User:JamieS93/1

Here's are some questions to get the ball-rolling. They are designed to help guide you through what would be faced during RfA. It will also orientate you on background issues so that you are able to understand future or derivative issues in context.

Let's start off with the first question. (Answer it first before proceeding to the rest!) - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Let's say that you're notable enough to have an article for yourself. What would be your personal expectations for the article that other editors would be writing about and for you?


 * A: First off, I would promise myself to refrain from making any substantial contribution to the article due to direct COI. Let's say that the article already exists: all I'd really want is something like the perfect stub. A well-written bio with good detail would be a nicety, of course. But honestly, I really wouldn't ask for that.  Just some basic information, and most of all, I'd want the page to be reasonably neutral and not contain libelous material. If I felt that the article was in violation of BLP, I would raise the concern at the BLP Noticeboard to request assistance and insight. Also, the email [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] could be used to report an inaccuracy or potential legal issue with the page.  Jamie ☆ S93  14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have mentioned your expectations for your own BLP (if there ever would be one). This same expectation would probably be shared by every other subject of biographies of living persons.


 * You mentioned about the BLP Noticeboard. Normally, it is used by editors to report violations or BLPs requiring urgent repairs. One has to take note though, that most of these people are not familiar with the internal workings of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to seeking recourse. Usually, they find that the OTRS is the best method to express their concerns to.


 * OTRS receives tons of such emails everyday. Even though you're not a volunteer yet answering emails, let's try a scenario here. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2a. A subject of a BLP registers an account to remove some unsourced negative material from his own biography. An editor quickly reverts it by Huggle. The subject tries to remove it one more time. Again, it was reverted and the subject receives a template warning on his usertalk. The subject then writes in to OTRS describing the incident, and hints that he is considering legal recourse if the material in question (which is described as "libel") is not removed. You're the OTRS volunteer (with admin tools) who takes up this case ticket. What would you do?
 * A: This is kind of an interesting one. First off, the subject's edits were valid (although they might not have been well-explained in an edit summary), and should not have been reverted; if this is negative unsourced material of a BLP, it should be removed immediately. And in this case, the implied legal threat was also valid, since the user stated it directly to the Wikimedia Foundation (not in an unproductive manner on the website itself), and also because the permissiveness of libel on Wikipedia could indeed run the website into serious legal trouble. I would remove all of the unsourced, potentially controversial material the user cited in the article. In handling this case ticket, I would tell the person that yes, their removal of the "libel" was valid, and shouldn't have been received with reverting. Until someone can get good reliable sources for the info and word it neutrally, it is not acceptable in the article.  Jamie ☆ S93  17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2b. If the negative material is sourced (regardless of its quality), would you have act differently? If so, how?
 * A: Yes, I would view it differently in that case. Even if it were sourced, the user’s removal and complaint about info that was somewhat unbalanced or not neutrally-worded is quite understandable. However, if the negative incident was definitely notable and well-covered by multiple sources (I'd do a bit of researching), it probably does have a place in the article. The key would be to make sure that the statement was backed up by a good several sources, and of course present it neutrally; not only in words alone, but to not make a mountain out of a molehill. So, my response and action would depend on the situation itself. I can expound on this some if you'd like.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, basically the essence is there. You'll also have known by now, that there are proposals put forth on the BLP issue. You are not expected to agree with every single proposal out there, but you would be expected to recognize that this issue exists, and to be able to form your own opinion and understanding on the matter. The community has expectations that an admin be able to make tough decisions that is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.


 * Let's have some actual questions that were posted in live RfAs :


 * 3a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
 * A: I don't think our BLPs are in a complete crisis, but still, certain examples of untruth and libel in articles I've run across is sometimes disheartening. I agree with the people who have introduced these proposals, because yes, it'd be good if our mass of BLPs could be in better shape. However, I don't think the proposals really nail the "perfect" solution yet. Due to Wikipedia's being so highly viewed and referenced to, it is an ongoing risk of potential damage that could be done to an LP's reputation from a false tidbit somebody decided to write once. Still, with all that being said, I think we're doing good with the high-profile bios (many have watchlisted them), and not so great with those little pages that get viewed 100 times a day, but are sometimes hardly touched by regular editors. We should try hard to maintain and watch for WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N, but it's not exactly a crisis.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
 * 1. Flagged revisions
 * 2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
 * 3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
 * (Hint) Context of this question - Protecting BLP articles feeler survey
 * A1: Before I knew the specifics (a couple of months ago), I wasn't sure about this issue. After learning a bit more about flagged revisions, I think it's a well-intentioned idea that could easily have some bad results. I think there would be an increase in disputes relating to a user's decision of what they flagged, backlogs, etc. and more "hierarchy" among editors. The latter is honestly something we don't need any more of (it might be a WP:BITEy experience to some). Of course, there are potentially good merits for having this technology on only several select articles (while browsing and reading, I've stumbled into vandalistic-revisions a moment before ClueBot reverts: it's something that we want to prevent). However, another problem with this proposed method is the frequent misunderstandings between users that would arise; I'm afraid that we'd have a lot of turned-off newbies. Say a new user makes an acceptable change to an article, but someone of a different expertise doesn't understand the subject and decides not to promote the revision. If people feel like they are always being inspected and temporarily barred from helping the website, productivity would inevitably go down. In an ideal world, it might work. However, I lean on the side of objecting to flagged revs.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A2: A trial of these two proposals is certainly not a bad idea, and I'd support it. The proposed forms of protection I think would be beneficial.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A3: Semi-protection for all BLPs is really not the way to go, and I would object to this action being taken; it would begin to undermine the "anyone can edit" part of Wikipedia. I believe it would be less of a benefit than its cost of preventing new users from making productive changes, which they are sometimes pretty good at. Our problem isn't just incoming edits, it's the present content within BLPs. I think it's simply overkill to overlay SP for an entire group of articles. However, using semi-protection more liberally (for BLPs that might actually need it) is reasonable.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
 * A: "Keep" is the current default for all discussions lacking consensus, and it should stay that way. The "default" in a situation is typically the option that leaves things (the article) unchanged. However that would be the default only, and BLP AFDs should be otherwise viewed case-by-case, but generally following that default. For instance, plenty of biographies are AfD'd for non-notability; in these situations, changing the normal closure for "no consensus" is illogical. However, say a BLP is being nominated mostly for a neutrality/spam concern. About half of the editors in the discussion say "keep and cleanup for POV", and the other half think it's past the point of revival, saying "delete, no good revision" or "in violation of WP:BLP". In this kind of case, the perfectly "no consensus" result might be "delete". Again, this is not the norm (lots of AfDs are for notability alone), but it's these exceptions to the rule where admins have to apply their better judgement and sometimes make a slightly different decision.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?
 * (Hint) Your earlier answers will help you in formulating your reply on this one. Consider, what if the BLP reads negatively on the subject? Or, if it is neutral and accurate, yet the subject insists deletion? Also, this is no open-and-shut cases, as there are several incidents in the past that have (and still does) unpleasant outcomes.
 * A: It depends on the situation's specific conditions, but nevertheless, the subject's opinion should definitely be weighed in on the decision.
 * Example 1: The subject of the AfD'd article comes forward (presuming their identity has been confirmed) and asks for their page to be deleted with no apparent reason; no real logic, just incoherantly repeating "get rid of it!!". The page is very stubby, contains hardly any info, and there doesn't appear to be any offending material of possibly untrue statements. The article has been nominated for deletion for some other reason (e.g., notability) and several editors all agree that it should be "kept". I would ask the subject why they want their page deleted, since it seems contradicting to the opinion of other editors. This doesn't seem like a common situation, but say I tried to communicate and couldn't get a straight answer. At this point, consensus outweighs their request.
 * Example 2: On the other hand, say a BLP has problems with OR and some negative POV, and is listed at AfD. It may be nominated for another reason, but the article's low quality is acknowledged throughout the discussion. However, it results in mixed opinions, generally lacking consensus although the discussion leans towards "keep". An admin is prepared to close the discussion soon and keep the article when the BLP subject steps in and says that the article is "libelous" and contains untrue facts that s/he claim to be harming them. Again, if this user's identity is confirmed, their legitimate request should be considered and granted, especially in light of the discussion's preceeding "no consensus".


 * Also, their request could be addressed if an editor hacked down the article to remove all possibly defamatory statements, regardless of the AfD's consensus (whether mixed or plain "keep"). I'd then consult with the person to ask how they now feel with the article. If there was no good revision to return to, and/or the BLP was filled with neutrality problems and completely unsourced, the person's complaint should probably be addressed through deletion rather than "paring down", which would be hardly possible.  Jamie ☆ S93  19:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look through the answers one more time later. In the meantime, just wondering, have you tried New page patrolling? - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've done a good deal of NewPage patrolling work, both in the past (since March '08) and still in recent times. Not only CSD work, but I've also helped with the "unpatrolled" backlog, too. In my patrolling work, I often run across speedy tags that I don't agree with. For example, a non-notable autobiography should be labeled as such (A7), not "plain, pure vandalism" when it's a good-faith person who simply thinks that he has a place in the encyclopedia, too. It's important to be mindful of the criteria and actually label the article accurately (or else "vandalism" will look harsh to a newbie editor), and I always remind myself to think twice before I tag a page. After a spree of new page patrolling (especially several months ago), I liked to sometimes go back over my user talk contribs to see if my tagged pages had been deleted (Twinkle makes it easy with a link in the edit summary), and also, deleted per the same criterion that I had assessed for the page. I just looked over all of my CSD taggings (I estimate >300), and it looks like only three weren't actually deleted at the time:, , . I think that high success rate has something to do with the good practice of observing to see if the articles one tagged were deleted. This is one of the major tasks I would perform as an admin, because I feel experienced and quite familiar with the criteria.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Some comments you should take note of :

''For 3d Example 1, you might want to simply check if the biography is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the first place. Some admins do fulfill requests if they are non-notable enough to have met CSD A7 criteria anyway; several of these come from OTRS.''

''For 3a, You should be aware that there are editors who view the BLP problem as an epidemic issue, especially if they have been dealing with this long enough. The most vulnerable articles do not come from household names (though this does not mean that BLP policy is not applicable here), but from BLPs with borderline notability or that are very short. The popularity and high page-rank nature of Wikipedia means that for a man on the street to just qualify for an article, his name is going to be the first search result on Google and other SEO engines. I'm sure you'd have heard of employers trying to Google names of prospective candidates, check out Facebooks and perform background checks. People demand as much respect as you do out for their own BLPs (answer to Q1), especially when there are possible real life consequences.''

''Did you know : Wikipedia-space pages no longer appear on Google search results. This ressolves the issue of some subjects even worrying if their article's AfD would appear to be negative to those who are not familiar with the internal process of Wikipedia.''

''Do not hesitate to ask questions if you need to know more. :)''


 * One more thing about 3d, as I was going through this. If you are asked about a specific situation, provide a answer specific to the question. Adding context or/and background to supplement the answer is perfectly okay where warranted (esp if it could be taken out of context), but at end of the day it has to address the question directly. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not great at RfA questions, especially open-ended ones that need to receive a closed answer. ;)  Jamie ☆ S93  18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2c. (Continued from 2a, 2b on dealing with BLPs with negative content) What about if the subject's biography is created over a single incident? - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A: If a living person gains notability over one event, writing an article about that person is generally not the way to go (some exceptions exist). And while an event article is usually the venue for writing about the LPs involved in the incident, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not all headline-hitting events should have a timeless article written about them. A bio of an LP involved in one negative event, by nature, is oftentimes not neutral in its balance; if they're solely known for being involved in a negative incident, that'll be the majority of the article's content. This is one of the predominant reasons why BLPs with notability from a single event are discouraged (as laid out at WP:BLP1E). If a living person requested that their page be deleted, which was a BLP1E article, I think I'd promptly grant this request after taking a look over the page; it's better to be safe than sorry and protect our living persons. As you mentioned in the note above, this article may not have been worthy of inclusion anyway, for either of two reasons: (1) notability (WP:BIO1E), or (2) a negative imbalance of information, which may lead to libel or just plain bias, especially with lesser-known biographies.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

4. In the last RfA, you were also grilled on what is perceived by other editors as lack of XfD and article-building experience. How is your personal development as an editor with regards to these two aspects since that experience? - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I've gained hardly any experience at XfDs, only sparsely participating or closing them. Due to being relatively uninvolved at AfD in recent times, I feel less familiar with the process whenever I visit there; so I've arrived at the conclusion that AfD just isn't quite my thing. Every editor has their specialty and places where they participate the most, and I've decided that I'm not going to be working there as an admin, except for obvious-consensus deletion closures to help if there's a backlog. I'm aware that a lot of people might not like to see an admin prospect who's not well-rounded with AfD involvement, but that's me.
 * As for mainspace contributions, I'm still not a GA-pumper (although it's usually always easier than I think). I've had 19 of my created/expanded articles featured at DYK, and since August I've made a few decent sized expansions as well as a pending GA nominee at the moment. And although I create a lot of stub or start-class articles like this, I still think they're good little things which keep me in the mainspace, cleaning up and improving articles as I go. User:JamieS93/Contributions is a good summary of what I do, even if the "improvements" section looks a tad meek. :) Everybody has different standards of what kind of content-building experience they want to see in an administrator, and to me, I feel that I've continued to make some decent contribs, at least just keeping my hands in some article work. I've basically maintained a ~50% mainspace rate, 'cause I firmly agree that it's Readers First with an encyclopedia. :)  Jamie ☆ S93  18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Another popular past-RfA question - What is WP:IAR to you?
 * A: IAR is our most important policy, not because it should be most frequently followed, but because it essentially has the ability to override all rules; it should always be kept in mind. I don't believe that I, personally, have never cited WP:IAR as a reason for any of my actions, however. But I nonetheless respect its proper use. Common sense is the key to maintaining Wikipedia, and that factor should prevail over traditional rules (besides the crucial policies) if they are preventing an editor from taking an action that's in the best interest of the encyclopedia.  Jamie ☆ S93  17:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors would ask you to clarify what is meant by "not because it should be most frequently followed, but because it essentially has the ability to override all rules", because it sounds like this is a rule that overrides another rule which is a paradox. Personally I would omit it altogether. "Common sense" and "in the best interest of the encyclopedia" is what others are looking out here. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not a whole lot to expound upon, then. ;) As soon as I left my computer I had another thought, but unfortunately had to be away for a few hours: in theory, IAR is the highest rule. In practice, however, it's not. The content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR (and WP:BLP, which synthesizes those three, applied to a certain topic) prevail. Saying "policies and guidelines" is a good blanket statement, but in practice those specific policies shouldn't actually be broken. That's my view on it.  Jamie ☆ S93  19:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "IAR (Ignore *all* rules) is the highest rule." This reminds me of the philosophy topic of a self-refuting idea. Perhaps the answer is not well-phrased and it could cost you like the first RfA saying that BLP can be ignored, even if this is not what you have meant.
 * Let me try to read your view and reorganize the ideas and see if you agree : The spirit of IAR exists so that we work towards the best interest of the encyclopedia, regardless (not to be confused with disregard!) of how many rules or the exact sections of the "code" (policy/guideline). We follow policies that are formed through the consensus of the community because we believe that they are the best practices that are in the best interest of the encyclopedia and would have dire consequences if ignored. - Mailer Diablo 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, that's the spirit of IAR. I'm sure that my view was just clear to me, but note that I did say "in theory", which adds a different dimension. If I may let out some feelings here, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that I'm simply not talented at RfA questions. I thought I was a decent writer, but a lot of folks who have RfAs are quite eloquent and accurate in their wording. ;) To be frank, I've never been a fan of having to answer those optional questions; it's definitely the candidate's opportunity to shine, I understand, but there's lots of potential for the whole thing to be killed. And it almost feels like academic testing – will the skill of school tests really help your ability to work at that job which you studied for? Nah, not so much. Being a clear communicator is 100% of the job with people on here, but I'm afraid the process of running for adminship can turn into "jumping the hoops". I'm not really losing heart about the idea, but rather, taking a step back to look at a few things. Let's say that I have thorough knowledge or experience in some area, but if I made a couple of missteps with an RfA, I'm not sure the simple act of gaining extra tools to help this community is going to happen.  Jamie ☆ S93  22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in an Asian society with a paper-chasing education system and I can understand your frustrations. Practicing the format to get over with the exam. I hated it and I wouldn't want you to do the same just to pass RfA.
 * The purpose of this is to get you familiarized with what to expect for RfA and some of the more popular things that usually get tossed at candidates so that you won't get caught out. It is to make sure that you understand policies enough at point of RfA. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I do appreciate the drill. ;) By the way, I don't know if this makes a difference - I just realized that my "WP:N" link actually goes to "Notability", instead of "Neutral point of view", which I intended. Switched to WP:NPOV for clarity.  Jamie ☆ S93  13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was thinking about the "three core content policies". :) - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got another concern: question 3 at RfA. During my time at Wikipedia, I've discussed things with users, and had some difference of opinion, but no real "conflict". A lot of users see this as an issue (lack of experience in tough situations), and I can totally see where they are coming from; this is one of the aspects I was opposed for in my last RfA. It's a legitimate question of, "will you keep a cool head? Can we be confident that you'll make wise decisions and put reason first?" However, I think there are a couple of points that can explain this; I work primarily in a WikiProject that isn't entirely active, so it's not "easy" to make an edit, have it changed or reverted, and a debate begins. It just doesn't happen on a regular basis. However, I believe part of it is not letting a difference of opinion or dispute get out of hand. Some miscommunication or disagreement can be acknowleged and talked through, or it can escalate into personally-directed comments and a hot-headed debate. Sometimes Wikipedia can affect your real-life stress level, but it takes two to make a fight. I can honestly agree with Law in his RfA (specifically, question 9). So one on hand it probably wouldn't be a complete show-stopper, but on the other hand it could pose the same issue as last go-round. What's your opinion on this? Thanks.  Jamie ☆ S93  22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Informal-style reply) Actually, this is a selling point. People actually are looking out for editors who do not crumble under pressure, which is significant savings on drama costs. Keeping a straight-face and acting calmly in the face of this is only just the minimum. Running away is not a solution, facing the conflict with a view towards resolution is and one should know that help by others is always at hand where needed. Remaining civil and firm in the face of abuse or worse is what all admins should do. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking through your last RfA. There were minor conflicts at DYK previously and I think it is okay to use it and say how it has since made you a even better editor. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if you're not that familiar with AfDs, Let's try two related questions from Law's RfA :

6a. You're closing an AfD. The article under discussion's about a subject you're not personally familiar with—say, for example, Rites of passage among aboriginal australians—and the AfD's a mess. There are twenty-six contributions. Fourteen of them are from IP addresses tagged as single-purpose accounts; of these, twelve say "delete per nom", one says "delete" without giving a rationale, and one says "delete because none of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources". Of the remaining twelve, nine successive !votes are from relatively new editors (between 10 and 200 edits each) saying some variation of "Keep, because it would be racist to delete this". Beneath that is a remark from an administrator chiding one of these editors for canvassing (and he provides diffs to show that the first of these nine canvassed all his on-wiki friends on their talk pages). Beneath that is that same administrator's !vote ("delete for lack of reliable sources"), and then a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as inclusionist saying "Keep: it would be possible to write a reliably-sourced, encyclopaedic article with this title", and finally, a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as a deletionist saying "Delete this original research".

Please provide your assessment of this debate and state how you would close it.
 * A: First off, AfD is not a numerical vote, and the strength of each editor's argument should focused on instead. One piece of information with this AfD missing, and it's the nom reason and statement (although I'll assume that it's something along the lines of "topic lacks reliable sources, unverifiable original research", a relatively reasonable nomination). This debate, however, seems to lack good solid opinions from other editors who don't have either weak and canvassed arguments (the "racist" keep voters), possible biased standpoint (the SPA "delete" IPs) or users from an openly inclusionist/deletionist view (the last two established editors). However, there are four !votes that I will highlight on:
 * (1) The presumably neutral admin who gave a policy-based "delete" reason ("lack of reliable sources") — this is one of the only solid contributions to this AfD. (2) The single-purpose IP who gave his own rationale ("none of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources"), which was a reasonable enough argument, similar to the admin. I'm not giving him too much weight, after all he is an SPA, but still, he provided a reason in his own words. (3) The well-known inclusionist ("it would be possible to write a reliably-sourced, encyclopaedic article with this title"), whose comment boils down to "keep and cleanup". These types of !votes are valid but not always as strong, because "keep and cleanup" essentially says that the article doesn't measure up right now. And the "potential" quality hinges upon an editor (hopefully the one who made the comment) to make those improvements to the article. (4) The well-known deletionist who presents a short rationale ("delete this original research"), but is made weaker due to the fact that s/he takes the "delete" stand on most subjects.


 * As is evident, no clear consensus has formed through the course of the AfD. The knee-jerk reaction and "easiest" option would be to close this as "no consensus", which defaults to keep. However, in the end, I wouldn't close it as such. This would be a somewhat difficult decision to make, and before closure I'd ask a more experienced XfD admin for their input on my formed decision. Only one of the "keep" contribs weighs in on the discussion, and otherwise we have a weak group of SPAs and maybe a couple of reasonable "delete" ones. Taking all of this into account (and if another admin agreed), I would close the debate as delete.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. I would have come to the same conclusion of closing the debate as a delete. One thing I would note is that if the inclusionist subsequently does "write a reliably-sourced, encyclopaedic article" in accordance to the core content policies, this AfD would not bar the topic itself and is considered as another case if that new article is raised for debate again. - Mailer Diablo 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've done some searching, trying to find the original AfD (might be a specific incident) to see the context better, and thus far haven't found it yet. However, if I do, I'll come back here and make note of that.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, these two questions are the more common/generic situations. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

6b. A new editor called Fluffy1339 has written an article about a corporation. The article is promotional, and is tagged for speedy deletion. The editor removed the tag, the article went to AfD, and was deleted after due process. The editor then went on to request that it be userfied so she could fix it, and another administrator did that. The restoring administrator has subsequently retired.

A few weeks later, you receive a note on your talk page from another editor, saying that Fluffy1339 has restored the article into mainspace in several different places, with titles that were slightly different to the title that was deleted at AfD. You verify that this is correct and remove the articles in question. Then Fluffy1339 leaves an insulting message on your talk page saying you're harrassing her.

As her next action, she proceeds to write a new article using slightly different wording about the same company. What do you do now?
 * A: I don't know the ins and outs of WP:DRV and the typical actions with each step, but this is my opinion of a relatively reasonable approach to this case: I would first take a look and assess the difference between Fluffy1339's recreated article and the old revision that was deleted through AfD consensus. If the two revisions were substantially the same, practically identical (as "slightly different wording" implies), this new article qualifies for speedy deletion (G4). After deleting the article from the mainspace (if the changes didn't address the reasons for which it was deleted through AfD), I would userfy the page for Fluffy and notify her about it. Her "insulting" message to my talkpage is simply a frustrated reaction and wouldn't actually change an appropriate course of action, although it's a good indicator that this newbie is feeling bitten. I really care a lot about our new editors, and so many of them get alienated when their articles are deleted and questions left unanswered (I was one of them). So, I would go to Fluffy's talkpage and explain my actions and Wikipedia's content standards in clear terms, since she might not be fully aware of them. I would also ask an experienced editor or two if they can offer a hand, too. I'd offer to assist with improving the userfied article (if the company was fairly notable) and encourage the user that her contribs are valuable, mentioning that lots of others make mistakes just like this.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly think WP:BITE is one of the major non-content areas where we fail. Just taking a few moments to explain our guidelines in a calm, friendly manner to an inquiring newbie – and remembering that this stuff is new to a complete outsider – would make this a better place. :) I have more thoughts about the topic, but I guess that's another day. ;)  Jamie ☆ S93  18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tip : ''If the RfA questions are detailed and even goes into the specifics, chances are it is based on an actual incident. Try and look it up and learn its context. Show others that you have done your homework.'' - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the last two questions, you look proficient enough to me. :)
 * There's something you might want to try, and in some sense related to DYK. I'm sure you've heard of Article Rescue. Not asking you to join here, more of that you may want to try looking at XfDs where the article looks salvagable enough with reliable sources and bring it up to DYK standards. (or informally, bring an article from the dead). To me, being able to do that is more or less proficiency/participation in XfD discussions. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mailer diablo asked me to review this page. I'm impressed with your answers, but you've always impressed me :)))). I know these are tough questions and often there are no right answers. Remember that - be honest and definitely do research before answering a question. I have more questions that might come up:


 * A question that's sure to come up: Lots of people objected to you because of your age at your last RFA. How have you grown as a person since then?  Royal broil  01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Age was a battleground at my last RfA. However, with this go-round I decided not to worry too much about it. How have I matured in RL? I honestly don't think this matters as much as how I've developed as a Wikipedian. I know for a fact that I've gone through some changing as a person, but it may or may not have made an impact on my editing. How I've grown and learned as an editor is what people will actually see, and yes, that I will expound upon in the next question. :)  Jamie ☆ S93  12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, it's about judgment (or maturity of thought), and I would intend to put it forth this way if there is a need to deal with any age-related issues. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, maturity of thought/good judgement is the key. Some people will object because of you age, no matter what. You need to prove maturity for the rest - I'd prepare some diffs right now. Mailer & I should look for some.  Royal broil  12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What experiences have you gained to make you a more well-rounded contributor since your last RFA?  Royal broil  01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is such an open-ended question, but an important one, too. I think it's pretty accurate, though. These prep questions have been the only times recently when I've actually been worried about how I'm saying something. ;)  Jamie ☆ S93  16:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've continued and/or increased involvement in certain areas, such as mainspace work, NewPage patrolling and highly active with the DYK process. I didn't know the DYK process as well when I was running in August, but now that I've had ten solid months of involvement, I feel much more prepared and knowledgeable this time. There's a few other areas where I've gained some literal experience in the past few months, too; i.e., doing more GAN reviewing than I had previously. One change that I've noticed in myself is the way I handle differences of opinion with others. To be honest, when I was less experienced I was a tad nervous in conversations, always kind of worried that I wasn't expressing myself accurately. I don't think I did a bad job back then, just not as comfortable at times (I'd seen way too many fights before). In recent times, though, I've found myself to be a lot different; for instance, just a couple of days ago I logged in and found this situation on my talkpage, where my action was disputed. I viewed it completely calm (just an "oh, okay, let's see" reaction), taking a closer look at the issue and soon responded to the editor with how I viewed the subject. That's a relatively simple case, but the first one that comes to mind with my recent misinterpretation encounters. I think I've advanced some in this area.


 * I've also been exposed to a lot of situations and discussions (sometimes just reading them), as time and activity naturally does, and I feel more well-rounded because of it. I really think that my first RFA itself was an experience that I've really learned lots from, too. I've reflected on it many times, and while I would handle it differently if it were today, I still think it was a good opportunity in showing that I stayed composed throughout it. I've always known that reducing drama is the key to level-headedness, and although my RFA unfortunately turned out that way, it taught me a variety of lessons. All in all, as I stay around here longer, I've simply gotten to know the ins and outs even better than before.    Jamie ☆ S93  16:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, especially "I really think that my first RFA itself was an experience that I've really learned lots from, too." Honesty!  Royal broil  12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the big objections to you was that others exaggerated your awesome content creation when in fact you had one GA to your credit. What content have you accomplished since your first RFA?  Royal broil  01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, since my last RfA I've created a good deal of small articles. I only had 6 DYKs last RfA, and some of my creations/expansions were promoted (+13), and I currently have 19 DYKs. As for more significant expansions, I've definitely had a few since August: Sanctus Real (5x), Tropical Storm Norma (2005) (created and expanded, former GAN), Ayiesha Woods (5x), half credit for the GA Hurricane Bud (2006), and Give Me Your Eyes (created, GAN). Those are probably the most notable of my content contribs in recent times. I still frequently to drive-by cleanups and rewrites, though: getting bad articles into semi-reasonable state as I encounter them. Although it's not my "trump card" as one person labeled it, I'm fairly happy with my several mainspace works, and I think it'd be sufficient for a lot of people's admin experience standards, especially if it's not exaggerated.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a good way to answer this question.  Royal broil  02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How has your experiences helping at DYK prepared you to update DYK on the main page? What are some of your accomplishments with helping prepare DYK (what have you done)?  Royal broil  01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are two aspects to DYK: the technical details and doing everything properly, and the intuition and judgement side of things. I suppose the former isn't always easy to pick up on, but watching updates done so many times does help a lot. In real life, I'm well-known for my habit of "people watching" constantly. ;) My general approach to life is to sometimes just sit back and quietly watch how a task is done. Then I step up and do it myself once I've worked it out in my head. That's really what I've done with DYK (I sometimes quiz myself by mimicking all the steps to do an update), so I feel quite ready at this point.


 * Then there's the second side of adminly duties at DYK (making the best decision or the final call on something). Continuous observation I believe has helped with this, too. It usually just boils down to: watch for misleading, promotional, or otherwise less acceptable hooks. And if somebody disagrees with an action you made, discuss it and adapt to consensus if needbe. Just try to take the most reasonable approach when promoting DYK nominations, and avoid doing stupid things. :) Recently, I've been pretty active with the process as a general, primarily reading through the T:TDYK page and moving approved entries to the next updates. I still do verification and discussing hooks, and weighing in on WT:DYK discussions, too. So at the moment, I'm happy to say that I feel like I know the process well, and would like to be an extra hand ready to move batches to queues.  Jamie ☆ S93  17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, good answer.  Royal broil  02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The real question: Why should I support you?  Royal broil  01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All good-faith editors on here are aiming to help the encyclopedia somehow. I want to help Wikipedia more by seeking adminship. Do you believe that I'm trustworthy enough (demeanor, judgement, or just plain experience) to do productive tasks at a more influential level? Feel free to stay silent or support. It's all about trust; and if you can't agree to that statement with a clear conscience, don't support! :)  Jamie ☆ S93  17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Followup) I would have answered with my strengths. What are your best traits and strengths as a Wikipedian - the traits that will make people want to support you?  Royal broil  02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree here. I appreciate your fun and honest answer here, but historically it might be mistaken for "showing an attitude" which may be against you. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always taken that question as a broad, philosophical one (everybody has entirely different standards, but all united under the umbrella of "do I trust you?"), rather than an opportunity for some sort of self-promotion. ;) Here's perhaps a stronger answer:
 * I appreciate our new editors muchly and do all I can to welcome them and explain how things work. In my book, the readers are the top priority, but reasonable civility with other Wikipedians is something that's so important, too, but breached so often. Whenever I'm in a situation or discussion with other editors, civility and staying cool is forefront on my mind. I've done CSD tagging work over the past 13 months, and this is an area that must be tread into carefully. I believe that some of my strengths are helping newbies, and taking note to details in order to perform tasks in the best manner; my CSD work encorporates both of those elements. With each CSD tagging, I'm very careful and try to classify them all correctly; too many times I've seen reckless or inaccurate labeling of an article (which becomes biting to a new editor), and it just shows a lack of knowledge in the area. I'm glad that my pages are almost always deleted for the same reason which I tagged them. Here I would like to work, because I believe a mindful CAT:SD admin is always beneficial.  I feel very experienced in the Did you Know area on the MP, too, and would love to work there with extra tools (oftentimes it's backlogged with no admin to move nominations along in the queues). To put it simply, I'm dedicated to this project and would like to further help it. :)   Jamie ☆ S93  16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm out of questions for now.  Royal broil  12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A short preparatory brief before we begin the formalities shortly... Dealing with situations : If something goes wrong... - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 nominations is sufficient - the main one coming from myself, the co-nomination from Royalbroil.
 * Do not rush when it comes to answering questions. Many candidates suffer needless opposes due to careless mistakes in Q&A, even though their intentions are correct and are actually proficient. Draft out and read through your answer once before submitting.
 * Optional questions are not optional! (For difficult editors posting questions, see below)
 * We trust the judgment of RfA regulars that they will act rationally against any unfair treatment during RfA. As nominators, we generally don't intervene directly (which was the cause of the mess in your last RfA), but will assist you in every way possible to ensure that you will receive a fair and square evaluation.
 * Unusual questions - you are asked a question that you feel may have other intentions rather than to genuinely evaluate you as a candidate. As I previously have said, do a background search on the question or issue and understand what is going on. Assume good faith on the editor and draft your answer for the question anyway, keeping in mind the underlying issue (mainly, any mistakes that were made and should be avoided). Do not take on the editor directly or refer to blatantly or question the issue; some use this as an excuse to smear the candidate! If the question is blatantly malicious, you can delay writing an answer and hope others would remove it, or at the very least, to point out this fact.
 * Unfair opposes. - if you are opposed over something minor, or the editor's principles/criteria is stated as the reason, there is nothing you can do. Shikata ga nai, just leave them be. The only time you should reply to opposes is where an editor makes a serious allegation, that if true, is bound to doom your RfA. In such an instance, you should write a considered reply that dispels the allegations. Avoid going into threaded discussions, because RfA regulars tend to see it as "badgering". The nominator and supporters will also help to deal with it to the best of their abilities where necessary. I know of instances where editors (of repeat RfAs) who have an axe of grind with the candidate goes in for a mudslinging round, but I seriously doubt that would happen to you.

P.S. Let me know when is the most comfortable day (which also translates to time during the RfA week) of the week in your schedule to begin. To have time by your side is definitely a plus. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've read all of the above. :) I've been thinking about the scheduling issue, too. This weekend wouldn't work, but I think starting sometime around 16:00 UTC (12pm EST) on Monday or any other day of this week would probably be fine - if you two are ready by that point and available at the same time of the day, too. We certainly don't have to rush it, but any day in this coming week (at 16:00 UTC) is good with me. That kind of timing would allow me to be around for most of the first 6 hours after transclusion.  Jamie ☆ S93  21:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Monday or Tuesday doesn't work for me. I'm pretty sure that Wednesday through Friday at the above time would be a good starting day for me.  Jamie ☆ S93  14:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The timing is fine with me, weekends usually aren't very good for me over the North American summer. I'm most frequently here on Sunday to Thursday nights (U.S.) starting at 0:00 UTC (translates to Monday through Friday). Either of you can contact me by email; if it is real important, please leave a message on my talk page saying that I have an email. I don't check it every day.  Royal broil  23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to finish it up by Wed or Thu. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out I can't do it on Wednesday, but Thursday/Friday is alright. Of course, we can always go-round to the next week (or two) if this time doesn't pan out for somebody.  Jamie ☆ S93  20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)