User:Scott5114/Admin coaching

This page is for admin coaching by User:Balloonman. I'm ready to begin whenever you are. —Scott5114↗ 07:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scott5114 Just adding your first RfA so it's easy to refer to.Balloonman (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting Started

I guess I lied, didn't quite hit the bed yet. First, if Rschen7754 wants to participate in your coaching as well, I would not be offended. He has a different take on some issues than I do, so his opinion couldn't hurt. I would invite him myself, but figured this is your coaching. Second, do not be surprised if Ginkgo100 participates in this coaching as well. Ginkgo100 is my wife and was one of my coaches---in many ways still is. I probably have learned more about Wikipolicy from her than from anybody else. We do alot together, but we never get invovled with each other's discussion. (Notice that she didn't vote in your RfA, even thought she was aware of it. It would have been inappropriate of her to do so as I was such an active voice in it.) She'll be kind of serving the role of "Coach of the coach."

One of the advantages of closing your RfA now is that you closed it in November, rather than in December. I would target early February for your next RfA. That way it will have been "4 months" between nominations. Yeah, it will really be 2 months and a week, but psychologically speaking people will think "November to February --- four months." Likewise we could theoretically go with January, but that is probably pushing it.

I've done a birds eye view over your past 1,000 edits and see several things that could have sunk your nomination. I grabbed the low hanging fruit, but there are other issues that would have garnered comments. Some of them are more valid than others, but anyone of them could have gained some opposition.

1. The articles that you edit are very narrowly defined. I would guess that 950+ edits of your past 1000 edits are on roads or Oklahoma or one of the projects. I know that this is your passion, but this narrowness of scope could have posed a problem for you. I also know that when all is said and done, your focus is going to return to roads and Oklahoma, but I encourage you to spend some time over the next two months editing other articles. You don't want people to see only "Road" "Highway" and "Street" as they scan your edits. You want them to see a diversity of topics. (This concern will be addressed indirectly by my suggestions below.)
2. You have very few XfD's under your belt. One of the biggest tools Admins have is the ability to delete pages. Thus, XfD's are very important to passing an RFA---this alone could have killed your nomination. People want to know that the person who is going up for admin knows the policies and why something should be kept/deleted. AFD's are the most important thing to work on. But there are also CFD, MFD, RFD, TFD, UCFD, and DRV. Over the next two months try to make a point of visiting one of those pages every day you're on Wikipedia. Participate in 3-5 of the discussions (that'll take about 10 minutes a day.) This should give you a good 100-200 XfD's by your next RfA. When you respond, make sure that you provide a rationale for your vote. It doesn't matter if you vote in the majority, what is important is that you provide a reason for your vote---the more policy based the better. When others post a reason, and you aren't familiar with the policy quoted look it up. (DO NOT put "Per above", "Per Nom", or leave the reason blank---my RfA was almost killed because I answered that way on 6 of my AfD's.){NOTE: you may on occassion find a page in the AFD that is of interest to you, don't be afraid to "save" the page by editing it/fixing the problems.}
3. You have good contributions to the Wikiprojects that you belong to, but very little elsewhere. We have roughly 8 weeks, pick an area that is of some interest to you outside of Wikiprojects and start contributing there (particularly if it is an area where you want to use the tools.) There are scores of options for you. What I'd like to see you do is spend roughly 2-3 weeks in 3-4 different arena's. Learn what the policy/guidelines are for those areas. Possible places for contribution might be Good Article, Feature Article, Did You Know, Wikietiquette, Request for Comment, Manual of Style, Third Opinion, WP:ANI (yes non-admins do contribute there), there are scores of other places, but pick a one that is of interest to you and contribute to them for a few weeks. Also, contribute to the talk page. Find out what issues they are dealing with, pose your ideas, see how they are received by others. Figure out their process---and if it is something non-admins can do, try your hand at it.
4. Vandal fighting... this is an area that some people place a lot of emphasis on. There are often two camps, those who believe vandal fighting is the most important thing and those who find it to be tedious. I find it tedious. Your lack of experience with Vandal Fighting might garner some opposes. You need to figure out an approach to how you handle these cases. Here is how I handled the issue. 1) When questioned acknowledge that you don't have much experience there, but overwhelm them with your experience elsewhere. 2) I pointed out that I had over 150 articles on my watch page and that I fought vandalism on those pages. 3) When somebody does vandalize one of your watched pages, fix the vandalism. 4) Go to the vandals page, put an appropriate warning tag on their page. 5) Check their contributions. Often if they vandalized one page, they hit other pages as well. Fix those pages. (This has the added benefit of helping your edit summary include pages that you wouldn't normally edit.) 6) If the account is a vandal only account or makes edits after getting the appropriate warnings, report it to WP:AIV. But try to make sure that the cases you take to AIV are ready to be blocked. Basically when you goto AIV, you will be sending the message, "If I was an Admin, I would block this account."

Yes, this all is very artificial. We know what your real interest is, but it's part of the game. Everybody will know that your editing of the Paris Hilton article was a result of your desire to become an Admin, but it will show a willingness to do what needs to be done to become an admin.

Watch the RfA process. You can choose to participate in it or you can simply keep a casual eye on it. See how people answer the questions. Figure out what works and what doesn't work.

Also, you might be thinking, "But nobody mentioned any of the above to me during the first RfA, they just nagged me about BLP and my questions." That's because people are lazy. We are looking for a quick simple reason to support or reject a candidate. If somebody has found a legitimate reason to oppose a candidate, then everybody will go with that reason. If it hadn't been for my posts about your questions, somebody would have criticized you for one of the reasons above. Because there was a strong reason to oppose, nobody dug any deeper.Balloonman (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've kicked things off by voting in about 5 AFD's today. I might do some work evaluating GA nominations soon, as that's something I've done a couple of times in the past and they're horribly backlogged. Last night I did an ANI report on a problem editor that has been plaguing the Missouri road project for a while in an effort to get something done about it (so far nobody outside the project has replied).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! (Why do I sometimes think that word shows my age!) I took a peak at some of your AFD's... I find that I generally go back to my XfD's quite a bit to see if other people had a different perspective on a subject. If you do revisit your items, don't be afraid to change your vote. By revising a vote, you demonstrate several things. First, that you aren't a drive by vote (something that can be frowned upon.) Second, that you are willing to reconsider your vote. You don't want to simply change votes to go with the majority, but if somebody makes a convincing argument acknowledge it. Third, by revisiting them, you might find that your understanding of policy was incomplete or needed to be fine tuned. Finally, you might cite a policy, but somebody else will cite a more applicable policy that you didn't know about. Participating in XfD's is probably one of the best things that you can do in preparation for an RfA.Balloonman (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other things to keep in mind while doing XfD's. Pay attention to your voting trend. Do you go along with the crowd? Are you always opposite of the crowd? Are you a deletionist? If you disagree with what others are saying, don't be afraid to take a stand. Again, the concern in RfA isn't that you always get it right, but rather that you demonstrate how you approached the subject. Plus, while I told you never to vote "Per somebody else" it is always fun to have others vote "per Scott." And it can be an ego boost if your argument can sway others.Balloonman (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since my name has been invoked

... I will share some of my comments and opinions, in a rather drive-by fashion.

First, Balloonman was very flattering about how much I help him out, and it's true I have been both an active user and an admin for longer than he has, but he teaches me a lot too. We have different interests in the project so our experience is complementary.

Second, watch out for the word "vote". XfD, RfA, etc. are not polls or ballots, they are discussions (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Current convention is to number the comments made by users and to count them up, but figuring out consensus is not supposed to be done just by counting up votes. That is why you will often see the term !vote -- the exclamation point indicating that it is not a true vote, but rather a comment with a summary of "keep" or "oppose" or what have you.

Third, make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As an admin you will be dealing with other users a lot, and you can often use a template (especially with vandals and such), but it is important to use the right one. A lot of work has gone into the exact organization, wording, and usage conventions for these over the past year or so. I keep it bookmarked.

I also keep Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion bookmarked. Speedy deletion has very strict criteria because there is no chance for a discussion. It is regularly misunderstood by new-page-patrollers and frequently overused by admins. I highly recommend that at some point -- whether you are interested in speedy deletions or not -- you do some new pages patrol and tag things for speedy deletion as appropriate. Later I think Balloonman is going to give you some hoary old speedy deletion exercises that are pretty useful.

--Ginkgo100^talk 04:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep the speedy deletion criteria on my wall. :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too - the only problem is when a new criterion gets added without you noticing :)

Thanks for the pointers, Gingko. I know it's even been said voting is evil, which I think may be a bit of hyperbole ;), but I'm working to give more expressive comments on AFD. I used to keep up on AFD a lot more than I have in recent months, but I'm hoping that my comments are now more helpful than they've been in the past. I always keep my contribs page loaded in a tab so I can see when someone else votes on an AFD I've participated in (the "top" indicator disappears). I'm also getting back into new pages patrol (which I prefer over normal recent changes patrol for some reason). Unfortunately, speedies and prods don't leave much of a paper trail, but the new page patrolling mechanism that was recently added keeps a log, which at least proves that I've been doing something. I'll take a look at the template messages so that I can use them when I need them. Thanks! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep them on my wife's user page ;-) But yes Ginkgo has a point, the votes aren't really votes---I was gonna make it into a question down the road, but if you are asked about consensus and votes that is an important thing to remember. A single strong policy/guideline/essay based response is stronger than several WP:ILIKEIT votes.Balloonman (talk) 05:56, 30 November 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. Even if you don't plan to "work speedies" anybody trusted with the tools should demonstrate expertise with the tool. 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 (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion exercises

Halo 3 trailer

What Halo 3 trailer? No context here. CSD A1.

• A1 would be an excellent option. Prodding it or AFD would have also been a viable option.Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Millwright

Just a bunch of external links. CSD A3.

• • Again probably the best option.Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Webs

This one is one of those where you know it should be deleted but it's hard picking a criteria that fits. The first thing that comes to mind is A7, but is one kickass car connaisseur an assertion of notability? I think that G1 is the safer option here though.

• I may be biased, but this doesn't really qualify as blatant nonsense. My wife's essay on blatant nonsense shapes my opinion here. As it's a personal essay, it has no binding weight, but I do believe it explains what is meant by blantant nonsense. A1 is a possibility, but I would probably have deleted it under A7. While he may be a "kickass car connaisseur" it still doesn't "indicate why its subject is important or significant."Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil Haverton Smith

This does provide an assertion of notability, but appears to be an attack page (G10). Without references the claims are unverifiable.

• Yes, but did you do a name search on Neil before deleting? Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

Should be untagged. The awards provide an assertion of notability.

• most obvious case of all of them. This was either a mistake or bad faith nom. Something to check might be the nominator's other posts. Is there a person going on a rampage tagging articles to be speedy deleted?Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Obvious G10. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it appears to be an attack page, but did you do a name search on Nathaniel Bar-Jonah before deleting? As it stood, I would have tagged for stub, expand, references.Balloonman 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Wouldn't keeping it with no references be against WP:BLP though? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent point... one that I honestly hadn't considered and I suspect the person who came up with the test hadn't considered either! On the one hand, you are 100% right, in this particular case, even though the person was real, the lack of references would be grounds for deletion. That being said, the purpose behind this question is to demonstrate that when doing Speedies (or even normal AfD's) you should do a web search to see if the subject is real or not. You can't always assume that garbage is really garbage. Plus, you could always add a citation ;-) Balloonman 09:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also speedy-related

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan - yay, I called it! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted an article you tagged for speedy! Also, I appreciate that you are continuing to do the Afd's those will go a long way when you go up for your RfA...Balloonman (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User Question 1

You're first RfA you answered the first question (1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?) with the following:

A: 1My focus would probably be on clearing administrative backlogs. One that I'd probably focus on often would be the copied-to-Commons categories. 2I've done new page patrol in the past, so I'm familiar with the speedy deletion criteria and would be likely to help out clearing those too. 3Vandal-fighting is not really my forte, however - I'd probably not do much blocking unless it was particularly egregious vandalism that happened to hit my watchlist.

1 One of the things that people are looking for is a "need" for the tools. The answer above is rather generic. "Administrative backlogs" doesn't say much of what you intend to do---everybody says that they want to help out with administrative backlogs or fight vandals. You did provide "copied-to-commons" categories as a specific area that you'd work on, but you didn't include a link to it. Don't assume that the person reading your answer knows what that is---give them the link (or at least the shortcut so they can look it up). Also, think of this as your chance to "wow" people. What experience do you have in that area? How have your past actions prepared you to handle this task. Don't let the reader have to investigate your experience in the area---tell them. You don't have to say much, but assure them that you have spent time in the arena where you plan to contribute.

2 Your answer then indicated that you did new page patrol in the past and would likely help out within clearing those out. "In the past" is vague. Does it mean last month? 6 months ago? A year plus ago? How recent was your new page patrol activity? If you haven't done new page patrol recently are you really going to do speedies when you get the tools?

3 You then talked about how vandal fighting wasn't your forte. When I read this, combined with the previous statement, it made me suspect that your new page patrol was done when you were new to wikipedia. Thus at least a year ago since you did speedies. You had little to no current experience with XfD's. But now you want the tool to do speedies?

With that in mind, think about how you might answer this question the next time around. When thinking about what areas you want to get experience in, figure out how the "tools" might help and what additional responsibilities Admins have in those arenas.

The two biggest things with question 1 is to demonstrate a need for the tools and show proficeincy/understanding in the area(s) that you are looking at.Balloonman (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, let's see here, Well, I do new page patrol every so often. I can't remember the exact interval between my RFA and the last instance of new page patrol - two or three months, maybe? That might be a good area to continue to focus on leading up to the next RFA. Fortunately, doing new page patrol now leaves a patrol log, so I can link to that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2-3 months I wouldn't really consider to be in the past in wikitime. One of the appeals of Wikipedia is that there are a lot of different things that you can do. I typically get involved in an area for a month or so and then jump around... and then move back. There is simply too much to do EVERYTHING a full speed all the time. Also, the questions I asked above are more rhetorical, trying to help you see how others MIGHT interpret your answer.Balloonman 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

In your first RfA you answered the following question with, "2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?"

A: 1 The two recognized articles I've contributed to are Kansas Turnpike, which is an FA, and Oklahoma State Highway 74, which is currently a GA. The Kansas Turnpike article took about a year's worth of work, collaborating with User:SPUI, which was a lot of fun. 2 Currently, I'm in the process of improving all of the Oklahoma state highway articles to B-Class (or greater!), about three-fourths or so I wrote originally.

When answering these questions remember what you are trying to do, you are answering questions to get a job. What is that job? To be an admin. The people who are reviewing you are more concerned with who you are than what you've done. We want to know that you have both the technical and the soft skills to be an admin. You have to sell both the hard and soft skills that you have.

1 While it is important to mention your FA in this question, is that necessarily your best contribution? The FA shows that you have the technical ability to elevate an article to FA status, but does it really represent your best work? Based upon the support you received from your colleagues at the roads project, I have to question that answer.

2 IMHO, this last sentence killed you. It has three things *I* didn't like. First, it is an individual task---it does nothing to build the community. Second, it reaks of somebody who accepts mediocrity. Your goal is to get them to B- quality? That's not a goal most people establish. Finally, the articles that you are working on were written by you, but they aren't even of B- quality? This doesn't inspire confidence, it makes people wonder, "what kind of garbage did he write?" The first half of the answer you were selling your technical skill, then you undermined it with the second half.

Well, you know, the bar's always rising and what-not...when I wrote a lot of them there was no such thing as B-class. :) And there's way too many (about 150) to get very many above B without neglecting the others...but yes, I see your point, there's no need for that to be in the answer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question 3

Question three deals with stress and how you handle conflict. Everybody gets stressed and encounters conflict. Admins are often lightning rods for conflict and stress. Even if you aren't looking for it, people will come to you as an Admin to sort out their problems! The conflict that you were "only tangentially involved in" doesn't demonstrate how YOU handle conflict/stress. Even if it did, that appeared to be overwhelming in scope---you would have been better served showing aspects that impacted you than the overall conflict. Find scenarios where you were involved in a conflict (or potential conflict) and how you handled it. Your colleagues at the road projects indicated that you were "a fair arbiter in heated debates" or "ability to remain calm in even the most fiery of discussions" or "Scott has handled himself in well situations that were escallated." These quotes from people who work with you indicate that you do know how to handle yourself. If they stem from the situtation you described, point us to them specifically. Scott, it was these comments on your first RfA that convinced me that you have the potential to be a great admin! I only wish you had brought whatever issues they are referring to up in a more prominent manner.Balloonman 08:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay Questions

Ok, one of the things that I nailed you for on your RfA was failure to research the appropriate policies/guidelines. Now is your chance to prove me wrong---show me that you can do the research and navigate the Policies and Guidelines. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc:

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

The deletion of content without discussion, as speedy deletion does, should be reserved for only articles that meet specific criteria that everyone agrees merits deletion. That said, the speedy deletion criteria are strictly worded to make it clear which articles fall under the criteria and which do not. (WP:CSD)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

The proposed deletion and AFD processes handle the majority of cases. Copyvios can be handled at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Other 'no-delete' alternatives exist, like improving the article, merging it somewhere, or transwiking it. (WP:DP)

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

Level 3 is the second-to-last user warning level. It is the first to assume bad faith in the editor's motives. (WP:WARN)

One of the things I didn't know until I did my Admin Coaching, and this is more of a best practice than a guideline/policy, is that many admins won't block somebody unless they have a level 3 or 4 warning first. But the big exception to that (that I've seen) is if there is an active vandal who has a "vandal only account" and has made numerous vandalizations in a short period. Vandal only accounts are prone to getting blocked rather quickly.Balloonman 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

The blocking policy lists specific reasons, but in general, blocks can be done to 1) protect the rights and safety of the Foundation, Wikipedia editors, or the reading public 2) curb disruption, including vandalism 3) prevent open proxies from editing 4) enforcing bans. (WP:BP)

Extra care should be taken that the regular be warned about the possibility of being blocked first. Also, take into mind the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. When communicating with a regular, it is often better to leave a personal note than a cold template. It also helps establish communication between the parties.Balloonman 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

In most cases, no more than a few hours. Indefinite blocks should never be used. (WP:IP)

Follow up: What are the exceptioins to the few hours? And, I didn't see this on WP:IP what about IP's that are affiliated with educational facilities?Balloonman 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism permits the block to be extended 'as long as necessary to prevent further disruption'. Educational institution IP should have {{SharedIPEDU}} placed on the IP talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Schools are often blocked for longer periods. I recently did a 6 month block on a school. It had been blocked for a month. A few days after that block expired, it went on a vandal spree, and was blocked for 3 months. 3 days after that expired, it again went on a vandal spree, so I blocked it for 6 months. 1 year is the most for schools. Other IPs can be blocked for up to 2 years, but that is only when there is a clear pattern of the same IP being used for vandalism.Balloonman 17:36, 2 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?

In theory, infinitely many times, depending on how closely the reverts are spaced; 3RR only prohibits 3 reverts per 24 hours. An editor can be blocked before violating 3RR, however, if their reverting is clearly intended to be disruptive. (WP:3RR)

Ok, assuming that there is an edit war going on:

A - Original Article

E1 - Edited by accountA

R1 - Reverted by accountB

E2 - Edited by AccountA

R2 - Reverted by accountB

E3 - Edited by AccountA

R3 - Reverted by accountB

E4 - Edited by AccountA

R4 - Reverted by AccountB

E5 - Edited by AccountA

R5 - Reverted by accountB.

At what point in the above edit war did accountA violate 3rr? What point did AccountB violate 3rr?Balloonman 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

R3 and E4. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's R4 and E5. The policy reads: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. This is even more clear on the 3rr enforcement page.Balloonman 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (I've updated the wording on the page.)

The old wording used to be If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. It was a little clearer that you could be blocked after the 4th edit, but the new wording says the same thing. This is also primarily a guideline to prevent edit wars.Balloonman 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppets tend to be suspiciously more familiar with Wikipedia policy and process than genuine newcomers. Suspected socks should be listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. As a last resort, a checkuser request can be filed to get a more conclusive answer. (WP:SOCK, WP:RFCU)

8 What is "rollback"?

Rollback is an automated reversion tool available only to admins. It should only be used in the case of vandalism because it doesn't leave an expressive edit summary. (Help:Reverting#Rollback)

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

Protected articles are only editable by admins. Semi-protected articles can be edited by most registered users, but not anonymous editors.

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

An article can be semi-protected when the protection takes less effort than hunting down and blocking all the users (typically anonymous users) that are vandalizing it. Full protection is intended more for stopping edit wars than vandalism. Protection should never be used preemptively. (WP:PROT)

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

IAR should only be invoked when following the policy to the letter harms the project. One example of practical application of WP:IAR that was first used by another roads editor (User:TwinsMetsFan on his RfA) is the WP:SRNC debacle - basically, the project was so divided that getting an actual consensus would have been impossible. The move wars and conflicts dragged on and on and on until everyone agreed to temporarily throw WP:CONSENSUS out the window, and permit a binding poll to be staged. This finally stopped the madness. IAR should not be invoked for petty reasons or simply to get one's own way.

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

Presumably, the page was deleted according to policy. If the page was originally speedied or PRODed, one option could be to take it to AFD, because CSD G4 doesn't apply to pages deleted through those processes. Otherwise, the page can be redeleted through CSD G4, and in extreme cases, the page can be 'salted' by listing it at Wikipedia:Protected titles or creating a redirect and protecting it. (WP:CSD, WP:SALT)

13 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

Admins should be civil at all times, have some experience with the project, show good judgment, and be trustworthy. I also believe admins should do what's right for the project, even if it may conflict with policy (per the spirit of WP:IAR).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TriOptimum Corporation

There are two other very valid reasons to delete this article: WP:FICT and WP:NOT#GUIDEBalloonman 06:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Convinced me

Well, you have convinced me that you do know the policies and/or can find them. You do have the termperament for Adminship. Now we simply have to wait... if you have any question as to why we need to wait take a look at User:TenPoundHammer#Why I'm not an admin yet and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_3#Oppose. During this time, I still think you should continue to do XfD's and editing outside of Roads. (You don't have to be exclusive---which I know you aren't---you just want a footprint in other areas.) I also think spending time learning new areas can only help you! But I feel confident that when you go up for RfA next time, it will be a slam dunk!!!Balloonman 06:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, thank you for your help. The quizzes were just challenging enough and I feel that they've benefited me. Thanks for your help with the admin coaching! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, like I said, I plan on keeping an eye on you and will probably throw a question at you here and there... but I think the most important thing for you right now is to continue doing what you've been doing. In a month or two, I would be happy to nom/co-nom you if you'd like. Just let me know when you want to try the RfA again.Balloonman 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

recent trend

Just an FYI, a trend lately has been people's activity on WP:ANI/WP:AIV... if you haven't spent much time there, you might want to.Balloonman (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I was thinking of reporting a vandal at AIV, but I haven't gone through all the warning templates yet. For a case where you have different IP addresses vandalizing the article, but you're fairly sure they're the same person (they all start with 99.23x.xxx.xx), is it acceptable to step through the warnings on the different talk pages as if they were one person i.e. give a level 1 warning to the first IP, level 2 to the second)? That's what I've been doing so far. I've been watching Houndstooth because someone mentioned on IRC that it seems to get vandalized a lot for no apparent reason.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would request that the page be protected as it has been vandalized multiple times over the past day or so. I agree that the IP is apparently the same, but blocking it won't work as the vandal has a dynamic IP. I went ahead and protected the page.Balloonman (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging a dynamic IP, is IMHO, a futile effort. What ends up happening is that the Vandal uses the account today. Commits several acts of vandalism. Gets a warning. Tomorrow somebody else logs on and sees that they have a message. The message is warning them about vandalism. That user then goes to the person who placed the template asking "Why did you give me a warning for vandalism, I never edited that page." Meanwhile, the vandal has never seen the warning and doesn't care because he is using a different dynamic address. Of course, that is my opinion... when dealing with an IP that is actively vandalizing, *I* am more willing to place a short block on the account.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think my bringing the Cliff Hangers IP to ANI was the proper thing to do? Also, I was waffling between AN and ANI before posting; did I pick the right noticeboard? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle, I didn't even realize that it was you who took that to ANI---but I should have looked because I knew that you were working on Price is Right articles! ;-) Once the IP started describing the contestant as a Black contestant, I would have probably have taken it to WP:AIV. Prior to that edit, AGF would have me labeling it as a content dispute. But that edit, IMHO, tilted the scales to Vandalism. Unfortunately, based upon my experience, the page hadn't been edited/vandalized enough in a short enough period to warrant protection. Admins generally want to see an obvious "edit war" in the past 12-24 hours before protecting.

NOTE: Even when you get the tools, don't be afraid to take things to ANI/AIV/AN/Etc. I do so on several occassions, namely to ensure that what I believe should happens is in line with other more experienced admins. But more importantly, on articles that I am actively editing or have a strong personal affiliation towards, I will probably never act on my own. IMHO doing so would be a conflict of interest, thus, I have taken people to ANI/AIV/AN to get the input of others.Balloonman (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another place to check out

Another place you might want to visit some is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The primary criticism last go around was on BLP---which I think you are much better versed with than before. But, if you put a footprint here, you can document that you took the extra effort to become familiar with the issue by getting involved in some of the discussions.Balloonman (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD close

I closed an AfD today. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, I've been thinking that you might want to close a few. A couple of comments about AfD's right now. First, there is some debate about non-admins closing AfD's as "snowball" that are not unanimous keeps. Thus, I wouldn't snowball a debate as keep if it isn't unanimous. Second, if you do close a debate, only close "KEEPS." There has been some frustration on non-admins closing debates as "Delete" and then tagging the article as speedy or something---it's creating a redundancy. Third, while the official guideline is to wait a full week for AfD's, in practice many are closed earlier if there is a clear consensus. If the debate has been going on for 4+ days and it is pretty obvious, such as the one that you looked at, I wouldn't label it a snowball. Snowball is usually used in AfD's when the debate is closed after less than a day or two.Balloonman (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA 2

Hey there Scott, I'm going to let you decide when you want to go up for Admin again. I'm about to be killed at work, so I wrote up my nomination for you. I didn't sign it because I want to sign it closer to when you actually decide to go for it. I think you are ready and that it would probably pass right now. But you might want to wait a month to give it more time. There are people who will oppose for the simple reason that "3 months hasn't passed since your last RfA." I think its a silly reason when the reason for the opposition has been addressed. Again, when preparing for that RfA make sure you get exposure outside of the Roads projects. I know those are your bread and butter, but people will want to see diversity. Also, make sure to keep up those XfD's. Let me know when you want me to sign it. Also, if you want to have somebody else co-nom (or even nominate) feel free to ask them.Balloonman (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think waiting will probably work out best timewise anyway. I'll try to do some more XfDs soon, and ask Rschen if he'd like to co-nom again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just wanted to write it while I had time. January/February are my busy months at work. Good luckBalloonman (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arb Committee

Hey there Scott, Just to throw my two cents in there, I wouldn't go for your RFA until the arb committee is done. Also, be prepared to discuss the following comment on the arb committee, "All three RfCs focused not just on NE2's behavior, but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia." If you hang your hat on your envolvement with USRD and it has this reputation, it might create problems during the RfA---I'm not saying it will be impossible to overcome, but that you need to be prepared to do so.Balloonman (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this... be prepared to explain why you think an Arbcom member made the above statement. What do you think the arbitrator mean by it? In your opinion, in what ways is it accurate? In what ways, in your opinion, in it inaccurate? Did it used to be more accurate than it is today? If so, how/why did things change? What role (if any) did you have in making such a change or fostering such a perspective? Since the case was accepted 2 months ago, how has the Project been changed? How do you think it will evolve in this area over the next 4-6 months?Balloonman (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Status inquiry

Hey there Scott,

Just checking to see what your thoughts were about going for Admin? Enough time has passed since your first attempt that you can run again without fear of people saying "you need more time between RfA's." That being said, I've just spent the past hour reviewing your last 500 edits or so... and a couple of things jumped out at me.

1. In your past 500 edits, almost all have been to Road Related articles. Again, this is perfectly acceptable from a Wikipedian, but it might garner some opposes in an RfA. People reviewing RfA's want to see more diversity. While I know you have it, you are making people look for it.
2. In the past 500 edits, you've only participated in a few XfD's... and all but one are related to roads. And if I were a betting man, I'd guess that you know User JgZ? Again, making people look for how you would evaluate articles for deletion.
3. You did a good job of not getting caught up in the wikidrama of the ArbCom case---even though it hasn't closed (will it ever?) I don't think you should let that worry you.

If you are thinking about running for adminship again, you might want to consider contributing to some more non-road related XFD's and outside contributions for 1-3 weeks. Again, EVERYBODY will know that your first love is the Roads (and second TPiR), but it would show the community a willingness to do what is necessary to get the experience to be an admin.Balloonman (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd still like to go for it. I was a little apprehensive about how the ongoing ArbCom case could affect an RfA, but if you don't think it should cause concern, then I suppose I shouldn't let it worry me. Fortunately, it seems like the editor that stirs the ArbCom pot up, so to speak, doesn't really edit articles in the states I'm most interested in much. I do read around Wikipedia and whenever I find style issues, I do minor edits (mostly date links, italics, and heading caps). I've had the main MFD page on my watchlist for a while, and for a couple of weeks did a lot of commenting on it, but I've sort of fallen out of the habit and should probably get back to it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a little worried about the arbcom at first because you were one of the principles in it, but having watched most of it, you didn't really appear to be a central figure in the debates... and you pretty much kept your nose clean during the discussions (EG didn't get caught up in the drama.) I would have rather the case be closed, and the arbitrators had issued a verdict---especially about the allegation of how the project relates to the rest of the wikicommunity---but it's been almost a month since there has been any meaningful discussion there. Don't get me wrong, the arbcom case may hurt your chances as 90% of your edits are related to said project. But I didn't see anything to indicate that you were part of the problem and a number of edits where you tried to be the bridge builder... thus, if there is residual damage, I don't think it will impact you and if it does, it is the kind of damage that won't go away for 6 months or so. If you do decide to run, in the near future, let me know so that I can update my nomination to reflect that.Balloonman (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW I really like your reasoning at the various MfD's you've been participating in lately.Balloonman (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about possibly making a second run this weekend? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination transcluded. Here we go... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GL Scott... I do believe you are more than ready for this!Balloonman (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

reminder about the questions

Hey there Scott, You got quite a few questions since last night. Remember that these are your chances to shine. Also, remember the lesson from your first RfA, give complete comprehensive answers. Remember that these questions are important to the people posing them. It is often their first impression of you. Your first RfA failed in part because of incomplete answers.Balloonman (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)