User:Seresin/Admin coaching

~Create

Intro Balloonman
Hi Soleil,

Just a quick introduction. I've been using Wikipedia for about a year now and been an admin for about 3 months. One of my passions is teaching which is why I like Admin Coaching.

Looking at you, there are several things that might pose a road block towards your becoming an admin. I bring them up not because they are insurmountable, but rather because you have to figure out how you will address them. Those concerns are:
 * 1) Your age.  According to your user page you're only 17.  There is a fair amount of ageism that goes into RfA's.  Many people, myself included, are a little more critical of minors becoming admins.  You WILL get some opposes as a result of your youth.  In order to overcome your youth, you will have to demonstrate that you are more mature than the typical 17 year old.  Based on what I've seen this shouldn't be a problem, but if there are indiscretions in your past, they will count doubly against you!
 * 2) Your name.  Your chaning your name twice will probably hurt you.  I realize that Soliel isn't you're first choice in name, but you might want to just go with it...
 * 3) Your involvement with the single letter group.  It was a silly thing, but some people will look at it as a sign of immaturity---but I know that some people took it more seriously than others.

So why did I ask to be your coach? There are several things that I definitely like about your involvement here:


 * 1) You made a request for an admin coach several months ago.  When nobody stepped forward, you didn't decide to go for it on your own, you waited.  A lot of people do not have that level of patience/maturity.  I like the fact that you want the guidance before running for adminship.
 * 2) You have a very diverse edit history.  Your edits are not in a few isolated silos.  You've been involved with AfD's, but doesn't seem to be overarching.
 * 3) Reviewing your talk pages shows that you have a solid temperament,get along with a lot of people, and have developed the respect of a number of people.

So tell me a little about yourself and let's start off with the basic RfA questions:

intro Soliel
Well, I started editing March 3 of this year (missed board vote by three days). What else would you like to know? I think Wikipedia is a great project, but in order for the most important part (content) to exist, we need to take care of the maintainence jobs that impede this. This is where I feel I can help the best.

Here are my answers to the questions. I'm going to go to bed after posting, so I won't reply right away. You made a comment about my usernames. How detrimental do you think it would be if I was renamed again? Normally, I wouldn't be renamed as it's my third, but a bureaucrat has commented to me that because I had indicated I wasn't sure when the request was finished, he might support a third rename if I wish. I really don't think I like Soleil.
 * To answer your question, usually a third name change would hurt, but you have the support of two crats to do so... make sure you quote them in your RfA.  Also, I'd make the change sooner rather than later, start building up some name recognition as whatever your new name is.  Using a misleading signature CAN hurt you!Balloonman (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only WJB that has expressly said he would rename me now; Nichalp implied it when I first noted it but I don't know if the offer is still good. I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I forsee myself initally working with XfD, speedy deletions, username reports and vandalism blocks, but primarily the first two. After I gain more experience, I will probably branch out into other administrator areas that I am less familiar with, such as protections or three revert rule enforcement. I see on AN(I) that Did You Know? is often backlogged; I'll probably look there too. But I don't intend to begin work in areas I am currently unfamiliar with until I am very sure of what I am doing, and how to proceed.
 * A couple of things, before I go on, you might want to take a look at the Essay I'm working on related to RfA's. As for your response, remember this is a job interview.  You are looking to become an admin.  This is the first time that a lot of people will be viewing any of your edits, so you want to show them that you know what you are doing and erase any doubt that you are ready for the job you are applying to.  Thus, in your answer you want to show two things: First, that you have a need for the tools (you do that.) Second, that you have the expertise to use those tools when granted them.  When answering this question, discuss your experience and how it applies to the tools you want.  If you are thinking about DYK, then that is an area where we should get you some experience!
 * Discuss my experience? I'm not sure what all this would entail. Just saying I comment on AfDs and tag for speedy? And links added. Soleil (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's that simple... but you have more going for you than that. You've received 2 barnstars for your anti-vandalism activities.  Mention them.  Use the fact that you've been recognized for quality contributions to this task by fellow peers.  Anonymous Dissent, a respected user, wrote "you, my fellow Wikipedian and hopefully one day admin, seem to know policy to the enth degree" about your knowledge concerning AfD's.  That kind of support on your talk pages shows that you have the hard skills/knowledge necessary to be an admin.  Balloonman (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how would I incorporate this in my answer to this question? I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to completely rewrite the answer. Eg something along the lines of, "one of the areas where I've developed a lot of expertise is in the realm of vandal fighting.  As such I can see myself participating with XfD, speedy deletions, username reports and vandalism blocks.  As a result of my involvement in vandal fighting I was given 2 barnstars for my work and Anonymous Dissent wrote "xyz"."  If you've reported people to AIV. Balloonman (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing to do, when answering questions, make sure you include links. While admins should know enough to find the areas that you are interested in, you don't want to assume that the reader knows what you are talking about.  Link to them.
 * A.2:
 * I have most of my adminstrator-related experience in deletion areas, such as speedy deletion and articles for deletion. I've also done some username work, and have reported a few usernames to usernames for administrator attention; I've also commented at request for comment on usernames when there are entries there. I would also deal with vandalism, for which I have recieved two barnstars. After I've gotten more experice, I'll probably deal with other things, such as page protections or 3RR blocks. I also might update Did You Know? when it gets backlogged, which I often see on AN(I). I intend to start with areas I'm comfortable with, and then as I gain more experience work in other areas.
 * How's that? I (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have not written featured or good articles, or done much significant expansion. Mostly grammar, cosmetic fixes, or adding the occasional reference. But I belive those are always beneficial. Most of my contributions are to the meta layer of Wikipedia. While I know content is the goal of the project, some people are not as suited to writing and expanding. Some, like myself, feel that we build Wikipedia by dealing with the things that make Wikipedia run smoothly, such as copyediting and maintainence tasks, while writers continue their contributions to content.
 * I have a moderately-sized base of meta things I deal with. Primarily, I do AfD and username-related things. I clerk the usurpation board, but I dont' think that really demonstrates any particular aptitude at administrator duties. I do sometimes comment on RFCN when things come up there, however, and once or twice have reported names to UAA. In AfD, I usually comment on ones that have no comments, or a mix of keep and delete, or ones I feel strongly about. The latter are usually fiction-related ones. I believe that we have a serious proliferation of articles on "cruft", that slide by on notability and verifiability criteria because of the huge numbers of people who will defend it, regardless of guideline. I try to ensure content follows guidelines and policies in these areas as best I can.


 * You need to get some experience writing articles! While an older "more mature" user might be able to get away with little experience in article writing, you are going to be judged differently because you are a teenager.  People are going to want you to have a GA or two under your belt.  They are going to want to know that you know what it is like to write an article.


 * aThey are also going to want to know that you "paid your dues." In other words, are you willing to do what it takes to get experience in an area you don't particularly like?Balloonman 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * bAnother key with question 2, IMHO, question 2 is looking to see if you have the soft skills necessary to to be an admin. Judgment and community building are key factors here.Balloonman 07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend to work on the first one, but the last two, I am not so sure what you mean. Would you elucidate? Soleil (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * a above is explaining to you why I think it is necessary to write some GA's. If you pay attention to RfA's one of the reasons Vandal Fighter's are attacked is because "they don't contribute" to the community of don't know what it is like to write an article.  They want to see somebody who is willing to do something they don't like and may not feel competent with before they give them the tools.  Article writing may not be your forte, but you're willingness to do it in order to be better qualified for Adminship will go a long way!
 * b above is making a suggestion related to how you answered this question. IMHO, the question is your opportunity to show that you have the "soft skills" (eg interpersonal skills) to be an admin.Balloonman (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think how I wrote the answer does? I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Well, I try to make it a point to avoid the drama that sometimes plagues this place, and conflicts in general. As a result, I have not been in any major disputes. I believe that the majority of the little conflicts I have been involved in have been related to my opinion on what I consider makes something notable, especially fiction-related. A while back (July, I believe) I was involved in creating a (rejected) process to try to deal with the large amount of articles on individual episodes of television shows. An editor commented to me that my behavior in one of the discussions (specifically a TfD) was inappropriate. Upon assessing then, I didn't feel as if it was poor behavior. However, upon reassessing it now, I can clearly see where my comments were out of line. [[User talk:Ursasapien/Archive 1#My Incivility|I discussed with the user then, and have taken that conversation and the concerns raised and tried to be mindful of it in my interactions since then.
 * Link to the discussion and how it was resolved. Discuss what you have learned.Balloonman 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Soleil (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The other "major" dispute was a conversation with an editor after I notified him that he had a fair-use image on his page, and would he please remove it. He continued editing after I notified him, so I removed it myself. He took offense, and got upset. I defended myself against what I thought were some spurious accusations (including having an administrator sockpuppet). At the advice of another editor who commented in the discussion, I realized that it was time to end the discussion. In retrospect, I should have left the conversation sooner than I did, as the image had been removed and therefore the issue was resolved; there was no need to continue. This would probably be the largest conflict I've been involved in thus far.
 * Can you elaborate on "admin sockpuppet?" Also, links are helpful.Balloonman 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was just a little humor I put in there. He's not my sockpuppet, but he was impying that he was, so it was joke. It's probably not that appropriate though. And links added. Soleil (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can have it, just explain what you mean by it...Balloonman (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a huge deal, and if it isn't obvious at first sight how I meant it, I think it would be best, all considered, to just leave it out. I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As for stress, I haven't really had any. I am not a person who gets lots of stress, and conflicts with anonymous people online over something that is, in the grand scheme of things, often of little importance, do not cause me stress. As for future disputes, which, as implied by adminstrators' comments that I've seen, I will probably find myself invariably involved in, I intend to continue my policy of either avoidance, or disengaging as soon as possible. That said, I won't shy away from trying to resolving disputes, but I will try to avoid as much useless drama as possible while doing so.
 * Good answer.Balloonman 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to put something in there about SLG, but can't think of a place that it would go. What are you thoughts? I (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would consider adding it to question 3, or writing your own "question 4." I don't really know too much about the SLG drama that occurred, but I have heard a little about it.Balloonman 07:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that for now, but I don't want to make it a huge deal. I don't see it as one, but I could be wrong.
 * 4. SLG? <- I don't know what I would title it, if I made it a full-blown question.
 * I was part of this group while when it existed. When I changed my name, I chose I because I thought being in the group sounded fun. I believed then that the page was intended to be something no more than a list of users with single letter names. I still believe that should it have remained purely that, it would not have been a problem. However, it grew to be something much more than what I believe it was intended to be. I understand that we aren't here to socalize, but I also believe that we are a community, and sometimes fun things are okay. In this instance, I reiterate that if it had followed its original intent, it would have been permissable.


 * RE the SLG--- I don't know if it will be an issue or not... you might just leave it off, and see if it becomes an issue for anybody. Just be prepared for it if you don't answer it up front.Balloonman (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I guess I'll have to think on that one. I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what I want to do with this. I (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Home work assignments
{note: These homework assignments are the result of your expressing interest and lack of knowledge of the DYK process.}
 * 1) Write an article on your own. Submit it to DYK and then get it approved as a GA article. Based upon the strength of your answers, I think we can skip this challenge.
 * 2) Spend some time figuring out DYK. Nominate an article from the BOT suggested list as a DYK---monitor that hook.
 * 3) Select an existing hook from the DYK page and move it to the next update page.
 * I'll get on that. Soleil (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When you make the moves/additions, add the links showing the changes. That way it becomes part of this history and people can refer to it when you have your RfA.Balloonman (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
I know that you indicated that you were familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion, so this shouldn't be too difficult. User:Ginkgo100 gave me these exercises. There is more than one correct answer on many of these---but there are definitely a lot of wrong answers too. Put your answers below and include the CSD criteria that you would call upon. The convention, when giving a reason for deletion, is to use the letter for the section (e.g. G for general, A for article, etc.) and the number of the criterion -- so a copyright violation would be G12. Balloonman 07:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion exercises

 * Halo 3 trailier &mdash; After some searching, I found Marketing for Halo 3. As such, I believe that it would be a valid search term, and the searcher would need to end up there. I would therefore move the article to Halo 3 trailer, and redirect to the aforementioned section.
 * Union Milllwright &mdash; I would speedy delete under A3. Firstly, there is no typed content whatsoever. Secondly, it consists only of external links, which is explicitly stated in the A3 criterion.
 * Webs &mdash; I'd speedy delete it under A7; being a "kickass car connaisseur [sic]" is hardly an assertion of notability. It also borders on patent nonsense, G1. That done, "webs" might be a search term, so I'd either redirect it to Web or Spider web; probably the latter as it is more likely to be the intented target when pluralized.
 * Neil Haverton Smith &mdash; A quick google search yeilds nothing to show that he is a "prominant gay activist". As this leads me to believe it isn't true, it now especially qualifies as an attack article in my mind, and should be speedied under A10. I'd have to take care to not leave any of the content in the deletion summary, as this is an attack article.
 * Fall Out Boy &mdash; Well, this is obviously a notable band in my mind. However, if I hadn't heard of it before, I'd check the references. One doesn't work currenly, and the other says it goes to All Music Guide, but doesn't. So I'd check the external links. This, this and this (the last one is where the All Music Guide link actually goes) would indicate to me that they are clearly notable enough to survive a speedy. A check of one of their two albums, From Under the Cork Tree, shows that they clearly satisfy music guidelines. With the above done, I would remove the speedy tag. I'd also probably breifly check the contribs of whoever added it, and see if it was an error or a vandal (an maybe dislikes the band).
 * Nathaniel Bar-Jonah &mdash; A google search quickly reveals that he is indeed a cannibal. However, the article was not well written. The sources revealed after a cursory google search verify everything said in the article as it stood, except for the quote at the end. I'd be wary of using anything but an iron-clad reliable source to say the things about him in an article, just to be extra cautious. So I'd search the New York Times (as a first resort), which gives these three articles, which are all very good to use. This one specifically summarizes the main points of the article, while the other two would be supplementary. I'd rewrite the article, and cite those three articles.

I'll work on the other things you asked me to do tomorow. These took me longer than I thought they would. Soleil (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These are EXCELLENT answers! Perhaps the best I've seen---and I've reviewed a number of admin coaching answers to them!Balloonman (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. I (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay Questions
Ok, 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. There is no rush on this. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay):

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?
 * When administrators speedy delete a page, it shouldn't be controversial. A page that is deleted speedily without other intput needs to be uncontroversial. In order to make this true, the criteria under which pages can be speedied are very strict and defined, and supported by a wide consensus.

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?
 * I'll assume you mean in relation to deletion. A page can be proposed for deletion, which means an editor does not believe it meets the aforementioned criteria for speedy deletion, but it should not need a full XfD. The tags are left on the page for 5 days, and if no one objects (by removing the tag), the page can be deleted. If the tag is removed, the page must be sent to XfD to be deleted, provided it doesn't meet a speedy criterion. The other alternative are the deletion debates. This is a process by which editors believe a page (or category) should be deleted, but the issue needs wider input before it can be. These debates are also open five days, at the end of which administrators view the debate, and close according to consensus therein. These can result in deletion of the article, a keep of the article, no consensus in the debate, redirecting and letting editors merge as they see fit, or in some cases (usually fiction-related articles) transwiking to a wiki with a compatible license.

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?
 * Well, usually an editor receives four incremental warnings for vandalizing/disruption/etc., and if he vandalizes/disrupts/etc. after the fourth and final one, then it is deemed that he has had appropriate time to correct his behavior, and since he hasn't, he can be blocked. Level three warnings are the first warning that make a bad faith assumption. This is the only significance I can see in the third warning.


 * Nod, and a lot of admins will not block a person unless they have a level 3 warning---but that does vary a great deal between admins.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?
 * Better ones than this. When an established editor is blocked, there needs to be a lot of thought, and it needs to be based on very good reasons. If I were in a position where that was satisfied, I would always consult one or two other administrators before making a block. note: I am only using that issue as an example, I am not commenting on anything other than the evidence that was used when blocking.


 * Yeah, it kind of falls under the same notion as the essay Don't template the regulars. An experienced editor, can be blocked for any of the reasons anybody else should be, but extra care should be made to make sure that the experienced editor is notified of the potential block.  I was involved with a case where I reported an experienced editor for 3rr about 6 months ago.  That editor was blocked and has not returned to wikipedia.  Thus, the project lost a good resource.  But if an experienced editor is breaking the rules (3rr, NPOV, vandalism, etc) don't be afraid to block them---if they were given fair warning---and if you are completely unaffiliated with the issue.  Another example, Le Wiggles was a page that I had tagged for AfD---it appeared to be a hoax.  Once it was tagged, the editor used that to get really creative with the article---to the point that it was clear vandalism.  I could have deleted the page/blocked the user, but instead I reported.  I didn't want there to be any sense that I acted inappropriately.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?
 * On a technical level, forever. However, they shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, or even for long periods of time, because IPs can change and there would be collateral damage. If the issues are serious enough, then it can be blocked indefinitely.
 * What are the exceptions to this?Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To not blocking indef? Well, school IPs have been blocked for long amounts of time, but I don't know if it's ever been indef. Open proxies are also blocked; that page actually says only for two years though. So I can't think of any specific instance where an IP address would be indef blocked.
 * Sorry, my mistake, I wasn't clear on my question. But you got the answer I was looking for anyway.  IP's generally won't be blocked for longer than a few hours.  The only two exceptions are when the same IP is being used consistantly for vandalism---this is generally a sign that somebody has a static IP. In this case, it is possible that the IP may be blocked for up to 2 years. The other time is in regards to schools.  Schools may be blocked up to a year at a time.  In both cases, rampant vandalism has to be shown and a series of shorter blocks applied.Balloonman (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2007 (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?'''
 * We are restritced to three whole or partial reverts in 24 hours. However, that is by no means a right, and if the reversion is especially disruptive or harmful, then they can be blocked before the fourth revert. Blocks issued for 3RR should be short, because they are only used to enforce a "cool down" period. Reversion of blatant vandalism is excepted from this policy.
 * Vandalism and WP:BLP violations.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?
 * I've never understood how people are so adept at identifying sockpuppets. There's always Checkuser, but it's not magic wiki pixiedust: the results aren't always conclusive and helpful. Aside from checkuser, you can tell by seeing a user's contributions that match very closely that of someone who is blocked, especially if they have been known to use socks before. I don't intend to do much sock-hunting, and if I ever were to make an accusation, I would be exceedingly sure about it.


 * In all honesty, I'm in the same boat as you ;-) But the key is that you know where to go/how to get started on an investigation.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?
 * Rollback is a technical function that is only accessible with the administrator flag. It allows an administrator to, with one click, revert the consecutive edits by the same user (as long as they are the top edit); e.g. if the user has made five edits in a row, it will revert all five, if the user has made one, it will revert the one. Scripts like twinkle create a similar function, but I'm told it isn't as fast as the admin rollback. According to this, it has an automatic edit summary that cannot be changed. As is said on that page, the tool should usually only be used but for vandalism, as it is not polite to rollback established editors.


 * Nod, using Rollback implies vandalism so good faith edits that need to be reverted shouldn't be done via rollback. Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?
 * I presume you mean full protection and semi-protection. Full protection restricts editing of a page to administrators, and is used to protect pages that should not be edited by just anyone (e.g. the Main Page); enforce a "cool down" period during edit wars; or to protect against recreation. There are other reasons to fully protect a page, but these are the main ones in my mind, and listing them all would only be a parroting of the policy. Semi-protection restricts editing of a page to all autoconfirmed users (4 day old account). Indefinite semi-protection is used on pages where there is a long history of vandalism to a page, such as George W. Bush; this also applies especially to biographies. Also, when a user requests it for his userpage or subpages (but not his talk page, as this prevents IPs from contacting him). Temporary semi-protection is used to combat heavy IP vandalism, which cannot be effectively remedied by blocking specific IPs. Protection should not be used to prevent vandalism, or to exclude IPs from commenting.

'''10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?'''
 * As said in the previous answer, if it has been heavily vandalized by many IPs, and thus blocking will not solve the issue, then an article may be semi-protected. If there are several autoconfirmed accounts vandalizing, then odds are good that they were sleeper socks, because I doubt there would be a large amount of vandalism from autoconfirmed users on a specific article in a short amount of time. Thus, the page shouldn't be protected, but I'd block one of the users with the autoblock on, to catch the socks. If this wasn't the case, and there really were many separate autoconfirmed editors vandalizing in concert, I'd probably fully protect the article, and ask someone about it.

'''11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?'''
 * Ignoring all rules exists to serve as a release when following policy or procedure inhibits an editor from benefiting the encyclopedia. I understand this in principle, but I have not seen a situation where it was rightfully invoked, and can't really come up with one. This is something I need help with.

'''12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?'''
 * I can protect the page against recreation. That would be done if it is constantly recreated despite many deletions.

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name
 * Do you want a concise answer, or the whole rename process? It's long, but I'll give the latter I suppose.
 * A user changes his name via the renameuser extension of the MediaWiki software. Currently, use of this function is restricted to bureaucrats only. This will reattribute all of the user's past edits to the new username: links in page histories will be updated. The old account is deleted, and any flags are moved to the new account. It is often good to create the old account to prevent impersonation, as the account can now be created by anyone. Signatures, however, will not be updated; the old user pages will be automatically moved and exist as a redirect though. Requests for this can be done at WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U. The former is when you wish to change names to an account that does not yet exist. Virtually any request here is accepted provided the requested name is within policy. They are rejected sometimes on grounds of ArbCom restrictions, if the user who actually requested the rename is not the user in question, but not much else that I can think of. Sometimes it is best to just recreate the account if the user has no edits, but the editor will usually be renamed if renaming is what he prefers. WP:CHU/U is the usurpations page. This is where an editor wants to be renamed to an account that has already been registered. Here, there are many restrictions on what renames are performed. Firstly, the requested account must have no edits or log entries (save user creation). Sometimes vandalism that is reverted quickly, or few edits to one's own userspace are an exception, but this is not always true. If those criteria are met, then a notice must be placed on the talk page of the requested account notifying them of the request, and giving the user time to refuse it. After seven days, the rename is performed, provided there are no other factors. Other factors include the username being created with the past six months, or the user requesting rename is a very troublesome user (this is very bureaucrat discretion), or the user requesting usurpation is relatively new. The last qualification is to prevent a user who might not stick with the name from taking it. Block logs are not moved with the account; if a user has a large blocklog, the new account is sometimes blocked for one second with a link back to the old blocklog. Full conventions used by the bureaucrats are at the changing username guideline. This policy is not binding, but exists to define what is common practice; the entire process is up to bureaucrat discretion.

14 What types of names can be blocked?
 * Usernames that violate the username policy. The policy is currently under debate now as to what qualifies as inappropriate. Until this is more settled, I would probably only block blatant violations, such as ZOMG YOU SUCK COCKS or others that obviously are inappropriate.

15 You come across a page with highly libelous material on the page, what should you do?
 * Depends on whether or not it's sourced. If it is sourced from a very reputable souce, and written neutrally and accurately, then I would do nothing. I presume, however, that in this scenario it isn't. Because of the policy on biographies, all biographies on living people need to be extremely neutral and sourced. This extends to all comments about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, in any namespace. In this instance, the material in question should be removed, and possibly oversighted, depending on the severity. After doing so, I'd also find out who made the edit, and warn/block appropriately. I might leave a comment on the talk page if what was removed would be appropriate for inclusion if it met the criteria I outlined in my second sentence were met.

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?
 * Under this policy, it is often grounds for immediate blocking. Depending on the circumstances, I would probably do so.
 * A good essay to look at is Don't overlook legal threats. While LEGAL is a policy, DOLT offers some good advice on when it might be best to not block somebody.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?
 * I would like the user to indicate that he is clueful on policy and decorum. This can be indicated by his comments in discussions. Also, I'd like him to be involved in areas specifically related to administrator duties, such as WP:XfD or WP:RCP. I'd also like him to demonstrate he can be civil. No vandalism obviously. I'd not like to see many mistakes that derive from an ignorance of policy or convention. I understand people can make mistakes, but if someone makes several because you don't know how things work around here, then I don't want him with the ability to make bigger ones. I don't see a need for him to be actively involved in expanding content, provided he demonstrates he has gained experience and insight that being an article writer would give him. I don't believe he needs to demonstrate a need for the tools. I also just need to feel as if the user would make a good one.


 * Again very solid well worded and thought out answers. Figure out the DYK stuff above, and I think we can overlook the GA challenge.
 * Thanks. I'll be looking for a new article topic for the next few days. There's not that many things that are notable that haven't been written on! I (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing your edits
Just wanted to let you know that I am reviewing your edits, and was impressed with the fact that you checked out the other edits of User talk:75.210.198.135. You reverted all of his vandalism and warned him appropriately.Balloonman (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, do you think you could check my deleted contributions, and see how many speedies I've done? I'd just like to know, because I honestly have no idea. I (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom
Is there anybody that you would like to co-nom you?Balloonman (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sunny910910 has offered to co nominate me. Other than that, I don't think there's anyone. I (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

During the RfA
It is my opinion that during an RfA, the nominator's role ends at the nomination. I will only respond to questions directly addressed to me. I've seen nominations go down in flames because the nominator's got overly aggressive in their defense of the candidate.

It is also my opinion, that during an RfA, that the candidate keep his/her responses short and too the point---especially to people who oppose them. If somebody has a gripe respond to it, keep it positive, and move on. Again overly aggressive defenses can get people to dig their heels in---and might convince others to oppose. (You might want to take a semi-wikibreak during your RfA.) (But answer optional questions completely---like you did the questions above)

Also, when answering the questions/optional questions keep these three things in mind:


 * 1) You are applying for a job.  How you answer your questions may be the only thing that 2/3rds of the voters ever see.
 * 2) Demonstrate your technical knowledge.  Cite examples from your personal experience and make sure that you cite policies/guidelines/essays (including links) in your responses.
 * 3) Demonstrate your soft skills.  In otherwords, people want to know you have the temperament to be an admin.

Goodluck,Balloonman (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably won't transclude it for a while. As I said before, I think I might change my name. Do you think it would be best to do it before or afer the nomination? I (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to take up the 2 Crat's offer to change your name, you might want to do so ASAP. Start developing an identity with your new name.  But then explain why you did so as part of your nomination.  It will be a question, might as well address it proactively.Balloonman (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hi Soliel,

I saw that somebody was challenging you on a warning that you placed on their page for canvassing. I agree with you. But let me ask you to look at the following message that I placed on the participants of Wikiproject Poker. Do you consider it to be canvassing or not? Why? How does it differ from the one you issued a warning for?Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see a use for your posting. While WikiProjects do have influence, they do not make rulings, if you will, on notability (in this case). The proposal would have to be approved by the community as a standard, not just by a WikiProject. I suppose it might be a good idea to have the support of the relevant WikiProject when presenting it, but ultimately it is up to the community to decide on notability standards. But back to the issue at hand.
 * I would not see your notice as a violation of WP:CANVASS. The main crux, in my mind, of the guideline is that one should not notify only users who would agree with your side, or, more broadly, one should not notify certain people, and in doing so, influence a discussion in your favor. Although mass notification is often discouraged as well. Indeed, a very established and respected user was blocked for it, and has since left the project.
 * The difference is that your notification, while in my mind not particularly potent, was not designed to influence the conversation one way or the other. It was a neutral notice to a few people whose opinions would be relevent to the discussion, i.e. WikiProject members. The notice he issued, however, was clearly designed to gather support for his side of the argument, not just a neutral alert to the conversation. I (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We were looking for guidelines that the Wikiproject could support, knowing that it didn't really hold the weight of BIO/N. But, yes the key is motivation/audience/intent/ etc.  Take a look at types of canvassing.  Because my solicitation was to all of the members of the project on a project initiative, didn't profer a stance, and was made in the open it wasn't canvassing. But again, another excellent well researched answer!Balloonman (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the delay
Hey there Soleil, I have to ask a question that is probably going to come up now. When people ask for an admin coach, they usually believe they are either ready or close to being ready for adminship. IMHO, you are clearly ready, you really know your stuff. But it's been about a month since I wrote the RfA for you and you still haven't gone for it. The question becomes why? Balloonman (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My rename, which I have yet to decide if I'm going to do. I'm almost certainly going to do it, and I was probably going to do it in the next few days, but it's taken me a while to decide if I'm going to do it, and what name. After I do it, I'd like to wait a while before transcluding my RfA, so that it doesn't seem as if I'm getting a rename and going off to RfA with a new clean slate.
 * That's pretty much the only reason. Well that and a DYK I'd like to write before I do it. So, sorry if it's a problem that I've taken this long. I (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, but people may ask the question.Balloonman (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)