User:Rockpocket/Quiz

[edit] Admin coaching quiz

1. As an administrator, would you be open to recall?
- Yes - being an admin is an honor - not a privilege, thus to assume that you be granted that right once is somehow synonymous to a grant of everlasting rule is ridiculous. An admin is not above the community - they are part of it, no more important than the anonymous IP editor, so an admin can't assume that they are above the communities judgment.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

2. When blocking vandals and answering requests at AIV, what would your criteria be for blocking?
- I believe that the vandals should have been given a significant number of warnings - either the max amount or maybe one less than the max amount.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

3. What is your opinion on BLP in regards to reliable sources and original research, and how strictly would you follow the policies, if at all?
- I think there is an absolute need to enforce BLP strictly. Past incidents (such as the one with the guy who was accused of plotting to assassinate JFK) have resulted in extremely negative aftermaths - and obviously to preserve the integrity of not only Wikipedia but also the person - reliable sources are crucial.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Can you comment on these articles for me please: EPA Technology, Philip Anderson, Dan Morrow, Pour tea on your turkey and John Fraser Smith. Would you list them on AfD, speedy them or leave them? (Riana kindly made these for this purpose)

EPA Technology - This one seems to have a good number of facts - however the lack of sources, lack of wiki format, and pov kind of worry me. I think for this I would first check if any copyright was violated - primarily because of the lack of wiki format and pov, and then in addition to appropriately tagging it with clean up templates, I would probably {{prod}} it.
Philip Anderson - I would speedy this based on either g1 - patent nonsense, or g2 - test pages.
Dan Morrow - Per WP:Notable and WP#NOT:CRYSTAL (essentially we're predicting that he will be notable) I would speedy this.

One could argue that there is an assertion of significant and a {{prod}} might be better. However, I can't see anyone would argue with a speedy, as the claim is very weak. Rockpocket 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Pour tea on your turkey - I would simply clean this up myself, but also cite it with the {{notable}} tag - as there aren't any sources. Assuming no sources were found within a reasonable time period - I would speedy it.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what WP:CSD grounds one would speedy this one. Could you clarify which criteria you would use? I think I would {{prod}} it. Rockpocket 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Is it ever appropriate to treat young Wikipedians differently from other editors?
- - No, while there are disproportionate amounts of warnings given to younger editors -the same practices should go for each. A reminder of the rule they are violating, and then begin with standard warnings. If it's not a vandal situation the same goes - as every contributor can have valid ideas about improving an article.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Have a read of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. There is no policy or guideline (yet) but there is an argument that the security of children should be paramount and hence identifying information of children removed. This issue arose regarding one young editor I was involved with, Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs). See here. Rockpocket 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

6. When is it appropriate for an admin to go against consensus?
- The only time I could see this happening is if it was an WP:OFFICE matter - but beyond that never.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

7. How would you close this AfD (please explain your reasoning and make you decision based on the version in the diff, not the current debate, but feel free to read the previous Afd nomination]
- I would probably wait a few more days for debate - but assuming no one else gave their opinion I would probably keep it - there doesn't seem to be clear consensus in any direction.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

8. How would you close this AfD (please explain your reasoning and make you decision based on the version in the diff, not the current debate, but feel free to read the previous Afd nomination]
- I think the consensus is clearly to keep it - and I doubt that the reason for deletion is valid. A public figure can't just say that he doesn't want people to discuss him.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

9. How would you have handled the unblock requests of Common Sense Prevails (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)? Would you have blocked him in the first place? If not, what would you have done instead, if anything?
- I don't think I would have blocked him in the first place. I might have given him a warning to remain civil - as he does make some questionable comments in the talk:Negroid page - however it seems like all of his edits were constructive - and Rockpocket as I have discussed with you I think that should a previously blocked user come back under a different alias and attempt to start over and make constructive edits - that should be allowed.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

10. Read this section: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Linking out. Now, with regards to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, how would you handle future links to medical advice on Wikiversity? (ignore the associated, tangential debates, its just the appropriateness or not of linking out i'm interested in)?
- For some reason I can't find that discussion....--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

11. What did you learn from: Wikipedia:Editor review/Danielfolsom?
- Well firstly I learned not to be so quick to make assumptions - the key issue there was I assumed he just wanted to talk about one issue - and I was trying to actually suggest that I could more quickly respond if he posted on my talk page - however that assumption turned out badly. I do however, think that his response was somewhat excessive to my response - as on that page the primary thing that I did was respond to each of his comments one by one, and then in a last comment I mentioned the thing about my talk page - and he took that as me saying I had bothered him.--daniel folsom 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)