User:Reaper Eternal/Mentoring/Cyberpower678

Alright, let's get started! First, I really don't have a structured program, as I like to tailor things to the person. Additionally, please add this page to your watchlist, as I will be updating it fairly regularly. When I ask questions, I would like detailed responses to most of my questions and discussion points, but don't strain yourself trying to get some imaginary word count. All I want is some thought. :) Please also sign your posts here to make it readable.

Okay, now that's over with! I'd like you to tell me a bit of what you enjoy about Wikipedia, what types of work you enjoy, and to answer a few starting questions I have.

What articles, if any, have you written?
Why do you edit?
Have you read the five pillars? (The only acceptable answer is "yes", so if you cannot truthfully answer "yes", please read them and then answer "yes".)

Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider this to count as much because it is only a list of episodes. I am however proud of the fact that I was able to make a keepable version of it as all of the others I have been deleted either because they were premature or too incomplete and lacked too many sources to keep.
Editing Wikipedia is fun and once when I was still an IP editor, I edited the Minute to Win It pages. I lost interest in that and gained interest in Pokemon. I make sure the information stays accurate and up to date to the best of my ability. I also discovered that participating in WP and WT is a fun place to work in as well.
Yes.
Question: May I add my talkpage borders to this page as well?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,374,784) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but what do you enjoy doing now? (Some examples: copyediting, wikifying, writing DYKs, vandalism reverting)

I'd really appreciate it if you left this page with a nice, white backdrop.

It's somewhat beside the point, but I'd rather you not perform non-admin closures. Those are generally reserved for clear-cut cases and uninvolved, highly-experienced editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Pokemon articles, vandal fighting, minor wikifying when I see it necessary, helping out users with questions to the best of my abilities, and participating in WP and WT.

I have agreed to stop closing and will no longer close until you see me ready to take on such tasks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making this edit to let you know that I'm still looking over your shoulder, so to speak, and haven't really found any issues other than the minor mistakes that happen to everyone. I haven't forgotten you; there's just nothing I need to complain about! ;) I will also start taking a look into linking to old AFDs to see what you think about closing or relisting them. (Don't actually make the close—just tell me what you would close it as.) If you do really well and truly indicate understanding of the arguments, I'd be willing to let you make non-admin closures of AFDs again, now that it has been some time since your errors. Does that sound like something you would be interested in doing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. That's good. I was going to post here to see if you were still watching. AfDs and CfDs aren't a strong point for me so I'm willing to learn about them so, yes I am interested.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closures

Ready when you are.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some AFDs to look at. Please don't go look at the closer's reasoning for AFDs that have already concluded. I would like you to tell me what you would do if you were the admin closing each AFD, and also to mention whether a non-admin would be allowed to close it. The link I give you is the state I would like you to review the AFD in (so don't go to the last revision if that isn't the given one), and assume a week has passed and the AFD is ready for closure. As before, I would like some reasoning. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brennan

I would preferably relist to gain a clearer consensus but based on the three editors who gave their input and my own evaluation of the article. Because it passes WP:MMANOT this article would be declined deletion which is the reason it was put up for deletion. So the result is keep.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin should be allowed to relist this for more consesus but shouldn't close it as their isn't enough input to make it a clear cut case.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a non-admin should only relist or keep when an admin would. This, however, is a relatively clear keep—the article was dramatically improved by the first keep voter. Thus, a non-admin could close it as keep, but this is on the fuzzy fringe. (As an aside, Rcsprinter (talk · contribs) performed a NAC keep.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset (magazine)

This article couldn't be reviewed personally to verify claims but it appears that almost everyone agrees that it fails WP:NOTABILITY and therefore the result of the AfD would be delete.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins should not close this because they have no power to delete the article in question.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete, and, as you mentioned, a non-admin obviously cannot close this one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Rosen

This article is an apparent snow keep. I reviewed the comments given by the participants, and it is apparent that the article was proposed for deletion for reasons that don't really qualify it for deletion. All these issue can be cleaned up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin can close this because it is a clear-cut case and they need no more than close it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, non-admins should never snow-close discussions – ever. However, per WP:IAR, this one was correctly non-admin closed as keep. I would recommend that you not do such closes, as the only reason Milowent was not yelled at is because he is such a well-respected user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Mönkkönen

Relist as there's no consensus yet.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins may relist but nothing more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A non-admin could clearly relist it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention what a non-admin would be able to do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have some more ready in a couple days. Thanks for your answers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you don't need to update my talk page when you reply here. I have this on my watchlist and will get to it in a couple days. If I don't, feel free to ping me on my talk because it will fall off my watchlist. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will do. Question about second last closure. I shouldn't close something like that in general or snow close it?—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins really shouldn't make snow closures, as that can be seen as "stifling the discussion". However, some non-admins like S Marshall (talk · contribs) and Milowent (talk · contribs) are in high enough standing that they can get away with it. That case was also more extreme than most! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Ready for another test of closures.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Applicant

Delete Article has been deleted before and fails WP:GNG which is minimum for meeting WP:NMEDIA.

Non-admins should not close but may relist this if they come across this as there are currently two opinions.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, non-admins shouldn't relist this because it has a decently high chance of being closed as delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be hesitant but would still delete per consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miley Jab Hum Tum characters

Delete The second voter makes excellent points regarding the possibility of trying to save it by merging. Since that article is completely unsourced, merging is not possible. Also articles must have sources to prove notability which it does not and by that it should be deleted.

Non-admins should not close but rather leave it alone and wait for an admin to close it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sound reasoning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Massimo Cacciatori

Keep This nomination was withdrawn meaning no action be taken. I am however very suspicious of 4 of the voters as they only started making their appearing when the deletion discussion took place which means someone is trying to votestack.

A non-admin may close this because the deletion nomination was withdrawn by the nominator.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. This is one of the few times a non-admin can close a discussion early, for reasons that you have already elaborated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tillery

Delete This is a clear consensus to delete as there don't seem to be any sources or INFORMATION on this matter indicating that somehow a hoax article managed to work its way onto Wikipedia and stay here for the past 7 years.

Non-admin cannot close this as they have no power to delete the hoax article.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Any admin (or non-admin) closing this in any other way could expect to arrive at WP:DRV in short order together with a massive dose of WP:TROUT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women

Keep Consensus to delete was mainly based on the title of the article or neutral point of view. Such reasoning is not grounds for deletion rather the solution to those problems would be to rename the article and tag it with {{Cleanup-weighted}}. The article can be cleaned up and neutral point of view can be fixed. Subject is very notable as it has a variety of coverage ranging from books to new media.

It is best non-admins not touch this as it is a complicated and rather lengthy discussion to base your close on.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These five should keep you busy for a while. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you

In light of the above discussion, what, precisely, is the role of a non-admin at WP:AFD? And what is the role of an admin? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins:

De jure: Non-admins are to typically close obvious keeps and withdrawn nominations. They should not close obvious deletes as they have no power to delete. Lengthy discussions and complicated matters should also not be touched by them. Discussions with no consensus may be re-listed by them too.
De facto: Well established non-admins would typically be less scrutinized for closing non-obvious discussions.

Admins:

They close any discussion that has consensus and re-list those that don't have a clear consensus. They delete any article whose consensus was to delete, merge any article whose consensus is to merge, redirect or move articles whose consensus is to redirect or move (including transwiki moves)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure of your answers? Think of all possible outcomes of an AFD.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, an outcome can be, delete, obvious delete, keep, obvious keep, withdrawn. Am I missing anything? I bolded the ones non-admins can close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)

The outcomes are: speedy (snow) keep, keep, merge, redirect, transwiki (rare), delete, and speedy (snow) delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had never even thought that deletion discussion can lead to merging, redirecting, or transwiki. Is transwiki the process of moving to another Wiki? I intentionally left out snow keep and snow delete because the term nonetheless is either keep or delete. Why would snow keep and snow delete need to be used other than the fact that it emphasizes clear consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for not replying earlier, but I was very busy the last two weeks.) Yes, AFDs commonly do lead to merges and redirects. Transwiki moves the article to another wiki, and is significantly rarer. A snow keep close means the discussion was speedily closed with keep, and the same with a speedy delete. Want to try another shot at answering the question? (I'm not saying your answer was wrong beforehand, but it is incomplete.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To snow keep and snow close is to close the discussion early. Am I correct at assuming this? As for that question, you basically finished it off for me so there is no point in answering it again. I now know that closes of these AfD can result in merging, transwikifying, redirecting, deleting, keeping, or snowing the discussion with keep or delete. I installed the admin dashboard onto my userpage to see if I can assist with administrative actions. I do have a move question. When a transwiki move is performed, is there a function for that or is it copy and paste?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"To snow keep and snow close is to close the discussion early. Am I correct at assuming this?" Yes, you certainly are correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your answer, the role of a non-admin at AFD is to perform noncontroversial, clerical tasks. This can involve "speedy delete" closures—commonly, an admin will speedily delete the article per one of the CSD criteria and fail to close the associated AFD. Anybody can then close that AFD as "Speedily deleted by Admin XXX." This can also involve obvious keep, merge, and redirect closures, such as when a vast majority of the participants vote to keep, merge, or redirect. Non-admins can also relist AFDs that have had essentially no participation. Bear in mind that after about two relistings, if the AFD still has no participation, an admin will normally close as "no consensus".

The role of the admin at AFD is to perform the controversial closures and any closures involving deletion (which, obviously, cannot be performed by a non-admin). This occurs because the community has trusted him at RFA to be impartial and discerning in his judgments.

Obviously, I am ignoring the most important part of AFD in my answer, which is the debate over whether the article belongs in Wikipedia. :P I am just covering the bureaucratic overhead.

Do you have any more questions for me on this topic, would you like me to give you another set to think over now that we have discussed the topic, or would you like me to move on to a new topic of your choosing? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some more to test on and if I prove that I can reliably close them as they should be closed, allow me to close a few. By letting me close a few, I mean that I should be assigned a few open AfDs pending closure and determine if I am able to close it or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience

Keep: Consensus is that it is covered enough to remain as an article.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is a pretty strong consensus too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Solutions Training Center

Delete: Fails WP:GNG which is a minimum requirement for it being allowed to be an article. One person refers to waiting. If the topic becomes notable, it can always be re-added.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE RUDIMENTS OF WISDOM FOR A BETTER YOUTHFUL GROWTH AND NATION

Snow delete: No notability and WP:ESSAY.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I can read that page as an admin and it was terrible. I personally don't snow delete AFDs unless other issues are identified, such as if the whole article is a hoax (G3), BLP violations (G10), or copyright violations (G12). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kountermove

Delete: Notability can't be verified.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

True. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As much as I want to say merge, there are editors who make great points that notable information on this particular FreeCell article will be lost if merged or redirected. Therefore, this article is notable on its own.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. And don't ever let your personal preferences get in the way of making any judgments, especially if you ever become an admin, because that is the fast track to desysopping. If you have a strong opinion, just vote with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI

I think I would like to gain experience at SPI, as I lurk around there sometimes and maybe clerking is something I'd like to take part in.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an extremely new clerk, so I'm highly unlikely to take on any trainees in the near future. Furthermore, you'd have to apply at the clerks' noticeboard, which already has a fair selection of admins on the potential waiting list. I really can't help you here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What administrative task would you recommend I learn next?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]