User:Moonriddengirl/Admin

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

At first, I intend to take a part in AIV and CSD. I worked in CSD during my early days on Wikipedia, and I also patrol recent changes whenever I can. I would keep an eye on WP:AIV and Category:Speedy deletion. When I feel ready (more experienced), I'll work on AN/I.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

I feel that some of my best work lies in vandal fighting. Keeping Wikipedia clean is one of my first priorities. I also do a bit of article work and welcome new users whenever I get the chance.

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?

I really haven't encountered many situations in the past which have caused me much stress. If I do encounter stressful situations, then I will make sure I keep a cool head and think things through before acting.

Are these answers too short? Midorihana ^~iidesune? 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, those answers are too short, but for now they're here just to give an idea of where you've been and where you want to go. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm here too. Yes, the answers are really short, but as this is just to get an idea of where you want to work and teach you how to do admin-related stuff, they're fine. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for AIV

You're already doing vandal patrol; that's good practice for AIV. I've seen that you issue warnings as appropriate. I'd say keep it up, but be careful that it doesn't overwhelm your contribution history. I would spend hours doing vandal patrol before my RfA, but I also helped out a lot in article space. Those edits tended to get lost, and several people opposed me for low article space contribution before some of my work there was pointed out. For that reason, I would suggest that you consider recreating your userpage and creating a log of your substantial article contributions. If you don't have any yet, we can work on that later. :) Article contribution is important. As little as I contribute there, I know that even a perception that you aren't working enough on articles can sink an RfA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to chime in here and ask what vandal patrolling tools you use. RC patrol is constructive and such, but if there weren't people to write the encyclopedic content, there would be nothing to vandalize. You should try to keep a balance, I'm an admin and am currently working on a collaboration effort to get cannon to Featured status. If you want to help, we'd welcome it, just poke User:AndonicO as he's organized it. Back to the topic at hand, do your reports normally result in blocks? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most of my reports do end in blocks; when I report a user at AIV I usually check back to see if the block was done. I also filed an abuse report, which was accepted. For vandal patrol I use Lupin's AVT. I looked at Twinkle and huggle, and decided I would keep it simple for a bit and only use the AVT. I understand the concern about more article contribution, I think that I really need to work on that.

Preparing for CSD

CSDs are a big part of my thing. If you want to work there, I'd suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to get a feel for consensus over there. Eventually, you may want to chime on, if a topic comes up where you feel you have something to add. (It took me a while; I'm not particularly bold. :)) You'll want to be dead familiar with those criteria to be sure that you don't misapply them. I'd note some less commonly recognized aspects, like the warning against tagging articles too soon after creation for WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. That's buried in the intro paragraphs. :) I'd also read through Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. Without looking at your past tags (so forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir), I'd become very familiar with WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11, two of the more contentious criteria, and I would also recommend certain familiarity with WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#G1, both of which are also frequently misapplied.

Two other areas where you might consider participating more to build experience and demonstrate your knowledge to help prepare you for working CSD are WP:AfD and WP:AFC. AfD can really use more participants anyway. :) If you haven't already, read through Wikipedia:AfD#AfD Wikietiquette (and the sub-section), Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I myself never participated at AFC, but I believe that it might be a good place to watch and, if you feel so moved, help out. It gives you practice evaluating articles to see if they meet standards. (Alternatively, you might want to try your hand at creating a few WP:RA.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, when I request CSD it's only for blatant vandalism, nonsense, obvious attacks, or unnotable people (the "hi my name is bob and i like cheese" sort). I think I used to tag articles too soon, which I realize now is a bad thing, after I created stub articles (and found myself afraid of the fast taggers who I knew were there). I noticed that the patent nonsense tag is misused often and asked another user about it (here). I've taken a look at both AfD and AFC; I figured I would wait before involving myself in those areas (I'm not bold, incidentally). Midorihana ^~iidesune? 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, glad you pointed that out. :) The definition you were given of "no context" "there is not much that can be written about the subject" does not mesh with the speedy criteria. Since it was given in December, I expect he knows better now. :) Specifically, no context means that there is not enough information for you to figure out what the article is about. If you can figure out the subject of the article, it's not a speedy under WP:CSD#A1. What you were probably thinking about (?) was "no content", WP:CSD#A3. The criterion sets out some pretty specific examples. I can dredge up some examples for you from my own deletion log if you'd like. :) I think it's good that you realized through your own experience why it's bad to tag an article too soon. That's one of the reasons why admins should also be article builders. Nothing gives you empathy for that speedy deletion creator like fearing the speedy blade. :) I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't speedy delete articles that quality; I certainly do. But unless they're deliberately disruptive, we should do it with compassion until the creators make that impossible. (The third time around of "Bob is my uncle. He rocks." WP:AGF goes out the window. That's time to haul out the {{uw-create2}}, in my opinion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

You will need to be able to demonstrate that you can encounter stressful situations and keep a cool head. As an admin, you're going to—particularly as an admin who wants to help out at AIV and CSD. :) You might want to consider getting involved in some of the dispute resolution arenas such as WP:3O or WP:RFC. There are a number of policy specific boards you could go to, also: WP:BLPN can always use more people; there's WP:COIN and the brand spanking new WP:NPOVN. Dispute resolution is a great opportunity to practice and demonstrate your civility. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also try WP:MEDCAB; I've mediated several cases there. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I have a question: At what point should someone stop AGF during a dispute? I know the best thing to do is assume good faith in most situations, but what if the editor seems to be a sockpuppet/SPA? How should WP:BITE apply in these situations? Midorihana ^~iidesune? 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for Keilana for now, since my sock experience is very limited. Basically, I'll note that unless I'm dealing with blatant vandalism or egregious incivility, I presume good faith. Good faith erodes when reasonable efforts to communicate fail, especially if somebody seems deliberately to be misunderstanding or applying policies or guidelines. I really don't know at what point one moves from thinking, "Hmm, this guy seems familiar" to heading off to checkuser to prove it. I bet Keilana does. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is more my realm, but I'm not very experienced; I just generally wait for a checkuser to confirm then do the blocking. As for AGF, I try to always assume AGF in content disputes, considering the wonderful ethic of reciprocity and all that. That's my philosophy anyways, after "don't get in content disputes". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. There was one situation I was in (it wasn't stressful though) where I assumed good faith all the way through, even where other users had stopped AGF. The article in question was the Eagle Club Group article, and the editor I mostly dealt with was Emma44. The article was repeatedly deleted because of unnotablity. I think another user brought up the issue of meatpuppetry. What would you have done in that situation? Midorihana ^~iidesune? 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Assignments

If Moonriddengirl doesn't mind, she and I can give you assignments here. They may range from the mundane (look at these articles and tell me if you'd delete them) to the more complicated (write a GA). Remember this is optional, if you can't/don't want to do something, just tell us and we'll drop it. :)

Content

Let's get this over with, shall we. You don't have much writing experience, and that will come up in your RfA. I do think that some article writing and experience with the 3 main processes is necessary to be a well-rounded admin. (For what it's worth, the 3 areas are DYK, GAs, and FAs - FAs could be FLs/FPs/FXs as well.) The first assignment is to help in an FA collaboration of some sort. Many Wikiprojects offer one, and the WP:TSQUAD is writing one right now. If you jump in and help, not only will you be greatly appreciated, but you will get credit for the FA provided you do a reasonable amount of work. If you don't want to work on that, that's fine, find a Wikiproject and choose a collab. If you (gasp!) want to fly solo...good luck. Choose a topic you're really interested in, and start researching and writing. The recent Signpost tutorial is good, especially the links. I'd really recommend collaborating, though, as many hands make light work. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One argument I've seen in RfAs before is, "Yes, vandal fighters are great, but you need to write more." The main problem with article writing (for me) is that the things I'm interested in are things that many other people aren't interested in. :( I'll help in any way I can, though. Thanks for the links. Midorihana ^~iidesune? 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you interested in writing? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles I have started are :Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement, Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!: Cartoonist Ignores Helpful Advice, What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty are books, and the other two (Junior FIRST Lego League and World Festival) are FIRST related, which doesn't get much attention. I've created one template: Template:FIRST for FIRST related articles. An article I have worked with another editor in writing is the What Is Your Dangerous Idea? article. I normally write articles about science books or FLL related things. Not too wide a selection of topics, unfortunately. Midorihana ^~iidesune? 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created tons of articles (by my measuring scale; the rest of the world would call it "70, give or take"), but not a single GA. (One I've contributed to is on the list now; I'm told it may be reviewed some year.) I see that one of those articles, What Is Your Dangerous Idea?, is B already; perhaps you could try to elevate it to GA? What do you think, Keilana? I passed my RfA without a single DYK or GA...or even a B. But I did have a lot of article work I could point to. And even so my article contributions were, as I noted, questioned. Maybe you could poke around Wikipedia:Requested articles to see if there are any articles there that you could help out with? Working in an unusual area is hardly a bad thing. In fact, it can be quite a strength. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the article writing problem myself. Should I go ahead and ask Slartibartfast1992 about that? In the meanwhile, I'll work on articles for creation. Midorihana ^~iidesune? 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask him, if you like. Since my involvement with GA has been pretty much non-existent, I don't know if that's ordinary protocol. With the article I collaborated on writing, another editor just went ahead and proposed it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a plus to have a GA or DYK, but AFC and other general article writing (content creating, without automation) is also great. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

←(unindent) Sounds good; I'll work on that. Midorihana ^~iidesune? 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's been 10 days. How has it been going? What have you been working on? I'm seeing a bit of mainspace work recently, and you added yourself to the AFC page. Definitely work on that, it will be an asset for your CSD judgment. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only making a little progress, unfortunately. I've been looking for third-party sources for the What Is Your Dangerous Idea? article, and looking for other articles I can improve. My Internet was down for a few days which, coupled with a load of school work, limited my time on the computer and subsequently, Wikipedia. I'll see what I can do on AFC. Midorihana ^~iidesune? 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some additions to the Botball article. Midorihana^{~いいですね?はい！} 02:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Midpoint reviews

March 25, by Moonriddengirl

I am subdividing my notes by section. "Vandalism fighting" will cover everything I think may serve to prepare you to address vandalism as an admin and also to demonstrate your understanding of those policies. "Deletion related" will cover everything I think may serve to prepare you to handled CSD or XfD or PROD. This may also include article creation, which helps demonstrate your understanding of inclusion guidelines. "General notes" is everything else. :) I'm sectioning these for easier discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism fighting

You're obviously on your game here. There are so many that I'm only sort of popping in. I see an understandable flub at Sandwich—my guess would be that the editor attempting to clean the article when you arrived had not gotten everything. I like that you looked at the result of your redirect and discovered the problem. Good diligence there. :) Your AIV reports seem good. My only concern in this area is that I fear it may be consuming enough of your onwiki time that it is obscuring a little bit some of your other contributions. I'd say keep it up, but consider balancing it a little bit with some of the areas I will be suggesting in subsections below. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like a good idea. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion related

The biggest problem I see here is that you mention a specific desire to work on CSD, but your deleted contributions show no recent tagging to speak of, except for an WP:CSD#A7 tag on March 10th on an article that I suspect was actually a WP:CSD#G10. (The named individual, evidently 16 years old, is described as fat & gay and said to produce and act in transgressive porn videos. I am not listing the title of this deleted article for obvious reasons.) I think you need to put more time into new page patrol to demonstrate your familiarity with WP:CSD. If you're going to be doing the deleting, it would be good to see you first do more tagging. :) It would also be nice if you could hang out a little bit more at WP:XfD. Perhaps you'll find an opportunity there to demonstrate your familiarity with inclusion guidelines. Some of your participation at MfD and UCfD has only really drawn a "per nom" from you (1, 2 and 3.) Sometimes "per nom" is really about all you can say, but that doesn't help anyone figure out if you really understand policies & guidelines. It's better when your arguments can be a little more detailed. This and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Russian Restoration show some original thought. :) If I were you, I'd probably look at some of the "old" AfDs. The ones that are left for last tend to be unclear, and they really give you an opportunity to read over arguments and evaluate. Your participation there could be very valuable, to boot, since your argument may help an article over a narrow divide between no consensus, keep or delete. Your work at AfC looks good. I see these recently created, for example: William Larkin Stiles and Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail Riders (album). I see what looks to be a good decline here. I like that you recognized that this one needs additional work. (I think you may have misunderstood this, though, as it seems like it was a reference for the previous section.) What I'd hope to see more of from you here is:

CSD tagging: demonstrate your knowledge of those criteria so that others can better evaluate your abilities there.
XfD discussion, particularly in those less than clear cases.
AfC work: continue. I don't know how long it takes to evaluate a request, but if you have the opportunity you might want to make checking it out a regular part of your routine.

I will readily admit a bias towards deletion work, as it's What I Do in large part. But since you've mentioned a desire to do it, too, I think you should focus a little more of your efforts here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

General notes

Not a lot to say here, except that I like the change to your userpage. It makes it much easier to see the articles you've created and are working on. Can you do anything to reinforce the notability of this? (It also needs to be revised according to WP:LEAD.) It seems as though several of your articles could use some or additional secondary sources. If you're not keen on creating new articles, you might want to work a bit on adding to those. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

May 27

Could I request going over my XfD edits? I haven't contributed a lot to article XfDs (I've been trying to work up to it) but I've done some TfDs and RfDs, mainly. Midorihana みどりはな 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion work

XfD

While I would like to see you do some AfD, as this is helpful to demonstrating that you understand article standards, I'm glad to see you contributing to TfD and RfD, which probably need it. :) What I see there looks good. It's hard to pull out specifics for this purpose, since for admin training what I'd be looking for is evidence that you know what you're doing, and it's easiest to see that when you're contributing something new to the conversation. That's not always possible in XfD, since quite often some variation of "what s/he said" is all that's really required. If you agree to delete, very likely the nominator has already made the case. If you don't, unless you're early, somebody else has probably already said why. :) I've looked through all the XfD I see in your last 500 edits, back to March. Out of that, I see a couple noteworthy: This shows an understanding of the purpose for redirects and has the advantage of being the first comment. :) The redirect may not wind up being deleted now that it's been refocused, but I still think it reflects good understanding. I really like this and this because it's obvious that the responses are not rote. In the second case, while your !vote may wind up as a "what s/he said", your response to the template's creator shows a desire to be helpful. I also like to see you having the chance to try out process, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Glad to see you notifying speedy candidate creators. That's so important for several reasons which I spout off about whenever given the chance. So, go you for doing it. This was a good exchange. :) Good tagging on Tom SOA, which was an attack page that you inadvertently recreated in tagging. Your initial tag was good, even if it did accidentally run off track. With regards to your note at Eric Pennington, which was also deleted and inadvertently recreated, you do not tag too slow. You tagged within one minute of creation. :) It was simply deleted quickly. One note with regards to that latter, the content at the time of tagging was "Eric Pennington Cannot Drum." I typically try to avoid tagging articles too quickly for lack of context (as you did there), since WP:CSD advises against it. It's hard to imagine that this might have expanded into a useful article, but perhaps it could have: "Eric Pennington Cannot Drum is the name of Eric Pennington's Grammy award winning country band." :) In any event, my practice in these cases is to check the contributor's history. This edit makes it much less likely that the individual is attempting to contribute constructively, so I would probably have tagged that as {{G10}} or {{A7}}. (Good thing I reviewed this, as that sneaky vandalism had remained unaddressed for several weeks!) In any event, I feel pretty sure you know about that, as your recent application of a {{context}} tag to Evil Dead 4 suggests as much, but I feel that in the interest of providing as complete feedback as I can I should point it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. :) Midorihana みどりはな 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, could you also look over civility as well? Thanks! Midorihana みどりはな 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but let me clarify: do you mean evaluate your civility? If so, I'll pop in on some random encounters, but if there's something specific concerning you it would be helpful to know. :)

Just in general would be helpful. Regards, Midorihana みどりはな 07:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Civility seems good, which is not surprising to me. :) I wouldn't have volunteered to work with you if I though you had civility issues, as civility is very important to me. I've popped in on a number of your conversational threads going back several months. I looked at this section. Good to see you making an effort to be helpful there. :) I see good interactions here. Overall your talk page looks good, though there's not much breadth of interaction for me to judge. I will be interested in seeing how you handle this. If you become an admin, you'll get a lot more of those kinds of situations.

That does kind of make me wonder, though, why did you handle that edit the way you did, by reverting and leaving a uw-v1? If you were going to leave a vandalism warning, v1 was the one to leave, as it is neutral and doesn't specifically assume bad faith. But I do wonder why you didn't leave a warning that was more specific about the reason the edit concerned you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to get to this tomorrow, unfortunately - I don't have enough time right now, but I will get back to it. I had enough time to revert my edit, though. Regards, Midorihana みどりはな 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not too sure why I saw the edit the way I did - I think it was because I wasn't viewing the page as an article, I was looking at it in the edit box/window. It must have looked nonsensical to me at the time. In any case, what you say is right - I should have at least used a custom message.

I'm going to be busy for several days too, just an FYI. Regards, Midorihana みどりはな 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Accidents do happen. :) I think that your apology was well done, even though the user was hardly civil in his approach to you. As for warnings, occasionally I have to leave a custom, but there seems to be something for *almost* every occasion at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus

I've been thinking a fair bit lately about admin coaching and its general purpose. I think of it like this: you're thinking of volunteering to take on more responsibilities at the project. I'm volunteering to help you figure out (a) how those tools work, (b) if you really want to spend your time using them, and (c) how to demonstrate to others that you're ready to use them.

You've indicated that the areas where you feel you may contribute are AIV and CSD. Both of those are collaborative processes between admins & the larger community (admins can, of course, act in the latter capacity as well), with the larger community singling out issues and, when necessary, bringing them to the attention of admins. You can best (c) demonstrate your preparation to act from the admin side by showing that you understand the issues as a member of the larger community. In other words, the best evidence is in good tags. For AIV, if your communication with disruptive editors is clear & constructive and if your AIV reports show that you understand when disruptive editors can be blocked, it lets reviewers know that you are likely to handle it well from the admin side, too. CSD is a little more complicated to demonstrate. Good tags are important, but only admins can review your tags to know if you've been making good ones, and I generally don't notice a lot of admins at RfA who share what they see (if they're looking). It's only obvious if you don't know what you're doing--that is, if a lot of tags are being declined. :) So equally important are the other tags that you make. What do you do when you encounter an article that is not CSDable? Do you tag it for improvements, with some of these? Do you PROD? Do you AfD? Are you communicating with creators? The ability to review your actions here can be important to demonstrate that you're ready to address article deletions from the other side. And more than that, it can help you figure out (a) how those tools work, since going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion requires quite a lot of critical thinking.

This leads me to (b). Do you really want to go there? :D A little more on (a) what it entails: admins often encounter articles at CSD that have been improperly tagged. When you find one of those, you have to decide what to do with it. Is the tag worrisome enough that you need to communicate with the tagger about the CSD process and purpose? Do you need to communicate with the creator to explain what needs to be done with the article? Do you tag it for improvement, PROD it, AfD it? Should you just improve it yourself? Whether an admin deletes or not, there is quite possibly going to be conversation about it later. If you didn't feel the tag required communication with the tagger (I usually communicate when I think a tag demonstrates clear misunderstanding of the criterion), the tagger may feel your declining requires communication with you. If you deleted, the creator may feel the deletion requires communication with you. :) Communications at AIV are generally, but not always, less fraught. You will have to communicate with improper taggers. Communication with disruptive editors is generally a block template or, if they've been inadequately warned, a vandalism template of some level. But there is, of course, always the possibility that somebody will think the block you did (or did not) was unfair. Ideally, an admin will be able to handle communications constructively, defusing tensions & minimizing drama. Ideally, the people you talk to will walk away feeling good about the encounter and with a better understanding of some policy or process. (I'm not talking about disruptive editors here, but good faith contributors. I'm not concerned if people who set out deliberately to disrupt Wikipedia feel good about their experiences. I'm only concerned that they stop doing it. Which doesn't mean I advocate incivility to them. A business-like showing to the door until they can behave is sufficient.) You'll always need to keep your ego in check and keep in mind the good of the project. By that, I mean that when somebody says "You screwed up!" it can make you defensive. It makes me defensive. A good admin, imo, will set that initial gut response aside and look to see if he or she did, in fact, screw up. :) And whether s/he did or not, s/he'll be polite about.

What's the point of all this? I want to confirm your "platform". Are these truly areas in which you intend to contribute? Are there other areas that interest you as well? I would like you to realistically assess what you're interested in doing on Wikipedia, so that I can help you best prepare to do it.

If this i<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">s a direction you feel would be helpful to you, I plan after confirming what you want to do to start asking you questions about your approach to these tasks, including specific hypothetical cases. I'm not talking about a "pop quiz" for a grade, here. I'm talking an opportunity to haul out that critical thinking and delve more deeply into the kinds of situations you are likely to encounter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two things right now I am most interested in are helping other users and reverting vandalism; after that CSD and possibly the various XfDs. After some thinking, those are the areas that I wish to concentrate on for now. Of course, as I become more experienced, I may check AN/I for issues to help out with. I hope that is specific enough. :) Thanks for your help, Midorihana みどりはな 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all behind on this, am I? Sorry! I've recently been obsessively involved with clearing the backlog at WP:CP.

Okay. Helping other users and reverting vandalism do not require the tools. It's good to demonstrate both of those, though. I don't see much in either area since you posted this, though. I'm mostly seeing article work and RfA participation. I see one CSD tag, which may not have actually been the proper tag to use. You tagged "淀粉" as {{db-foreign}}, but you didn't link to the other language wiki on which the article existed. It may have been a WP:CSD#G12, but a current search of a text-string, here, doesn't show any sign of another wiki. Maybe it's been deleted since then. I don't know. :) (Just as a note, WP:CSD#A2 is only for foreign language articles if they exist on another wiki. And I was thinking this might be spam, but a google translation suggests not. How bizarre!)

I think at this point that the biggest problem you'd face in an RfA is simply your decline in participation. I asked Wannabekate to take a look at you, here, and it seems that aside from a spurt in May, you haven't been that active on Wiki in the last several months. I'm not attempting to discourage you from going after what you want, but I wonder if adminship is really something you want at this time? It seems that you can do most of what you want without the tools, and in order to get the tools you're likely to have to step up your participation in a lot of areas where you may not want to be spending your time.

As I said, I'm not trying to discourage you. But if you've decided that adminship is not high on your priorities at the moment, that's no problem, either. The option remains open either way. :)

Presuming that you do want to pursue adminship, what I think you must do first is increase your presence. If you want to help out other editors, find areas to do that. WP:HD, WP:3O, WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:COIN--there are a lot of available places to pitch in. You do not need to be an admin to help out in any of these areas, but helping out in them will certainly increase your familiarity with policies and guidelines, or at least demonstrate to others that you are familiar with them. (Since, after all, part of passing an RfA is proving in action that you are qualified for the job. :)) I don't see any recent vandalism reversion or AIV reports. You should consider resuming recent changes patrol. And if you want to do CSD, you should most definitely be doing new page patrol. This will give you a chance to get drop dead familiar with the criteria and also (again) to demonstrate that you are. You should also step up your presence at XfD, since you mention that as an area where you hope eventually to work. In your recent contributions, there isn't much for evaluators to go on in terms of figuring how you'd handle those.

Let me know where you stand--if adminship is something you're still interested in pursuing at this point--and maybe we can set some specific goals. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy right now in RL (taking a Wikibreak- which for me is checking my watchlist when I get the time :)) I see your point - I'm definitely not ready for adminship at this time; however, adminship is something I think I can work towards. Midorihana みどりはな 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'll wait until you let me know that you're back and wanting to move forward, and maybe I can help you craft a plan to proceed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright policy phrases

We've gone back and forth on this, but I don't see any difference in our positions at all. Last pass through I even put 'not' in italics to stress the lack of copyright transfer to WP. Perhaps it was so small a word....? Anyway, I trust we're on the same wavelength finally.

On another point, I was most impressed by your user page and the extended essay on copyright as it applies to practical work on WP. I'd think it's just about the sort of thing which should be an official posture somehow -- perhaps an addendum to the copyright policy page? Good writing and good thinking as well, two things which don't always travel in close formation. I'd pass you YABS, but you've already got too many to count, and I never learned to where they were kept in any case. Best wishes, keep up the good work, and I'm going to have to read that bit of lit to see how the girl got ridden by the moon. ww (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)