after protecting it; see m:The Wrong Version. (Note: In cases of BLP concerns, this is superceded by WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection.)
• Never protect or semi-protect a page for a content dispute you are involved in.

Protection has prevented me from editing on more than one occasion. That's why I first became interested in being an Admin.

I've finished reading the protection policy, which definitely makes things more clear. We're all familiar with what happened to the elephant page after that episode of the Colbert Report. I've also seen pages protected due to the type of dispute described in "The Wrong Version" (a page that I was already familiar with). It goes without saying (one would hope) that I would never use Admin tools in a dispute that I was involved in (just as I wouldn't use Admin tools to protect any page that I had created, whether it had been commissioned or not). I learned how important it is to avoid a conflict of interest when I was an administrator on a Chess server, and in the workplace (no using your government access for personal gain, or to look up information on neighbors, friends and family).

It's also worth noting that negotiation and conflict resolution have basically been my primary responsibilities throughout my career, both in the private sector and the government. Hopefully that would help defuse arguments that might otherwise require protection, resolve the dispute, or calm things down long enough for a page to be unprotected. DOSGuy (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise: AfD

Now that we've discussed consensus, it's time to try it out.

The following is an AfD exercise prepared by Balloonman.

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it. Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not based upon the discussion alone. If you would, explain why you would. If you would not delete it, state why. Remember to pay attention to the date/time the article was listed for AfD and assume that you are editing shortly after the most recent comment.

Do not use Wikipedia to see if the page still exists or if it was deleted. For best results, once you've made a decision about a page, don't go back and change your answer based upon subsequent exercises.

• Exercise 1

If I understand correctly, I'm not allowed to look at the article to see what everyone is talking about. That makes this pretty difficult because most people have left nothing more than "Keep/delete per my reasoning in the other nominations." I have no idea what they stated previously, and I can't view the page to see if the people who elaborated on their vote had a good point.

Two comments seem particularly notable. Pagrashtak says that "this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving." I don't have a problem with an article being full of in-universe information, because it's likely to be interest to enough people to deserve an article. Of the 2 million pages on Wikipedia, it looks like at least a million are pages devoted to fictional universes, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, the Buffyverse, Firefly, Transformers, Macross, Gundam, the Legend of Zelda, Dungeons & Dragons, etc. Without such articles, we'd have to delete half of the Wikipedia! But the part about "game guide information" caught my attention.

TougHHead went on to say, "Also Mikael in the CNC Wiki please make more strategies and Tactics for both RA2 and Generals not just the Tiberium Series". Between the first comment and this one, I'm left to wonder: was this article a strategy guide? Wikipedia isn't about strategy guides or walkthroughs. It's about verifiable, encyclopedic information. Even if it was the most popular strategy guide on the Internet, they don't belong in an encyclopedia, no matter how many people vote "Keep".

Since I'm not able to view the article to see what everyone is talking about, all I really have to go on is the fact that the final vote was 6-3 in favor of keeping it. No one really explained why it should be deleted, and the Keep side had twice as many votes, so all I can do is play it safe and keep the article. It can always be renominated for deletion at a later date, so I think that we ought to be biased towards keeping rather than deleting. The onus should be on the deletion side to justify deletion; the article is "innocent until proven guilty". I need to see a strong argument in favor of deletion, and I don't see one here.

Yes, this was sort of a trick question. It appears, based on the discussion here, that there is consensus forming elsewhere to keep these articles. In the real case, the closing admin did exactly what you did here. He then realized his error, reopened it, and pointed to the other discussions. Turns out they had clear delete consensus.

This, of course, was meant to demonstrate the fact that AfDs never take place in a vacuum. You were right to note that it's a hard call without being able to view the other pages. That was intentional.

The original discussion is here. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 2

I wouldn't want to be the judge on this one, as I have nothing but the utmost respect for military people, police officers and firefighters. Anyone who pledges their life to protect mine is a hero. Of course, there are far too many of such people for them to each have an article, but it sounds like this gentleman won a number of awards and served in multiple wars. I'm surprised that this person wouldn't be notable, but it sounds like the complaint is that the article is a biography, rather than an encyclopedia article. It also appears that there is a lack of sources.

Delete won this one by a score of 4-1, which definitely feels like a consensus. Much like the Danny Choo article, I still wouldn't feel comfortable deleting this article until I had read it myself and determined if I could edit it to make it worthy of surviving. Until I've read it, if it must be deleted (which is probably the case), I'd prefer to let someone else make the call.

You say that "delete won this one by a score of 4-1". I'm curious as to why you ignored the two "!votes" after the relisting. The "strong keep" after the relist addresses pretty much all of the delete comments; while closing this as delete seems in keeping with the vote totals, that's what was done in the real example and it was quickly overturned at DRV. Given the respective weight of the comments and the fact that the substance of the "comment" is really a keep in disguise, a No consensus (5-3) would probably be appropriate here. Delete isn't wrong, per se, but No consensus is probably stronger.

Discussion is here, subsequent DRV is here. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it had been relisted. I'm not sure what happened there. I got to the last vote and I thought that was it.

After the relisting, an excellent argument was made in favor of keeping the article, and it also changed the tally to 5-3, which definitely seems like a lack of consensus. Had I realized that there were two extra votes, that's probably what I would have said. DOSGuy (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 3

There's hardly any discussion on this one. Three votes probably wouldn't meet quorum, even if there was a consensus! It's 2-1, which gives me almost nothing to go on. Wageless makes a good argument in favor of keeping it. With "Delete" winning by only a single vote, I suspect that I would keep this article. Someone should definitely try to source it, though.

If you're going to keep this article, it should be as a No consensus rather than a Consensus to keep. But yes, this discussion does not warrant a delete. The best thing in this case would be to relist, as one keep vote and one delete vote after the nomination hardly settles things. But a No consensus close could be appropriate.

In reality, the article was deleted and the deletion was overturned. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 4

5-3. Again, not an overwhelming majority, and I feel that we should err on the side of keeping rather than deleting. On the other hand, I don't think the Keep votes had a very strong argument, especially since the article is a stub. Tough call. I suspect that, if I were to read this article, I would vote for deletion and give the Delete side a 2:1 advantage, but that's not the exercise. Once again, I'd like to see a clear consensus for deletion before I delete an article.

Yes, erring on the side of caution is the right move here, and a No consensus close would not go amiss here. For the record, the article was speedily deleted out of process, and the deletion was overturned. Sensing a pattern here? - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 5

7-3! That feels like a consensus! Again, I have no problem with articles about in-universe characters or locations, but I don't think an encyclopedia should be a "game guide", if that means what I think it does. That is to say, it's fine for an article to give enough information about a game to help a consumer decide if they would want to purchase it, but it shouldn't be a detailed step-by-step guide to beating the game, or a comprehensive strategy guide. I'm not able to see the article to determine if the Delete voters are just biased against a universe that they aren't personally familiar with (which is often the case when someone recommends that an article from an extremely popular and notable universe be deleted). For the first time, there was a lot of discussion, the Deletes won a sizable majority, and there was no strong argument in favor of keeping. This feels like a Delete.

Yep. No caveats needed here. This is a clean delete. Note that this is one of the discussions referenced in the above one where you had a hard time. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 6

Exercise 4 and 6 are about the same article.

Good point. I hadn't noticed. I've let Balloonman know. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 7

Nothing but Keep votes from everyone besides the nominator, and it appears that locations are automatically notable. No one supported deletion, so this one stays.

There does seem to be consensus that locations are automatically notable. However, the AfD participants here didn't do their homework -- there is no such place as Vanderbilt, the Netherlands. This one was actually snow closed early, but it should have been given more time to run its course. It was overturned and resoundingly deleted as a hoax. If this had been the entire discussion for the five days, yes, keep would have been the right answer; any time before that, let it keep going. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 8

The counterpart to Soviet technology of Command & Conquer, and the same result. 7-3 is a large enough majority to overcome my feeling that we should be biased towards keeping articles, and that the onus ought to be on the deletion side to justify deletion. Whatever happened to the Soviet article should happen to the Allied article. Looks like we have to delete them both.

Yes, this deletion should be seen in light of the above. (This demonstrates the value of bundling AfD discussions.) But even on its own, it has a clear delete outcome. Delete is correct. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 9

There was absolutely no support for deleting this article. This is a no-brainer Keep.

Clearly. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exercise 10

Good googly moogly! Do I have to read all of that?

Okay, so Harry Potter, the most controversial subject on Wikipedia. Delete had a big lead for a while, but Keep caught up fast once the Harry Potter fans noticed the nomination. By the end, it looks like it was about 43-39 in favor of deleting, with 6 who recommended only merge, and a few redirects. Um, redirects?

Yes, it seems that there was already an article about deaths in Harry Potter, so why does there have to be an article about the deaths within an individual book? Why 7 articles (7 books) when 1 would do? It seems to me that the argument in favor of Keep is from fans who want to have as many articles about Harry Potter as possible, and the vote count has been skewed by a special interest group. All I care is that the content isn't lost — since there is clearly interest in the content — so why isn't it good enough to merge it into a single article about deaths in Harry Potter? My gut feeling is that the Delete and Merge group won this vote, and obviously no content is lost if the article is merged. DOSGuy (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your gut is correct. We get these kind of articles all the time, and the HP crowd produces a large number of them. FYI, the article is now a redirect to Chronology of the Harry Potter stories. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One ... Two ... Five!

Blocking

Blocking is the admin bit that is the most often controversial. If protection needs to be used conservatively to uphold the free ideals of Wikipedia, this counts for blocking multifold.

Part of what makes blocking overwhelming at first is the multitude of forums in which it is discussed (and sometimes quickly meted out). WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA are a few of the forums where blocking is frequently at issue.

Here's the thing: This is one place where expansive policy is a good thing. Any time you consider making a block, take a moment to think about how it fits in with the blocking policy. Is it clearly an in-policy block? Then odds are it's a good one. Does it rely on some stretch or side-stepping interpretation of blocking policy to seem legitmate? Then you should take a second look at it.

This all seems obvious, but you'd be amazed at how often people forget these simple guidelines. IAR has many legitimate applications, but in blocking someone is always getting the sharp end of the stick.

Here are some of the nevers:

• Never use a block as a "cool-down" -- it doesn't work. Block only for blockable actions.
• Never use a block to influence a content dispute.
• Never use a block to record something in the user's block log. If the user should be blocked, block him; if he shouldn't, find another way.
• Never block another administrator solely because you believe he has misused his tools.

In addition, there are some finer points of blocking that need to be noted.

Take note of the list of sensitive IP addresses. Any time any of these is blocked for any length of time, you should immediately notify the Foundation Communications Committee. Additionally, IP addresses should not be indefinitely blocked.

Pay close attention to the check boxes on the block screen: they say "Prevent account creation" "Autoblock any IP addresses used" and "Prevent user from sending e-mail" for registered users and "Block anonymous users only" and "Prevent account creation" for IPs. Depending on the reason for the block, these options may or may not be appropriate. The best way to get a handle on these is to read through some block logs.

Assignment: AfD

Similar deal as with the CSD assignment.

Look through the AfD discussions from a few (4-5) days ago and find some currently unclosed AfDs that you would close. (Don't worry if they're closed in between.) Find and list here, along with what you would say in your close, one of each of the following (you may have to do some looking, or wait a day, to do all of these):

• an article you would keep based on the discussion.
• an article you would delete based on the discussion.
• a discussion you would close as no consensus.
• a discussion you would relist.

Bonus points if you go through the more recent and find a speedy keep and/or a speedy delete, but this is not necessary.

I'd like to see six in all.

Keep

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexual_predator

"There seems to be a strong consensus towards keeping this article." Personally, I'm surprised that it was even nominated, but the term is controversial, and there will always be people who are offended by it. DOSGuy (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RuneScape_weaponry

"No support for keeping this article. Wikipedia is not a game guide." I've expressed that opinion before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a walkthrough or game guide. DOSGuy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Finding no consensus and relist is proving exceedingly difficult. I've searched through the AfDs for the last several days, and there's usually consensus. There are a great many articles that have received no attention whatsoever, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion doesn't list criteria for "relist". I'll need further instructions to complete this task. Under what circumstances should an AfD be relisted? DOSGuy (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"No consensus" is by no means common, but you should be able to find one or two if you keep at it. The problem is, consensus is such a subjective measure that it's very hard to define when it does exist, let alone when it doesn't. Many admins will close AfDs without consensus as keeps, but this is sort of misleading -- no consensus defaults to keep, but it is without prejudice. Use your gut on this -- if you feel there isn't really consensus to keep, but there's also definitely no consensus to delete, then there's only one option left.

"Relist" is another one that's highly subjective. Basically, you relist a discussion when you think the outcome might be significantly different given a further five days of discussion. Times when this is commmon:

1. There are only a couple of !votes, and it is not unanimous. (For example, two !votes one way, one the other.)
2. The conversation takes a drastic swing in the last day before expecting closing, especially if new information is revealed at the very end.

Again, go with your gut on these, and see what you come up with. - Revolving Bugbear 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been a very difficult assignment for me. I found it very difficult to see good articles losing their AfDs, and knowing that the content would no longer be viewable by editors who might be able to improve the articles enough to make them worthy of resubmission. The content is simply lost, and anyone who looks for the article in the future will never know if they could have overcome the objection that led to the article's deletion. Concerned that good content was being lost, I decided to be proactive and start my own rehabilitation project called User:DOSGuy#Deletapedia, so that articles could be edited and improved outside of the mainspace until they deserve to be returned to the mainspace. I discussed the project as a possible official WikiProject in Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Preserving_deleted_content, where concerns about GFDL violations were brought up. After some discussion, Black Falcon agreed to help me achieve my goals without violating the GFDL, and I expressed my hope that this unofficial project would garner the support of disillusioned and disenfranchised editors who are upset by Wikipedia's current deletion policy.

While I struggled to complete this assignment, I gave serious consideration to dropping out of Admin Coaching, since deciding the outcome of AfDs is clearly something that I have no interest in. I reasoned that, if this is an important part of the job, I would not be a good Admin. Now I've had a change of heart. Sadly, we can't all be good at everything, but I don't think I'm required to be good at everything to be an Admin. I think that I'm required to exercise good judgment, support projects that improve Wikipedia, and know myself well enough to know which parts of the job I can contribute to usefully, and which parts I can't. I submit that I failed this particular task, identified my own weakness, and found a related way to positively contribute to Wikipedia to turn my disadvantage into an advantage. When I identify tasks that I'm not well-suited for, I'll exercise good judgment and ask myself how I could contribute in a slightly different way. With your permission, I'd like to move on to the next assignment. DOSGuy (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your two answers to this assignment were undoubtedly correct. You chose those well. I have no doubt that, if you had continued to work on the primary task, you could have finished it satisfactorily.

Regarding your "deletapedia", I actually think there's already someone who does this, but hosts it off Wikipedia. There was a discussion about it a while back on AN, but I don't remember who or where it was. So you're actually in some company here.

That being said, you have to understand that people will question your motives. There are administrators all the time who are uninterested in AfD, and that's fine. And there's nothing wrong with userfying a page in principle -- it's done quite frequently. But an administrator who catalogs deleted articles may be seen as attempting to circumvent WP:DRV. Undeletion and deletion review are a really touchy subject, and many times non-administrators develop hostile feelings towards an administrator, or towards administrators in general, because of it. This isn't fair, of course, but administrators can see and manipulate deleted material, while non-admins cannot, and this causes friction.

Also be aware that, although you insist that your articles-for-pay do not create a substantial conflict of interest, others have only your word to go on in this regard. If people who know that you sometimes take money for editing see you rescuing an article you contributed substantially to (as is the case with Danny Choo), it's going to raise questions. You need to be prepared not only to meet accusations of conflict of interest but also to tell people why they should actually believe what you say about it. Put yourself in the shoes of another random Wikipedian, and picture how he or she would see your actions.

There's also a policy issue here. There's a reason that recreated material can be speedily deleted. One of the pages you have userfied, Joe Siegler, was blanked for BLP reasons and has obvious COI issues. These are issues that, for obvious reasons, administrators are expected to be particularly sensitive to.

Administrators are held to a higher standard than regular editors in terms of both policy and process. The reasons for this are both obvious and important. And, while they don't have to take an oath of allegiance or sign a creed, administrators are expected to act in such a way that is compatible with the advancing of Wikipedia's goals. Yes, Wikipedia's goals are fluid, since it is built entirely on the wiki process. But that doesn't mean there aren't any, and administrators need to be keyed into them and ready to work towards them.

Being an administrator entails a surprising amount of responsibility. You have to be ready to take decisive actions and defend them, but you also have to be willing to review your own decisions and revise them based on the mandate of the community. Awarding the tools is a statement of trust and living up to that trust is not a given -- an administrator must work for that. On top of that, someone is always unhappy with administrators and any particular administrator. A number of administrators suffer burnout and either leave (more common) or start acting destructively until they get themselves desysopped (more problematic).

I won't tell you not to do this if it's what you believe in, just like I didn't tell you not to make edits for pay. But if these are the paths you feel strongly about, then maybe you have a different purpose here on Wikipedia than adminship. Adminship is not for everyone. You really have to ask yourself, Is what you are working towards here on Wikipedia compatible with the demands and responsibilities of being an administrator?

Please take some time to think about this. - Revolving Bugbear 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some time to think about it, and my feelings haven't changed. It comes down to this: people must have the courage to stand up for their convictions. I believe that salvageable articles are becoming unaccessible to the membership, making it impossible for anyone to salvage them. I saw a problem and proposed a solution: create a task force or WikiProject to review those articles following deletion. The debate continues on the Deletion Policy page, and I would be honoured if you would monitor its progress. If holding this belief puts my chances of becoming an Administrator in jeopardy, then I can only feel pity for Wikipedia. Having the courage to propose solutions, even if they will be controversial or unpopular, should not be punished! Perhaps good candidates are declining to submit RfAs because they believe that projects they undertook in good faith will disqualify them!

I'm the type of person who sees a problem and wants to fix it. I don't expect everyone to agree with my proposals, but I expect them to respect the fact that I took the time to look for a solution, and presented that solution in a thoughtful, well-researched way. As long as I can defend my positions, even if I'm dead wrong, people should be able to detect my good faith. DOSGuy (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

some Qs ...

I'd like you to do two sort of different things, and feel free to take as long as you like.

First, I'd like to see what your answers to the three default RfA questions would be if you were nominated to day. For your reference, the questions are:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Second, I'd like you to take a look around on WP:RFU (this category changes quite frequently, so check it several times) and pick out a couple of unblock requests. Link to the version or diff, and tell me what action you think should be taken.

If you would like to discuss the issues from my last post any further than we already have, I'm happy to, but if you're confident and committed, then I don't think there's an issue. - Revolving Bugbear 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

some As ...

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

Actually, I already had an RfA! I nominated myself several months ago. I didn't have a great answer then, and I don't have a great answer now. The truth is, I don't need to be an Admin to do what I do. I'm quite content to contribute the way that I already do. My reason for seeking Admin Coaching was that I felt that I have more to contribute than I currently do, and I wanted to learn through this experience what an Admin actually does. I still don't feel like I know enough about the job to know what I would do if I was an Admin.

The short answer is that I've recently become interested in the page protection/unprotection request section. The rules for protecting pages aren't quite right at the moment. I agree that pages shouldn't be protected on the basis of predicted future abuse, but when it comes to redirect pages, abuse appears to be the only reason why the pages would ever be edited! I have, therefor, voiced my support for Tombstone's suggestion that all redirect pages should be semi-protected by default at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Permanently semi-protecting redirects.

With that one exception, I fully agree with the rules concerning page protection, and I'd like to help enforce those rules. There doesn't appear to any backlog in that department, so that probably isn't enough to justify an RfA. It ties into what I said before, though, about wanting to protect Wikipedia through reverting vandalism and, in this case, preventing it.

1. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

My answer to that question in my original RfA was that I do a regular typo-patrol attempting to wipe out commonly misspelled words, and that I contribute helpful edits to subjects in which I have some knowledge. I'm very interested in the weather and, in particular, hurricanes, so I help keep the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons up-to-date every year during hurricane season. I sometimes do vandalism patrols, and I add subst:uw-vandalismX notices on user talk pages when I catch vandals. Other than that, I haven't contributed anything particularly extraordinary.

I'm not a McCain supporter, but I'll steal a page from his playbook and also say that one of my best contributions is my maverick attitude. Well, maybe maverick is a bit much, but bear with me. I'm a person who, in general, doesn't like there to be any limitations on my freedoms. Therefor, if a rule is going to exist, it has to be a good rule, based on logic, that benefits the community. When I see a rule that is illogical or otherwise detrimental to Wikipedia, I do something about it.

I proposed changes to the In The News section to allow death notices that have made the news internationally to be included in ITN, when Bobby Fischer's death was removed. While notable people die every day, the vast majority of those deaths do not make the news around the world. It takes the death of a huge celebrity, like Sir Edmund Hillary (the first man to reach the summit of Mount Everest) or Bobby Fischer (the first American World Chess Champion, notable for winning the most notable world championship in history, and an international celebrity for his bizarre behaviour, exiled for illegally playing chess in Serbia, his anti-Semitic rants, and his support for the 9-11 terrorists) to make news around the world. The rules, at that time, would have prevented the death of even Neil Armstrong from being mentioned on ITN. I felt that the rule needed to be modified for the benefit of the Wikipedia community, so I voiced that opinion in open discussion.

Similarly, I believe that redirect pages are unlikely to ever be edited for constructive reasons, and therefor it warrants the minor precaution of semi-protecting them by default. I think it, so I am putting my money where my mouth is by actively attempting to have the page protection policy amended.

Obviously I am free to voice my opinion about the rules without being an Admin. Nevertheless, I think it's relevant to point out that I have a philosophy about rules that they need to be both logical and beneficial to the community. That philosophy, and my willingness to act on that philosophy, is one of my best contributions to Wikipedia.

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

I have never been involved in a conflict in the sense of 3RR. I have, on only a couple of occasions, disagreed with an edit and said so on the talk page. Whenever I disagree with someone, I seek consensus. I make my case on the talk page, and then I leave it to others to decide what should be done. That's what I've always done, and will continue to do. DOSGuy (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In the second section, you asked me to review WP:RFU. There isn't a lot to see on that page, which currently redirects to "Requests for Unblock". I see that it used to redirect to "Requests for Undeletion", which is now known as "Deletion Review". It could also mean "Requests for Unprotection". Before I answer this section, I just want to double check which section you were asking me to review so that I don't work on the wrong one. DOSGuy (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant Requests for Unblock. - Revolving Bugbear 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)