User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring

Before we being...

... a few points I want to make:

Despite the name of the programme, I will not be coaching you for adminship; becoming an admin is not an exam - I prefer to think that I will be mentoring you. I will ask you questions (some of which may be similar to what you did with Juliancolton) - but just as important (as far as I am concerned) is the attitude and application of policy/guideline as the actual answer: often, there is no single "right answer"!
You do not necessarily need to leave me a message saying you have completed something on this page (although you are welcome to do so, of course), as this page will be on my watchlist. However, if you see that I have not responded on this page within 4-5 days of your last edit, do feel free to remind me! Although I will normally get on Wikipedia most days, due to family commitments and work, it may not always be possible (or I might just miss it on my watchlist, as there are a lot of items on it!)
If you are going to be away for more than a week, just let me know - that way, I will know that you are not ignoring this page, or have given up! Real life being what it is, things may prevent you continuing - just let me know, as a courtesy!
This may seem a bit self-important, but if I am going to mentor you, then I would not expect you to go for RfA, unless I am the nominee! If someone else approaches you, then ask them to contact me about being a co-nominee - I have no problems with that (on my RfA, ukexpat co-nom'd me - he'd approached me, and I referred him to Julian!).
If you have any questions, or disagree with something I say, please tell me! - I will not always get things right, and as an admin, I've made mistakes (thankfully, they've been pointed out to me, almost always in a polite way, and I've been able to correct them). I used to be a teacher, and I always found that I learnt a lot from my pupils - I expect this process to be as much about learning myself as helping you!

Let's get started

OK, let's start off with the standard questions you'll get on an RfA, plus a couple of my own:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A : The main administrative work in which I intend on involving myself goes in line with what I am currently doing. I am copying images to the Wikimedia commons (and making sure to rename all links to the image if I give it a more descriptive name!) to help clear up the 20,000 image backlog, and I then tag the articles for deletion. It would be more effective for me to be able to delete them straightaway, rather than passing them off to an administrator. I also intend on working on speedy deletion nominations—deleting the ones that need deleting and helping to clean up the ones that can easily be fixed. The other places I would work are AIV and UAA, having made nearly 100 reports to each.

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

A : My best contributions to Wikipedia are definitely my contributions to reducing its tremendous backlogs. I have worked in backlogs such as articles with POV problems, articles needing copy edits, images needing to be copied to commons, articles needing general cleanup, articles needing their referencing improved, and other related backlogs. These are my best contributions because it helps to clean up articles to make them more encyclopedic. I also have several articles I have started and written, including Worlebury Camp, which I have taken to GA status.

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 : I have never really been involved in a personal content dispute with another editor. However, I regularly deal with content disputes as part of the third opinion group. I deal with these conflicts by remaining calm and giving as unbiased an opinion as I can. (We all have biases, and the best way to reduce the influence of our biases is to recognize that we have them.) I have found that the best way to spur a consensus is to offer a compromise within the bounds of reason and policy, because, oftentimes, both contributors have reasonable opinions. At other times, it is more of an attempt to explain policies to an SPA. (The removal of 60kb of external links earlier today is a good example of this!) However, none of these really ever have made me stressed out.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

4. RfA has been described as "a feculent sinkhole of hatred and rage", and adminship as "hell" - why do you want to become an admin?

A : I am interested in becoming an admin because it will help me further improve wikipedia. As mentioned above, I commonly port public-domain images to the wikimedia commons, but then I have to tag them as {{nowcommons}} and hand over the job to an administrator for him to delete. I will also be able to block the vandals I commonly report at AIV, rather than waiting for an admin to come through and block them, which commonly gives fast-moving vandals a short time to vandalize 1 to 3 more articles. It would also be helpful for me to be able to speedily delete obvious attack pages, unambiguous copyright violations, and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (such as a page containing only "Die, damn u" or "mephistoros are a bird in Florida which eat people and live in swimming pools and....").

5. If this were someone else's RfA, how would you oppose them (yourself)? Write a convincing oppose rationale to your own RfA and then a rebuttal to your oppose, if possible.

A : I might oppose such a person and then rebut the oppose like this:

Oppose - Reaper Eternal has only been here for around ### months. I do not believe that he will have picked up the subtle nuances of the policies which he will have to employ as an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that I have only been here a short time, but I believe that my work at WP:3O shows that I do know how to apply policies. Also, I believe that the mentoring that I received here has helped me better understand the policies so that I will not make major blunders on account of a misunderstanding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to directly comment on your responses at the moment - but they may influence what we do later on, and we may reflect on how your responses might be different in the future. Let's move on...

Experience

(Credit goes to User:Bibliomaniac15 for this, with a couple of additions from me)

Have you ever:

!voted in an RFA?
- Yes, I vote in many RFAs.
requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP?
- Yes, I occasionally request that pages be protected. (Most of these are requests for indefinite create-protection due to repeatedly re-created pure vandalism pages or requests for temporary semiprotection due to excessive vandalism.
had an editor review?
- Yes, see here
used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle?
- Yes, I use Twinkle and Huggle a lot. (I have used AWB, but I found it tends to make a large number of pointless edits.)
contributed to an XFD?
- Yes. I have also closed several CFDs and a couple AFDs.
answered a question at the help desk?
- No, I hadn't even known about it until now.
uploaded an image?
- Yes, I regularly upload images to the commons (when moving them from enwiki).
mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
- Yes, but not very commonly since this isn't my cup of tea ;) . (I contribute at WP:3O.)
participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?
- I don't tend to visit these boards very much, except when making a report.
taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
- Will look them up now...I am mainly a:
- Moderate eventualist - (I believe that other editors will eventually rewrite the added content to make it NPOV and encyclopedic. However, wholly unsourced claims about living people should be immediately reverted.)
- Moderate anti-statusquoism
- Encyclopedyism - (I regularly receive personal attacks from vandals and trolls. I just tend to ignore them, but sometimes other editors redact them off my talk page. However, newbies should never be bitten either.)
- Communalism - (Having "sole authors" just causes that editor's flaws to be reflected in every article he writes, and nobody can fix it. Additionally, other editors cannot improve the article's content effectively.)
- Sysopism
- Wikipacifism - (Having copyedited many articles on the Balkans by request, I have seen how annoying edit wars can be to other people trying to improve the article.)
- Admins are janitors: adminship is just another job
- Neutrality is an unattainable absolute - (However, POV-pushing should not be allowed, as people should still try to be as NPOV as possible. The first step to attaining NPOV is recognizing our biases.)
- Semi-factionalism
helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
- Yes. I have also been granted the 'accountcreator' flag which enables me to create accounts for people whose desired names are very close to the name of another never-really-used account.
requested and received/been denied for Rollback?
- Yes, I applied for rollback after around 1000 vandalism reversions, and I wanted to try Huggle.
had a previous RFA?
- No, I had no desire to risk passing RFA and make a blunder as an admin that drove other contributors away.
Written a good article?
- Yes, Worlebury Camp recently passed GAN!
Created any featured content?
- No, but I am trying to get List of Hill Forts and Ancient Settlements in Somerset to a featured list.
Written a DYK?
- Yes, I have created five, two of which are now featured on WP:DYKSTATS. Two more have recently been approved and soon going to be on the main page.
Been (or still are) an admin on any WMF projects?
- No, never have.
Been (or still are) a bureacrat on any WMF projects?
- No, never have been a 'crat.

OK, thanks for that - it shows us where you are at the moment! Let's carry on with...

Footprints

Right now, I'd like for you to pick a few administrative areas you'd like to participate in. You can change these later or add/subtract any areas as your interests change. The areas you choose will be the ones I will help develop in the next phase and will most likely be where you would want to work as an administrator - I can guess what you'll probably say based on your answers above, but take your time and think things through before deciding!

I would like to work at:

Administrator Intervention against Vandalism - I routinely do anti-vandal patrol, and I would definitely work here.
Candidates for Speedy Deletion - I also routinely patrol new pages for incoming vandalism/spam/"Such-and-such is a cool death metal band!"/attack pages.
I also have a bot, ReapETbot (talk · contribs), which scans new pages and reports suspicious ones at ##until_it_sleeps-bots ^connect.
Usernames for Administrator Attention - I regularly come across spam usernames, and I also occasionally see usernames like "SHlTBAG" (note the 'el' rather than the 'ie') in the new logs.

OK, I'm going to start with the deletion areas (I'll also include AfDs and PRODs as well as speedy deletes, as if you are an admin then you have the ability to work with those, even if you say that you won't!). Incidentally, at RfA, if a candidate says "I won't work in closing AfDs", opposers will not necessarily pay any attention. They'll say "you have the ability to do so, and so should be judged on your knowledge in that area" - they'll say that we can't restrict what areas an admin works in, and "election promises" made at RfA by a candidate are worth the paper they are written on!

How you would close AfDs also will show how well you know policy, and how well you can explain yourself - both essential evidence for !voters at an RfA.

OK, let's get on....

Deletion

AfD

Please link to relevant policies/guidelines/essays as appropriate

1. How would you close the following AFD's?

A 1

I would delete this article. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE directly covers this type of article and states that Wikipedia is not the place for such articles. Also, one of the "keep" !voters is an indeffed sockpuppet, so I would completely ignore his opinion. Tracing back the reasoning of the "keep" !voters, it all appears to come down to "I like it". Tracing back the reasoning for the "delete" !votes, I found that they appear to stem from a lack of notability and reliable sources.

The role of the closing admin is to judge the consensus. As such, you appear to be doing so - although this is a close thing, as numerically it is a "keep" (if you ignore the blocked editor, it's 5 keeps to 3 deletes) - but the arguments for keeping are not policy-based, unlike the deletion arguments. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

B 2

I would delete this article too. One of the keep !voters said that "we have room for it", which is not a reason for keeping an article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Meyer does not appear to have an exceptional claim to notability, and the only possible claim would be the receiving of medals. However, per WP:ANYBIO, he should be the recipient of an important award, but none of the medals appear to be exceptionally significant. And last but definitely not least, the rough consensus appears to be for deletion due to a lack of notability.

That's how I would read it too PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

C 3

I would relist this article. He does not appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources, as the "delete" !voters say. However, there are only two editors outside the nominator commenting on the discussion, so I believe that relisting this article would produce probably produce a better consensus.

Again, I'd do that too, as per WP:RELIST the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

D 4

I would delete this article. The !voters seem somewhat divided, but the corporation notability guideline states that companies need coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, and this article is sourced only to a primary source.

As the nominator states, reliable independent sources couldn't be found. The arguments in favour of deletion are more policy-based, and so carry more weight PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

E 5

I would delete this article. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE directly covers this type of article and states that Wikipedia is not the place for such articles. "Keep, the article needs more time to improve" is not a valid reason for keeping a game guide. "Delete" !voters also note that the topic lacks notability.

For me, the fact that the "keeps" are basically because "there's other stuff" or "I like it" arguments, as opposed to the "deletes" which are about the lack of reliable sources, etc PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

F 6

This article needs to be relisted. Articles need verifiable, reliable sources, and this article is unreferenced. Additionally, the "keep" !voters said that places are "automatically notable", a policy I cannot find anywhere.

Relisting would be a valid option. Although there is no policy about places being inherantly notable, if some evidence of the place existing (or having existed) can be found, that would generally be enough to warrant keeping the article. I note that none of the "keeps" found such evidence, so in relisting, I would probably mention this PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

2. When closing a deletion discussion, when may you disregard comments and !votes?

A. : You can ignore the !votes and comments of banned users and sockpuppets. Additionally, very new editors or IPs are given very little weight in the discussion because of the possibility of socking. Anybody's !vote can be ignored if he provides absolutely no rationale for it or if it is obviously a bad-faith or pointy !vote.

The only thing I would add would be that if they were banned/blocked for other reasons (e.g. making legal threats, but they are not connected with the article under discussion), it might be better to note that the editor has been blocked, but not necessarily ignore their comments. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on G3/G10

I have a question, does a page like this warrant a CSD G10 or a CSD G3? It seems to be on the fuzzy fringe between G3 and G10, and I am sure that a lot of these pages are created in order to show to a victim, thus necessitating immediate blanking. (I have seen somebody in my class—and I'm in college!—write up an attack page about a classmate and then call him over saying, "Hey, I just found your Wikipedia page!") Another example of this is Doofushead, where the content was something like "Doofushead - EXAMPLE: [name redacted]". Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It'd probably have gone for G3 with that one. If it's a one-off, then leave a warning to the creator; if it's repeated, then give a final warning and then block if it happens again. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question I have is: How do you tag a redirect of somebody's name to Gay? I just tagged this one as an attack page, since such a redirect appears to be only used for attacking somebody. (However, it could also be seen as vandalism.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd tag that as an attack page and warn the editor involved. It's blatantly intended as an attack page - even if the individual involved were to be gay, then a redirect from their name to the Gay article would not be what was desired by the individual. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying... life is busy at the moment (both work-wise and personally), but I will try to get on as often as possible! On to more mentoring...

More deletion stuff

Right, more deletion stuff...

3. What should be done with redirects to deleted articles?

A. Depends on the redirect. If the redirect has a potential, meaningful target, you redirect it there. If not, you delete it too as a redirect to a nonexistent target (CSD G8). You should also delete double redirects.

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

4. When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?

A. You should NEVER include the content of a negative unsourced BLP or an attack page. Other pages, such as vandalism, should just have "G3 Vandalism" or a related edit summary. When closing an XfD, link to the deletion discussion. Realistically, I never see a reason to include the content of any page in the deletion reason, since you normally want to give a summary that states why the page was deleted (not just "G11", you would also want "G11 - spam or advertising).

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

A. They are strict to prevent the deletion of potentially valuable or marginally notable topics. For example, if Wormy Hillock Henge had been created as a single-line stub with the content "Wormy Hillock Henge is, according to legend, the burial site of a dragon.", that would not be eligible for speedy deletion since it is a place. (Actually, it is an archaeological site.) The purpose of these criteria is to remove completely unimportant articles such as "John Doe is twelve and lives in Vermont", which have no chance of ever being an acceptable article. In summary, then, the strictness is necessary to prevent against people not knowing the subject and deleting it. (I once saw a newly-created article on quantum field theory tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", and it was quickly denied as being obviously not nonsense. By the way, I feel that "patent nonsense" is the most overused criteria in the whole list.) I have seen admins violate this and delete per WP:SNOW.

Good - I agree that some editors/admins would benefit from re-reading the criteria for "patent nonsense" - I have not come across many true examples of these - "blatent hoax" is another criteria which I sometimes feel that the folks on NPP use a bit too much. It amazes me sometimes that I see a page created at 00:02, tagged as a hoax at 00:03... it is obvious sometimes that the NPPer hasn't even bothered to do a search for it - several times I have found within a few seconds Googling that it is not a hoax, and even been able to provide at least one reference! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

6. What should one do if a {{hangon}} is placed on a page nominated for deletion?

A. First, it depends on the reason for speedy deletion. I am assuming that the CSD tagger is correct in his analysis of the article. In each case, with the exception of blatant attack pages (i.e. "Fuck <name>! He is a gigantic faggot who likes to suck spotted dick!") I will detail for each criteria below:

A1 & A3 : Give them time to improve it. That is the only reason the article has been tagged for speedy deletion. If the article is unimproved for several hours, move it (without redirect) to a user subpage.

Personally, I wouldn't move it to a user subpage. If the user was to contact me afterwards, and say "Oh, I've got a source at <reliable source's web address>, could it be undeleted so that I can continue working on it", then I would userfy it with the warning that if it is not improved in a reasonable time (or I see no editing of it at all in a 7-day period) then it may be deleted. If it was deleted and kept in user space, but not worked on, then it could be deleted via MfD. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A7 & A9 : Wait to see if they post a reason on the talk page or begin working on improving the article. If they do, give them time to improve the article. If not, delete.

Good

A10 : Apologize to the creator that the article already exists, thank them for their work, and direct them to that article with encouragement to improve it. Then delete/redirect, but first let him merge any new content into the old article.

I would delete/redirect. If they want to add new content, they can ask you to provide them with the text (via email) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G1 : Read the rationale if it is meaningless sentences. It may be very bad English that the creator will clean up. If gibberish, delete. "askrjkjksdfvjkls asdasdf" isn't going to become a valuable article.

Good! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G2 : Move (without redirect) to a user subpage. Direct them to their new sandbox.

It depends on the content. Sometimes I tag pages as G2 even though they are borderline G3 - I feel it looks better for the message on their page to read "your test was successful and removed" rather than "you're a vandal!" - however, to be G2-able, it needs to be a clear test page (and not a potential article) - if it is a potential article, then it probably wouldn't be CSDable PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G3 : Delete. Vandalism doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

No question about that - but always double check. Sometimes people tag something as vandalism because it is a subject they know little about, and they don't realise that it is in fact a valid article/stub. Also, sometimes people will tag articles in revenge for their articles being deleted, etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G4 : Read the old article to see if the new article has been changed. If not, delete.

The wording is about substantial changing. If it is the same article re-worded, but with no new content - or that does not address the AfD comments, then it should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G5 : Block the sock of the banned user and delete.

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G6 : Read the reasoning and ask the users to engage in discussion. This is supposed to be noncontroversial, so it cannot be speedied.

Excellent! Any objections which are reasonable means it is controversial. The key to being an admin in this situation is working out what is a "reasonable" objection, which isn't always easy! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G7 : Don't delete, the author is no longer requesting deletion.

This would probably be someone other than the author saying hang on - the author is more likely to just delete the tag! Obviously, if it is the author, then just remove the CSD tag and hangon, and leave it. If it is not the author, see the reasoning - they might quite rightly point out that other editors have made substantial edits to the article, and so it does not qualify for G7. If it is an editor that has nothing to do with the article, and the author is the sole contributor, then the article can be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G8 : Read the rationale for keep and decide based on that.

An interesting answer! When would we want to keep a talk page if there is no article page? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a subpage of the talk page is a draft used to resolve an editing dispute, where editors can say "I propose such-and-such". If it gets accepted, then a history merge is required to add the content to the main article before the page is deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

G9 : Delete immediately per WP:OFFICE.

Yep, there is no way this can not be deleted. However, a CSD tag probably wouldn't have been applied to the article, the office will leave a message at the Admin's noticeboard (or via IRC) and it would be deleted as G9 with no tagging. But if it is tagged G9, it gets deleted no matter what - and as quickly as possible (a kind of speedy speedy!) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G10 : Delete. Block the creator if this isn't a first occurrence.

Before blocking, make sure they have been warned. If it's the first time, they get a warning. If they've done it more than once, they get a final warning. Either way, they can be blocked if they do it again PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G11 : Give the author time to rewrite the content in a non-promotional way.

I very seldom do this. I will generally delete it, and leave a message explaining the problem. If you were to do this, add {{NOINDEX}} at the top (this prevents Google indexing it from that point on), then you need to say "If it is not rewritten in a suitable manner within 24 hours, I will delete it with no further warning", and do that if necessary. Companies are quite happy to have an article on Wikipedia for even a few hours, as they will show up on a Google search for the next week, even if the article has been deleted! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

G12 & F9 : Delete. Copyvios cannot be accepted for legal reasons. If the creator claims to own the copyright, point them to the donation policy and OTRS.

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything else : Read the reasoning (if provided) and take action accordingly. If no rationale for keep is given, or if it is frivolous, delete anyway.

If the keep rationale is reasonable (i.e. "So-and-so has won a Grammy Award."), then I would decline the speedy and remove both the CSD tag and the hangon tag.

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Why is it so important to check the page history of an article before you speedily delete it?

A. The article may have been vandalized or replaced with spam. If there is a non-vandalized version to restore, revert to that.

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

8. Please state what actions you would take if finding the following articles listed at CAT:SD. Take your time and make sure to evaluate all of the external links in the articles.

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Law High School broadcasting

I would decline this speedy, as there is an assertion of importance in the article. A7 does not indicate notability

Good PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Sam's Soda Shoppe

I would delete per G11. This is blatant advertising.

Good! Sometimes there is a more appropriate criteria, in which case you would change to that, as here! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Steve Q. Smith

Decline the speedy, as this article has an assertion of importance (head of a foundation, embezzlement, raising $12,000,000).

Before you decline, check very carefully the sources. If they are reliable, independent and verify the information, then yes it should be declined. If they do not meet those three criteria, then the article should be deleted. If all of it is verifiable except for the embezzlement claim, then remove that sentence, and ask for oversight as a possible libellous sentence PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Jon Starks

Decline the speedy, as the article asserts importance (marrying a supermodel and starting a company that earned more than $45M a year).

His marriage to a supermodel is not counted as important (it would not make him notable, for example, but would merit a mention in her article if she had one); If the source is independent and reliable, and verifies the $45m per year, then yes, it could be kept - but if the source is not independent or reliable (or doesn't verify the information), then the article should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Getting Away With It

Definitely decline speedy! Having a single at #1 on the charts would make the notable too! I would also remove the opinions and chatty commentary.

Whooah... slow down, this is not necessarily a definite decline. You would have to look at the source to see which chart it was number one on. If it is one of the ones on the List of record charts then it would meet the criteria, otherwise it wouldn't. For example, obviously being number one on any of the Billboard charts would meet the criteria, being number one on "Radio KFQC" would not be (mind you, as that is a Country music station, that might not be the best example!) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/CSD/Marketingandbusinessonline.com

Delete per A7-website. There is nothing to indicate importance, and the article has a decided promotional slant, but not quite enough to be "blatant advertising".

Before I deleted this, I would check the coverage in the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times (assuming that the links were to the paper's websites, and worked). If what is quoted is basically all the coverage (in an article about this type of website, with a list of lots of them with brief comments) then it would not be enough to keep the article. If there is more significant coverage, then it could be kept. My feeling would be that this would be more a list of similar websites, with 1-2 sentences per website - but I would check it out first in case there was significant coverage PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A few key things to remember:
1. Always check out references. They may be reliable, they may be independent, they may verify the content - but they may not;
2. If in doubt, I don't delete. I will leave a comment in the edit summary along the lines of If you still feel this should be deleted, please propose it for deletion or take it to Article for deletion.
3. If the main problem is formatting, grammar, etc, then after declining, it is a good idea to correct these!

But I liked your responses - you are reading the policies, and using your common sense! I may have done different on a couple of them, but they are borderline cases! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?

A. A PROD is a PROposed Deletion. It is done in noncontroversial circumstances where a discussion is unnecessary. However, it also does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

See below PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

10. What is the appropriate length of time that should pass before deleting a PROD?

A. 7 days for normal PRODs and 10 days for BLPPRODs.

Good - and it should be the 7 full days (7*24 hours=168 hours)/10 days (240 hours) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

11. Who can remove a PROD tag?

A. Anybody! However, in the case of a BLPPROD, it can be restored if no references are provided.

Good! As a rule, most PRODders would then take the article to AfD, but not always PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question

What do you do about pages in the File talk namespace where they are created solely to say "i luv u" or "looks hot!" or other chatlike commentary? For example, I tagged this page for speedy deletion since it seemed to be vandalism. I left this page alone since I had no clue what to do with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Flagging as deletion or test page would be the correct call. The latter case I would have flagged as a test page, and left a message on the editor's page explaining that this is Wikipedia, etc PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking a question again...

9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?

A. A PROD is a PROposed Deletion. It is done in noncontroversial circumstances where a discussion is unnecessary. However, it also does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

Although what you said is correct, it does not really explain the differences in enough detail for me (I'm a picky so-and-so at times!)

That's fine! I am here to learn! :D Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to give it another go?

9. What is a WP:PROD? How does it differ from WP:XFD and WP:SPEEDY?

A. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. It differs from a speedy deletion in that it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. It also differes from an XfD in that there is no discussion involved—the user simply tags the page and leaves it for 7 days. It also differs from an XfD in that it is supposed to be noncontroversial, nobody is supposed to PROD an article whose deletion may prove controversial, and for this reason any editor can prevent a PRODed article from being deleted by simply removing the PROD tag. In an XfD, consensus must be for deletion, and no single editor can prevent the article from being deleted. Another difference is that an article can be tagged for AfD multiple times, but it may only be PRODed once. (Hence why an admin should always check the history of a PRODed article to see if there are any prior PRODs.) A BLPPROD is a special type of PROD in that it must be a BLP created after March 18, 2010 and contain absolutely no sources. The BLPPROD tag may be re-added at any time if no sources are added when the tag is removed. Additionally, it takes 10 days rather than 7 to be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Fighting

I am going to go onto AIV/blocks, and page protection now (but don't forget the quick follow-up question above!)

Page protection

1. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

A. I would full-protect an article only when it is subject to a prolonged, slow-motion content dispute, a content dispute by many editors, or a WP:DRV. (In the case of a rapid-fire edit war between two users I would block for WP:3RR violations, but only after warning them about WP:3RR [or WP:1RR for sanctioned articles].) Full protection is done to force discussion on the talk page and spot endless, mindless reverting. The other case, for a DRV, the page is restored and protected to prevent editing while the DRV is going on. There is one other case that happens very rarely, and that is when the page is getting heavy vandalism by autoconfirmed accounts (see Justin Beiber, for example), and even then full protection should not be applied for very long.

Another use for full-protection is office protection, and this should NEVER be undone by any admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2. When should a page be SALTed? Why?

A. Create-protecting an article is only used to prevent the creation of an article that is repeatedly created despite getting deleted. It is commonly used to prevent the repeated creation of vanity pages or attack pages.

3. List three times when move protection is appropriate.

A. 1) When the page is subject to repeated page-move vandalism, 2) When the page has no need to ever be moved (i.e. the help desk), and 3) Pages where there is a dispute over the name. There is also another form of "pseudo-move protection": upload protection. Upload protection is used to prevent vandalism to files subject to persistent image vandalism, a dispute about the file contents, and images on the main page. This is regularly done for the picture in the pictured DYK, the picture in Today's Featured Article, the picture in ITN, and the Today's Featured Picture.

4. A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page? Both? Or neither?

A. The answer is really: it depends on what is occurring.

For the user page: If there was only a little vandalism on the user page, I would semiprotect it for 24 hours, and/or if the vandalism was repeated/persistent, I would semiprotect it indefinitely. Really, there is no reason to be editing others' userpages. In rare cases, as described above, I would full-protect in the event of autoconfirmed account vandalism
For the talk page: I would rarely semiprotect the talk page. The only times I would do this would be for repeated, constant, and active vandalism, and even then I would only semiprotect for several hours. This is because IPs and non-confirmed users need to be able to interact with the editor. It would take extreme cases of repeated RevDel'able/suppressible harassment and sockpuppeting to get me to full-protect a user talk page for a brief while. (NawlinWiki's talk page occasionally ends up like this due to Grawp sock attacks.)

5. Why would you restore and fully protect an article during deletion review?

A. To prevent it from being edited in the meantime. (The articles are also commonly blanked an replaced with {{TempUndelete}}.)

Pending Changes: I have another question, what should be done concerning pending changes? Right now Wikipedia:Protection policy is highly ambiguous, as it says, "During the current Interim period, a poll determined that 'It can be removed from pages where it is causing problems, and added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits (in its current incarnation) over semi-protection. ... Any new use of PC during this interim period should be sparing and focus primarily on BLPs.' As before, please avoid doing anything drastic." There is currently an RfC running concerning pending changes. Additionally, what should be done if I find another article like Justin Beiber, which is currently PC-2 protected and semiprotected? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on WP:UAA

Was it acceptable for me to do this? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

Although there no lack of interest on either of our parts, we will have to cease due to things IRL. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To confirm, due to many Real World™ commitments, I do not have the time to continue mentoring Reaper Eternal. However, I hope to see RE continue to make progress in this area, and hope to see an RfA in the future! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 16:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Before we being...

Let's get started

Experience

More questions

Footprints

Deletion

AfD

Question on G3/G10

More deletion stuff

Another question

Asking a question again...

Vandal Fighting

Page protection

Question on WP:UAA

Unfortunately...