User:Ginkgo100/Admin coaching

This is my Admin Coaching page. Please leave messages here, new messages on the bottom.
 * Hello. -- Steel 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ginkgo! :) I like your username; ginkgos are among my favorite types of tree. First off, a bit of an introduction: I'm Firsfron, but that name is difficult to spell, so feel free to call me Firs (people really do). You can find out a lot about me by visiting my userpage. I've examined yours, too. :) From visiting your talk page, I can see you're a very civil user; that's good: whether you are just using Admin Coaching to improve your editing skills, or you want to run for adminship at some point, people will want to see you're civil. :)
 * I'm also really glad to be teamed with Steel359. He's a good guy, and he'll probably have all sorts of advice and tips. I guess my main question at this point is why'd you sign up for Admin Coaching? Firsfron of Ronchester  22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An extra bit from me: As far as numbers go, everything is fine. Been around for 7-8 months, good distribution of edits, etc. I'm not sure what Firs has planned but there are some WP:CSD excercises around which I'll dig out at some point. -- Steel 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I visited both your userpages right away to see who my coaches were. =) Thanks to both of you. I signed up for admin coaching to help make sure I am prepared to request adminship. My main motive is that admin abilities would be very helpful for RC and vandalism patrol: rollback, blocks, speedy deletes. I can also help with admin backlogs and the like. The reason I asked for coaching is to help me uncover any problems I might not be aware of before they show up on an RfA discussion. Looking forward to hearing from you! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) Ok, some questions? Do you participate at RFA? I don't remember seeing you, but there are a lot of participants, so I may have just overlooked you. Participating -- or even reading-- the RFAs there will help you determine what folks may be looking for in an admin candidate: your edit count, edit summary usage, and where you edit will be examined carefully. Do you participate in XFD discussions? I only saw one edit to AFD in your last 200 edits, but maybe you have more in the past? People often look at your XFD edits to see if you really know what qualifies as a speedy, what just needs some clean-up, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAs & AfDs
I have looked at RfAs quite a bit to get a feel for what other editors think a candidate should bring to the table. I have never contributed to them myself, however. I have been more active in AfD in the past; lately I have been most active in RC patrol. I am more likely to prod or speedy an article first. Here is a list of AfD discussions which I have started. It is not necessarily exhaustive.


 * Articles for deletion/Eddie Galan
 * Articles for deletion/Bugginthesystem
 * Articles for deletion/Pink monkey - One of my first nominations, before I had a well-formed AfD philosophy.
 * Articles for deletion/Overstock.com Auctions
 * Articles for deletion/Self-Maintaining Home Aquarium - My very first experience with nominating articles for deletion. In retrospect, I should have just prodded it first.

This is a selection of AfD discussions in which I have participated. I chose these to give a range of different votes and give an idea of my reasoning.


 * Articles for deletion/American (ethnic group) - I became involved in this one via WP:RfC.
 * Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Current events in Rhode Island
 * Articles for deletion/Manalapan-Englishtown Middle School
 * Articles for deletion/Pro-Palestinian Lobby
 * Articles for deletion/Smart Television
 * Articles for deletion/Guangyang Secondary School
 * Articles for deletion/Greg Lindahl - Later tagged for speedy deletion when the article was recreated.

Although I do not use the concept of "notability" (see my thoughts on this), I have found that the core content policies, especially WP:V, substitute nicely when part of my moderate mergist/eventualist philosophy.
 * OK, great. It looks like you've had your fair share of AFD experience. Do you ever vote on RFDs, CFDs, or MFDs?


 * Also, on an entirely different note: have you been involved in any disputes on Wikipedia? I didn't notice anything on your talk page or in recent history, but I could have missed something. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, no experience with XfDs except for a single vote on the Counter-Vandalism Unit. As for disputes, I think edit warring is pointless, and as a result have experienced very little contention.


 * One instance was on police brutality. I tried making some potentially controversial changes to this article, mentioning them on the talk page, but got no response until this. I left a comment on that anonymous editor's talk page here, and since I take accusations of vandalism very seriously, I also immediately opened an RfC. Interestingly, the anonymous IP never participated in the RfC, but at least I got some feedback and a rough consensus on what to do in the future.
 * I also had a minor short lived dispute with User:StuRat on vermiform appendix regarding unverified information. (Diffs    ). The discussion can be found at User_talk:StuRat and Talk:Vermiform_appendix. In retrospect, none of those sources is particularly reliable and if this issue came up today, I would not include them. I see someone else has removed the information from the current version of the article anyway.
 * Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, Ginkgo. People like to see that an admin candidate can keep a level head. It's hard, sometimes, especially when it's a subject which we are interested in. If you've got over 3,000 edits and those are the only "disputes" you've had, Wikipedia would do well to have you as an administrator. One of the most damaging things on Wikipedia are those terrible Admin wheel wars.
 * I don't have much to add today, but I know Steel was planning those WP:CSD practices, so I'll shut my yap for now. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD
These CSD practices were created by EWS23 for his admin coaches. I've shamelessly stolen these from him. -- Steel 11:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

''Okay, this is a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases that I have come across while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through my deletion log to see if I deleted it, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).''

''Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (I plan on using these for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)''

''P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything (I'm the only contributor), but remember that in real cases the page history is important. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)''

Halo 3 trailier

 * Speedy delete, but under A7 rather than A1. Little as there is, there is enough context for me to figure out what it is talking about (and I am not a gamer). However, there is no assertion as to why this trailer (as opposed to the game itself) is significant. If there were an assertion of significance, I would have removed the db tag and moved the page to the title Halo 3 trailer. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, A7 seems the best bet. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Union Millwright

 * Speedy delete per A3. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Webs

 * There is some context and a bare assertion of notability ("one kickass car connaisseur," "can spin wrenches faster than you can blink/think"). I would remove the db tag and the contact information, and prod it, as it appears to fail WP:V at a bare minimum. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Acually, at the end of the five days of the prod, if I were the one deleting, I would instead redirect to spiderweb. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really consider "one kickass car connaisseur" an assertion of notability myself. I'd speedy. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Haverton Smith

 * Speedy delete under G10. There were zero Google results for "Neil Haverton Smith" -Wikipedia nor for "FAG-Free And Gay" -Wikipedia. The "cousin" comment clinches this as likely intended as an attack; therefore I would speedy delete. It is conceivable that this person really is a notable gay-rights activist who for some reason has no Google hits; in the end I have to make a decision balancing the odds the article is legit (very low) versus the odds the article is an attack on a living person (very high). --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd speedy. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

 * Speedy keep! This should never have been nominated for speedy deletion. There are very clear assertions of significance and extensive results from Google. I would even vote "keep" if it were listed on AfD. I would go to the talk page of whoever nominated it and politely explain that A7 does not address significance, notability, or importance, only assertions of the same. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the tag and move on. I wouldn't go though all the trouble of tracking down the vandal who added the tag. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

 * I would immediately remove the db tag and everything but the first two sentences. Most likely I would then work to improve this article, using and citing reliable sources, about a real criminal. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's better than what I would do. -- Steel 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Don't assume that what I'd do is the best course of action in all circumstances. I tend to err on the side of delete when it comes to CAT:CSD. -- 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions?
So, Ginkgo, we've been asking a lot of questions. Do you have any questions you'd like to ask? About policy, or guidelines, or... anything? I just want to leave the door open, in case there is something you want to talk about. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why yes, I do. =) First, a question about speedies: Is it appropriate for an admin to just delete an article she feels meets one of the criteria, or should she tag it and let a second admin decide whether they concur? The policy doesn't seem to address this. My guess is it's better to be bold in this case than to make extra work for others.
 * I'll ask more questions as I think of them. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I come across an article that meets a CSD criterion, I'll delete it on sight. As far as I know there are a few admins who'd tag it and let someone else decide, but IMO that just creates more hassle. -- Steel 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Steel, I've speedied untagged articles that were blatant policy violations (especially attack pages, but also talk pages of articles that don't exist). If I don't feel the deletion was in any way controversial, I've deleted without the tag, because I feel it's a bit senseless to tag it and then wait for someone else to delete it. Just use good judgement and you'll probably never have a problem. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another question, and really the question. I feel as if I am ready to request adminship, but signed up for coaching in case I am missing something big. I read WP:RFA frequently these days to see what kinds of things cause problems for candidates, and I don't see anything that would cause me a serious problem -- but it's not about what I see. If there is an area where I need more polishing, I would like to know now and do the polishing before my RfA. So do you see any area where I might have problems?
 * Elaboration -- one area where I can conceive of having problems is having an AfD philosophy, with a prominent userpage link, which many would consider controversial. My philosophy (notability is irrelevant) is opposed to that of many Wikipedians (notability is important). By rigorously applying policies such as WP:V and WP:RS, I typically come to the same conclusions as those in the pro-notability camp, just in a different way. However, do you think I should be prepared to defend my philosophy rigorously, or is it more likely to be a non-issue? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * People oppose for all sorts of reasons: "too many userboxes", "annoying signature", "no work on featured articles", "not enough edits in X space", "too many edits in X space", "doesn't have 7/24ths edits in X space", "too many AWB edits", "not enough edit summary usage", etc. It is really difficult to predict why someone might oppose, but once someone finds a weakness, sometimes there are pile-on oppose views, which is unfortunate for the candidate.
 * One area which mildly concerns me is your relatively low number of talk space edits: 182 to article talk space, 26 to Wikipedia talk. Also, you have only ever edited category space twice. And you admit you have never worked on WP:RFD, WP:CFD, or WP:MFD. These facts may not hold you back on an RFA (I don't remember any oppose views based on lack of XFD participation, but you never know), but you may wish to wait until thse edits are higher.
 * However, if you feel you're honestly ready for adminship, you should just go for it, in my opinion: Jimbo says adminship is supposed to be no big deal. If you decide you're ready, do you want a nominator? Some people frown on self-noms. When you're ready, I would be happy to nominate you. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  07:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: Regarding your AFD policy: there may be people who object strenuously to your philosophy, though I think you've a point about WP:V and WP:RS being perfectly adequate in determining if an article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. You could defend your view rigorously, but I recommend a more "zen" approach; people tend to be turned off by admin candidates who write endless responses to oppose views. A concise and friendly response seems to work better than a long explanatory paragraph few will read. Hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My Wiki-talk space edits were exceptionally low before I became and admin, and I never participated in any XfD other than articles, so I wouldn't worry about that. As for your AfD philosophy, I can't really see that being an issue. If someone opposes, saying that he/she wouldn't trust you to close XfDs with that wiki-philosophy, I'd just calmly explain to them that as an admin, your job is not to decide whether the article is notable/verifiable/has reliable sources/whatever, rather your job is to simply gauge consensus which other people have (or might not have) reached. -- Steel 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have thought of this, and it is exactly what I would do. A core principle of Wikipedia is to work from consensus, and I would never work contrary to consensus to satisfy some personal agenda. My AfD philosophy isn't even an "agenda" as such, just the way I approach voting on AfD. I'm not especially interested in closing AfDs (other admin tasks are more likely to get my attention, e.g. speedies, prods, dealing with vandals, other admin backlogs) but if it came up, it would be a non-issue: Consensus to delete is consensus. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 03:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If either of you feel I am ready and are willing to nominate me, I would accept at this time. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 03:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly nominate you (or co-nom, if Steel wants). Squee! This is so exciting! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  04:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're telling me! So exciting I forgot to sign. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Ginkgo, here's the nomination. You have to add it to Requests for adminship yourself, after you accept the nomination. I don't know if you want to wait for Steel or not; it's up to you. But once it's on the page, people will start !voting. I'll be watching the RFA closely, as I assume you will be, too. Good luck! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Firs has said pretty much everything. Anything else would just be repeating what's already been said, so I'll support as soon as it gets transcluded to WP:RfA. -- Steel 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments
So far, things look good. 20 supports and only one oppose. I'm crossing my fingers for you, Ginkgo. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  08:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)