User talk:Spinningspark/coaching/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sorry for taking so long to give a meaningful response here. As I said on my talk page, I am often unable to get online Monday to Thursday, but I gather that is going to fit in quite well with you in any case. I would like to give you a fuller answer here on your question "what do I hope to obtain via coaching?". Well fairly obviously I would hope to obtain adminship and be made aware of the pitfalls that an unwary applicant might fall into. But more than that, I seek training and advice on what is needed to make a good admin. I want to hear from the experienced what it is I need to do be a good admin from the start. I also hope to learn what are all the things that admins do. Perhaps I already know many of them, but it would be good if I learnt this with certainty from those that know rather than from knowledge I have discovered by random exploration.

Standard questions

As you have not told me where to find the questions, I guess that was a test in itself.

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

A: I have no preformed ideas on what I should be doing as an admin. It would be more a case of where is my input most required. I think initially, the areas which would be most inside my comfort zone would be more or less mechanical tasks such as speedies for housekeeping or obvious reasons and AIV. Tasks which require more experience and interaction with others, such as closing AN/I or AfD discussions I would get involved with only gradually. Of course, I would continue to contribute to these areas as an editor. Tasks which are clearly technically sensitive, such as histmerges (which I understand cannot be undone if carried out incorrectly) I would like to take part in but would want another admin to take me through it step-by step the first couple of times.

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

A: Always difficult to sing your own praises. Otto Julius Zobel is an article I created and brought up to GA standard. However, small contributions can be good as well, I am quite pleased that this edit has stuck in a highly technical article which is way outside my field of training.

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?

A: I have been involved in no serious edit conflicts. I have disagreed with other editors on occasions, but this is in the normal process of collaboration. Once or twice a disagreement has started to slide towards edit war. Whenever this happens, I have stopped whatever it is I am doing that is causing conflict and taken some other action to resolve the problem, such as starting an RfC.

My Philosophy

Hi Spinning,v Just a little background on me and my approach. I don't take people as coachees who I don't think have the right stuff to be admins. Likewise I don't take everybody who I think will make a good admin. In fact, this week I turned down two people. One because I thought if he went through coaching it would be gaming the system, EG he was on the cusp of running, just needed a few refinements that he could get on his own. The other because I don't think we would have made a good fit... I am not a big fan of CSD'ers. I see the need and won't let that stop me from supporting somebody, but if the only thing the candidate does is CSD, that's not something I like.

I am one of the tougher coaches, but have a good track record with people passing. That's because I try not to coach to pass the RfA. My goal is to help you become a better wikipedian and better prepared as a potential admin. I won't nominate you for admin unless I A) think you are ready for it and B) think you will pass. For me to think that you will pass is a high standard---especially for Coachees. I think people who go through coaching should be better prepared than those who don't... so I tak the long term appraoch to acoghching.

Please forgive me if I have tpose in this... my comp is really acting slow, so I am typing way ahead of where I should... and I don't know if the comp is keeeping up or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark/coaching&action=edit Anyway, my philosophy as Admin Coach is that coaching is a large Editor Review. My number 1 task is to review your edits, comment on your contributions, help you where I see issues. Provide alternatives if necessary.

My philosophy as an Admin Coachee is to get you to expand your horizons and establish footprints in 2-3 areas. A lot of coaches like to send their coachees into a score of places where they make 1 or 2 edits and leave. They think by doing this that they expose their coachee to all the aspects of the project. I don't like this, it is where coaching gets a bad name. They go in, make a comment and leave---sometimes creating more havoc than good. I want my coachees to find a few places they like and make a footprint.

By making a footprint, people in those areas should come to know if you know the policies/guidelines that affect those areas. But even more, by making a footprint, your ideas get feedback from others who are familiar with the applicable policies/guidelines. Very few people (if any) can be adequate coaches in all areas of Wikipedia, I don't even try. I realize that your best aids are others withing the community. Thus, what I want you to do is think about what you like to do on WP, and find 2-3 areas that you want to explore. My advice:

1) Pick an area that is "adminly." By that, I mean places where "admins roam." This can include AN, ANI, Help Desk, etc. 2) Pick an area that is behind the scenes, that might deal with policies/procedures. Being able to show an understanding of policies/guidelines is crucial. I will ask questions during coaching, but answering questions is different than applying them or discussing them. Find an area where you want to contribute. This can be AFD--2 years ago, participating in AFD's was mandatory, today some see it as still important. IMHO people can show policy knowledge elsewhere. This can be in at any of the notice boards, policy discussions, etc. 3) Pick an area that contributes to building the project. This can be the mainspace and article building, it might be TEMPLATES, it might be peer review, it might be images, etc. Our primary mission on WP is to build an encyclopedia, don't forget that.

As you are establishing footprints in these areas, I don't expect you to know all of the answers... but revisiting past discussions is crucial. Too often I see people apply policies/guidelines and then have somebody else come back with a nuiance that I didn't know about. By revisiting your past discussions, you let others train you. Now I'm not asking you to spend a ton of time in these areas... but a few edits every day (or in your case weekends) will go a long way. Make 5-10 edits on Fri/Sat/Sun to an area and after a few months you'll have a few hundred edits there.

Finally, I will be asking you a number of questions. Those questions are actually the least important part of caoching. I include them so that others will be able to see how you think, and if necessary, how I might have corrected incorrect thinking.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Take your time . . . tougher coach . . . build the encyclopedia. That all sounds like such a good fit with the way I feel the process should go and I am pleased and grateful you have chosen to take me on. So it seems I should now choose some areas to work in. First of all, there is AN/I, I would feel comfortable contributing to that page. My edit count is not high there at the moment but I do visit it. There is so much drama there though, they ought to open it as a show to paying customers. I have often wanted to contribute to discussions but held off for fear of making an emotional situation worse through errors caused by my inexperience.

I have recently been taking part in AfDs, mainly because I read in your guidance that you think that it is essential for potential admins. I gather from the what you now say above that this is not quite the case. My contributions there are not entirely due to this prompting however, I did find a couple of articles this week through my normal editing activities that badly needed deleting and I hope that I would have taken them to AfD anyway, even if admin training had not been in progress. My contributions to AfD in the past have ususally been after I have come across an article I am interested in with an ongoing AfD debate. Having gone to AfD for that article I have then contributed at adjacent discussions while I am there. I have a sinking feeling you are not going to like that and consider it "hit and run". In my defence, I do watchlist my edits there (and everywhere) and take due note of any responses. Also, my older contributions to AfD probably do not bear too much scrutiny being largely devoid of any reference to policy. I do not feel a burning desire to build a bigger presence at AfD and if you don't mind, I will now back off a bit from contributing there.

Am I allowed to ask a question? because I have one about AfD. I notice that many people !vote speedy delete or even more baffling speedy keep. Does speedy actually have any meaning in the context of AfD? The debates seem to just continue in the normal way even if everyone is !voting speedy delete. I came across one this week where nearly everyone had said speedy delete and I agreed that it was a case for speedy delete but still the debate went on. So I put a speedy tag on the article and an admin deleted it while the AfD was still live. This seems to have caused some mild confusion (but no complaints). Was I wrong? Was the deleting admin wrong?

I have a regular presence at New contributors help page, especially when I can see that the regulars are not active. I hope NCHP counts as "adminy" to you. The main helpdesk; I sometimes answer questions, but most of the time there are others there that can answer them better, often highly technical issues with templates etc. I am also a regular on the RD/Science although this tends not to be too adminy. There is the odd troll to chase off and the old chestnuts such as the ones about answering medical questions and when posts should be deleted.

I am a member of WikProject electronics and do some work there assesing articles. Like many WikiProjects, this one is pretty much amongst the walking dead. I am working towards reviving it as a collaboration (I have a plan) but progress has been slow due to pressure of time. You mention projects and building the encyclopedia, so does this count towards you definition of adminy?

Wow, didn't know I had so much to say - I talk too much. SpinningSpark 09:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD is probably one of the best areas to work in to get exposure to policies/guidelines. I think it is an excellent choice and a year ago a candidate didn't dare show up at RfA without a 100+ XfD's. Today, I think people realize that gaining policy based experience can be done elsewhere. While I think XfD' is the best option, it is no longer the only option. I've come to realize that it is more important for the individual to find their own niche and gain experience in a place they would want to work, rather than "checking the box" for some potential RfA.

As for the use of speedy at RfAs... sometimes an article might fit the criteria for Speedy Deletion and thus putting the tag is entirely appropriate. Other times, it might not quite fit the tag. Perhaps it is a borderline case? Perhaps it is a case where the Speedy Deletion was challenged? Or the person who brought the case to AFD didn't know about SPeedy deletion. In those cases, people may vote to speedy delete instead of changing the tag because they may be too lazy to make the change themselves and/or because they aren't 100% the "speedy" is appropriate either. Speedy keep is often used with articles where a bad faith AFD has been started, or the article is obviously worth keeping, or somebody made a "rescue attempt" that took a deletable article and salvaged it.

As for the other areas, I'll count them... again, the key is to find areas that you like... and to develop footprints there and gain expertise there. I am not a check the box type of guy... ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was pointed to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests recently after a (possibly stupid) posting at AN/I. Done quite a bit there, it does not seem to be heavily populated with volunteers and many requests had gone unanswered for some time. I quite like working in that area as it is more geared to helping people than bashing them over the head. I will take your advice, though, and maintain a presence in AfD also. SpinningSpark 11:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Homework

Hey there Spinning, I plan on giving you a once over this weekend, but in the meantime, let's go ahead and get some "homework" out of the way.

Assignment 1:Essay Questions

Arbitrary editing heading 0

As an admin nobody expects you to know all of the rules, but they do expect you to be able to research the policies and guidelines--show me that you can do the research and navigate them. These questions deliberately do not include links and some are deliberately vague and open to interpretation. If the question is vague, demonstrate your expertise of the subject by covering the different options. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay), please answer the following:

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

Answer: articles should be deleted when there is consensus amongst editors that the article should not be on Wikipedia. It therefore follows that a single admin should not judge an article. Speedy deletion are the exceptions where there is an incontestable reason for deleting or deletion is necessary to protect the encyclopedia. In those cases, and those only, an admin can delete without any kind of consultation.

Speedy deletion criteria are strict because we (as a community) want to ensure that only those articles which clearly deserve to be deleted are speedily deleted. Speedy Deletion is one of my pet peeves. Personally, I hate speedy deleters, while acknowledge their necessity. A careless speedy deleter can be as harmful, even more harmful, than the worst vandal. Even notorious vandals can only do limited damage to the project without having their vandalism reverted and their account blocked. A speedy deleter may pull the trigger too fast, piss off an editor who never returns to wikipedia. What nobody realizes is that the editor who just left the project, could have written a dozen FA quality articles, become an admin, and been one of the most productive members of the community. Thus, the criteria has to be strict to try to ensure that we don't do this. IMO, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of caution when dealing with deleting articles that are marginal.

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

Answer: the deletion alternatives to speedy are proposed deletion and AfD. The prod process is informal, the article can be deleted by an admin if the prod is not challenged after five days. By the way, five days is way too short in my opinion and I would personally leave it longer - I know I could easily miss a proded article on my watchlist over five days. AfD is the formal process, requiring a debate to be opened. However, there is another alternative, which is not to delete at all. It may be possible for the article to be improved, or others encouraged to improve it. Always preferable to an outright deletion.

Follow-up Question: I think you are one of the few people to get the last one... most people who answer this question get the AFD/Prod, but forget IMPROVE the article. Have you "saved" and article that you've seen that might otherwise have been deleted? If so, can you give a few examples?

Follow-up Answer: yes, I have crossed swords with trigger-happy speedy deleters a couple of times (and read about good editors being driven off many more times). There was this exchange with a speedy deleter recently. I am currently trying to save this article at AfD, with not too much success at the moment it has to be said. I cannot recall an article that I saved while it was actually nominated for deletion - there could well be examples but I cannot recall them right now. There are quite a few, however, that would have undoubtedly gone if the deletionists had got there before me, Hartman effect being an example.

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

Answer: level three is a final warning. It indicates to the miscreant that there will be no further warnings and that a further transgression is going to result in a block.

There is also a level 4 warning, but yes, you are 100% correct. Many admins won't block a person without giving them a level 3 or level 4 warning first. When I first became an admin, I didn't think it mattered too much (I didn't do much anti-vandalism work.) I mean, if you saw an obvious vandal only account, why not block immediately? But when I became an admin, I was surprised at how many people actually stopped their vandalism after getting a warning. I think those are the people who make the vandalism thinking, "Nobody will know who it was." I MIGHT ignore this, if the person who is performing the vandalism is sophisticated enough to show that s/he was familiar with our policies/guidelines, EG is gaming the system. I MIGHT also ignore this if I am dealing with a particularly prolific vandal who is on an absolute tear. But in both cases, it would have to be pretty extreme cases where there is no doubt.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Answer: I do not believe that the rules are any different for established editors to anyone else. Established editors are likely to be extended more good faith than a new editor inserting apparent vandalism, but both are required to follow the same policies. The circumstances for blocking anyone are always to protect the encyclopedia. I am worried by the mere existence of this question and might return to it after reading some policies.

In light of the last sentence, I'll wait to respond ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up Answer: I have now read through the blocking policy and stand by my original answer. Established editors have no special privileges or duties under this policy.

The only real difference between an established editor and a newbie is that you MIGHT choose to follow the practice of not templating the regulars.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of that convention but it is good to know that you were looking to hear me say it. SpinningSpark 13:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

Answer: up to a year. IPs are never blocked permanently.

Follow-up: That is the short answer... can you elaborate on it?

Follow-up Answer: the issue with IP editors is that it is always a possibility that more than one, perhaps many, different editors are using the same IP. Blocking an IP therefore risks collateral damage to good faith editors. For this reason blocks on IPs should be issued with a deal more caution than blocks on registered accounts. The block length should be designed to deal with the problem immediately at hand, and no more. In no circumstances are IPs blocked permanently. Even when it can be established that an IP is permanently assigned to one location, there are still risks. There may be more than one editor in the house or office; the ISP may reassign the IP at some time.

A couple of points, IP's can be permanently blocked, but in practice shouldn't be. For the most part, IP's shouldn't be blocked for more than a few hours or a days at at time... unless there is a persistent pattern of vandalism. They can also be blocked for longer than a year. Take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths. Schools are a place where year long blocks are common. If you use a longer block on an IP (or range of IPs) make sure you use the right templates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

Answer: I have seen administrators debate this and even amongst them the rule seems unclear, but I know the answer. 3RR is broken on the fourth reversion to, or insertion of, the same substantive material in any 24 hour period. An editor can certainly be blocked before reaching that number. The purpose of 3RR is to stop edit warring, if there is clearly an edit war in progress and the participants have not responded to warnings an administrator can block to bring the war to an end. Another circumstance is that an editor is deliberately avoiding the 3RR rule by waiting out the 24 hour period before the next revert. The intention there is not to collaborate so a block would be in order to bring it to an end.

Follow-up: Yeah, it is the fourth edit in a 24 hour period, but you are entirely correct, it is intended to stop edit warring. Let me throw another scenario out at you. An editor has violated 3RR after receiving an warning. It's been 4 hours since his last edit, what do you do?

Follow-up Answer: now you are getting into difficult "judgement of Solomon" territory. I don't have a pat answer for this one, I have to say I would need to look at the circumstances here. The war is not ongoing right now so on the face of it there is no cause to issue blocks, but . . .Has he stopped because he has now succeeded in bullying his opponent into submission? Or has his opponent just gone to supper and will resume when he gets back? Has the 3RR violator gone to supper and will resume when he gets back? Or, God forbid, have they have actually been talking with each other and have now reached agreement? The criterion should be, will I succeed in stopping further edit warring by issuing a block. If my assesment is no, I will not, because the war is now over, or at least in armistace, then a block is not appropriate, however galling it might be to me to have been completely defied with a further 3RR. However, a two 3RRs in a row with a warning in-between is not very hopeful, so an assesment in a real situation would likely be that the problem would continue and a short block would be in order. If I was undecided, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happened next. I would also bear in mind that it takes two to edit war, the 3RR violation would never have happened if there was not an opponent undoing the reversions. He too, must be persuaded to stop that behaviour (even if it was not 3RR), by suggestions, example, warnings and finally blocks if necessary.

Excellent answer, can't really add anything to it... as for it taking two to tango, not always. Person A makes an edit, person b reverts it. Person A makes the edit again, this time person C reverts it. Person A makes the same edit, this time person D reverts it. And so on...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary editing heading 1

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

Answer: it is not possible to establish for certain that two accounts are sockpuppets unless you have checkuser rights. Even then, the possibility of two different users editing from the same location has to be borne in mind. Checkuser is only carried out when evidence of sockpuppetry is first provided. This evidence will always, by its nature, be circumstantial. The MO of the user is the main thing - articles edited, turn of phrase, specific interests etc. Sockpuppets often give themselves away, either deliberately for the infamy, or accidentally, by for instance self-referring to the wrong user name. Two users can be proved not to be socks by simultaneous heavy editing of two different articles. Checkuser might be able to clear them of wrongdoing by placing them in different geographical regions.

Good answer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

Answer: rollback is a tool which reverts a page back to the last version not edited by the currently last editor. To be used only in cases of clear-cut vandalism or other forms of disruption since it does not give an opportunity to provide an explanatory edit summary. Rollback ability is granted only to those users in the rollbacker group.

Yeah, when in doubt, don't use it... only on clear cut cases of vandalism.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

Answer: full protection prevents all non-admins from editing a page. Semi-protection prevents IP and unconfirmed users from editing a page. Semi-protection is the more common to deal with heavy vandalism. Full protection might be used to protect a page subject to edit war between multiple editors. Articles are also fully protected while they are on the front page.

Good answer except for the part about the main page, please review Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Articles on the main page are rarely protected. It is an acknowledged consequence of the project that being featured on the main page means vandalism.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got confused with the DYK template, which IS protected. SpinningSpark 14:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main page and individual elements on the main page are protected, but the articles that link from the main page are not protected.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

Answer: I can think of no circumstance where full protection would be an appropriate response to vandalism. The first response to vandalism is the usual warn-final-block cycle. This may not be effective if the page is under attack from an army of socks or IP-hopping accounts. It is when this kind of attack becomes too heavy that semi-protection is appropriate. What is too heavy? A matter of judgement, but I would say semi-protection should be considered when it starts to get difficult to step through the article history in diff mode and find the good faith edits. That is the stage that genuine editors are starting to find it difficult to function.

Follow-up you are watching the Simpsons, when Homer makes a comment about "fixing" a particular article on wikipedia. What should you do?

Follow-up answer: I would get some more eyes on the article, that is bound to start a round of vandalism. Put it on my own watchlist for a start, but also post on an appropriate notice board - ANB is probably the right place. It is probably also worthwile watchlisting the Simpsons article, and Homer's, if he has one. I guess the wrong answer you are checking for is to pre-emptively protect the target article. Protection is only for protection against actual, not possible, attacks (we may as well protect the whole of Wikipedia if we are going to do that).

Yeah, we don't preemptively protect pages. That being said, when an article gets national media attention, it is almost destined for vandalism.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

Answer: IAR is invoked when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. WP:SNOW, I guess, is based on IAR. If the result of a process is obvious and beyond doubt, don't bother with the process; if 3RR is obviously going to be broken, don't wait for it to happen, block anyway; if an article is obviously going to be kept, don't waste everyone's time with an AfD, close it early. There used to be an example on the article black hole, an article which is much too long but nobody over there can decide how to deal with that. An editor made one of the graphics much larger than dictated by the MOS in order to fill up the ugly white space created by the bloated TOC. Last time I looked, though, it had gone back to ugly white space so you would need to look in the history if you want to see it.

The way I look at IAR is that it is the rule to prevent wikilawyering. In other words, we are here to build an encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines, but those policies/guidelines can't cover every contigency, and if we were forced to obey those rules, then the person who knows the rules the best might win the various "debates" even if the position doesn't make sense or don't work in a particular situation. For example, Military brat (U.S. subculture) uses the dab (U.S. subculture). Now policy dictates that using the dab should only be done when there is another article by the same name and you are differentiating between those articles. So, strictly speaking, the article should be called "Military brat". The problem with that is that, military brat is a term used in every english speaking country---and some non-English speaking countries. Thus, people insist that equal time be dedicated to non-US brats and start tagging the article. Unfortunately, there is no research on the non-US brats. You can't extrapolate the research. So you either end up with an article being tagged as US centric needing a more global perspective, OR you have a dab, OR you cut out most of the article to make it global. By violating the rule about dabs, we come out ahead.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

Answer: I am assuming that the scenario is that the page deserves to be deleted. If it is the same user each time, then the action should be to warn the user. If he/she has been warned already and is still persisting, then block the user. If the recreation is by different users each time (I am considering here genuinly different users rather than disruptive socks of the first user) then the answer depends on whether we consider that an article of that title should ever exist. if it is not appropriate for that article to exist then the page can be creation protected. If it might be appropriate for the page to exist in some form (and the fact that, in this scenario, multiple users have created it indicates that it does) then it may be better to just let it be, delete the bad articles and wait for a good one to turn up. It will happen eventually; million monkeys on a million keyboards and all that. On the other hand, if we are looking at a repeated spam attack, then there is the blacklist - a piece of arcane code understood by no one except the initiates to that sect, and which generates way too many false positives for my liking.

Follow-up what do you mean by creation protected?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up answer: creation protection prevents a page with a particular title being created. I believe that the way administrators technically achieve this is to place protection on the (non-existent) page. It can therefore be full or semi as with an existing article.

Yeah, it's called SALTING, WP:SALT---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary editing heading 2

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

Answer: instructions and applications to change usernames are at Wikipedia:Changing username

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Answer: any of the categories of username listed on the username policy as being innapropriate can be blocked. These include offensive, commercial and misleading names and signatures. It would be appropriate and courteous to request the user to change their name before considering a block. Administrators should only unilaterally block clear-cut breaches of the policy, usually a RfC would be more appropriate.

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

Answer: delete it - immediately

Follow-upWhat about if it is on the talk page?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up answer delete it - immediately. Possibly also report to oversight as the material may be required to be purged from the history.

While we do allow for more lenient use of standards (RS/N/V) on the talk page, BLP is the exception. We can summarize and perhaps ask about a rumor/speculation/etc, but it has to be clear that we are looking for verification and that is not verified. Eg it can't be stated as a fact that Famous Senator had a illegitimate child with famous actress while taking illegal drugs.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

Answer: first of all, I would warn the user that making legal threats is against Wikipedia policy and that such behaviour can result in a block. Often, legal threats are just idle posturing and there is no intention to actually take up litigation, in which case a warning is all that is needed. Next, I would verify that any material being referred to is not, in fact, unsabstantiated libel or personal attacks (delete if it is). Next, I would satisfy myself that the editors the threat had been directed at had not become intimidated. I have actually dealt with this situation in the past and found a young and inexperienced editor who had been so intimidated that they had deleted some of their own material and innapropriately put copyvio notices on their own photographs. If I thought that the instigator of the threat was genuinely attempting to pursue a legal solution, then I would point them to the Wikimedia Foundation contact details. At the same time I would emphasise to them that they cannot both pursue a legal solution and attempt a resolution on-wiki. Wikipedia works by collaboration, they are welcome to work in collaboration with Wikipedia editors to resolve the probelem, but they must choose to do one or the other.

Yeah, you might be interested in this essay.

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

Answer: understanding of policy and guidelines. Willingness to help others build the encyclopedia. Understanding of procedures. Ability to set personal beliefs and emotions aside when dealing with others. Ability to dissect problems and disputes logically and not jump in with conclusions reached from first impressions.

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

Answer: well here are some things I would NOT do; start or continue an edit war, retaliate on his talk page, block him for disruption. The correct way to deal with this situation is to request that an uninvolved admin review the vandalism. A posting to AN/I would be appropriate here.

I'll respond to the rest later, this is one of my pet areas. If you are in a content dispute ongoing dispute with another editor and it turns nasty, then you are entirely correct, you should never administer the block yourself. If it has reached the point that you think a block is warranted, then you can take it to ANI to get somebody else involved. You can, however, issue warnings to the other person---although, again, depending on heated the discussion is, you might be better advised getting somebody independent involved.

On the other hand, if you aren't in an ongoing discussion, say your discussion is limited issuing warnings/reverting the activities of a vandal, who then vandalizes your page, then you would be justified in administering the block yourself. In the first scenario, the other party targetted you personally because of your dispute and you are personally involved. In the later case, the person targetted you because you were serving the role of a vandal fighter and weren't personally involved. Basically, what it boils down to is what kind of communications have you had the with other party? Were you talking to them as an admin, or as a person with a differing opinion?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer 2: yup, that's the answer you would have got from me if the scenario had not been set to a content dispute I was involved in.

ASsignment 2: 3rr and naming exercises

Nishkid64's other blocking situations (username violations and 3RR). For 3RR reports, just indicate what action you would take (if any). If you choose to block for username violations, differentiate between soft blocks and hard username blocks (account creation disabled).

Example 1 XXX made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made another revert.

Answer: I will assume the scenario is within 24 hours, the reverts are not legitimate vandal fighting, and the user has given no sign of desisting. A short block is in order to prevent the next revert. The length of the block should be short (24 hours or less) but long enough to be sure that the user finds himself blocked at the likely time of the next attempted revert. A longer block would not be appropriate, the idea here is merely to determine if the user is going to change behaviour after the shock of being blocked.

Actually, blocks are not intended to be punative, but rather preventive. The goal isn't to punish the other user, but rather to prevent continued behavior. I mention this, because it doesn't matter if the user finds himself blocked. This can also be part of your review to decide what to do. For example, if the user was involved in an edit war and making changes back and forth over a short period, then stopped. It might be a sign that the user quit or got the message. If this were the scenario, I would probably just give the next level of a warning... Remember to assume good faith.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

not punitive . . . preventative. I thought that was in answer I gave, is it not clear from "..prevent the next revert"? Also "no sign of desisting" was meant to convey "check that user has not now stopped". I guess the bit you really didn't like is "long enough to find himself blocked". My thinking there was that if the war is hot, edits every couple of minutes, then a very short block will do the job. On the other hand, if the transgressor is coming back to check the article every half hour or hour then a block of several hours at least is needed. SpinningSpark 09:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the part about making sure he knew he was blocked, sounded punative rather than preventive. Thanks for the clarification.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 2 YYY made three reverts, was warned for 3RR and then made a partial revert.

Answer: the formal answer here is the same as example 1, short block, since the 3RR policy specifically includes partial reverts. However, I would bear in mind that a partial revert after a string of full reverts and a warning might be a misguided attempt at reaching a compromise. If I felt the user was acting in good faith then I would issue a further warning and advise them to open a discussion on the talk page.

Good answer. A block would be justified, but rational mercy is a good response.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 3 ZZZ made four reverts, was reported to AN/3RR and then self-reverted.

Answer: no administrative action is required since the user has now acknowledged their mistake and has apparently desisted. However, I might choose to give the user some advice on why their edits are not being accepted. Explanations by other users in these situations tend to be curt and cryptic and it may be that the offender has simply not understood the situation.

Excellent answer, giving additional advice, particularly to a newer user, is a good thing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 4 3 consecutive reverts, then two more separate reverts. User was reported to AN/3RR.

Answer: I don't understand the scenario, the last two reverts are separate in what way? In time, in intervening edits, on separate material or articles? Assuming all five edits are to the same material in a 24 hour period then the course of action is to warn the user that this is not acceptable (the scenario does not say that the user has been warned). If the user had been previously warned then this is the same as example 1.

This is a poorly worded question. I need to revise it. Basically, the editor made an entry, reverted it, reverted it back to the original, then reverted it back to their edit. This was done in consecutive edits. They then made separate reverts after somebody else edits them.

I'm still not terribly clear on this. I think the question needs labels, user A edits to version 1, user B reverts to version 0 etc. Do you mean the first three reverts are self-reverts? If so, 3RR does not apply to self-reversion. SpinningSpark 09:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit history:

Original Article

EditorA edits Original Article to version 2

EditorA reverts version 2 back to original article

EditorA reverst original article back to version 2

EditorA reverts version 2 back to original article.

EditorB makes an edit to version 3

EditorA reverts back to original article

Editor C makes edit to version 4

EditorA reverts back to original article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer: the first block of four edits by EditorA includes reverts to his/her own edits only. Reverting one's own actions is a specifically listed exception to 3RR. That whole block therefore counts as a simple edit, not any kind of revert as far as 3RR is concerned. If this is an inexperienced user, though, a hint about using preview might be in order. Assuming that the whole episode occured in 24 hours there are only 2 reverts countable under 3RR. The administrative action is therefore to close the report as "no violation". The reverts to EditorB and EditorC might warrant a warning. For instance, if B and C had made substantively the same edit and A had reverted them without explanation I would consider that a possible insipient edit war and warn. I fully understand that reverts still count under 3RR whether or not the same material is reverted and whether or not an explanation is given, but we do not issue warnings every time someone performs a revert, only when in our judgement there is a problem developing. SpinningSpark 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 5 User makes 2 reverts in 2 days on one article, 6 on another article over 3 days, 4 on another over 2 days and 3 on another over 24 hours.

Answer: not a 3RR violation in this but it does need looking at carefully, especially the six reverts to article 2. This could well be an example of 'gaming the system' to avoid 3RR. If that is the case then I would act on it as if it was 3RR. This amount of reverting, if not legitimate, is probably the sign of a disruptive user and I would take a closer look at some of their edits and behaviour.

Yes, this can be an example of gaming the system. 3RR is not an absolute, but rather a guideline to prevent edit warring.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 6 User has been edit warring on a single article. He has made approximately 15 reverts in a two week period.

Answer: warn user not to edit war and advise to open discussion on talk page. Follow with s short block if he does not respond.

Yes, 3RR is a guideline, if a person is demonstrating a game the system attitude, then a block may be necessary. Please pay attention to the type of edits being performed tho and whether or not it is 2 people in a war together. BLATANT anti-vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR---by blatant, I may consider an edit to be vandalism, but a neutral observer may deem it a content dispute. If it is blatant, then the neutral observer would deem it vandalism.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 7 Content dispute between 5-6 editors. A lot of edit warring, but no one's violated 3RR. What would you do?

Answer: I might make an attempt at getting them to discuss instead of war but with this many involved it would be like herding cats. I would first issue warnings to all involved, trying to be as fair and even-handed as possible. If this brought the number of disruptive editors down to one or two then those editors can be handled individually, blocking if necessary. on the other hand, if large numbers continued to be involved in edit warring then protecting the article would be my next step. I would use semi-protection if all the disruptive editors were IPs, otherwise full protection would be necessary. Leave it protected long enough to get a content discussion started. I would also consider stubifying the article because there is a danger that the article has been protected in a form that one group likes and they may now be encouraged not to take part in the discussion. I would be especially likely to do this if the warring had made a mess of the article. If the warring had only revolved around one section, then deleting just that section might be the answer (as long as that was not the aim of one of the warring groups and I would then be seen to be taking sides).

Page protect (musn't forget the appropriate tag about current version not necessarily being correct version), and encourage content debate on talk page. If no resolution, then move on through dispute resolution process. Depending on the nature of the edit war (civil or otherwise), warnings may be needed on the editors' talk pages. Also, I wouldn't advise deleting a section.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

...wouldn't advise deleting a section you may well still think this is a wrong answer, but just to make sure I am not being misunderstood, I intended section deletion and page protection together. It does seem to be quite common after a page protect that one side in a war will just sit back thinking they have won and the other side then turns up at ANI complaining about it. The desired result is neither of these things but that both sides start a discussion and collaborate in building an article acceptable to both. To my mind, this is just the little brother of stubifying the whole of a disputed article. SpinningSpark 10:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User names

Spinning, I'm not going to review your User Names answers. I would highly recommend looking up the appropriate policies concerning user names and revisiting your answers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am tending to leniency on this when I know that many administrators are very strict, but I believe that everything I have said is policy based. I will add the policy clause that I believe backs up my decisions (or else retract the answer). SpinningSpark 11:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most admins are very strict about this... you would be an exception in this regard. I'm glad that I asked you to refine your answers rather than jumping in with my response. One of the keys, IMO, is not that you can parrot me (or another admin) but rather rationalize the answers that you give with policy based reasons, and I think you've adequately done that. FYI, in coaching, it is best to give the policy reasons why you are answering the way that you do. The reason I say this, is A) for the coach and B) for those who might review your coaching page. While I don't coach to pass an RfA, you should be aware that others WILL review your coaching page before !voting. Your explanations were great!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Really glad to hear that, I was afraid that we were falling out over this. SpinningSpark 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 8 Username: www.BusinessEnterprises.org

Answer: I would advise the user that it is not recommended that names of organisations are used as usernames. I would also advise them that it is not permitted for multiple users to edit from the same account (a common reason for organisations use such a username).

Policy base: Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended. The user name is not, in itself, a breach of policy and it is not therefore cause for administrative action unless there is a further problem such as promotional use.

In this case, I think most people would advocate against the user name because it is an obvious attempt at avertising a specific website. If it was just "BusinessEnterprises," then I think your rationale would be acceptable, but since it is the website explicitly spelled out, it becomes advertising for that website. This pushes it beyond the grey area.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Point noted and accepted. SpinningSpark 16:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as is, it would be a vio of Advertising and Spam.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 9 Username: RealTek, Inc.

Answer: If this was "Barnston Plumbing", I might not have a problem with it. Although I know many will block on sight any username that is the name of a business, I personally do not always see a problem. A small plumbing business is likely to be a single person, so there is not going to be a problem with multiple users (and the user can be warned not to do this). Further, it is actually quite useful to know that a plumber is editing a plumbing related article, both from the point of view of spotting COI and assesing the reliability of the information. However, in this case, Realtek is a moderately large listed company and the account has most likely been created by the marketing department. This leads both to multiple user and spamming issues. The punctuation in the name could also be seen as a problem. Explain to the user then softblock.

Policy base: User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted

Follow-up: Given the notion that using company names is not explicitly forbidden, what other scenarios would you block this account?

Follow-up answer: Given the nature of this account, it is quite probable that their edits are breaching a number of policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR (particularly the issue of using primary and self-published sources) and are not following numerous guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:NOTE. When these breaches are marginal or debatable it can be easier to block for the more clear-cut reason of unsuitable username. In my view, this is an error. From the user's point of view this gives the impression that their edits are acceptable but they need to fix their username and then everything will be ok. This is not a desirable result, the user's behaviour has not changed but their username has, making it more difficult for other editors to now spot COI issues. The real problem policy non-compliances need to be addressed directly even though this may mean a more time consuming approach of discussion/warnings and finally block if not heeded. Nor should it be assumed that just because a person owns or represents a company that their edits are going to be problematic. I am aware of several company owners/executives who make very valuable contributions, follow all the guidelines, but never come anywhere near to promoting their own companies. On the question of WP:SPAM I would tend to take a stricter line (relevant policies WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:PROMOTION), this is insiduously rotting away at Wikipedia's principles. But even here I have seen apparent spammers change their behaviour after a warning since they were acting under a misunderstanding, not any attempt to misuse Wikipedia (I admit that is the tiny minority of spammers) so it is still worth WP:AGF and give a warning first in a non-blatant case. SpinningSpark 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 10 Username: Bitch78

Answer: I don't have a problem with this username. There are already a large number of Bitchnn users on Wikipedia, mostly not blocked, although a quick search through did not turn up any doing anything particularly useful. While calling someone "bitch" is definitely uncivil and actionable, some women self-refer to themselves as "bitch" to proclainm their assertiveness.

Policy base: The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors. My opinion is that it is acceptable and precedent of existing names support me. No one has complained to me and the user has made no abusive edits. No admin action required.

You are nicer than me ;-) I will admit this is a grey area name, but I would at least get the input of others on this one. I would be in favor of blocking because it some can see it as offensive.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 11 Username: Iwannafkuup

Answer: I would soft block this one, it is clearly deliberately offensive and the re-ordering of letters intended to circumvent the rules.

Now for my favorite follow-up question, what about what about User:Yuckfoo?

Follow-up answer: I honestly do not know the answer here. Since the user is long standing I am guessing that the name has a legitimate meaning. I was hoping to find an historical discussion in the users archives (maybe a request for the user to change their name) and an explanation from the user of what it means. No such luck. Google search turns up nothing (other than the offensive meaning). Google scholar turned up some publications by Yuck Foo but these seem to be either a joke or a hoax, so still no evidence that it is a real name. A comment in this thread from 2005 and this one from 2006 indicates that the user name is known to be dubious but is tolerated at ANB presumably because the editor in question has a long history of contributions and is in good standing. I look in vain for policy that supports treating long standing editors with more leniency in this. It seems that everyone has just decided not to do anything. I would do the same, but mostly because I don't know.

Yuckfoo is a problematic case. It is an obvious spoonerism, and an obvious case where the user name needs to be changed. If this user was a regular contributor to the project, I can guarantee that his name would have been changed. He's had at least one 'crat and several admins (including myself) tell him that he needs to change his name. He's also had at least one RfC about his name that I know of. The problem is that he got his name under an old policy, where such names were not explicitly forbidden. He is also not a user that regularly contributes to the project. If he contributed every month, or every week, then I think the community would have forced him to change his name. But because he only contributes sporatically, we are at a loss at how to handle him. The name is clearly inappropriate, but he is clearly a beneficial member of the community. Do we take action while he is on one of his three month sabaticals and block him without his knowledge? If we did that, then we might loose a true asset to the community. Since he is never around to discuss his name, and he is a clear asset to the community, the community has turned a blind eye to his name.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances of this question, I was fairly certain there would have been previous discussion and spent a long time looking for it. But even after you have told me that there was a prior RfC I am quite peturbed that I still cannot find it. The point that his name predates the policy I can understand, it would be against natural justice to force a change now. That he only edits intermittently I cannot see as any excuse at all. To be sure, the number of editors you are going to offend with an offensive username is proportional to the number of edits you make, but you only need to offend one to be in breach of the policy. SpinningSpark 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 12 Username: Asswipeface

Answer: offensive - softblock

Policy base: Usernames which are obviously inappropriate should be reported . . . and can be blocked on sight by any administrator. I should probably also have mentioned here, and in other answers, that no action is necessary if the user has not edited.

Good answer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 13 Username: S;jsdfgjkhfsadfaef

Answer: the user is clearly a lazy typist so the chances of any actual contributions to the encyclopedia seem slim. If there are no edits, don't waste time on it. If the user is editing I would advise them to change their name on the grounds that it is hard to type. However, I do not see any need for administrative action on it. If others have a problem, they can take it WP:RFCN.

Policy base: a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion.

Correct, this is actually a recent change. It used to be, when this exercise was first created, that such names could be blocked on sight. It was actually via coaching that I learned this policy had changed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 14 Username: CroatoanBot

Answer: If this account is not an automated process of some sort, then I would consider the BOT in the name to be misleading. The user should be warned and the account soft-blocked.

Policy base: Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not haves. . . it should not contain the terms . . . end with "bot"

Exactly. I recently saw a case where a person had a name that ended in BOT, because it was "Boaters of Tulsa" or something similar. A clearly innocent name, where the user wanted to include the acronymn that described his club/group, but the acroymn was BOT and he had to change his name because it implied that it was a "bot."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Example 15 Username: AndysAutolandCompany

Answer: I would advise the user that it is not recommended that names of companies are used as usernames. I would also advise them that it is not permitted for multiple users to edit from the same account. I would examine the edits of the account to satisfy myself that name was not being used for promotion, but otherwise leave it alone.

Policy base: Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended.

Since you give a policy reason, I can accept that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I realised as I was answering these that I really am not on-message with usernames. This one User talk:UN-HABITAT Library about sums it up for me. Blocking a United Nations librarian is helping our encyclopedia? SpinningSpark 00:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Assignment 3: CSD excercises

The following is a test EWS23 designed to make sure that admin coachees understand the policies of speedy deletion. The "articles" here are actual cases that he came 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 it was deleted, 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. 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.).

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 these cases, the page history won't tell you anything, but remember that in real cases the page history is important.

• Halo 3 trailier

• Answer: The article is nominated under criteria A3 (no context). Since the context is perfectly clear to me, it is in the context of the Halo 3 computer game, the speedy should fail. Halo 3 undoubtedly has an article on Wikipedia and should have been wikilinked but under the ground rules I am prevented from checking this. The article further fails to assert notability, but this is not grounds for a speedy either as the article does not come within the scope of A7. It may well be a candidate for AfD, with a recommendation to merge and redirect to Halo 3 (presuming it exists). The source is stated to be a Microsoft Press release which cannot be used to establish notability, but the trailer clearly generated a lot of internet chatter [1] and it might be possible that reliable sources could be found to defeat an AfD. The only circumstance I would speedy this is if I had decided not to AfD it, in which case I would move the article (because of the misspelt name) The original article could then be speedied under G6 as an uncontroversial maintenance. It would be pointless to do this if the article was sent to AfD.

• Revisit answer The tag does not cite criteria A3, it cites "no context" (which would be A1) and "unencyclopedic" (which is not a valid reason for speedy). However, this has no material bearing on my answer.

• I wouldn't be opposed to a A-3 or possibly even a G-11 (advertising) deletion. But I'm with you, I would probably send it to AfD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Union Millwright

• Answer: This would appear to be a valid subject for an article [2] but clearly fails CSD A3 (no content other than external links). Since I have no intention of writing the article myself I would delete under A3 after first checking that the article was not actively in progress.

• Clearly an A3.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Webs

• Answer: I am inclined to delete this one under A1: patent nonsense. One could "wikilawyer" that it is not gibberish as it is (almost) grammatical but I read in WP:CSD in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion and I struggle to believe that any reasonable editor would not agree this is nonsense. I would also, if challenged, argue WP:SNOW that there is no chance whatsoever that this would survive an AfD, there is no indication whatsoever that either "Webs"[3] or "Peter Weber"[4] exist in the context of combustion technology.

• I think you meant G1-Patent Nonsense, not A1 no context. G1 is one of the most over-used reasons for deletion. Take a look at WP:NONSENSE wherein it talks about the two cases where one can use G1. G1 specifically excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Thus, many things tagged G1, are not deletable per it. You might be interested in my latest essay, Why I hate Speedy Deleters or my wife's. So, no, I would not agree that this is a G1. A1 lack of context. Heck arguments for A7/G11 are also possible.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant G1. Interesting essay, I hope you don't mind me correcting a couple of typos while I was there. So I guess the argument is that if we allowed the speedy deletion of, say, an article consisting of some silly nonsense claims by a couple of schoolboys, there is then a continuum of progressively more substantial articles that could be nominated for speedy with no clear boundaries between them until we get to something like Water-fuelled car which many editors claim is a nonsense theory and even amounts to an investment confidence trick. SpinningSpark 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Neil Haverton Smith

• Answer: Delete per CSD:A7, does not assert notability in an article about a real person. The content of the article should be deleted in any case under WP:BLP even if it did not meet speedy since it is not referenced. The fact that the nominator failed to give a reason for the speedy is not significant, WP:DP states Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. That is, it is meeting the criteria that decides it elligibility, not the correctness (or even existence) of the tag.

• Follow-up: What about G10?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-up answer: I did consider G10 but the problem I struggled with over G10 is that it might be true. It is even possible that the subject has written it himself. My opinion is that it likely an attack piece and the very last assertion, that the subject's boyfriend is also his cousin, gives away the nature the article, but it is still just my opinion and I am not sure that I would be right to speedy delete on the strength of that. SpinningSpark 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fall Out Boy

• Answer: That's a pretty straightforward decline speedy. It is nominated as CSD:A7, does not assert notability. Yet the article claims one gold and one triple platinum album, at least one label that even I recognise, numerous awards and a Grammy nomination. As they have 13.7 million ghits [5] I guess some of that is even true, not that it matters as far as declining the speedy is concerned. In fact, that one is so straightforward I am left wandering if I missed something in that exercise.

• Either a mistake or badfaith nomination. It might be worth investigating the later in a little more detail. Check to see if the user is causing problems.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

• Answer: A clear cut immediate delete as CSD:G10 (attack page) and WP:BLP (unsourced negative remarks). It was nominated as G1 (patent nonsense) which a small amount of research may well prove it to be, but it is uneccesary in this case as it can be deleted without research for rather more serious reasons.

• Revisit answer Hmm . . perhaps I should have done the research after all[6]. So clearly not patent nonsense and the speedy fails under G1. Not WP:BLP either as the subject is now dead. However, the article is seriously factually flawed as it claims he is convicted of crimes he was only accused of perpetrating. I would not speedy this after all, but would correct the most glaring errors and would add a RS such as [7] since I had already gone to the trouble of finding it.

• This is an example of shifting policies and procedures. When this exercise was created WP:BLP didn't exist. BLP is a new policy that does dictate that as it currently exists, this article needs to be deleted. The fact of the matter, though is that this person does exist, so the best option would be to add the citations yourself---and IMHO this article should be checked before deletion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Slightly confused over the BLP issue. The subject is now dead, so BLP cannot be invoked surely? There was a period in the past after BLP came into force but before Bar-Jonah died when it would have applied, but it does not apply now. Can you just confirm that you approve of my revisited answer ( not the original one - I know that is wrong)? SpinningSpark 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well imagine that... he died... BLP no longer applies.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Assignment 4: User:Balloonman/AIV

Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck!

Example 1 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
• 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
• 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Example 2 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
• 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
• 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Example 3 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
• 19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
• 19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)

Example 4 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings: 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4) 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3) 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Example 5 XX (talk · contribs) Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Example 6 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shared IP last received a vandalism warning (uw-4) at 19:00 UTC on March 11. Someone from the IP has made 4 vandalism edits at around 12:00 UTC on March 12, but has not received no final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

Thanksgiving

Hey Spinning I'm going to be away for a few days. I'll see you next week.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Blank Image

ARGH!!! I've been looking over your edits and reviewing the stuff that has transpired related to the article on NOTHING and the blank image. I hate to say it, but you messed up my friend. The image was vandalized to include the word bitch in it. Take a look at the history of the image page. At 2:08 User:Windymager uploaded a version of the image that included the word bitch. Thus, when others were removing the image, and you kept reverting their removal, you kept inserting vandalism back into the project! You then reported them as possible sock puppets. When an established editor approached you about it, and confirmed that he saw the vandalism as well, and provided a link, you included allegation that he was a potential sock as well. Hobojones fixed the image at 5:18 on December 1. I would suggest withdrawing your SSP report. The dif you provided of Breakevenmatt, while it looks bad, doesn't portray the actual events that occurred. Breakevenmatt did make that change, but then made several other changes immediately afterwards that appears to be a good faith attempt at fixing the problem. If your allegations are valid, you become justified... but right now, it looks like you are grasping for straws.

Your hidden comment on the page, in all capitals, could also be seen as uncivil.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing I can possibly say in my defence is that while I was offline I came to realise how badly I had screwed up independantly of any prompting. I have now apologised to all involved. I have made no comment on the SSP and RFCU as they have both now been closed, but possibly I should anyway. On the hidden comment, it is entirely unconnected with this episode. It is in all caps for highlighting which is quite difficult to achieve in hidden comment, not to be uncivil. If there is any indication that any of the users involved here feel it is aimed at them, I will remove it. SpinningSpark 22:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your history with SSP/RFCU, but have you made any cases thare bore fruit? If so, could you provide links here? You blew it this time, but everybody is entitled to one mistake. (Although this one was pretty major and probably set your RfA back.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have previously reported SSPs but nothing recent. To the best of my recollection the result was they got blocked for straightforward vandalism which then made the SSP report irrelevant. I will try and dig them out but it is going to be ancient history. SpinningSpark 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is my history at SSP;

• [8] Blocked, but for vandalism rather than socking
• [9] Blocked for socking
• [10] Socking agreed but block declined as stale IP

SpinningSpark 02:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

You have probably already got the gist of the way this went down, but I feel I should give you an explanation so the it is transparent how I arrived in this situation. This is not in any way an attempt to justify myself or to make excuses; I fully accept that I have screwed up big time, this is merely to give you an understanding of how I thought this one through (or didn't as the case may be).

The article Nothing is on my watchlist mostly because it is vandalised quite regularly and I have been reverting the vandalism semi-automatically. This is perhaps the first lesson I should take away from this: just because the last one was a vandal does not mean that this one is too. When the image was removed from the article citing vandalism by BreakEvenMatt I examined the image. As well as looking at it in the article, I downloaded the image and tested it for differences between pixels; an exercise I repeated several times during the course of this incident. For reasons that are not entirely clear, I failed to find any hidden message or other vandalism. I suspect this was because the page I was viewing needed purging, certainly, the ids on the files I downloaded show that they are the old (pre-vandalism) version of the file. From this I concluded that the claim of hidden messages by BreakEvenMatt amounted to trolling. This was further re-inforced in my mind by the fact that the file uploaded by Windymager (the real villain here) was half the number of bytes as the one it replaced. It seemed to me that Windy had merely produced a better compressed file - not likely that there were hidden messages in a file which was actually smaller and the image was originally blank (lesson 2 - don't underestimate the cunning of vandals). The next user to support the vandalism theory was Repner1. I now had two redlinked users without extensive editing history claiming vandalism on an image I was certain was clean. I was now fully convinced I was being trolled by multiple socks and by the time HoboJones joined in I was in no frame of mind to actually check that he was a solid editor in good standing and foolishly just added him to the list of socks (lesson 3 - it always pays to check). Finally, after protests from HoboJones, it began to dawn on me that something was not quite adding up here, I checked the image yet again and this time found the vandalism. At this stage I should have immediately admitted I was wrong and apologised to everyone but I was now so convinced I was being trolled that I could not let it go. As you said, it was really grasping at straws. If nothing else, I should have removed HoboJones from the SSP and RFCU reports as I had now got around to looking at his history and knew that he was a very unlikely troll. Instead, I unforgiveably left it hanging for over four days while I was offline - which at least gave me the time to mull over the error of my ways and decide that I really ought to be apologising instead of keeping up an accusation I really had no justification in making in the first place. SpinningSpark 03:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that this incident happened early on during our coaching... it gives us time to recover. It was a screw up, and the best way to heal a screw up is time and redemption ;-) It does forstall any thoughts of rushing the process. It is not, however, a terminal mistake. Your success in other cases helps alleviate this gaff.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

First of all, I appreciate and accept Spinningspark's apology. You accepted blame and did a good job listing where there were failures in judgment. I also appreciate that you took the time to examine how the failures occurred. As far as I am concerned, we are cool. In fact, as I looked through your edits, I see that you are a good content creator, especially in technical fields, an area in which Wikipedia has a need. You are indeed an experienced editor (with about as many edits as me, by the way) so you should have known better.

I understand that looking through old diffs and trying to discern the intent of someone (especially someone who is unschooled in Wikipedia's conventions) is tough. Unfortunately, that is one of the skills required to be a good administrator. I am sure that there will be questions about whether the SSP/RFCUs were filed in an attempt to get experience in areas that are "adminly." I am sure this is not what Balloonman intended, but there is an appearance that you filed these simply to build your resume.

The administrative powers are broad and powerful, and the RFA's purpose is to ferret out who will use the tools justly and those who will not. For me, the incident shows the latter. The !voters have a right to an accurate picture of what occurred, and to that end, I will be recording various diffs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt, since the whole thing is confusing enough without the evidence being spread across 5 different places.

But, none of this is to say that you will not make a good administrator in the future. This can be a learning experience, and when/if you get the administrator tools, you will hopefully be more cautious and compassionate to those new users who are trying but failing to fix vandalism. Regards, --HoboJones (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have completed the incident archive at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt. Like I said, I wanted to give the future RFA an accurate record, so if you find an error or would like to include further diffs or additional quotes, please let me know. Regards and good luck in your coaching, --HoboJones (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that this incident was entirely unconnected with admin coaching. I freely agree that there are several areas that I have become involved in more heavily recently to gain admin experience, however, SSP is not one of them and this incident arose entirely in connection with my normal editing activities. I would also like to make clear that my admin coach has in no way prompted me into SSP involvement, his only contribution to this was to ensure that I was aware of the magnitude of the mistake. The ownership of the mistake is entirely mine. SpinningSpark 19:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre Christmas Review

Hi Spinning, I'm doing a quick review on your edits right now... One of the things that you need to remember is our primary purpose here is to build the encyclopedia. Coaching is secondary as is working towards adminship. I noticed that you've read a few of my recent essays on CSD, I know this because you've made edits to my essay on why I hate speedy deleters. I appreciate the edits. Another essay that I would suggest you take a look at is my essay on my coaching philosophy and what it means to be work with an adminly spirit. One of the key things that I look at isn't "Does the candidate have the right edit counts in various places" or "Does the candidate know policy backwards and forwards, but rather do they have the spirit of an admin." Do people respect the candidate and do they act as in a manner that instills confidence and respect from the community. Do they embody what I think an admin encapsulates? To me being an admin isn't about the buttons, one can (and should) be an admin before they ever submit themself to the community!

That being said, I encourage you to look at this edit. I like the fact that you use your user space to keep notes and work on articles. This shows a sign of somebody who has been burnt by CSD'ers ;-) No, in reality, I think developing ideas and concepts in the user space should be encourage. Is this a list of things that you'd like to work on? If so, what have you succeeded in acomplishing in the past? Eg, what isn't there that might have been there 2 months ago?

Read my essay (found on my user page) about my coaching philosophy. There are four key areas that I like to see from candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already read your excellent article on coaching philosophy, it was one of the reasons I approached you to admin coach me, but I will read it again as you suggest.

I presume you have highlighted my edit on the Rubik's cube talk page because it was bitey. I could, perhaps, have made the same point in a less confrontational way, but I would still maintain the essense of the post is justified. Spidern made some sweeping changes to the article without discussion including the deletion of a chunk of material (on solution of the centre faces) which he thought was OR but which I felt should be kept. Rather than revert him, though, I opened a discussion on the talk page and at the same time provided references proving that the material was both notable and verifiable. Spidern responded that I could put the material back if I improved it. One of my pet hates on Wikipedia is editors who try to tell other volunteers that they should do some work on this or that. Requesting is ok, demanding is more or less guaranteed to get me hot under the collar. As I saw it, the material was now shown to be referencable and it was ok to have it in the article. Furthermore, Spidern had caused the problem himself so if anyone should be doing some work to put it right it was him. I will try not to be bitey in the future, but I will struggle to do it with anyone who presses that particular button.

My "work in progress" page does indeed consist of material that I intend to become articles or additions to articles. All of them are being actively worked on (some at a faster rate than others). Very nearly all the articles I have created were first constructed in userspace in this way with just one or two exceptions early on in my Wikipedia career. There are links to lists of created/expanded articles on my userpage (in the atrociously titled "Stuff wot i have done to Wikipedia" table). If you want, I could construct a calendar of significant work done, but that table pretty much tells the story without it.

SpinningSpark 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)