The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Phase one 2.1 Checklist 2.2 More questions 3 Phase 2 3.1 Traditional questions 3.2 Some fairly common questions 4 Opinion wanted 4.1 NPOV Questions 4.2 Continuing 4.3 To phase 3? 5 Phase 3 5.1 Is this Wikipedia? 5.2 Fun and Humorous? 5.3 Re-confirmation 5.4 The Power of the Admin 5.5 Snow 5.6 Banned Users 5.7 Ageism 5.8 False Credentials 5.9 Reward System 5.10 Fail 5.11 Registration 5.12 Pile-on RFA's 6 Moving to phase 4 6.1 Re-answer 6.2 Dumb mistake 6.3 RFA Study number one 6.4 Where to? 6.5 About thankspam 7 Moving along

[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. It should last approximately one week.
• 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. This should last approximately two to three weeks.
• 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. This should last one to two weeks.
• Phase four consists of studying an RFA or two, and determining the candidates strengths and weaknesses. This will familiarize you with the process, and get you ready for your own RFA. This will last approximately one to two weeks

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! Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase one

[edit] Checklist

This checklist will give me a better idea of what you have done. Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever:

• !voted in an RFA?
  • Yes, most recently on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai
• listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
  • Many times
• requested a page to WP:RPP?
  • No
• had an editor review?
  • I currently have one open, but have only received one review and have received two reviews
• reviewed an editor at editor review?
  • Not really, but I did comment on an ER of a user that had used an offensive edit summary
• signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it?
  • Not signed up, but read it sporadically
• use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.?
  • I use TW, popups, and Lupin, but none of the stand-alone tools. I used AWB and VP before switching to a Mac.
• contributed to an XFD other than AFD (I'm trusting that you've been to AFD before).
  • I have commented on a CFD or two and a few IFD and MFD discussions
• posted or answered a question at the reference desk?
  • I answered a follow-up question on an archived RD question, but I have answered several help desk questions
• uploaded an image?
  • Yes, a few
• welcomed a user?
  • Yes, many times
• mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
  • I’ve acted as a neutral party in a few minor disputes, mostly during AfD discussions
• participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
  • No, not that I recall
• taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
  • Eventualism vs. immediatism: I vary between the moderate versions of these philosophies, depending on the article subject and, I suppose, the mood I’m in
  • Statusquoism: Moderate statusquoist
  • Communityism and Encyclopedyism: I lean more toward encyclopedism
  • Authorism vs. Communalism: Authorism is more in line with my thinking
  • Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism: Sysopism with a healthy dose of politicism
  • Edit warring: I practice WikiPacifism and have never been involved in an edit war
  • Adminship: I think that most admin duties are janitorial in nature, but admins should, in my opinion, obey a higher set of standards than non-admins
  • Neutrality: It can sometimes be very difficult to write from a neutral POV, but it should be sought after nonetheless; this is an encyclopedia, after all, and personal opinions really have no place in an article
  • Factions, advocacy and suppression: I think that it’s inevitable that people end up somewhat factionalized even though it can often cause unnecessary conflict
  • Vandalism: I don’t like it, not one bit, however I have to admit that it has drawn my attention to articles that I may have not noticed otherwise

You don't need to go into much more depth here. Thanks for answering. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More questions

Here's a few more questions about articles you like to edit:

1. What are your favorite contributions to Wikipedia? Your best contributions?

A. The vast majority of my mainspace editing has been reverting vandalism, cleanup, and tagging. To try to get more article editing experience, I’ve signed up for SuggestBot’s spamlist as a source of ideas. As for my best contribution, I created an article about my son’s school: The Regis School of the Sacred Heart

2. Do you tend to concentrate on any one article type to edit?

A. Not really, as long as the subject interests me.

What kind of work do you do with the Houston Wikiproject?

A. I really haven’t been active in that project. It seems that every time I look at articles that the project is focusing on, none of them spark my interest. Then again, I haven’t checked in in a while… Frankly, other than the article above, I’ve probably made more edits related to WikiProject Firearms.

What have you done with this project?

A. I created a stub or two and have done copyediting and cleanup on several articles.

3. What percentage of the time do you spend fighting vandalism compared to just editing encyclopedic content?

A. Well, I’d say that it would have to be on the order of 99:1 at this time, which is certain to draw opposes at an RfA.

A possible idea to fix this would be to edit the pages about books you have on your userpage. I spend a lot of time working on articles about Harry Potter, and there are plenty of things that could be added to those articles.

4. Have you contributed heavily to WP:AFD?

A. I have nominated quite a few articles for deletion and !voted on many more. I don’t frequent AfD nearly as much as TenPoundHammer for example, but it is one of my regular haunts. Frequently, when I see a debate for an article that ended up speedily deleted or where the nomination was withdrawn, I take the initiative to close the debate.

5. What weaknesses do you see in yourself?

A. I’m very technically-inclined and writing, i.e. creating an article, is quite difficult for me. I know good, encyclopedic content when I see it, but I’m typically lost when trying to write it. On the other hand, when it comes to cleaning up others’ writing, I have a good sense of grammar and am proficient in proper visual formatting.

(a bit extra) Yesterday, it occurred to me that the real problem is that I find it difficult to write from a completely neutral pov. In expressing myself or offering an opinion, for example, I’m very comfortable. It’s the dry presentation of facts that I find challenging. Again, though, I have no trouble recognizing pov when I see it.

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 check my watchlist frequently and tend to concentrate on an area of interest, be it newpages, wp:delt, or another area. Helpdesk is on my watchlist, so I try to help there when I can.

7. Why do you enjoy editing Wikipedia?

A. Mainly, I guess, because even when simply reverting vandalism, I learn something new every day.

7a. So you would consider vandal-fighting your area of expertise?

A. Well…sort of. Reverting obvious vandalism was my main focus early on, but more recently, I’ve been concentrating elsewhere such as newpage patrol, AfD, and help desk. I do fully understand WP:VANDAL, though.

8. Upon becoming an admin, what tasks would you have to read up on? What tasks would you totally avoid?

A. (Admin tasks, I assume…) I would want to make sure I fully understand the how-to and ramifications of any admin action - WP:ARL is a good starting point, I think. I would avoid any controversial actions, at least at first, such as blocking a well-established user.

9. What Admin-like tasks have you not had experience with?

A. I don’t exactly understand what you mean

Such as WP:DRV, reporting WP:3RR, copyright problems, and other less well known admin tasks.

A. Aha… Well I haven’t participated in DRV and I have yet to run across an active, i.e. reportable, 3RR violation. On newpage patrol, however, I’ve come across a ton of copyvio issues which I usually nominate for G12 speedy. I have also started pointing out COI problems when I spot them. I’m sure that there are other areas that I haven’t participated in, mainly because I haven’t stumbled across them yet.

I see that you will be busy tomorrow. That's ok, just answer these questions when you have the spare time. Malinaccier Public (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 2

In my opinion, I've gathered enough information from phase one as possible. So we'll move on to the next phase.

Please note that I’ve added some additional info to my answer to Q5 above. I think that it will better explain and clarify my previous answer.

[edit] Traditional questions

We'll start with the traditional RFA questions.

I will answer these questions “cold,” i.e. without reading any RfAs for examples of good or bad answers

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

A. As a new admin, I will concentrate in areas in which I have a high level of understanding. Specifically, speedy deletion, page protection, and blocking of vandals. I have a strong grasp of the criteria for speedy deletion, as demonstrated by my record of having very few speedy deletion nominations declined. I have gained better understanding from those declines and will try to pass that knowledge on to others by declining nominations which don’t meet the criteria. Those that do meet the criteria, of course, will be deleted. My experience with blocking has been gained from submitting reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. As for page protection, I haven’t submitted any reports to WP:RFP, but I will watch the list and protect pages when necessary. As I gain experience, I will expand my work into other areas.

2. (You've already answered the standard 2nd q above) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I’ll answer it anyway A. While the occasional conflict is inevitable, I have never been involved in an edit war and I can’t envision a situation in which I would engage in one. Of course, though, I have had some stressful encounters with other users including some lengthy AfD debates. In those situations I have remained as calm as possible and have offered reasoned explanations and responses. If I feel that I might respond in a way that will cause future regret, I step away from the situation for a time to calmly collect my thoughts before continuing.

[edit] Some fairly common questions

1. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR?

A. Yes.

1a. What is your opinion about this? Why would you add yourself to this group?

A. As an admin, I will not be worried about being recalled. I expect that, if ever the subject of a recall request, my behavior and admin actions will withstand additional scrutiny. If not, I will voluntarily step down. I will, however, place conditions on recall requests; either Lar’s conditions or something similar.

2. What's the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A ban is a procedural mechanism which revokes a user’s privilege to edit all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be imposed by a community decision, the arbitration committe, or more rarely, Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia foundation. A block is a technical mechanism whereby an administrator can prevent a user from editing Wikipedia. A block is typically used to prevent vandalism, stop edit warring, or other violation of policy. A block can also be used to enforce a ban.

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. First, I would contact the other admin directly to discuss the matter. If we still couldn’t agree, depending on the nature of the disagreement I would ask for a third opinion, initiate a request for comment, or another dispute resolution process.

4. What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)

A. As an admin, my approach toward vandals will be the same as my current approach. I suffer fools lightly, although I have a fairly strict position on vandalism. At the same time, I can usually tell the difference between wanton vandalism and edits made by an inexperienced user. True vandalism is reverted and the vandal is template warned. Newbie mistakes also are reverted, but I usually give a mild warning and add a welcome template to give the new user information that will hopefully help them to become a productive member of the community.

5. Can you provide a specific time where you helped a user.

A. Yes: Help desk help desk help desk moved a page mistakenly created in mainspace another page move

[edit] Opinion wanted

After !voting to delete at this AfD, the article’s author disagreed with me. I offered what I thought was a reasonable explanation of my opinion, but the other user continued to question me. What do you think and what could I have done better? I have reason to believe that this will come up in the future. —Travis^talk 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I agree that you fully explained your stance on this matter. The only thing you could have done better in this situation was ensure Geo Swan that you were not assaulting his ability to write with a NPOV. Since he wrote the article, he was naturally defensive about comments going on at the AFD. My advice for the future is to list this as your response to the question: "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?" and explain how you tried to reason with Geo Swan and how you were not accusing him of writing without a NPOV. Frankly, I wouldn't worry. You were acting in good faith, trying to help, and not doing anything wrong. Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I’ll keep it in mind. —Travis^talk 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, a user who I had "caught" in an edit war ended up coming to my RFA, asking a couple of tough questions about the situation, and ended up supporting me anyway. Don't worry about it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Questions

Since you seem worried about the NPOV situation, I will ask you a few questions pertaining to NPOV policies to prove your knowledge of them, and increase your confidence. Note: You may read the corresponding articles and look over RFA's for good answers.

1. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?

A. As I understand it, a POV fork is a “child” article created to advocate a particular POV that is either missing or presented in a balanced manner in the parent article. An example I recently came across is Criticism of Linux. A hypothetical example would be an article titled “Green cheese and the formation of the Moon” or just about anything covered under WP:FRINGE presented as a valid, supported alternative viewpoint.

2. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.

A. I learned a couple of things that I didn’t already know by reading WP:NPOV. When writing or editing an article or when intervening in a content dispute:

1. Do not give undue weight to any viewpoint. All significant viewpoints should be represented fairly an in proportion to the prominence of each. Something I wasn’t already familiar with is this important qualification: “Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.”
2. Employ good and thorough research. Thorough, unbiased research of a topic will go a long way to avoiding viewpoint disagreements.
3. Work for balance. Present opposing viewpoints in a fair and balanced manner.

3. Label each statement as either being neutral or not:

1. 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.

   POV

2. 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...

   NPOV

3. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.

   POV - True, but the wording needs to be improved to be NPOV such as was done with the Scientology statements above

4. Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.

   It sounds NPOV to me, but I’ll have to read Nietzche to confirm the truth of the statement

5. Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.

   POV

Good job on the scenarios. Malinaccier (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a pretty fair understanding of the NPOV policy, so we'll move on. Malinaccier (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing

1. How would you apply WP:IAR to your work as an admin?

A. Generally, if a rule is standing in the way of an improvement, it may need to be ignored. In life, I use common sense as a guide and I expect that, as an admin, I will apply a healthy dose of it here.

2. What is your own personal criteria for adminship?

A. For me to support the promotion to admin, a candidate should…

• have at least 1,000 edits, of which the majority are non-trivial
• have been actively editing for at least six months
• not have any unreversed blocks in the previous twelve months
• have experience in policy-related areas, i.e. xFD, AIV, ANI, cleaning up vandalism, etc.
• be intimately familiar with the deletion and blocking processes and criteria

…but ultimately a candidate must…

• demonstrate good common sense and
• be able to admit and accept accountability for his or her mistakes

Well, you meet your own standards. That's good. =]

3. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?

A. I can’t really think of anything except for possibly amending the CSD to allow speedy deletion of obvious hoaxes

Yes, I agree. I hate going through AFD's for albums that went 1,000,000 x platinum. =]

LOL I came across one of those on newpages patrol a few weeks ago!

4. When would it be appropriate to decline a request at WP:AIV?

A. I can think of a couple of situations in particular. One would be for any bad faith reports. Another would be for vandals that haven’t been sufficiently warned and aren’t blatant vandal-only accounts.

5. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

A. This can be necessary in situations where confirmed users are involved in an edit war, for example.

6. Will you use a strong password for your account?

A. I currently use a strong password, i.e. mixed case, numerals, and non-alphabetic characters.

7. Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?

A. Besides being able to reset a password, I expect that there will be situations where non-public communication will be necessary.

And also for a blocked user to contact you about an unblock.

Yes, of course.

8. When should "cool down blocks" be used? Hint: It's a trick question.

A. That doesn’t sound like a valid use of a block to me. In a case of edit warring, for example, I would use page protection if necessary to enforce a cooldown.

Blocks should never be used as a cool down.

9. When should a page be SALTed?

A. In the case of repeated recreation of an inappropriate page, the title may be salted to prevent further disruption. I note that the method for salting has recently changed due to the new ability to protect a nonexistent page.

[edit] To phase 3?

I think you already have a pretty firm grasp of policy. Should we move to phase 3? Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, although I do think that I understand policy pretty well, I wonder if you wouldn’t mind commenting on some of my answers above before proceeding. For example, were my answers to “Continuing” 7 and 8 correct? Thanks —Travis^talk 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My only problem was with Q7, as it should also be enabled for blocked users. (explained above). Unless you have another area you want to be questioned in, then I think we can safely move on. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Thanks —Travis^talk 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase 3

Getting closer...

[edit] Is this Wikipedia?

• What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
  • LOL… This is an amusing representation of how some people view the content of Wikipedia. Although, some days special:newpages looks somewhat like this, but the junk usually ends up deleted. Seriously, though, there do seem to be a lot of Pokémon, Naruto, other “fancruft” and X “in popular culture” articles. In general, though, I do not agree with it. While many Wikipedia articles could stand to be cleaned up, expanded, or deleted, in my opinion, the vast majority of Wikipedia is “actually useful stuff.”

[edit] Fun and Humorous?

• Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia? Why?

(Interesting essay…thanks for pointing it out.)

Yes, fun and humor do have a place in Wikipedia, although it should be applied with great care. A little humor can go a long way in easing tension in a conflict, but a good deal of thought should be applied before introducing humor. Wikipedia is edited by people from very diverse backgrounds and what may be funny to an American, for example, may be highly offensive to someone from another culture.

From my understanding of the essay, I think that I mostly fit into the middle ground category. Ideally, all Wikipedia editors would fall into the “encyclopedist” category, but with over six million users, that is somewhat unrealistic. The “community maintenance” position, however, will probably never produce a quality encyclopedia. It is simply a far too casual approach to the task at hand. If everyone says, “Someone else will fix that article,” it will never be fixed.

That’s why I prefer something in between the two. Some users enjoy creating and improving articles and are highly skilled at that task. Others may not enjoy that but would rather improve the encyclopedia by cleaning up vandalism and performing maintenance tasks. I don’t see the two positions as being mutually exclusive; on the contrary, I think that they are symbiotic. The “encyclopedist” views tasks not directly related to creating and improving articles a waste of time, but many users would simply leave if required to conform to those standards.

• What about Userbox content? (look here for more info) Should ridiculously silly userboxes that serve no encyclopedic purpose be allowed? I notice you don't have any userboxes. Why?

Actually, I do have a ubx page, you just need a keen eye to spot the link. Hint: Under the icons on my userpage. I don’t have them on my userpage because I don’t want the clutter. If anyone really wants to see them, then they can simply click on the link. I do think that userboxes (userboxen?) can serve a purpose. As someone pointed out in that RfC, users can easily convey bits of information about themselves with userboxes. Mine give my geographic location, the languages I can or can’t speak, projects I’m interested in, and some useless trivia.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with them and don’t really care whether users display them or not. The way I see it is as long as a ubx complies with policy — not overly offensive, an attack, etc. — it’s acceptable to have under freedom of expression. After all, even if userboxes were banned, users could simply replace them with similar text, and I don’t think that many would object. For example, I could replace my first section of userboxes with:

This user hails from Houston, Texas, USA, and is old enough to have used a manual typewriter and rotary dial telephones. He has children, but still somehow has too much time on his hands. Speaking of time, his time zone is UTC-6 and he loathes daylight saving time, but is forced to observe it anyway.

Oh, can't believe I never noticed that...

• Do you think Wikipedia should keep cabals?

Yes, per my comments about humor above.

[edit] Re-confirmation

What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)

Well, I suppose they could prove necessary in certain instances. If a WP:AOR request passes, but there is consensus that the admin should “keep the mop,” it would seem appropriate. Maybe if an admin has received a large amount of criticism for making controversial, but policy-based deletions, blocks, etc., a reconfirmation might also be appropriate. On the other hand, I can’t see much value in an out-of-the-blue, “do you guys still like me?” reconfirmation RfA. Then again, with as many users and admins as there are on this Wikipedia, unforeseen circumstances are bound to crop up.

[edit] The Power of the Admin

How important do you think administrator powers are to the encyclopedia? Should there be more admins? Less? Why?

I’m not so sure about the use of the word power in this context. Yes, users with admin rights have more powerful tools than non-admins, but personally, I wouldn’t characterize those tools as “powers.” To answer your question, though, admin rights and the tools that go along with them are very important to the maintenance of the project. Since anyone can edit just about anything, a group of trusted users is needed to perform the tasks that non-admins can’t.

As someone aspiring to become an admin, I clearly think that there should be more admins. There are numerous areas of Wikipedia that require the attention of admins, but many of them have backlogs. Some of the backlogs exist because there aren’t enough admins or not enough admins willing to work on the backlog. I can’t mention anything in particular off the top of my head, but I have seen the backlogs out there.

One caveat: By saying that there need to be more admins, I am not suggesting that the standards for becoming an admin should be relaxed. On the contrary, I have seen many admin actions that I view as questionable and I sometimes wonder if the standards shouldn’t be more strict.

[edit] Snow

What is your opinion on snowing RFA's and AFD's?

RfAs: In a case like this, unless the candidate does something really bizarre, there is no chance that the RfA will fail, so whether it stays open or is closed early is largely academic. On the other end of the spectrum, the closure of this case was the correct action because there was no chance that the RfA would pass. However, I think that snow closure of RfAs should be done rarely and only in extreme cases.

AfDs: It’s pretty easy to see when a discussion should end in a snowball keep. If every user other than the nominator is !voting keep, snow is probably in order. For example, I would probably snowball this one. A snowball delete, on the other hand, should be considered more carefully. If an article doesn’t meet any of the CSD, but is clearly a hoax or other vandalism-type article such as this, a snowball delete may be acceptable. In other circumstances, I might not want to use snow.

[edit] Banned Users

In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the simple english Wikipedia. It's a pretty long mess, but if you want to comb through it, go ahead).

Wow. That particular Wikipedia reminds me of trying to have a conversation with my 3-year-old niece, but I digress. To answer your question, that seems to be a policy question for that Wikipedia, and since I don’t edit there and have only just now visited there a second time, I really don’t have an opinion. If the admins on simple want to transfer en’s bans then that is their decision.

(Sorry, I'm trying to weasel an answer out of you) What about bans on Simple—should they transfer over here?

Hmmm… well, in that case, I don’t think that there should be an automatic ban here for a ban there. Except maybe in especially egregious cases.

What about a "one strike you're out" system, instead of successive warnings given to other users?

Okay, that sounds good in principle, but in practice? Are we going to put banned users from every other Wikipedia on some sort of “watch list” here? I am not aware of a process currently in place to accomplish this. Alright, I suppose that a one-strike policy sounds like a good idea, if and only if it could be verified that a user here is the same as a user elsewhere.

[edit] Ageism

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

No, restrictions or lack thereof should be based on an individual’s editing and behavior, not age. I have seen many younger editors, including yourself, MasterOfPuppets and WhisperToMe, who behave and edit in a mature, concise, and respectful manner. All it takes is a quick glance at ANI or AN3RR to see how many adult editors (and admins) we have who behave like children. The age restriction on checkuser, because of legal concerns, is completely justified though.

Don't forget Rudget. =)

[edit] False Credentials

"I have a JD, so I should know the correct interpretation of the Good Samaritan Laws, and how they should be used in the article"

Do you believe that this claim should need some kind of verification? I could say to you right now that I'm 23, live in Vermont, and have a Doctorate in Biochemistry, but this wouldn't be true whatsoever.

Also, should lying about an editor's real life situation have consequences?

I doesn’t matter what the user claims; without reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, any interpretation is, by definition, original research. Lying about RL, if it affects the encyclopedia or community in some way, should have consequences. Those consequences should be based on the severity of the effects. However, if someone has your hypothetical lie on their userpage and it’s not hurting anyone, why bother?

[edit] Reward System

What is your opinion on a reward system for editing (besides the reward board)? This would be along the lines of gifts/cash per edits, gifts/cash per FA and GA, volunteer hours per edits, etc.

I just became aware of the reward board a couple of weeks ago. As a firm believer in free enterprise, I think that it is perfectly acceptable for individual users to post rewards for editing goals. On the other hand, it isn’t something that should be institutionalized, i.e. Wikimedia Foundation should never get into offering rewards.

[edit] Fail

Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?

By the criteria laid out in WP:FAIL, it could be considered to be failing. However, I believe that it is not failing. The number of articles is increasing and, by my estimates, the quality is also increasing. However, the quality could be improved through better education of the user base and the enlistment of more quality admins.

[edit] Registration

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

That is a difficult question. I know that there are many long-time contributors that have decided, for whatever reason, to forgo registering an account. However, it is clear that a majority of vandalism is done by anonymous users. Personally, I don’t understand the rationale behind not wanting to register. Some may desire to remain anonymous, however anonymous users are actually less anonymous since their IP addresses are visible to all. Registered users’ IP addresses are only visible to the handful of checkuser-enabled users.

To answer the question, though, I do think that a requirement to be registered before editing would raise the quality level of the project, if only by deterring drive-by vandalism.

Do you think Anons should have the ability to create articles? Or should this also be registration required?

I agree with the current policy of being required to register before gaining the ability to create articles.

[edit] Pile-on RFA's

You recently stated that you don't mind snowing pile on RFA's, but do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable (You haven't done this, I'm not blaming you or anything =])? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? WP:BITE? Why or why not? Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this? Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?

(I didn’t take your question as an accusation, anyway.) I can’t think of a situation where “strong oppose” would be particularly appropriate as it certainly violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. As for a guideline, I think that it is covered under the two I mentioned. I’m not certain that I would reprimand a user that made a “strong oppose” comment, unless it was particularly uncivil, but I have seen reprimands given in the past and agreed with them at the time.

On the other end of the spectrum, what is your opinion on "Moral supports"?

I think that they are sometimes helpful, especially in a situation where a candidate seems like they could use the support. (I offered one here recently because, while I think the user will eventually make a good admin, I wasn’t comfortable with his liberal interpretation of WP:NONSENSE.)

[edit] Moving to phase 4

In my opinion, you are fully ready for adminship, and will be a great addition to the Admin team. The only thing that other users will oppose you for is article building experience, and mainspace editing. You need to get to work on more articles. Once again I suggest copyediting and expanding articles about the books you have listed on your userpage. You may also wish to get more involved in your wikiprojects, and basic maintenance tasks if you wish (WP:DLP, WP:WSS, and other mainspace editing backlogs).

Despite your lack of mainspace edits, you may still wish to sumit an RFA, and get the public's opinion. Several RFA's of users with little or no mainspace editing experience have passed including this one, with 5 of the 6 opposes being over mainspace related concerns.

At this point, I will help you work on whatever concerns you have, while monitoring an RFA or two. Whatever concerns you have can be adressed now at your request. I have one other question I want answered first, while I find a good RFA or two to examine.

Also: As you can see, I have grossly overestimated the approximate times for each phase, as I designed this new method for a relatively inexperienced user.

• Thank you for your confidence and I will try to do some more work on articles. Yes, I was wondering about the time estimates…

[edit] Re-answer

Please re-answer this question, including your interaction with Geo Swan and your explanation:

Q. 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. While the occasional conflict is inevitable, I have never been involved in an edit war and I can’t envision a situation in which I would engage in one. Of course, though, I have had some stressful encounters with other users including some lengthy AfD debates such as this one. I think that the article’s author became defensive when I mentioned NPOV concerns after which a lengthy exchange on my talk page ensued. In situations such as this, I have remained as calm as possible and have offered reasoned explanations and responses. If I feel that I might respond in a way that will cause future regret, I step away from the situation for a time to calmly collect my thoughts before continuing.

[edit] Dumb mistake

While looking again at the talk page link above, I was reminded of a rash judgment I made on newpage patrol. The edit summary on this new article seemed to me to be a “just try and delete me” challenge and, after reading the article, I decided to tag it with {{db-bio}}. This embarrassing exchange ensued and the tag was quickly removed.

Don't worry about it. They won't crucify you for one accident that occured a month ago. Every once in a while, editors make mistakes. It's not like you went and deleted the main page (this has actually happened) or anything catastrophic. In fact, if anyone looked into this, I believe that it may actually be beneficial because of the way you handled the situation. You accepted your mistake, and didn't make a big deal about someone challenging your actions. The best way to deal with these types of things are just to smile, and not make a huge deal over it and forcing ArbCom to sift through it. I wouldn't worry about it. Malinaccier Public (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Study number one

A good RFA for you to study would probably be one where consensus is at about 50%, so this is perfect. I'll begin by asking a few questions on your opinions of the candidate's strengths, weaknesses, and how good their answers to questions are:

• What are the candidate's general strengths? Weaknesses?
  • Strengths: Brave enough to self-nom :D, prolific writer, seems to understand WP:N and image licensing, also seems to have learned from earlier conflicts
  • Weaknesses: Poor edit summary usage and he seems to make many, many small, incremental edits
• In your opinion, is the answer to question one too short?
  • Yes, I would have preferred to see a bit more detail and some expressed interest in areas of WP other than AfD.
• What is your opinion on the answer to question five? Is Sallico's comment a valid argument?
  • In his initial answer, he seems to have gone completely on the defensive rather than answering the question. His “followup reply” was much more appropriate and it is unfortunate that he didn’t answer the question that way in the beginning. Sallicio’s comment is valid in that it points out the candidate’s many qualities desirable to have in an admin.
    • Is the creation of the article in question relative to adminship? Why or why not?
      • While everything should be considered, this one stub isn’t particularly relevant. When the candidate’s contributions are viewed as a whole, this seems somewhat insignificant.
• Do you think his answer to question 3 (A: Very few. The last one I can remember was on the Nhat Hanh article. I had obtained a freely licensed image of Nhat Hanh at Flickr and became embroiled in a miniature edit war with another user who insisted on reverting back to his old press photo. So I brought the matter to the Mediation Cabal and ultimately the press photo was deleted from this site. Incidentally, I have obtained many photos from Flickr by contacting photographers there and then uploaded their relicensed works to Commons. I did have another issue on the use of flag icons in infoboxes. I have since aligned myself with the guidelines on the use of flags, however, and no longer insert them into infoboxes) is a strength or weakness, seeing as he couldn't resolve the problem on his own, and had to go to the Mediation Cabal for help?
  • It is a weakness in that he was unable to solve the dispute without going to MEDCAB. After reading the article’s talk page, I don’t think that enough was done to resolve the issue. Also, I think that the proposed photo swap should have been discussed before changing it rather than trying to make the case via edit summaries. However, he stopped before getting into an all-out edit/revert war and went for help, which is a good sign.
• So you would trust him with the rollback tool after reviewing this?
  • I haven’t seen anything to make me think that he would abuse the tools. However…
• Mind Meal appears to have less than 9 edits to WP:AIV (Per the count onthe talk page) Considering this relatively low experience, would you be more inclined to support or oppose the RFA based solely on this.
  • …I am not in support of him becoming an admin. He seems to be a fantastic author/editor, but I don’t see why he needs the extra buttons. Your probing questions have driven me to the opinion that Mind meal doesn’t need the tools just yet. With more para-admin experience, maybe.
    • I agree, but will decline to comment, as the RFA probably won't pass.
• In your opinion, how long should mind meal wait to re-submit an RFA?
  • That would depend on how much time it takes to get some more admin-type experience, but I would say at least six weeks.

[edit] Where to?

If you want, I will nominate you now, but as I said before, I want you to get a little more article writing experience before going into an RFA. What we do after this is your choice. If you want help in other areas, then just tell me and I will help you with these. Otherwise, the only thing to benefit you would be to start a few articles, copyedit, etc. until your mainspace count goes up. So where to?

• Yes, I agree that I should put some more effort into mainspace editing before starting an RfA.

[edit] About thankspam

Will you be sending out thankspam after your RFA? There are a few things to consider if you are.

• I was planning to, yes. I don’t think that it’s necessary, but I do enjoy thankspam when I receive it.
  • Just so you know, if you use another person's thankspam template, make sure to ask them first for permission. I used a template I found hanging around, it turned out to be User:Miranda's, and I got a few emails from her. Just be careful.

Also, thanks for reverting that random edit to my userspace....

• You’re welcome. I ended up having that vandal indef blocked via UAA.

[edit] Moving along

I’m not sure that I’ll ever be much of a mainspace editor so, with that in mind, I might as well go for it and see what happens.

Alrighty then. I'll set it up! Malinaccier (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TravisTX answer the questions, and then don't forget to trasclude to the WP:RFA page. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.