User:Cameron/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Are you ready to wield the mop?
Are you ready to wield the mop?

Contents


[edit] Introduction

I have devised a sort of plan to help maximize the benefits provided by coaching. This is done by dividing it into four phases:

  • Phase one will deal with questions designed to let me know what your best contributions are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
  • Phase two will be all about policy. I will ask you several series of questions dealing with policy, or questions that often come up in RFA's.
  • Phase three will have to do with Wikiphilosophy (inclusionism/deletionism, orthodoxy on Wikipedia, etc.). Wikiphilosophy questions often pop up on RFAs, and I want you to be prepared for these.
  • Phase four will be a mop up phase. We will work on whatever else you or I feel the need to cover.

After completing the four phases, I will nominate you for adminship. If I feel that more time spent in a particular phase will help you then more time will be added, but if I feel that continuing a phase won't be beneficial to you, then I will simply move on to the next.

So let's get started with phase one!

[edit] Phase 1

[edit] The checklist

(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this) Have you ever:

  • !voted in an RFA?
    • Almost every day, the people there are probably sick of me!
  • listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
  • requested a page to WP:RPP?
    • I regularly have the page castle semi-protected. I monitor the page, you see, and most of the time there is a massive amount of IP-vandalism! According to statistics it is one of the most vandalised pages, no wonder it only seems to be me who watches it! I believe there is an admin tool that can check if a page is being watched? That would come in handy quite a lot of the time. But why isn't it available to everybody?
  • had an editor review?
    • My (rather recent) review can be seen at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cameron. Sadly at the moment I only have one reviewer (who recently retired!)...surely I'm such a bad editor!! = )
  • reviewed another editor at editor review?
    • I dont usually drop by and scroll the page *feels guilty*. I usually respond to "how's my editing" review tags on users' talk pages. I then use the page to describe my experiences with the user and review some of their edits.
  • signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
    • I don't have it delived. I have a transscript on my userpage!
  • use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
    • No (oh the shame!)...well I do use the gadgets in the preferences section, do they count?
  • contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
    • Yes, I recently even started my own CFD. It was [[Category:American peers]] . Remarkably the category had existed for quite some time. I entered the category into XFD as there is no such thing as an American peer! Somebody must have mixed up British Peers and American nobility. The result was rename to [[Category:Nobility of the Americas]] .
  • posted or answered a question at the reference desk or help desk?
    • Yes, by looking at my edits here you can see I am rather active on both WP:HD and WP:RD although admittedly I mostly post on the humanities reference desk section!
  • uploaded an image?
    • My uploaded images can be seen here. I am rather image-phobic and thus my images are rather few (sorry!).
  • welcomed a user?
    • Last month I did a little welcome campagne of my own with the welcome template. If I ever see a red talk page link on my watch list I endeavor to turn it blue = )!
  • mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
    • I have "mediated" in the past but dont often get the chance to.
  • participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
    • I have taken part in a few discussions on these pages. I usually stick to discussions about subjects/users I have experience with...otherwise I usually keep out.
  • taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
    • Without looking I can tell you I am a seperatist and an semi-wikidemocratist.

After looking I can tell you I am the following:

  • Moderate immediatism: I have recently been checking pages about the new series of Doctor who. New or unregistered users are constantly added rumours and poorly sourced information. The 'pedia should be spick and span every second (or as many as possible) of the day. A reader only has to see one mistake for it lower his opinion of a project and...in the worst case scenario go and check a different encyclopaedia!
  • Moderate statusquoism: Although "sources/citation needed" tags annoy me immensely, I do believe statement should not be immediately removed. I say this out of experience: Some sources are extremely difficult to find! I was recently searching a government website for a source stating their head of state and couldnt find one, anywhere! However I do also support the status quo -- things can be discussed on the talk page of the article before changing the "status quo".
  • Communityism: I believe the only way to Encyclopaedism is though communityism. If new users would not be greeted and helped in a community-like way they could go off and not become the brilliant contributer they may have become otherwise. A bit of chit chat is inevitable and does not harm the 'pedia if wikipedia is not a social netowork or web host is adhered to.
  • Communalism:While naturally users have a special relationship to articles they created, or contribute to frequently they are not more important than other users, although their opinion may (subconsciously) be regarded more highly. WP:OWN applies.
  • Wikipacifism:Non-pacifistic approaches only harm wikipedia. Full stop. (Edit wars also annoy me on edit histories!).

In response to the question about the unwatched pages: It's not available to all, because vandals could use the information there to hurt Wikipedia by placing libelous/false information on these pages purposefully. Also, keep in mind that you don't need to complete everything on the list, it's just so I know what you've done so far. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. You can link categories by using [[:Category:American peers]], which displays Category:American peers

Ah I see why it is not available to all now. Thanks for the tip regarding categories, I had used the nowiki funktion! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More questions

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?
A. Hmm, I'm afraid I'm going to blabber on for ages here! I am particularly attached to articles that I created from scratch. You can view the full list of articles I created here. One of my favourite created pages is Groombridge Place. I also regularly contribute to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, her family and indeed most articles about English, Scottish, German or British nobility. I am also proud of the WikiProject I founded, Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms, and am thrilled with the good response it has had (currently 8 members, excluding myself).
Good job on the WikiProject!
2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?
A. You can probably see the pattern emerging above (royalty, nobility, history...). I occaisonally edit articles outside my areas of interest but when I do it is usually only typo's and the like.
Yes, I have noticed. Your userpage also has a section dedicated to the subject if I remember.
3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?
A. I have an edit count of 45 on the AIV page. This is because I usually only report vandals I come accross. I don't go vandal-hunting or anything like that, sorry!
On the contrary, this is good. It's nice to see a user who edits articles for content!

One point I'd like to bring up is that getting rollback is supposed to be a small thing. Many editors are against notes on the userpage proclaiming rollback status.

I have removed the Ubx in question. I did not mean to offend anyone...I was merely suprised and happy to be the receiver the rollback right.--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It was less the UBX, but more the thing on the "Noticeboard." Most are fine with the UBX, and I understand why you would be happy. I remember the day I got rollback :). Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I did't realise anyone actually read my noticeboard! Thanks for showing such an interest = ). I have removed the statement in question.--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?
A. If you mean have I made lots of !votes to various Afd's then I would say yes. If you mean actually nominated to afd, then the answer is no. Here is a recent Afd I nominated and was successfully deleted: 1. This is the link to an afd in which I actively discussed (but did not nominate myself): 2. This is a link where I nominated for deletion but the consensus was no deletion: 3 (it's rather embarassing now I look back on it, but I hope to have learned from it!).
Alright, keep up the good work.
5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?
A. I usually keep well away from anything to do with images! I have thrice uploaded images that were in violation with policy and I thus usally stay well away! Also some of my comments can be perceived as rude even though they aren't necessarily meant that way.
We will address this in Phase 2 & 4. Don't worry :).
OK, I shall look forward to it!--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
6. What kind of editing habits do you have? Do you get on, check your watchlist, and then head to recent changes patrol or new pages, etc.?
A. I religiously check my watchlist (don't we all!?), then I check edits to pages that have been made after my own last edit. I double check any edits made by IP's (I don't mean to be anti-IP or anything but I am rather wary of their edits! and usually double check their content). From then on I usually check discussions I am currently actively partaking in. I usally also check the Rfa page, the help desk and the newbie page. I help out at the Science and Humanities reference desks too, although that isn't really article-builing or the like...
Alrighty. Do you consider yourself a very active responder at the help/reference desks?
Well I'll put it this way: If I can help, I do. People are very quick to answer at the help desk so I do not have quite as many edits there. At the ref desk, it is different alltogether...one can never have too many opinions/answers and thus I usually am able to add more there. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?
A. Hmmm, before I found Wikipedia I had to write page upon page of my historical findings, visits to Palaces/Castles...etc! Now I just add the content to Wikipedia! I suppose, I get pleasure out of discussing and writing about subjects I enjoy! (It looks like I'm going to attend med school even though history is my passion (there is no money in history = ((((!, so here at the 'paedia I get to forget all about bloody endoplasmic reticulums and talk about, say Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom instead!).
8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?
A. Not to sound pompous or anything but I pride myself in having read all of WP:ARL (unless you can suggest extra reading material?). I think I would avoid work in the image area (yet again, sorry!) and wouldn't do too much in the WP:TFD area either.
Ok. One thing you should read that I don't think is on there would be this page. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?
A. I haven't really had much experience with WP:TFD or WP:UAA.
Ok. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Is there any specific area (apart from images) that you wish for me to cover more in depth?
A. Erm well the above (especially the latter, as I have no knowledge of that area!)...and any admin technicalities that I may come across as an admin. Or is it not possible to pratise such a thing before being an admin?
This will probably be covered quite thoroughly in Phase 2...Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

Can you believe this page is already 15,000 KB!?

I do apologise, I do tend to blabber on. I will (try) to keep answers shorter! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Make them longer actually. :) Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I did warn you! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basic RFA questions

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A. First of all I would like to stick with the more simple tasks like closing obvious WP:Xfds and working at WP:AIV (at first with obvious instances) and WP:RM. As I grow more experienced I would like to be able to work in a wider range of areas, particularly 3RR violations and page protection. I would also like to help out at Category:Administrative backlog, where there is always room for more administrative help! In the distant future I would also like to become an admin coach myself. I think it would be best for me to work as a co-coach with someone first, so as to familiarise myself with the procedure. After having done so a few times I can then start the process on my own. During the first months of becoming an admin I would check with more senior amininistrators if unsure about a process/procedure.
2. 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 haven't ever been in a serious conflict. Occaisonally I have a difference of opinion with another user. Posting messages on the respective talk page and discussing the content in a calm and orderly manner is usually fruitful. I also value Wikipedia:Third opinion even though it is not an official policy. In some cases I have had to report users to 3RR (although I always warn users prior to the breach). During conflicts I try to accept that some users have different wiki-values to myself. I try to keep a cool head at all times. If I find keeping a cool head hard...I shut down the PC and read an Agatha Christie whilst listening to Beethoven Symphony number 3 = ).
3. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A. My best contributions are to articles about royalty and nobility (especially British) and castles and palaces. I consider my best written article to be Groombridge Place. As mentioned previously I am also very proud of my creation of WikiProject Commonwealth realms. I love making lists and tables and created List of Australian monarchs. I also created an wrote most of the article Monarchy of Saint Lucia although most of the content is generic as I am actually not all too familiar with the subject. A list of pages I created can be seen at User:Cameron/Created pages.

These are pretty good, but they could be a little longer IMO. In question 2, if you explain how you handled the minor conflicts you will be fine. Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

These are great. :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

1. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
A. Check to see if a final warning has been issued. If so check that there were also (consecutive and appropriate) previous warnings made on the users talk page (check they haven't been blanked too!). Also check to see the nature of the vandalism (important for deciding if and how long to block!).
Good. Also, if the vandal is an IP you should perform a WHOis to determine whether it is a sharedIP, schoolIP, or sensitive IP. Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?
A. When no final warning has been issued. When a final warning has been issued but no previous warnings. If the request is stale. Also, check to see that the edit were actually vandalism (not 3rr or edit warring!, both of which I have come across on AIV!). When no vandalism has occured after the final warning.

PS:I would be lenient (if the user was not a vandalism only account) if the user had vandalised one minute after the final warning and not thereafter. Out of experience it is because the user had not yet seen the final warning.

Good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
3. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A. Ooh, this one comes up at nearly every Rfa! The simple answer is: Never, per Wikipedia:Block#Cool-down_blocks. And I quote: "they inevitably serve to inflame the situation".
Yep. Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
4. A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response? Where do you direct them?
A. Well I must admit, Q4 & 6 are the first questions I have found difficult. I (think) I once read that although they are not forbidden (I hope I am getting this right) they are frowned upon and that there is some other method to self-block for a while (though I have no idea as to how that works!). I suppose one of those web nannies could block a site..but that would be easy to revert.
Wikibreak blocks are a no-no. Tell them to go here instead. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see, a complete no-no. Yes that script was the thing I read about once (I think).
5. Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A.Notify the admin, and ask the admin who performed the block if they would mind if I got a third opinion (by consulting and inviting another admin to take part in the discussion). Raise my objections in the discussion any cite any policy/guideline violations (where applicable).
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
6. You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
A. Oooh, this is the hardest question. Well, I suppose I would inform the owner of the Bot. But then if it was a vandalbot, they would have made it especially for that purpose, would they not? I could check to see if the bot was ever approved.
It's off-wikipedia and therefore hard to look up. Take a look at this and revise your answer accordingly. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah wonderful I get to revise my answer! Well according to the article there are four steps:

  1. Block it (to stop further damage)
  2. Go to the contributions page
  3. If the bot already received "bot" privilege by bureaucrats, append "&bot=1" to the contributions page URL (or ?bot=1 if the URL does not already contain ?). Approved bots do not show in recent changes.
  4. Click on all the rollback links (to revert the vandalism)

Well that all looks very easy, exept step three, which, to be honest, I don't understand. : S --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Number 3 means that you add "&bot=1" to the end of the URL of the bot's contribs page. This will make the changes show up for those on RCP, I believe. Does that clear things up? Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks so much! I've been reading and rereading that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
7. If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
A. Well particularly if one is a new admin I would say: "If in doubt, leave it out". I could contact a more experienced administrator or in a more tricky case post a notice on the respective page (eg WP:ANI).
Yes. Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
8. You notice that a respected administrator has begun posting vandalism at a very high rate. After blocking what would you do?
A. Contact the admin (probably best to contact them on their talk page and email). Perhaps someone has managed to find out their password (or by some other means get onto their account). WP:AN ought also to be informed.
Don't forget to block them if they don't respond to a message. Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. Per WP:NLT, no legal threats are allowed on Wikipedia (I would have to block them). If they wish to sue the Wikimedia foundation they can go here.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
9. A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
A. Again, the user can be blocked per WP:NLT. However the dispute could be ended on amicable terms. A polite request for the removal of copyright content can suffice (and is not classed as a legal threat). If the article content is libel one can delete the content in question (that means only admins can view it, doesn't it?).
Sorry, I repeated the question XD. Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it allowed me to expand a little...= ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
10. A new user account is created with the name of "KCLSOKMDJSD." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. The username is confusing per WP:U and can be blocked.
10 a. What if the username was "KCLSOKMDJSDJHGUYDDRCJKBKHFRFDYTRDXRESWWWWWWIKHGVYTDFUUGUYTDFDUGFD?"
A. The same as above really (well more so actually!). The username is confusing per WP:IU and can be blocked.
Take a look at the revised version of WP:U. (it changed recently) Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes I see. I must admit I prefer the new revised version. It is more lenient and seems fairer.
Revised Answer: I would request the user change their name to a less confusing one. = ) If they refuse one can block, although this would be controversial.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
11. A new user account is created with the name of "QwikCleanInc." Would you block the user? Why or why not?
A. The username looks like it is promotional and could thus be blocked per WP:IU (especially if the user starts creating pages about their company, as is often the case).
Yes, it is generally accpetable to wait and see if the user is creating spam articles before blocking. Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


12. A new user account is created with the name of "Ryan Posthelwaite is dumb" Would you block the user? Why or why not? What actions would you also take?
A.Awww, poor Ryan (he is a good editor!). The username is both offensive and disruptive and can be blocked per WP:IU.
Yes. Malinaccier (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
13. What is the difference between a hardblock and a softblock?
A. Sadly my college is softblocked! It means that one can't edit as an IP but has to log in. A hard block blocks the IP an account last edited from and any subsequent ones this user tries to edit from.
Those college kids...:) Good answer. Malinaccier (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common "optional" questions

I like the way you wrote "optional"!

1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
A. Well at the moment I'm not sure. I am not really a fan of WP:AOR. I think I will wait until my Rfa until answering that question for good. My stance is: If an user is good enough to become an admin in the first place, why should such an admin be removed again? Surely only really controversial administrators should be removed? I support the notion: In theory everyone should be an admin. The only reason one has to go through the Rfa process is to prove one is capable of using the tools and is trustworthy enough to be granted them.
Alright. If it's asked at your RFA, I'll be curious to your answer :) Malinaccier (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would most probably say yes. I can see the benefits of it too: It demonstates goodwill and no power hunger issues. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. This comes up at loads of Rfas too: A block is the techinical way of stopping somebody making edits. A ban is the revocation of privleges.
Yep. Malinaccier (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
3. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A. Communicate! Take it to the talk page...ask them to explain their edits...tell them what you think...and last but not least let anyone else comment in the discussion (for consensus).
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
4. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?
A. I think IAR is mainly there to make sure common sense isn't thwarted by rules and regulations. If a policy/guideline for some reason contradicts the better option (ie. playing by the rules wouldn't benefit Wikipedia as much as ignored them) one can use IAR to ignore the rule without having broken 'the law'. = )
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
5. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
A.Well there are a few things I rather like on the German Wikipedia, such as their tough stance towards vandalism. I would also make blocks worldwide (ie throughout all wikipedias).
Interesting...Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
6. What are you doing to prepare for your upcoming RfA?
A.I have decided not to take 'a side' in the next conflicts/discussions (even if I have an opinion/view on the subject) so as to practise myself in NPOV. And then of course I doing a little training with some guy who hopfully will allow me to ask any questions/practise things I'm not entirely confident about when my coaching sessions are over.
Oh, he will :) Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV fork is when an editor, unhappy with the current article, creates a duplicate of the article but implements his POV into this article (thus breaching NPOV). If the article is entirely corrupted by POV (eg an article about the holocaust, which states that no such event ever took place etc) it can be deleted per WP:NPOV. If some info is salvagable one can add the merge temp and start a merge discussion and involve the 'POV forker'.
2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A.
  • Use sources: By stating (reliable) sources to back up what your are saying you cannot be accused of having a biased POV.
  • Ignore the user's name: Sometimes one can subconsciously agree with people one likes more (or has had better experiences with in the past). By ignoring the usernames and concentrating entirely on the facts one can avoid this.
  • Comment on articles you don't have a POV about: That way, you don't have a POV either! (Meant to be slightly facetious!)
3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
A Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955.
Not neutral:Erroneous is the word that should trigger the alarm bells. Especially when used in the same sentence as a religion! Out of experience religions are always right!
B Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
Neutral: This is definitely an improvement.
C Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
Not neutral: Darwin's theories are often presented as facts nowaday. But they remain theories. Widely accepted is not a good idea here. Widely accepted among whom?
D Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
Much could be interpreted as negative but otherwise it seems OK.
E Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.
Not neutral: Wow this is a mega no-no.

All three answers are good. Malinaccier (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?
A.Perhaps the vandalism amount merits full protection or because the user requesting the article is edit-warring with an IP-address and is only requesting semi-protection to stop the IP from implementing their version.
Ok. Malinaccier (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. When a nonexistent page is continuously recreated especially when the page could never meet Wikipedia standards (pages like 'JGHGGJHVJVJHVJVJGJHHGHV' or attack pages.
Yes. Malinaccier (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.
A.
  • When a page doesn't need moving (eg fixed pages like AIV etc)
  • When a page is constantly being moved to another page for a joke (eg. Elizabeth II --> Queen Lizzy).
  • When there is an edit war about the page name (the famous Katherine/Catherine Howard dispute springs to mind!).
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?
A. Well talk pages shouldn't be proteced (how are people to contact the user?) and userpages are only to be protected when there is enough vandalism to warrant it.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?
A. So the people reviewing the deletion can see the article in its present state?
Yes. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

1. How would you close the following AFD's?
A 1 Keep, no consensus for a deletion.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
B 2 Keep, no consensus for deletion.
I don't like the reason for this keep. It was 2:1 to delete...Could you re-evaluate and give a reason for deletion like "Notability proven by x" or whatever? Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability proven by the external websites, and the controversial google test (and I'm no expert but his military achievements seem important).
C 3 Keep, no consensus for deletion.
I would say relist. Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
D 4 Keep, no consensus for deletion.
Same with B. Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the external sources and the google test and most importantly per WP:N.
E 5 Delete.
Delete why? Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Per consensus.
F 6 Keep.
Good. Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the revisions are good. Malinaccier (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?
A. The comments of sockpuppets or contradictory comments.
3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?
A. If they can be redirected to another page, they should. If not they can be deleted also.
4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
A. Personal information or copyrighted information.

These are good. Malinaccier (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 3

Let's make these answers good and long. :)

[edit] Is this Wikipedia?

  • What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
Very amusing but not true. Although many of us are frustrated at the amount of pokemon charaters and other (in my opinion) useless information, the articles must have met WP:N otherwise they can be challenged. I use Wikipedia as a primary source of reference (along with my corporeal encyclopaedae) and usually find most articles up to my standards. I especially value Wikipedia articles with many sources.

[edit] Fun and Humorous?

I honestly don't mind humour or fun on Wikipedia, providing it isn't added to the articles. I don't mind the odd joke on a userpage or even on a talk page. I myself took part in a joke last April 1st and was awarded a barnstar for it. If an editor feels the need to add humour/fun to an actual article, I would provide them with a link to uncyclopedia. = )
Regarding my position on Jayron's essay; I would claim to be a 'middle ground man'.
    • What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly or "bad" userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed?
It's rather hard to generalise this kind of thing. I obviously dislike userboxes that violate WP:Attack, but who is to determine what is too silly to be a ubx? I suppose I could be guilty of pointless userboxes too. Mine can be seen here if you'd like to comment on whether you think there some are inappropriate ones. I suppose one could argue that this, this and especially this don't really serve an encyclopaedic purpose. But then if you're going to be picky...why not scrap ubxs alltogther? None serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than the babel ones, surely?
(I'm not against any of your UBX's, don't worry!) Most are silly, but do they hurt the project? Couldn't categories such as Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping be included in the silly category? Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that most are silly. I wouldn't say that they hurt Wikipedia unless WP:civility is breached. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, works for me! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?
Yes. I don't believe that the majority of cabals are here to harm Wikipedia and that is a good enough ground to keep them to me.
Ok. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

There is a certain controversy surrounding admin coaching. Many believe it's gaming the system (I think you're aware of this, right?). What is your opinion on the matter? (Don't worry! Your response won't hurt my feelings! :) )

Well I don't really understand the phrase "gaming the system" but I'm assuming it's negative. I am aware of the negative comments a few people have made about admin coaching. Quite frankly I find them unfounded. As I previously mentioned, I believe that, in theory, everone ought to be an administrator. To make sure that they wouldn't damage Wikipedia we must first determine that they are (A) capable of using and utilising the tools properly and (B) they are trustworthy enough. The latter is decided on at the Rfa. I believe a brilliant way to determine A is admin coaching. The admin coach would obviously never nominate their student if the believed s/he wasn't 'up to scratch'.

Personally I have fallen in love with the four phase system. I believe their ought to be a Wiki-policy page somewhere elaborating various methods of admin coaching. There, you and a few other people who have developed systems (I have seen one or two others) could demonstrate how your systems work and are built up.
Also, I know quite a few users who are either too shy or think they aren't capable of 'wielding the mop'. I would love to coach such users. Even if towards the end they still do not want to be nominated, they would still have benefitted from the process and may consider adminship sometime in the future.

I tend to hold the same stance toward this as you. One of the main joys of Wikipedia for me is developing editors through admin coaching! (And getting bold requests for coaching from great potential admins like you is awesome :) ) But anyways, take a look at WP:GAME for more info on gaming the system. Malinaccier (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Ah I see what is meant by 'gaming the system' now. I never was good with slang terms. = )

[edit] Fail

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

I would agree with the statement 'sucess is qualitative not quanitative'. If we were to go by quantity, Wikipedia is definitely not failing! I believe that most articles on Wikipedia are just as (if not more) informative than other corporeal/online encyclopaedae, this is especially true of well-sourced articles. I don't believe Wikipedia needs any radical changing to make it better. The German Wikipedia has introduced 'sighted versions', which could be quite a good idea on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps we could also learn from them on their toughness towards vandals.

[edit] Ageism

Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

Obviously I am rather biassed in this one = ) but I will give you my opinion of the matter nevertheless: No, no and no. Everything seems to be working fine as it is at the moment. The key to administratorship should be maturity: Sometimes one comes across children that are more mature than some adults: The same goes for Wikipedia: I am sure there are adults who vandalise for a laugh, just as I am sure there are under 18s who are regular, invaluable editors to Wikipedia. Besides if we are going to implement such a system, why not go the full nine yards and merge with Citizendium? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
About WP:MEAT.
I'm assuming after that recent run-in, you've read the policy, correct? Instead of reverting you should discuss. Do you have any questions about Meatpuppetry? (I feel obligated to bring this up, sorry!)
I had read it before (obviously not well enough =( !) and yes you are correct, I have re-read the policy. I do have one question, yes: What does one do if loads of bad faith edits have been made to a page and one wants to revert all of them but can't because rollback can't be used (because it isnt obvious vandalism) and one doesnt want to violate 3rr? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You can manually undo to an old version of the article and use an informative edit summary as to why you are doing so. After a second revert to the article, start discussing incidents with the users and opening a thread on the talk page. If someone agrees with you on the talk page, they can revert it without being a Meatpuppet. You may also want to read this. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And another:If I edit from another PC in my network, how can I prevent being labelled as a sockpuppet?--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as no other accounts have edited from the IP used on your other computer network, you won't be labelled as one. If others have, chances are they won't edit similar articles that you do. You can probably just explain this if a checkuser brings up false positives. I heard that some user who edited from several proxies and public computers had literally thousands of false sockpuppets! Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that is a serious amount of damage to revert. I am thinking of making a public account for use at college. There shouldn't be any problems as long as I mention so on both account pages, should there?--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

←No problems whatsoever. You can even give it a clever name like mine. :P Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Registration

In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain.

A few weeks ago I would have said: “Yes, yes, yes!!!” but I recently read a page about reasons against such a policy (I can't find the page anymore) but it really changed my stance. It said that in some places of the world, users are prevented from registering or one can be arrested for their views (countries that do not have freedom of speech). This was really the main factor for changing my mind.

Makes sense, but should anonymous proxies in these countries remain unblocked? Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question = S--Cameron (T|C) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROXY says that open proxies should be blocked when found. Should proxies used by people in such countries be left open as a courtesy to their anonymity? Note that "Open proxies allow malicious users to rapidly change IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns." Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, to put it simply! = ) And thanks for adding it to the admin reading list = )--Cameron (T|C) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Power" of the Admin

How important do you think administrator duties are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why? Furthermore, what extra influence do administrators have compared to other users?

I believe administrator duties are vital to the smooth running of Wikipedia. I think there should be more administrators, I don't every believe there could be too many (I put this down to my belief that, in theory, everyone ought to be an administrator (yet again!)). I do not believe administrators ought to have more influence than any normal user. Administrators should merely be the guardians of the tools and should not use them as they wish but according to policies and consensus.--Cameron (T|C) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
How would you deal with an abusive administrator who is using their status for influence? Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If it was the first time I would just write them a discrete note however if such behaviour persisted I would have to report them to WP:AN. --Cameron (T|C) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 4

Any questions, areas you want me to cover, or whatever else may not be in those categories?

I have one question: What is the exact difference between AN and ANI? They both seem more or less the same to me or am I just being muddle-headed again = S ?--Cameron (T|C) 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
AN is primarily for letting admins know about things, and ANI is for incidents that require administrator attention. There's a very fine line between the two, and the division is very subtle. Malinaccier (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Thanks. --Cameron (T|C) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm...You should fix that whole thing about Doctor Who. There seems to have been a discussion on the talk page resulting in consensus being that the material is removed. I really have no clue about the subject, but I can see that you don't want all that work to go to waste. IMO, you should go back, apologize, and extract the "good" parts of the removed content and put them back into the article. Read WP:EFFORT too. Malinaccier (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to keep out of it in case I get too worked up. Information has been removed that clearly doesn't have sources but doesnt need to have any as WP:EPISODE applies but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. I also found two of the editor to be rather rude. Do you think I ought to go back? I obviously, will if you recommend so.--Cameron (T|C) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to go back, but I think you should communicate your views on the talk page. (Then maybe it would bother them) Malinaccier (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have raised my concerns on the talk page and will keep an eye on the article. --Cameron (T|C) 20:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll do a few "lessons" here that I've come up with. (These are much different than the standard set of questions!) Malinaccier (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith

(Don't worry, this isn't in response to anything you did.) Although it is very important to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE now, it will be even more so when/if you become an administrator. Every action that you take will represent the project itself. Your behavior will become synonymous with how Wikipedia is in the eyes of New Editors. Therefore, the utmost care must be given to deletion and blocking when regarding these people.

Keeping the above in mind...

A new user creates the article "John's Auto Shop." Assume that it is written in perfect prose, with a neutral point of view, and with adequate sources. But the one problem is the subject is not notable whatsoever. In what way would you deal with this that would leave the writer with a positive view of Wikipedia?

Well it would have to be speedied. But in order to leave the writer with a positve view of Wikipedia I could tell them about our guidelines on notability and tell them if their future edits adhere to policy I will look forward to working with them and that their edits will be valued. I could also add a welcome template list Wikipedias policies and guidelines. --Cameron (T|C) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to move the article to a user's sandbox for adding on to (I know I said "not notable whatsoever in this case :) ). Sometimes a few days of adding references can go a long way. Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN—an admin's greatest resource

As stated in the section header, WP:AN is one of the best tools that an administrator has access to. On this noticeboard, you can get other administrators to review blocks you are unsure about, inform you about a policy that you are looking into, and get other admins to help you out.

There is no shame in asking for help—even after you have become an administrator. You will generally find that almost any admin is open to questions from their peers. Accepting that you need help also makes you stronger in many's eyes, and I would not trust an RFA candidate who refused to ask for help.

You can also get general help from other admins including myself. Like I said, almost every admin is open to offering feedback, an opinion, advice, or whatever help you need. No questions for this one. Just leave a message saying you understand!

I understand = ). It's a good job there's no shame is asking because I am always doing so! I had to ask one user something 5 times earlier on before I worked it out. Thankfully they were very kind and extremely patient! And a note: As an admin I would be sure to have both AN and ANI on my watchlist. --Cameron (T|C) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
AN and ANI are constantly at the top of my watchlist, but it rarely ever helps because of the levels of activity there. Speaking of watchlists...what interesting pages (in the projectspace) are on yours? Malinaccier (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You are going to think I've completely lost my marbles but: Which one is project space again?--Cameron (T|C) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:AIV is projectspace. Basically anything with Wikipedia as a prefix. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see: I call it Wikipedia space = ). Well no I don't have many wikipedia space things on my watchlist. Most of the time they are edited so many times per day it isnt useful to have it on your watchlist anyway. I do have refence desk on my list, however, and the admin reading list in case anything new is added.--Cameron (T|C) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Do you plan to grant rollback as an admin?

Yes I think I feel confident enough to grant rollback. I would be sure to review their edits carefully and would do so especially in my first weeks as an admin. I really like your rollback template by the way = ). I added it to my list of favourite templates!--Cameron (T|C) 12:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 :). What are your personal standards for granting Rollback? Most requirements are rather lax...Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I think its rather hard to state requirements. I think every case is more or less separate. I wouldnt grant rollback to anyone with under 3000 edits or a recent entry in their block log for my first few weeks as I wouldnt want to be responsible for anybody using rollback inappropriately. --Cameron (T|C) 12:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3000 edits is a rather steep requirement. Most admins (including myself) only require around 50 edits and no edit-warring in the person's recent history. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were lamenting the laxness of requirements? I would lower my requirements as I grew more experienced...I just don't want to be responisble for a major mistake in my first few weeks as an admin (if I pass).--Cameron (T|C) 16:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it is up to you. I would not suggest actually turning down requests on WP:RFR for that reason, however. Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh no of course not! I meant if I had to give someone rollback as my own choice. Also if anyone asks to be granted rollback and they dont meet my 'beginner admin' criteria I would not turn them down I would merely refer them to another admin = ).--Cameron (T|C) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was worried you'd start arguing over at WP:RFR or something :P. So what are your recent daily activities here on Wikipedia? Malinaccier (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Well there are some very interesting discussions on Scotland, Wales England as to whether they are countries as well as constituent countries and if the English definition varies from the American English one. British and (some) American government sources state that they are countries within countries but this seems to conflict with the definition that a country is independent. It's all rather confusing! And then I recently created two articles: Schloss Michelfeld and Schloss Eichtersheim but there seems to be a lack of information about them on the net and they are too small to be included 'Castles and Palaces of Europe'. I have also been doing some welcoming work. --Cameron (T|C) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, what do you think would be the most likely cause for my Rfa to fail? Do you think there is anything I ought to work on particularly? Is there anything else I should change about myself? A recent oppose was based on the candidate being under 18 - I thought that was rather mean!--Cameron (T|C) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now, the main thing would be the time you've spent here. It's only been 4 months which is not enough time in many editor's views. Incident-wise, it would be the meatpuppet and mini-war on Doctor Who. Other than that, you should be fine (I'll take a closer look later I'm sora busy, sorry!) Malinaccier (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No that's fine already, thanks. = ) So what's next on the coaching agenda? I see you seem to have changed your methods slightly since making your list. = )--Cameron (T|C) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my plans for the fourth phase are just to cover what needs to be covered and to try some new stuff. Try these: Malinaccier (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)I would leave this one as there is no vandalism after the final warning.

Example 2 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)No vandalism after final warning.

Example 3 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)There seems to be a large gap between the edits, so I'm not allowed to block.

Example 4 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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)Make sure the public pc thing is added and block for 6 months.

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. Indefinite block, evidence of a vandalism only account.

Example 6 xxx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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.If it was vandalism to the exact same pages and I know it is the same person I could issue a 24 hour block otherwise I would have to make do with another warning template and make sure the shared IP temp is on the talk page. --Cameron (T|C) 11:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

These look good. The main lesson of this is to be able to make sure there is vandalism after final warning. You seem to understand that well. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking, I ought to mention the 'incident' in Q3 of the RFa. That way maybe it won't be held against me.--Cameron (T|C) 11:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good. Near the end of the coaching, I usually have my coachee re-answer the 3 questions. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I am not an admin I am not allowed to remove anyone from AIV, so I spend quite a lot of time adding little notes saying 'no vandalism after final warning'!. I like the idea about reanswering the questions towards the end of coaching = ). --Cameron (T|C) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's really helpful when people add those notes, so thanks! Can you take a look at this RFA. You have a support vote in the neutral section...Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me I have put it right now = ). --Cameron (T|C) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

←No problem! :) Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Situation

Here's a hypothetical situation:

You grant "User:Somebody" rollback. Two days later, another user messages you on your talk page pointing you to a thread on "Somebody's" userpage warning him against using AWB to make seemingly pointless edits. They think that this abuse of automated tools extends to his rollback use, and thus it should be removed. You check "Somebody's" contributions and they have not used rollback incorrectly. What do you do?
Well I'm not too familiar with AWB but here it goes: I wouldnt revoke Rollback rights as you said this feature hadn't been used incorrectly. I would probably warn them about making pointless edits. If the pointless edits were harmful to the encyclopaedia I would warn them about making such edits. If they really are harmful, then I would tell them that I may have to revoke his rollback if he does not discontinue the harmful activities. --Cameron (T|C) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically you're right. The main point of this is to realize that while "Somebody" did abuse AWB, he didn't abuse rollback, and therefore rollback shouldn't be revoked. By abusing AWB, I mean doing pointless things to boost their edit count like rearranging categories and languages, etc. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Boosting one's edit count is pointless anyway if you ask me. I only check edit counts to see how long people have been at wikipedia the rest is all quality check. But then other users see the matter differently.
PS:Have you seen my first Rfa? I had about 50 edits and thought I would make a good admin? It's all rather embarassing but I think I have addressed all the concerns now. = )--Cameron (T|C) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, you had a different username then...what was it? Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been doing your homework = )! I was known as Camaeron back then.--Cameron (T|C) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen it before now--And now I've seen it again. Basically it was an early nomination. What did you learn from the experience? Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I learnt that I should have done a lot more reading up (especially policies and the admin reading list). I think I knew it was going to fail but the rfa really helped give me all the pointers I needed. Even though I failed so miserably I found the rfa to be really constuctive. I especially liked the list of things to do by User:Dlohcierekim. --Cameron (T|C) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

How would you deal with a copyvio? What if the article that was a copyvio was a new page? What if it was a highly-visited page that had been around for a long time?

Copyvio is very serious. If the copyvio was on a new page, the page can be speedied. If there is copyvio content on a highly visited page I would delete the copyvio content but make sure the info doesnt get lost completely (ie rewrite the page using the source or be lazy and let notify some who wants to rewrite the page!).--Cameron (T|C) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot: The copyvio offender needs to be notified about the policies, so he/she doesnt commit again = )

Good answer here. You only forgot that "...and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." Malinaccier (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question: What do you want Wikipedia to be in 5 years? Do you believe you will still be editing then? Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What do I want Wikipedia to be in 5 years? A more complete and better sourced encyclopaedia. Other than that I'm really quite happy with Wikipedia as it is. I think I will still be editing in 5 years...I'm in perfect health at the moment = ) and I believe there will always be work to do here. New articles are created...older articles need updating...--Cameron (T|C) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question...You don't use huggle, right? Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Do you? Do you think I should? --Cameron (T|C) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't use huggle, no. My suggestion is to not use it. Ever. Period. :P Malinaccier (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't approve? I keep hearing about how useful it is supposed to be. --Cameron Public (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just take a look at this. There's so much controversy going on about Huggle that it is better to just stay away from it IMO. (I like what you did to my public account's page lol! :P) Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a separate huggle account could be quite a good idea if one wanted to use huggle. Sorry about your account page! I wanted to copy the content (how lazy of me!) onto my own public account but because I was on a different computer to my own, I pressed save on your page! Sorry ; P!--Cameron (T|C) 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now

I've looked through your last 500 contributions and I have some suggestions for you:

  • Participate in at least two deletion discussions per day. In your last 500 you've contributed to two total, and I think you need to do a bit more before you can be trusted with the delete button! :)
  • Ease up a bit on the welcoming. I only welcome people when I see that they have edited something I'm interested in. There's not really a problem with "mass welcoming", but I think that a talented editor such as yourself should spend their time more productively. (I'm not insinuating anything like "welcoming new users to the project is not important" it's just that I want you to be more active in other things!)

Otherwise, keep doing what you're doing! Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I found them very constructive! I have been doing a lot of welcoming because I (as you have probably noticed) haven't been online all that much (due to exams) and wanted to do something friendly = ). It is a shame that hardly anyone ever replies. If I had any idea about programming, I would consider making a welome bot! Thanks again = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about your activity level so much. Most users have a dropping activity level around now because of things like exams and whatever else may be going on. Also, I see you've made it onto WP:HAU :). Malinaccier (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is 500 edits per month and a little knowledge of Wikipedia, so I was bold and added myself = ). I am thinking of writing an essay about nationalities on Wikipedia. I will be sure to notify you if I ever finish it. I read your Samaritan Act essay a while ago, it was really good = ). --Cameron (T|C) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, you're sucking up. I know it wasn't that great--it was just something I was getting annoyed at. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it is brilliant in theory. Only in practice it's another matter...I think we ought to make people's contribution pages watchable. It would make keeping an eye on vandals a lot easier.
Read this. :) Malinaccier (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that! = ) -Cameron (T|C) 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think TreasuryTag is a good candidate? How did you review him as a candidate beforehand? Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew beforehand how contraversial some of Treasury's edits have/had been but I genuinely believe that Treasury is still a good candidate, even now. It is rather sad that the Rfa started off so bad. I put it down to lack of looking at Treasury's good edits. My nomination is just a quick look at some of his great edits to ANI, AN, AIV, UAA etc. Sure, he has had some bad experiences in the past but I believe he has learnt from these. --Cameron (T|C) 16:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'd like you to read the de-sysopings here so that you have an idea of what is not acceptable as an admin. Most of it is pretty obvious stuff, but still. Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually really depressing! --Cameron (T|C) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's sad that people abuse their tools in such ways. Do you understand the concept of leaving "footprints" in Adminship areas? Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, is it something I should read up on? --Cameron (T|C) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing you can read up on, because it's not really a policy. It's where you choose administrative areas and concentrate on that area so that when you become an administrator you already have a lot of experience there. I did this prior to my RFA, but the term was coined by User:Balloonman in his coaching process. Malinaccier (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an area in which you think I would do well to do a bit more work in? Obviously I won't be able to put all too much work in the next 2 weeks but after that I could get started. --Cameron (T|C) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely new page patrol is where I'd get started. WP:NPP should have some information on the subject. Malinaccier (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing your contributions...

I've decided that you don't have enough experience in deletion. Keep trying to comment on two XFDs a day (I've noticed you've been slacking! :P). And can you please also get some experience at WP:NPP? Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise, I'm still not fully "on the job" so to speak. I have been revising for exams again, sorry! On a more positive note: I took a look at all the reading material on image copyrights and I am pleased to say I can now tell you what all the little icons mean and whether or not they are appropriate for Wikipedia! I've finally overcome my imagephobia! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on getting over your phobia :D! Keep up the good work! Malinaccier (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)