User:Pedro/Twinzor

Admin Coaching Programme for
Twinzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Twinzor, and welcome to your "coaching" page. Two key points;

This is not coaching to pass WP:RFA.
This is coaching to help you be an effective administrator if you pass an RFA.

Thank you. I understand, and this is what I hoped for. I fail to see the point of RFA coaching. I do not need to be an admin, or want to be an admin just for the sake of being one, but I feel I can be of more help to the project should I ever receive the tools. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!}

Some Questions

1. What areas of Wikipedia interest you the most?

A. This is a tough one. The whole project is of great interest to me, but I guess what I've enjoyed the most so far are the more social aspects of wp, like adoption and dispute resolution. I'm finding that also quite enjoy translating from Finnish to English.

R. particularly pleasing to see you working at Dispute Resolution - always a good sign. Don't forget the mainspace though!

2. Why would you like to be an administrator?

A. To fight the good fight against vandalism. One specific thing I can think of is that it sometimes takes quite a while before attack pages and copyvios are deleted, and I would like to help there, as well as help with dispute resolution.

R. Good answer. Make sure you keep you hand in by monitoring new pages and tagging accordingly. Also make sure you keep an eye on WT:CSD to keep up with changes.

3. What admin areas do you think you are weak on e.g. policies, procedures, common practice, editing areas etc.

A. I have very limited experience with AN and ANI, COIN and SSP. So far, I haven't had the need to use these noticeboards, so I don't really know how things are usually handled on them. I think I have a fairly good grasp of most of the policies, but there probably are some with which I'm not fully acquainted with.

R. don't get too hung up on the mire of ANI. COIN and SSP are good places to be though.

Twinzor's questions

I would like to ask some questions here when I run into situations I don't know how to handle, and I feel represent how such things should generally be handled.

User talk:Tocherishband - In my opinion, this username violates our policy (WP:ROLE, WP:NOSHARE), but then again the username policy states that having an organisation as a name is acceptable in some cases. I feel this is a bit contradictory. How should I proceed with usernames likes this? Report to WP:UAA? Some time ago I reported a similar case (company as a name, had only made edits to an article related to the company) which was first denied by an admin, but soon after another admin did block the user. What's your take on cases like this?
R. Only blatant user names go to WP:UAA. The key thing is 1) has the account made any edits. If not (and the username is not baltantly offenisive or against policy) take no action. If they edit engage in dialogue and explain how they may want to choose a new username. If no repsonse or not positive reply then use WP:RFCN with an explanation of what has hapened.
Lord Rama's ancestry and His descendants - Here I have a situation with an article that in my opinion is a personal essay, and seems completely unencyclopedic. The subject might meet the notability guidelines, but the article doesn't establish this very clearly. I prodded it, but an admin denied the prod. I don't like to think of myself as a deletionist, but having such an article in the mainspace in my opinion has the potential of lowering peoples' views of wp. Should I pursue the matter further, taking it to afd, or am I being too much of a deletionist here?
R. Needs a lot of work! There are two refs so it escapes A7. The two internal links need to be a "see also". I'm no expert on this subject, and an expert could help (you can tag it accordingly). Certianly needs to be wikified. You can always take it to WP:AFD on the basis of struggling for reliable sources to verify the information. Further - looking at this diff i reckon there is some WP:OR issues here as well. Pedro : Chat 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
An issue has been raised in the mediation cabal case I've been trying to mediate. One of the articles under dispute reports police violence towards protesters, and one involved user would like to add images of this into the article, including images showing people on crutches after being beat up by the police. My opinion of this is that the images would add a POVish feel to the article, and I'm uncertain how they would contribute to the article. I think it would be much better to simply state the facts in the prose. For the moment, I've suggested that we look at the images one at a time and try to decide if they benefit the article or not. What do you think would be the best solution?

Thanks for the answers! I'll keep those in mind. I'll post more questions as they come to mind. A small update on my activities: Last weekend I decided to try something a bit different and made my very first user script, which gives bookmarking capability inside WP. When I was on approximately the 50th edit to the script, I realised that I possibly shouldn't have been debugging the script on WP, but after 75 edits the script is finally working (User:Twinzor/Wikimark). I also discovered a study related to Equestrianism regarding possible adverse health effects, and headed to the article's talk page to discuss the addition of this study to the article. This didn't go like I assumed it would, and I pretty much got branded as a male chauvinist and accused of pushing POV, and the study labeled as junk science and rubbish. Oh well. I'll keep a cool head and try to discuss this further. I just wish the opposition would make some objective and logical arguments as to why the study should not be used, and maybe then we could decide whether it should be included or not. This the most heated debate I've ever taken part in. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 15:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that debate and see what occured. Good luck on th escripting - I can do HTML, I'm competetent with CSS but actuall programming rather than presentation I'm a total amateur! Remember this page is hear for any questions or input - particularly after the fact as well. If I haven't repliede within a day or so give me a prod (as noted I'm normally inactive at weekends). Pedro : Chat 09:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'll always write unindented so it's easier to see who's writing.) The arguing has more or less died down at Talk:Equestrianism. We are now collaboratively making a whole new section to the article (draft here). I admit there was a moment when I possibly should have stepped back and cooled down some more before discussing things further, but I think overall it went rather well, and the results are looking promising (our new section is better sourced than the whole equestrianism article). I've also suggested my script to be added to the gadgets list that's under user preferences (proposed here, but I don't mean this as canvassing), since at least according to User:MacGyverMagic's comment on my talk page this is an often requested feature. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I started my third article, and it turned out be a lot bigger than my previous ones. I could use some advice on how to clean it up a little bit. The thing is, most of the information is from just a couple of sources, so how should I go about making more inline citations? And do you think the sources I used are ok (as in don't fail any policies)? Any other suggestions would also be most welcome if you have the time! Also, after I had already created the article and most of the redirects, I started wondering if the page should be at Digital DJ license rather than Digital DJ licensing where it's now. Any thoughts on that?

Other than writing the article, I haven't been as active lately as I usually am. Mostly I've been tinkering with the userscript I made, since I got some new feature requests over at the Finnish Wikipedia. I've also done a little bit of patrolling, including filing the appropriate reports (AIV, RPP, UAA). — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)