User:Rudget/AC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, there are a few areas that I've worked in, that deserve mention anyway. I always ensure that my responses to other editors, even in the face of disruption and chaos, are civil and assume good faith. Hopefully, this ascertains my civil record, and clean block log. I have also been quite a frequent contributor to the help desk recently and have since been made an admin on the HelpWiki (link provided on my userpage). I would hopefully utilise this and use my experience on the revert rule noticeboard, where I would use my experience (even if slightly incorrect in doing so) in one case, which involved two users reverting each other's actions on a royalty article, which had grown massively from an AFD comment. Then, there is C:CSD. I have a strong want to be able to have the opportunity to work there, I can't view my deleted edits, but I believe I've got a reasonable amount of pages that I've requested for deletion and a substantial number of edits to AFD discussions. Considering my edits at SSP, I would also like to work there, acknowledging that all cases posted by me have been successful, and hopefully applying this knowledge to ANI if there's a suspected case. I would also like to work at WP:RFP, where I know what should be protected and what shouldn't, considering my 10 requests there since July. I should also be working in the GAN area, where I have currently reviewed around 10 articles (not much experience I know, but still none-the-less, none have been disputed). I know you don't need admin tools for this section of work, but it come in handy when a GAN comes up and there may be a possible 3RR violation, in which case I would use my participation at AN3 to help me decide what to do. You may also see from the "Wannabe-kate" tool that I have quite a high-number of edits at WP:CHU, but from the end of November I resigned, citing my incompetence as the main reason. You may see the section regarding this, here. I may also like to advise you that I've been subject to two DRV's which were a result of improper closes, on my behalf, which resulted in two reviews, viewable here & here.

But as for what areas I need to improve on:

• Most probably BLP issues

That's about it.

Have you got any other suggestions? — Rudget _{Contributions} 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Round one

OK, we'll primarily use this page for the admin coaching. I have a watch set here and on your main user/talk page. The first thing you have to do is stop using British English and use American - ROFL ROFL HAR HAR; just joking of course, I couldn't resist after seeing that userbox on your Babel page. Of course, I'm one to talk, check my about page. Onto business. I'm also a Commons admin but I mostly work on en.wiki.

1} Admins have to pay attention to detail and complete every step of a process. You removed yourself from the requesting coach section but did not add the match to Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#Matched_requests. I've now done that and also added you as my student to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status--which is my responsibility. Granted this is a minor thing, but you do need to be aware to complete all steps of an admin process, such as not just blocking a vote stacking sock, but also tagging his user page.

ANSWER- Yeah, I removed my name, but didn't match it up with the correct after section, because I got distracted doing the review of Hurricane Humberto (2007). Hopefully, I can be forgiven for that. :) I always follow through on situations where I am directly involved and the correct organisation of say a RFCU is paramount.

2) RFA gets harder and harder as you know. Often someone will find a reason to object then others pile on. One possibility is these name changes. Let's review.

July 26, 2007 this says you went from Radio orange to $2 and also to Onnaghar. What is this $2 all about?

Octoer 13, 2007 this says you went from Onnaghar to Rudget.

People may ask why two name changes so close in time.

ANSWER-To be honest, I have no idea why it says $2, I was a bit surprised when I looked at it last month aswell. I originally changed my name from Radio_orange, as the name was rather unusual and people often mistakenly put a capital O on Orange, and this directed them to an incorrect page. I had renamed to Onnaghar, due to my desire to trace back my Irish roots, although I am not sure whether the word is Gaelic or not, it sounded Irish, and that was good enough for me. ;) But, I then changed from the Onnaghar to Rudget, out of personal preference, and now Rudget is beginning to sound like a kid's toy, but it's alright. :)

Stick with Rudget if at all possible. All these name changes can make people suspicious, like you're trying to hide something. Rudget doesn't sound like a kid's toy to me.

3) You work/worked at ANI, AIV, CHU. Do you plan to continue these? Consider expanding your areas as some RFAs commenters like to see a lot of admin related help. What other areas are you interested in, if any? Are you aware admins can't change names, only bcats? What exactly do you do at CHU?

ANSWER- Hmm...I'm certain I'll continue my presence at ANI and AIV, but no at CHU, as per the reasons in the lead. I had tried to expand and develop my understanding of the processes at the RFA, but in truth I didn't know everything that there was to know. I am very familiar with the way ANI, AIV and CHU work. Even though I won't be continuing my presence at CHU, I do know that only bureaucrats are able-to perform renames, and it was here I gained (what I like to call) "editorships" with WJBscribe and Deskana. With ANI, it's the usual noticeboard, however it's nothing like the Help Desk or Reference Desk. With AIV, the Helperbot archives many of the requests that have been dealt with, but it is the presence of the admins there that gives the bot it's knowledge. As with working anywhere else, I'd probably work at all XFD discussions where I have considerable contributions and experience and AN3 where I have some experience all ready.

3a) What exactly were the issues that made you resign CHU clerk?

ANSWER- The issues are quite apparent at the statement I left there. I left a message on the appropriate user's talk pages, and I believe I was civil about the whole thing. —— I had come to be a rather "annoying" user at CHU (at least that's what I think I looked like) - I was misplacing clerk notes etc. Hopefully, since I've gone that has calmed down a bit. Qst is doing a fantastic job there now, and it looks like everything is running smoothly. I appreciated the help of every bureaucrat and other editor there, and I would like to re-iterate my appraisal and admiration at the work they do there.

4) The main objection to your RFA was misunderstanding a block and a ban. What is the difference and who can issue a ban? If a blocked or banned user uses socks, can the socks be blocked and why? (PS:I think if you'd answered this correctly in the RFA you would have passed).

ANSWER- I agree, it seems that after concern had been raised about my answers, there was no chance, but at least I gained experience. — But getting back to the question, well as you know, you've closed all three of my SSP cases: seen 1, 2 and 3. I'd agree that blocked or banned users from the community, all apparent socks, either determined from CheckUser of by SSP, then yes they should be blocked. It is more than likely they'll be pushing the same agenda they've got, after all they are "illegitimate" accounts (i.e. not doppelgangers).

I'm not sure you get this still. An indef block is not a ban, though "banned" is often misused that way. A user that's indef blocked can be unblocked and readmitted to the community. A banned user has used all their chances and good will up and can't be readmitted (barring special dispensation from Jimbo or ArbCom--very very rare). A sock of a banned user is indef blockable on sight. Pretty much the same for an indef blocked user that is not banned. See WP:BANNED for more.

I did actually know that. Truly I did. Once again my conveyance hasn't been crystal clear. Sorry. And as for the banned users well, I know that—I was once blocked by a user for being a sockpuppet of a banned user, Qst. Rt. 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

5) Re RFA question 9...do positive edits in a BLP need a ref? Are you saying you'd delete an article solely for POV or COI?

ANSWER- See 10. Rt. 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

6) How do you plan to use email? Do you use or plan to use IRC? If you got an email from an irate user, what method would you use to respond?

ANSWER- See Q11 on my RFA. I don't plan to use IRC, seen as I am very skeptical about downloading things, (last time I did I broke the computer and got grounded for a month), but my email will always be open. Since November, I've received over 30 emails regarding Wikipedia issues, or new users wanting extra help regarding pages they may have created, or my comments at the help desk.

7) There's been talk lately of off-wiki conversations, esp by admins. What do you think of that?

ANSWER- Hmm. Could you clarfiy?

I'm talking about people using email and IRC for seeking second opinions and such.

I assume your talking about private correspondence; So I may foray incorrectly here into a ramble. I am not that well acquainted with this quite large discussion and I am sure my analysis will be proportionate. I believe however, that "chat logs" between users, however they may be—harassing or threatening in tone—should not be published at will onto a public domain. We, as users (who are all equal, no matter our distinctions) should recognise that and respond accordingly with the equal amount of repsect. We can't let private conversations "hang out on the washing line" (as it were), who's to say the provenance of that will prove someone elses determination of it? We don't publish private information anywhere else, so why should we begin now? If this situation did unfortunately occur, I would ensure that community decision is acted upon, by posting brief details (without the content) of the posting to either AN/I or a trusted admin. With trusted being the key word there. Essentially, we have to remember this and try to encourage other users about this <insert word here> and make sure that Wikipedia doesn't serve as a bureaucracy.

That's partly it. I was also thinking of what about admins discussing cases in email and IRC to get second opinions, research issues, etc?

Hmm, well I don't see any obvious issues with using IRC and email, if it used as per the desired aim. Could I ask what you are referring to? I am a little confused of to whether I'm suppose to give an opinion or to find things wrong with this.

Correct IRC and email are not per se bad. What got people into trouble (Durova, etc) was using this and claiming the info was "secret". When the time comes, one has to lay their cards on the table. Only CU and certain arbcom things are private and can't be revealed.

8) Summarize the DRV's? Did you initially nom the AfD or close it as a helping non-admin or what?

ANSWER- I didn't initially nominate List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 for AFD, in fact I was part of the project that created them, (or at least one other member of that project created them). I had been unaware of non-administrator closing guidelines about AFDs and so may not have followed the correct procedure, i.e. discussing the article on the AFD and then closing it. The Manchester Airport related pages had been "told" or suggested ideas about shortening the page and separating the list of destinations into daugther-pages. Another user then did this and almost as soon as were brought to AFD. It was said that peer reviews are not authorative and should not be taken without prior consensus or notification, plus my impropor closing and inexperience in closing AFDs resulted in the DRV on November 10th. 8 days later on the 18th, I closed an AFD about radio stations. It had seemed to me at both AFDs that consensus had occured. I had read over the discussion and the reasons for keep had been strong and valid reasons (but this "solid reason" was soon debated as the licenses they held didn't infact make the stations notable nor verifiable). This time I hadn't participated in the AFDs and I had thought consensus as apparent (as probably would most other editors) and the pages were reliably sourced with no POV etc, but the nominator of both articles wasn't too happy and decided to try to overturn the decision and relist the pages, back at AFD. It all ended soon after, and both were kept.

9) Jehochman said he'd mentor you. What happened with that?

ANSWER- See the comment towards the bottom on this page. That best summarises it.

10) Expand on Miranda's response "When you are in a dispute with a user, you do not report them to AIV, unless they are clearly vandalising....(#9) The BLP question -- As an admin, I would delete any article which qualifies or is blatantly an attack page, orignal reasearch and of course every article shouldn't have a POV which is biased or COI."

ANSWER- I've upped my count in AIV two-fold, as with all other Wikipedia namespaces since my last RFA in October, and so as it were, I had not yet fuliflled the knowledge and experience needed. I hadn't taken the time to further my understanding of the processes and policies, sure I had the basics, but that was it. In retrospect, I am partially glad that my request wasn't successful, because I would not have had the sufficient time, experience or interactions with other users to be good at what I would have done. I had about 3800 edits, now I've got 9000, I'm happy with that, and I'm more optimistic now that my next one will succeed, although never say never. Regarding the BLP question—well, I haven't written many biographies on living people say in comparison to Miranda–who has the best position to ask the questions, considering her writing history–so I wasn't best placed with how to answer, this combined with my failure to understanding the BLP policy did, as you suggest, probably did lead to the failure of the RFA. It is clear that articles on living people are the most sensitive on Wikipedia and as stated I would delete any biographies that were either COI, non-notable or promotional, a prime example being Muhammad Naeemulhaq Chishti; a recently deleted page where the creator consistently removed the speedy tags, until which he then employed a dynamic IP to remove them. However, I wouldn't immediately delete pages on "non-notable" people who had been made "famous" at one event—in that case I'd bring to AFD and try to discover consensus. Often is the case where the article will be deleted due to many editors common interpretation of BLP, in which case I'd agree. Additionaly, if the page is mocking, an attack page or serves for no other encyclopedic purpose then I'd most probably delete under CSD A7, G11, or A2, if trans-wikied from another Wikimedia project, (but only if in that language, i.e. duplicate). Other reasons for deletion are where sources that are available on newly created pages, although reliable they can present problems for the person in question with either liable content or points of view being the subject of the source. Just like Miranda says in her oppose, politicians articles can be a prime example of this.

11) Be careful on wording "Answer to the first question, "...hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users," gives me the impression that the user is only in it for the power." Wanting to block is okay but you have to be careful on impressions you leave, esp in RFAs, as you know.

ANSWER- Yeah, that's a good point, and credit to those who brought it up. I should never have wrote that, because it never did really convey what I actually thought. I also now recognise the importance/significance of policy knowledge and as a result I have become more involved (than I had anticipated) in areas which were brought up at the RFA, excluding BLP issues as described near the top.

12) I think it'll be at least 2 more months before another RFA. Asking for them too soon will draw objections as you know. You seem to be making a conscientious effort.

ANSWER- I was oferred adminship by OhanaUnited last week (see my talk page) and I am willing to go back to RFA after but not before 7 January 2008.

At the earliest, prior is too early.

13) What was the block and unblock of Onnaghar all about?

ANSWER- I don't actually know, I think it was something to do with giving a comment on a user talk page. The fact that I was unblocked after 22 minutes by the same editor, Animum, shows he did it erroneously. The reply to the block can be found here. These edits would seem to show the rationale why I was blocked.

That archive says you also posted a fake block message. You can't be doing that stuff.

This was after two months of experience, and about 250 edits, I know now to use {{username concern}}. You may also see that I gave an apology to all users involved, on the users talkpage.

Round two

1) What benefit was round one to you?

ANSWER- Round One was quite a big benefit and I would like to reiterate my thank you's for you for actually wanting to coach someone you've only met a few times at SSP and maybe their old RFA. :) Answering those questions also gave me time to reflect on what the real issues facing Wikipedia are nowadays, privacy concerns and administrator call-backs seem to be happening somewhat more often than when I started in April. It also gave me the opportunity to look over my contributions and explain them further, giving me an example of what may be to come later on in my Wiki-career. I was very optimistic, and to say the least surprised when you offerred to coach me, and now I'm content that I've not only gained a new user who I can contact with information but also a key understanding of yet more policies that give a purpose the Wiki-world we live in.

2) What other things have you been engaged in the last few weeks that will aid your next RFA?

ANSWER- As you probably understand, I've been the subject to four offers of co-noms in the past month. OhanaUnited (who initially offered to nominate me, but then I chose to decline his offer and suggested he do a co-nomination, as I had no idea of what was coming), Phoenix-wiki, Ioeth and Dihydrogen Monoxide (I prefer using the longer names :)) have all seen me around the place and must have thought I was deserving of a place on that RFA report. I was somewhat flattered by these statements, as I thought I would never have been recognised by fellow users, and have since found the true meaning of the word nomination, and have selected a few editors who I thought might be a dab-hand at "cleaning the decks". A. B., Rigadoun and Doczilla (although the latter declined) and some others, have all cropped up. But to answer your question directly, I guess:

• • the three stories I did at the signpost 1-2- 3
  • my newpage patrols (although I've been lacking in that area recently)
  • XFD contributions, where I usually contribute constructively
  • Most importantly though, my article contributions, with a featured portal, assisted featured article, a good article and two other assisted in and two featured lists in the running I think it'll be good to show that I understand other peoples comments when closing AFDs etc. given my experience in the mainspace (even though I have more Wikipedia edits that main :S).
  • UAA reporting, and the help desk :)

3) Why do you want to move your nom date up to Jan 7, 2008?

ANSWER- There's no one single answer to that question. It's a whole amalgamation of things really, I've become more involved with schoolwork recently and I'm undertaking my exams sometime in February, so I wouldn't want to let down my contributions. That's it really..... but I would never let my schoolwork come in the way of editing, unless of course, they're the actual things and not just the mocks. :) I've actually moved the dating to the 4th, as you know, due to the issues I've explained to you be email. I will pledge to do my utmost for the best of Wikipedia, accepting both challenges in the mainspace and Wikipedia space. Soleil pointed out that this may be written incorrectly, I agree to a certain extent. I am very well organised and should be doing all I can on both. I shalln't need to scale back here, as you can see I've increased my edit count every month, so this was not definitive, instead a forecast. But I now believe that I should be able to contribute effectively with the same amount of effort I have put in the last 8 months, and therefore not compromise my adminship if promoted. Rudget. 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Chat later. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-RFA stuff

1) I know you've gotten feedback on your early admin actions. Tell me about this and what you learned. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've learned quite a bit actually, mostly that by what you, zzuzz and Acalamari have been saying. I was a little confused over how to get those acronyms that show up on the noticeboards history, but I figured after the kind advice of those who I've mentioned. I now know that for a username block, it's appropriate to block indefinitely but to uncheck all the boxes, whilst the latter is the opposite for those registered at AIV. IPs don't get blocked indefinitely as I found out, as they can be dynamic so restricting editing priviliges for those who may not even have committed the vandalism. I've also done about 13 pages at RFP, none of which have been disputed or at least reduced, so that's good. Erm, I had one block that was reduced because I originally blocked as a 3RR violation, but I then re-blocked as a vandalism-only account, but it was overturned an the block was re-introduced. [1] The contributions showed the user had undue attention to only reverting edits revert edits, if that makes sense :). He then wanted an unblock for a content dispute and not vandalism, and got one, but I'm sure that was probably a good thing. Seeing how other people would do things always helps. (Although watching a couple instead of just one is better). Ah, and I've replied to two users who have had pages deleted and asked if they could be restored, and restored another one for AFD to try and encourage consensus before I'd end up deleting it again. Ah, and one more thing, I think I caused a server lag last night when I deleted a few pages in one minute. At least I think so. :) Rudget. 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know, not all admins agree on everything. You also have to be willing to take heat for some things, esp when you know you did the right thing. Recall I told you new admins are usually overeager at first? Well that's what happened here and now you're in the growth stage. Let me think on this more and if you don't here from me in 24 hours or so, ping my talk page again. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Rudget. 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

2) So how do plan to approach admin work now and what areas do you wish to concentrate in? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've probably left you in the lurch a little now, and I feel I've neglected this page. Hopefully, now I can answer your question. I'll still be working in the areas I stated in my RFA: RFP, AIV, UAA, SSP, and CSD which I've all performed pretty well in. I plan to approach these tasks with the same enthusiasm that I've previously addressed them with. I wish to act as a mediator, with 3 cases ongoing I've still got a bit to work through, but I should be able to help out nevertheless. Administrator work doesn't seem to be all that stressful as I thought it might have been, but never say never, after all, I can't forsee the future. I've seen you recently at RFCU, are you going to be given the Checkuser flag soon? Rudget. 12:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am supposedly on the list for CU status but that takes forever and is not a guarantee. Let me know if when you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I just saw your edit at WP:SSP. Looks good. I work there a lot I guess you know. I also do RFCU and arb clerking. Consider helping at SSP more as it's backlogged and has a low level of contention (you don't get beat up much). If you're not sure what to do, just leave comments and someone will pick it up, or ask me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Certainly. Rudget. 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)