User:NJA/Admin coaching

This page is a record of I'm Spartacus!'s past admin coaching of Nja247.

Hey there Nja, Sorry your RfA didn't go as you had hoped. I was encouraged by the fact that you did have so many supporters, which is why I accepted you as a coachee. I thought your RfA would be speedily closed for the reasons that I mentioned. Not anything personal, but rather a simple lack of edit history that allows us to make an educated evaluation of you as a candidate. Which is kind of what makes coaching you a little bit of a challenge. Just as there wasn't enough to know who you were to make an honest assessment, it is hard to know how to give you guidance now. So let me lay out my basic mode of thought when coaching. I do not coach to pass an RfA, I coach to help the candidate become a better more well rounded wikipedian---which in my opinion results a person who is ready for the tools and can show that they are ready. To do this I treat coaching primarily as an editor review. Once or twice a month, I try to give my coachees an in depth revie of their edits. What they did right and what they did wrong. I will always note the mistakes that I observe, not because I want to kick you for them, but rather so we can discuss them. I'd rather know about blown calls and be open with people when they read our coaching page. It is nice when a criticism is made in an rfa to be able to say, "Yeah, we know about, we talked about it during coaching." Besides the ongoing editor review, there are few things that I ask of you:

1) Find a place where you can contribute to building the encyclopedia. The most obvious place to build the encyclopedia is via article contributions. While some people think this is the only way to build the encyclopedia (and might oppose if you don't have article building) it is my preference that you find a way to contribute that you like. A way that you can help improve the encyclopedia. 2) Contribute in one or two areas which is seen as "adminly." Examples include XfD's, Help Desk, AN, ANI, etc. Basically, what I want you to do is find an area where you can make 2-4 edits a day and start establishing a footprint. After making comments on one day, I want you to revisit your comments on subsequent days. The reason is because the general wikicommunity is your best coach. For example, you might make a comment at XfD. I might think it is a perfectly rationale reasoned comment. A person who lives at XfD might know about a policy/guideline/precedent that neither of us knows about and might give us constructive feedback. 3) Consider an area or two that you find solace in and want to work. It can be an area you already work in, but it needs to be something you like and want to do. Don't worry if it "adminly." 4) I will probably pose a series of questions on a weekly/bi-weekly basis as homework assignments. In my opinion, these are of lesser importance than the actual contributions that you make to the project, but they do help solidify your understanding of policy and will help others see that you do know what we are talking about---or at least that you were coached on the correct answer. (In some cases, there won't be a single correct answer.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds excellent to me. I'll continue doing my account creation work and the reporting of problems I come across from newly created promotion and vandal only accounts. I've already restarted GA reviews. And I've started, and will continue getting involved in AFDs when possible. I look forward to this process and your guidance. Thanks again. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Assignments

Home Work Assignment 1

The following is a test Balloonman designed to make sure that admin coachees can assess AFD/DRVs. Most of the cases are actual cases that were closed one way and overturned by DRV. All of the cases were at AfD or DRV.

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

Do not use Wikipedia to see if the page still exists or if it was deleted. For best results, once you've made a decision about a page, don't go back and change your answer based upon subsequent exercises. But if a subsequent review has you questioning/changing your position, discuss mention it under the latest question.

1. Exercise 1
2. Exercise 2
3. Exercise 3
4. Exercise 4
5. Exercise 5
6. Exercise 6
7. Exercise 7
8. Exercise 8
9. Exercise 9

DRV

1. DRV Exercise 1
2. DRV Exercise 2
3. DRV Exercise 3
4. DRV Exercise 4

My comments

AfD's

Before I respond, some of these are judgment calls... my judgment can difer from yours, so if we disagree, don't take it personally or think that my reasoning is correct. Some of the answers if you gave it to five different admins, you'd get eight different responses! I also designed this test to include different aspects of the project that you might not otherwise encounter.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Issues I have with the listing:

The person who nominated said it should be merged first, then deleted, and then kept or merged later.

Many of the "keeps or deletes" were 'per my reasoning with other nominations', which is okay, but kind of lazy and not helpful to the debate at hand. I like to see actual discussion and reasoning.

Overall: I would not delete, but keep and suggest merger if possible. The consensus was more clearly a keep rather than delete.

That is the exact same rationale that I used when I first closed this AFD. When I saw the two cases below, I revisited this one and relisted it. In hindsight, I would have felt justified in deleting it per the rationale discussed in the other two XfD's.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

2) I would delete as I believe there was consensus to do so. Further, the comments raised good points that whilst the man was a hero, notability guidelines hadn't been satisfactorily established. There was one good argument that the article had met WP:BIO, but I felt the arguments for delete as well as my review of WP: BIO meant this was not clearly the case. It really came to consensus and the lack of reliable and independent sources.

The big problem that I have with this article is that the references are lacking. If references could be provided, then I would have not problem keeping it. I included this article for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates an alternative to closing an AfD or voting on an AfD. Rather than closing the discussion Redfarmer relisted it for further discussion. When he relisted it, it could have easily been closed as a delete, but he probably didn't like that option so he relisted it. An option for number 1 would be to relist the issue for discussion. The second reason why I selected this article was because I felt that this represented a case where consensus could be over written by sound reasoning. Based upon the observations made in the "strong keep" I would have had no problem with somebody citing them as proof of notability and thus deserving of an article---eventhough the 'count' said otherwise. Closing debates isn't necessarily about counting votes---it can also be about the strength of the argument. To me the final argument was compelling---perhaps that's because I'm a military brat.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying. If there were more refs by independent and reliable sources I could easily have seen myself convinced by the strong keep argument despite consensus otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3) This one is tough as it had equally valid split discussions. I would extend the discussion for more feedback, but if I had to choose I'd keep it as he probably meets the 'creative professional' guideline of WP:Notability_(people)

You might find this article interesting... the guy who argued for keep is one of the few wikipedians who has an article about him on Wikipedia because of his activities on WP. He is a staunch inclusionist. It is good to know about people with agenda's such as Nicholson Baker. There is also a group whose sole purpose is to {{rescue}} articles from potential deletion. This group is knowledgable about deletion policies and often saves articles that otherwise will be deleted. I also picked this case because you will see a lot of articles with one or two votes like this one. Where there isn't much said in the AfD debate. I don't think a merge would be appropriate at this point, although you could !vote for a merge. If you are interested in how/why this was saved, take a look at the DVR related to it. The DVR is incorrect in many of the claims, but it does show why it was saved.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

4) Notability has clearly not been established here. I could see this mall being mentioned in an article relating to "for hire" Security or Police, but as it stood it did not need its own article due to lack of WP:N, without independent WP:RS. This decision roughly correlates with the consensus to delete as well.

Personally, I don't believe that "super regional" malls are inherently notable. But this goes to a long standing dispute on Notability. Some camps believe that "inherent" notability is important and should be defined by people who are familiar with the subject---in this case people who work on the shopping center's project beleive that 1 million square feet of retail equates to notability. The other camp believes that there is no such things as inherent notability. These two camps are constantly at each others throats. It is why a lot of wiki-projects have their own "criteria for notability." WikiProject Poker came up with our criteria of notability because we wanted to "define" what we considered notable both to argue for certain people, but more to eliminate non-notables. Our attempt to 'define' poker players who are inherently notable created a huge flap. Officially, the Poker Player notability guidelines have no official status, except that they are an "essay" of the Wikiproject. Another example is professional atheletes. The problem, however with these "essays" is that sometimes they become ingrained as fact within the AfD process. WP:BIO now states that anybody who has played in a professional sport at the highest level is inherently notable. That means, that the person who in 1934 was called up to play in a single baseball game, had one at bat, struck out is by definition notable enough for an article---even if said person never did another thing in their life! Likewise, when these Mall articles come up, there is "precedence" that even if the mall isn't notable, if it fits certain criteria, it will be salvaged---if for no other reason that people from the project will come to it's rescue. NOTE: It is not considered canvassing to notify wikiprojects when a page with one of their tags is up for deletion... in fact, some consider it rude not to.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

5) Consensus was to delete, and I would have to say I completely agree. I realise in the first C&C article example I'd keep it, but the comments and consensus here were more convincing of why the article didn't meet notability and its lack of reliable sources. I agree with one commentator that it resembled a fan essay rather than a encyclopaedic article. However as the tag was within a month, I'd check the talk page to see if there were plans to fix up the article before deleting.

See below---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

6) I agree with the essay that real places have inherit notability as long as a reliable source can verify their existence. And so long as the article is not an tourism advert. Tourist information should go to Wikitravel. Thus here, I'd keep it after personally verifying its existence.

The logic used to preserve this was a little bit faulty. Not all places are inherently notable. It is a common practice that places that are larger than say a village are are notable, but a place with 50 people wouldn't be. That being said, your checking to see if the place actually existed is better than what most did.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

7) Again, this was a completely uncited article meaning that on the face of it notability cannot be established. A read through again felt like a fan essay or game guide and not an encyclopaedic article. I'd have to agree with the deletes which tended to give actual reasoning. I'd also check the talk page to see if there were plans to fix the article to be encyclopaedic.

I ran into these three exercises shortly after becoming an admin in the order presented... and not back to back to back. I kinda of went through the same process that you did. I reluctantly kept the first one, then deleted the second and third. After seeing the 2nd and 3rd, I went back and relisted the first one to get a broader perspective. In hind sight, I could have easily justified deleting it referencing the other two discussions. The point that I wanted to bring up here is that our actions aren't done in a vacuum. How you close one of these might have a bearing on how you close the others! Would it make sense to keep one and close two identical articles? Similarly, there may be precedent that you are unaware of that might be used to override a deletion down the road.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

8) It meets notability with significant coverage, has reliable and independent sources. I realise Wikipedia is not a news source, as tends to happen with current events, thus we need to ensure it's something notable and encyclopaedic in the end by looking at its content and where it's going. Here there was information on extradition, capital punishment and a controversy. Overall I believe the keeps were more successful in their reasons and I would therefore keep, further the only 'delete' was by the nominator, thus I think consensus is beyond clear here.

Speedy keep and perhaps a warning against the person who nominated it. This case was one wherein I wrote the article. I had nomed another article for deletion, the author of the article I nomed for deletion tagged several of my articles for deletion in a tit-for-tat. This should result in further investigation---particularly since a few people have indicated that this is a bad faith nom resulting from my nominating an article for deletion. In real life this was taken (by another party) to ANI. The person who made the nom became one of my big supporters during my own RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He must have been having a bad day. Speedy keep and possible warn due to the controversy shown in the AfD process is a sensible idea. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

9) On first look at the article itself I thought it was clearly original research and not notable in its own right for an article in an encyclopaedia. Then I read through the comments, and was persuaded more by the keeps even though there are less of them than deletes. Overall the comments which pointed out that there was already an article which lists deaths in Harry Potter/Chronology lead me to decide on 'merge and delete'.

Which is exactly what the final result was. I included this one because regardless of the decision, you would probably have people pissed at ya. This AfD used to be a standard question at RfA's. There is no right answer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rightfully so, it was long and challenging to decide on what exactly to do. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DRV's

1. Initially I'd say delete since the author could not be found and it's arguably replaceable fair use especially since one was found under GFDL (though not really). After reading all the comments and reviewing the NFCC I suppose I'd keep if a rationale was applied to the image.

2. I am quite unhappy about someone creating a Wikipedia article about themselves, especially with at least one self-published source. However in this case the consensus is he has enough notability, and that the second AfD was closed too early by a non-admin (per: WP:SNOW) in good faith. I would in this instance allow the AfD to run its course and based on the comments keep the article and add appropriate maintenance tags to it.

I am wishy washy on this one, I was looking up my answers from the spring and I said that I would keep it closed. The AFD would not have reached a delete result, so relisting it would be pointless. I therefore endorse closure decision. But it was closed over the holidays, where many were not active, thus, today I would say reopen.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that it was during Christmas and do think that the timing will dictate what to do occasionally. Honestly a good example for me to learn. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3. I believe, and agree with the consensus here that AfD's should not be closed per SNOW unless it's clear the AfD is going one way or was done incorrectly or in bad-faith. Based on this, I would have re-opened the AfD to allow proper consideration of the article.

4. Consensus is that the article should be deleted after discovering that the place was in fact non-existent. It was good to re-open to AfD to allow proper discussion, as was done here.

Nod, I included Vanderbilt because it was a fascinating case study and one that shows the errors that people can and do make.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Assignment 2:AIV excercises

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

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

Last three warnings:

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

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

Last three warnings:

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

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

Last three warnings:

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

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

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

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

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

Replies

Example 1 As the user is clearly being disruptive and has been given a final warning, I would block the user for 24 hours. The block may be longer depending on the seriousness of the vandalism and whether they've been blocked recently. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Example 2: I'd hold off until the user edits once again after receiving their only warning (4im). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Example 3: I'd be unlikely to take any action at this time since it's been more than 24 hours since the warning. However there is a consistency in the vandalism, thus I'd likely keep a close eye on the account and if it continues the pattern a block for a few days may be in order, but not at this time. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Example 4: I'd renew the school IP block for another 3 months. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Example 5: Vandalism only account which likely warrants indef block, though depending on severity I would consider at minimum a one month block. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Example 6: As it's a shared IP there's no way of knowing the warnings have been noted and done by the same editor. If the vandalism is clearly severe or it's obvious it's the same editor (similar vandalism) I'd consider a 24 hour block, though my first thought is to give another final warning and then block if it continues. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the most part these are excellent answers... there might be discussion around some of your decisions, but none would say "You are wrong." At most they would say, "I would have handled it slightly differently." For example, in example 3, they were blocked for 3 months. You would have placed another 3 month block on them, I would have probably doubled that to six months. Who is right? I can't say. Similarly example 6, and this was perhaps your weakest answer, since they hadn't received a level3 or higher warning, I'm not sure if I would give them a block.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Homework assignment 3

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

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

They are strict as unnecessarily deleting articles before they've had a chance to be properly developed may be hurting the encyclopaedia. Some articles are obvious non-sense or fall within the other CSD guidelines, otherwise the article and its author should be given the benefit to properly develop the article by using maintenance tags, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hasty deleters IMHO can do as much damage to the project as the vandals they are fighting. CSD is necessary, but needs to be done properly with the proper constraints. There are others who hold a more aggressive approach, but I disagree with them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

As noted above: article tagging, but in addition notification of guidelines on the author's talk page and participation in any resulting discussion. Sometimes merging may be an option, or suggesting other wiki projects ('transwiki'). Otherwise there's proposed deletion, AFD, and the separate copyright vio process. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is an obvious copyvio, it can be deleted right away. The one that you forgot is improve the article yourself. One of the things I recommend to people who are primarily CSD'ers is that they take some time to rescue articles that they see. They don't have to write great prose or new articles, but this lets them stand out as different.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I could be a smart guy and say it comes after 2, but before 4. However, actually this is a good answer because at level 1 and 2 you're assuming the editor it acting in good faith, but after that point it's becoming more of an issue and at that point you're only briefly reminding them of policy and now warning that continued breach can and will likely lead to being blocked from editing (as at level 1 and 2 they were told in more detail on policy, but not warned about blocks). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nod, and a lot of times people won't block until at least a level 3 warning has been given. I've given a level 3 warning to constant vandals, and then they respond by immediately stopping AND apologizing. I think some people forget that their edits can be traced/watched, so it has a better affect than one might think.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Technically I do not think there's a difference in prescribed policy between established editors, new-comers, or even IPs. However of course judgment must be used, meaning it will depend on the level of contributions of the established editor, any past issues (i.e. warnings on their talk page, other blocks they've had, etc). Regardless as normal sufficient warnings must be given before a ban, which can be lifted. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nod, technically there is no difference between them. If an admin warrants a block, they warrant a block. In reality, people are more prone to block a newbie/IP than an established user, this is because we don't want to chase off an estbalished user and might be misinterpretting things. But you are correct, the answer is there is no difference.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

Per normal (varying amounts of time), though indefinitely unless proxy. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the above what you meant to say???---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Fourth revert, thus exceeding the 3 revert rule. The editor could be blocked earlier if the editing is part of a pattern of vandalism, copyright issues, serious defamation or some other sort of extreme issue (serious: incivility, harassment, personal attacks, legal threats). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

It takes a little bit of detective work, common sense and gut instinct to be honest. Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry is an excellent article on this. Personally, if I encounter a recently created account following a recent ban which has a similar username and makes similar edits, or creates a dissimilar name but makes essentially the same edits and starts up 'unfinished' edit wars or admits to being the old editor. Checkuser can be used for IPs. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good answer---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

A quick way to revert vandalism only edits (more than one even at same time) without the need of automated tools such as twinkle. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Semi allows only those with an autoconfirmed account to edit, whilst the former restricts editing to admins or higher only. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Essentially when the vandalism is persistent and by multiple editors. When the vandalism is done by IPs, or a large number of non-autoconfirmed accounts semi-protection makes sense, and/or when the article is subject to media attention and there's been disruption/vandalism because of it. Full protection would be for edit wars, or in the rare occasion that a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm not personally a big fan of that policy. Rather I subscribe to BOLD. IAR for me would only apply/invoke it is if a specific rule prevents me from doing something that I truly believe to be right and non-disruptive to Wikipedia. For some people this is fine as they will have thought out things and used common sense before IAR, but this is not always the case, which is why I'm not a cheerleader for that policy. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Well it depends. If it's consistently CSD and the author claims somewhere that they are working to bring it inline with guidelines then maybe assist them in doing so before recreating so it's not CSD. Otherwise try deletion review process. If the article in question is clearly rubbish then consider having the article protected from re-creation. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

I believe WP:U and particularly WP:CHU explain it better than I can. But in short:

1. Review those policies to ensure your chosen name doesn't violate any restrictions,
2. Check the listusers log to see if it exists,
3. If okay at this point then login to current account and request new name here. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Misleading usernames (implying you're a bot, sysop, real person but not actually them (celebs, etc)); Promotional usernames; Offensive usernames; Disruptive usernames; domain names and email addresses. Those with confusing usernames may be engaged to change it via the method noted above in question 13. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

If the information in question does not comply with WP:V then remove it -- no questions asked. Similar actions should be taken if it fails NPOV, or is obvious original research (thus likely to fail verifiability guidelines anyhow). If it somehow passes V, NPOV, and is not obvious OR and you've been BOLD or even invoked IAR and your edits are contested and you're getting no where on the talk pages then I'd recommend the dispute resolution process; starting with 3rd opinion (if only one editor is complaining), or by posting to the relevant noticeboard listed at WP:DISPUTE, consider RFC, mediation and of course as last resort ARB. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Report it to Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

I'll admit mine are not as stringent as others: essentially WP:AGF is the bulk of it. A candidate needn't be the most impressive editor ever seen, but they must have a rounded experience before given the tools, i.e edits shouldn't be too one-sided, e.g. very little admin experience or alternatively content creation.

However I believe there are too many current incivil admins. Thus any display of incivility by a candidate would had to have been an isolated incident with sufficient recent edits to display to me it was truly isolated. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Revert the vandalism, let them know on their talk page you've done so and remind them of proper talk page etiquette. Definitely do not take it too personally or retaliate. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey Day

Well I'm going to be travelling, so I won't be posting here for a few days. But I wanted to wish you a happy thanksgiving. Well continue next week.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a safe trip to wherever you're going. Talk with you next week. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

some reading

Hey NJA, rather than give you some home work assigments right now, I want you to take a look at some of the essays I wrote. They can be found on my user page. I want you to look mainly at the following essays: 1) Why I hate Speedy Deleters 2) My Coaching Philosophy 3) How to act like an admin. If you have any comments on those essays or feel the need to make corrections to them, feel free to do so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am actually shocked to learn about admin shopping for CSDs. I admit I've made errors in CSD noms, but most of them were CSD (to me) at the time of my tagging. Unless the article really is obvious vandalism I do try to check the author's history and see if they're new or established. It would be nice if more editors did check the contrib history of the author before tagging for CSD (tying in with being more cautious as you said). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I had read the admin philosophy before even asking you about coaching. I felt I definitely had a few things to learn from you, and it's been a good process thus far! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

I'm doing a quick review before bed, but wanted to give you some feedback. While I know this happened before your first RfA and our meeting, remember the motto of not templating the regulars. Templates are fine for newbies, but considered rude when working with somebody who has been around the block... it is always better to leave a personal note. A quick look looks good, but I'm tired... it's 1:23 am and suddenly my body is shutting down... I wanted to look over your edits in more detial, but can't focus right now... take a look at hte essays I mentioned above and give me feedback.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I've some mock exams today and Friday, and of course Christmas is coming fast, but I'll make time to read and comment on the essays. Have a good holiday. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Review - End of December

Hi NjA, One of the areas where I think coaching is under utilized is that of editor review. I've been busy, so I haven't done the reviews I usually perform, but I'm going to do a quick one tonite:

1) I like your contributions to usernames needing attention. They have all been solid contributions showing a distinct understanding of policy surrounding user names.

2) You user boxes on your main page is messed up, at least on my computer I can't read them.

I hate to hear that. I've tried it on Mac and Windows (Firefox, Safari, and I think IE 8). Could you possibly do a screenshot and email it to me? You must have been using IE 7 and hopefully it's been fixed to at least show up now. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

3) I like that you are notifying people when you report them or are prodding articles.

4) The other day you tagged an article Ronnie Radke. For speedy deletion (A1) as it only has the person's name in the article. While this article clearly did not have any context, I didn't like the tagging of the article as it was litterally saved the same minute that you tagged it. In other words, somebody saved it and you immediately tagged it. This is a pet peeve of mine and part of the reason why I wrote the essay on "Why I hate speedy deleters." Too often speedy deleters will tag articles that are mistakenly written in the mainspace before giving the article a chance to be expanded by the user. I agree with the admin who removed your tag with a note ("give it a chance.") Within 3 minutes of that, another person had once again tagged it for deletion and you retagged it as context and it was deleted by a second admin, whom I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with. This is a case of what I would consider "admin shopping." It was denied by one, and 3 minutes later retagged to get another admin to delete. That being said, a better rationale for deletion might have been, G4 --- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Radke.

Agreed, and I do prefer other methods of deletion, but I'm trying to not avoid CSD altogether. I am working to train my use of it in only clear cases and also to be tagged correctly. This is an area I need to finesse. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

5) On another article, you gave the article 4 tags--- {{notability}}, {{sections}}, {{uncategorized}} and {{unreferenced}} AFTER the author had requested the article to be deletd G7 (Author request.) By making those tags, you come off as a little Bity. There were several other occassions where you tagged articles after they were nom'ed for speedy deletion with multiple tags. Tagging articles with mutliple clean up tags can chase away novice users.

I think it's one of those things that there were literally simultaneous edits that I didn't catch. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

6) LOL, found it humerous that an article was speedily deleted while you were addng tags... shows you how fast speedy deleters can work.

7) I'm not seeing much in the way of non-template talk. Always using templates makes it hard to see how you interact with others and how you interpret policy/guidelines.

I make use of templates as often as possible and will customise them as needed if they do not touch on everything I wish to bring to their attention. Also I'm trying to ensure not to template the regulars. I think this is a decent, recent example of a custom talk notice. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

8) Use rollback in cases of obvious vandalism. Removing a CSD tag from one's own article isn't obvious vandalism. Likewise, "incorrect edits" should not be rolledback or undone, they should be changed via traditional edits. I know it takes more effort, but Rollback and UNDO are exclusively for vandalism... by using them in other cases, you are essentially calling good faith edits vandalism. I know, it's nitpicky, but that's how people view it.

I do know this, but I suppose I need to pay more attention. Hopefully I've only used the real 'rollback' for vandalism? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

9)Most of your edits this past month to articles has been in the way of minor edits. Haven't seen much in the way of article building/contributing to the growth of wikipedia.

Yes, aside from finishing a GA review and a major edit to oxycodone most edits have been minor this month (though I GA'ed MacBook late last month) as I've been dealing with assessments. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

10) Here is a perfect example of why tagging articles immediately after creation for speedy can be wrong. The article is still stub class, but is not speedy deletable. This article also represents a reason to watch pages you tag for speedy.

It looks like you are interested in NPP/CSD work, these are important areas of the project, but people who like to work there, will find it difficult to pass an RfA without showing some article building experience... and remember while you may have articles, you are essentially starting over with a clean slate as of November. Your long break basically separates who you rae now with who you were then.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 07:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of CSD work, rather tagging new articles by new accounts as appropriate, which may mean CSD. Though as noted above I hope to limit use to only as needed and correctly, and alternatively tagging the articles correctly and watching them for improvements. If the improvements are not forthcoming then I may consider PROD and then AFD. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Nja247 (talk • contribs)