User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching

This is the page where I will get coached for administratorship here. Please write instructions and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so that I know who sent it. Please also use either indents or asteriks or headings to seperate the different sections. Thank you!

Admin Coaching

What do I still need to work on before you feel comfortable with nominating me for adminship? I would like to tell you that I am someone who likes having a goal to work towards, as it is a part of who I am. Cheers, Razorflame 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a couple of things. After examining your wannabekate stats, you have only 163 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. That would have to be at least 500. You also only have 1 Wikipedia Talk edit, that should be at least 50, if not more. Your mainspace edit count is only 489, that should be 1000. Your article that you have edited the most (Akhtenskite), you have edited only 9 times. You'll need to have some articles that you have edited at least 25 times. On the positive side, you have the minimum 2000 total edits and you use edit summaries. Another note is that a vast majority of your edits occurred in November '07 and last month. You'll probably need 3 consecutive months with several hundred edits. Perhaps you should also peruse my RFA criteria. If you meet the items on that list, you'll have a chance at RFA. Useight (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to your RFA standards. As for my activity, the reason why I haven't been consistantly active is because of the fact that I am an extremely active editor over on the Simple English Wikipedia, where I've made almost 20,000 edits. I cannot guarantee that I will be the most active editor that you will have ever seen on this Wikipedia, because I have to split my time between 2 Wikipedias. Other than that, I should easily be able to get 3 consecutive months with well over 400 edits (maybe more). As for the Wikipedia Talk edits, I am unsure if I will be able to get them, but I am very certain that I will be able to increase my Wikipedia namespace edits easily because I like participating in RfD's and RfA's and RfI's. It will be a challenge for me to get articles that I have edited more than 25 times as there are hardly any pages on here that either a) doesn't already have all the information on them, or b) just aren't interesting enough for me to want to edit them. However, I will, most certainly, increase the number of articles that I have started on this Wikipedia as I have noticed a bunch of redlinks in the List of minerals (complete) page. I will start to try to fill them in with the best articles that I can make. Over on the Simple English Wikipedia, I've ported (and simplified) almost 1,500 articles from this Wikipedia, and have made nearly 20,000 edits. Unfortunately, this doesn't have any effect on RfA's here.

I have a question for you: Do failed RfA's on other Wikimedia projects count towards an RfA that is posted here?

Sorry for the long reply and cheers, Razorflame 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia pretty much stands alone. Usually things you did on other Wikimedia projects won't be brought into the picture. Useight (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That is good to know. Cheers, Razorflame 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My votes in AfD/RfA

What do you think of my latest votes for the AfD pages listed here and here? Is that what you meant by your message above? Cheers, Razorflame 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are really good comments. They add to the discussion. Useight (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is good to hear! I will continue to add comments like these in the future :) Razorflame 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at my RfA votes, do you think that some of my more recent RfA votes are good? Razorflame 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to take a look at them, I've got to grab a quick bite to eat and then head to class again, but this will be first priority when I get back. Useight (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Take your time and let me know at your own pleasure. I myself am about to get off. Cheers, Razorflame 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are your four most recent !votes at RFAs: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I like those all except for the first one. The other three add to the discussion, you make valid points and explain your view. The first one, you used the "Per Rudget" which would've been okay if you had added a little bit more, like "Those diffs Rudget pointed out show that he is very civil and will not bite the new editors." Useight (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On April 28, you !voted in these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. All within 9 minutes. Never do that. It makes it appear that you didn't give enough thought to each one. Perhaps you were familiar with each candidate already. Perhaps you reviewed them all at the same time and then added your comments to each. Whatever really happened, people will think that shows a lack of judgement to just come flying in and posting all over the place so quick. Speed is good for reverting vandalism, but not for making judgement calls. That being said, your comments weren't all that bad, except for #6, which didn't add a whole lot. The others were decent comments. Maybe I'm being too technical on this point, but I don't think it reflects well to !vote so quickly. Useight (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I will make sure to not do what I did on April 28th again. Yes, I was somewhat familiar with each of the candidates, and that was why I voted somewhat quickly on them. In the future, I will try to give more thought to each of my comments. As for the one that I voted in as per Rudget, I thought that I clearly stated that I don't normally do this, but I will try to keep my comments more detailed in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did clearly state that you don't often !vote "per User:XYZ", so it's better than just putting that, but it's still a lower-quality !vote than the others to which I linked. Useight (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, but why are you putting an exclamation mark before every time you say vote? Cheers, Razorflame 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Using an exclamation point means "not". For example, "!=" means "not equal". It's a term sometimes used in math and computer programming. Some editors use "!vote" to signify that it's not really supposed to be a vote. Useight (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion

Useight's comments about minimum editcount needed are essentially right, even though the numbers are somewhat random, and change from editor to editor.

Some ways to improve the experience needed to become an admin is:

• Reverting vandalism and warning vandals accordingly
• Reporting persistent vandalism on WP:AIV according to the rules on that page (a lot of people don't understand the rules...)
• Nominating pages for speedy deletion, proposed deletion and AFD and managing the discussion. Of course, you should do it only to pages that really should be deleted.
• Doing backlog work.

Also, if you have ever got into any argument or edit war, be ready to be asked about it on your RFA. Remember that changing your mind is often a good idea. See my RFA for example and read other successful and failed RFA's. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Razorflame 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that the numbers are "random", probably closer to "arbitrary." Useight (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a better word. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard RFA Questions

Why don't we give the three RFA questions a whirl and see how you answer them? Useight (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What admin areas do you intend to work in?

   When and if I am granted the administrator flag, I plan on using the tools to benefit the Wikipedia. The specific areas that I plan to work on are helping out in the WP:AIV page (which is now experiencing quite a backlog) by deciding (after going through every specific detail) if an IP address needs to be blocked or not and if the IP in question is in fact violating any part of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, helping to clear out the WP:RPP by first deciding if the situation requires the page to be protected (using Wikipedia:Protection policy as a guideline, and then after deciding if protection is needed, again using Wikipedia:Protection policy to determine the most appropriate protection, helping out on the WP:RFR page by first deciding if the user has been involved in any WP:3RR rule violations and if the user if new or not and how the user will use it, and if that user hasn't, then giving him or her the rollback tools. helping out other administrators by helping to clear out the administrative backlog by first deciding what needs to be done and then by deciding the best possible route to take. I also plan on helping close AfD's that have gotten a clear consensus as to what needs to be done with the article and after making sure they pass the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and to help close IfD's if either they specifically violate the Wikipedia:Image use policy. I also intend to help clear the Category:Uncategorized pages category by appropriately categorizing pages as per Wikipedia:Categories. I also plan on helping out on the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention using the same strategies as per the WP:AIV page, with the addition of checking to make sure that they are indeed violating the Wikipedia:Username policy. Finally, I plan on helping out by deleting CSD's using the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page as a guideline to determine if the page is in fact a page that needs to be deleted.

2. What do you believe are your best contributions?

   My best contributions to date so far include my massive efforts to help curve the vandalism that this site has been receiving as of late, and my 2 articles that I have created, Akhtenskite and Anandite.

3. What conflicts have you been in and how have you handled them?

   I have only had a few minor conflicts in the past. The first was when I accidentally used the rollback tool to revert a page that someone was working on. He had completely blanked a section, so I was concerned that he was vandalizing. After he contacted me on my talk page regarding this, I calmly undid my revert and then notified the user on his or her talk page apologizing for my actions and that I had undone my edit. Several other incidents like this have happened, and each time I calmly undid my edit and apologized on their talk page. I have not had any major conflicts on this Wikipedia to date. Razorflame 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were good answers. Number two was kind of short, and you meant "curb" instead of "curve", but, other than that, your answers were excellent. Useight (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am most likely going to copy my answer for #1 because my answer for that won't change (and if it does, it will only get longer). Also,I know that my answer to question 2 is short, but the only other thing that I could've said about that would have been my vandal fighting being my best contributions, but according to Balloonman's essay, he said that pure vandal fighters rarely get adminship, so I decided not to put it onto there because I thought that it would make people think that that is the only reason why I want to gain adminship. Cheers, Razorflame 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman is right, pure vandal fighting isn't enough. You need substantial mainspace contribs. Have you joined any of those WikiProjects I mentioned before on your talk page (or any other WikiProjects, for that matter? If not, do so and start doing some editing there. Then you can mention that as part of Q2. Useight (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I did join 3 different Wikiprojects that you listed on either your talk page or my talk page and since I've joined them, there has been absolutely no activity from any of them. I have started working on the Category:Uncategorized pages category categorizing pages, but other than that, I haven't been doing much article creating/editing. Razorflame 13:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for any kind of activity in the project. Just work on articles that fall within the scope of the project, like assess some of the Category:Unassessed Go articles or clean up some of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Geology. And categorizing those uncategorized pages is good, too, that's a really tedious job that I try every once and again. Useight (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started classifying some of the unassessed articles from the category that you've given me. Thanks for giving me that link. I will also continue to work on categorizing uncategorized pages. Cheers, Razorflame 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some highly probable questions

1. Would you place yourself on Category:Administrators open to recall?

   Yes, I would be willing to place myself in that category. Razorflame Report false positives 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

2. How would you apply IAR to your contributions?

   I would only apply IAR to my contributions if something is not right. A good example of how I use IAR in my contributions is when a vandal removes content from his or her talk page and leaves a personal attack in its place. One of the rules on this site says that people are allowed to blank their own talk pages, but because he or she wrote a personal attack, I can apply IAR to that and revert it because of that. Other than cases like that, I can't really see how to apply IAR to my contributions. Razorflame Report false positives 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

3. What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

   My personal criteria for supporting a potential request for administratorship would be as follows:

• At least 6 months experience without any blocks during that time period,
• Shows a level of activity to would make me believe that he/she would actually use the tools to benefit the site,
• Shows a good understanding of the policies relevant for administrators.
• Shows the ability to correctly revert and warn vandalism, as well as CSD tags.
• Is not argumentative.

The reason why I added the last point to that list is because I have been in contact with argumentative editors and administrators both on this site and other Wikipedias, and to tell you the truth, I believe that people who have an argumentative nature should not be allowed the sysop flag because it would cause friction between the other administrators and/or bureaucrats, as well as stress, and frankly, I believe that editing the Wikipedia is cause for enough stress as it is without having to have an argumentative user add to it. Razorflame Report false positives 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What's the difference between blocking and banning?

   Blocking is the action of temporarily preventing someone from editing the site for a predetermined period of time so as to minimize disruption caused by the person who is blocked. This is only used when disruption occurs. Banning can be decided either by community concensus or by Jimbo Wales. Jimbo Wales reserves the right to be able to ban anyone that he believes imposes a particular threat upon the integrity of the Wikimedia foundation.

I believe that a ban should only be used when the integrity of the Wikipedia as a whole is at risk. People from the community should first be given a chance to voice their opinions on the matter, and if they deem that the user poses a risk to the integrity of the English Wikipedia, then they should be banned.

As for the difference between blocking and banning, I believe that the most important difference is in the fact that if they are blocked, they are welcome to create a new account as a way to clean the slate so to speak. If they are banned, then they are not allowed to create new accounts. Razorflame Report false positives 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were some good answers, however I should point out that a person who is blocked would probably not be welcomed if they created another account during the block. That's block evasion and sockpuppetry. However, when the block ended, I'm sure they could create another account under the right to vanish and would be welcomed back into the community as long as they didn't revert back to vandalism. You also didn't answer question 2. Useight (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question #2 is an extremely hard question for me to answer because of the reason that I simply don't apply IAR to my edits, which could be problematic...I will try to answer it as best as I can now, though. Cheers, Razorflame Report false positives 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad answer. It's a really hard question to answer because whatever rule you use as an example may be considered the most important rule to never circumvent by others. This question brings subjectivity and opinions into the matter, so it can be tricky to answer well. But you did a good job with it. I just wanted to get you thinking just in case that question does come up in an actual RFA. Useight (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a question that I did not like having to write an answer for. It was an incredibly hard question for me to answer because I usually follow some rule or another when I contribute to Wikipedia, so it leaves very little for me to draw upon. Cheers, Razorflame Report false positives 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Target

When do you think the target date for my RfA should be? Cheers, Razorflame 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looking at your stats and contribs, I'm thinking your RFA should be about 500 edits into June, perhaps a bit longer if that's what it takes. We definitely can't have you run this month because 68% of your total edits were this month. Once you have racked up 500 in June it will give you three consecutive months with 500+ and give the appearance of consistency rather than the appearance of one bloated month. However, before you run, these things need to happen:

1. 500 edits in June (less than half of them can be via Huggle)
2. You need a mainspace article with 20-25 edits. Right now your most-edited article is Akhtenskite with 9 edits. That's insufficient.
3. You have 321 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Make that closer to 500. Some ways of getting that up are: commenting at WP:AFD, reporting at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, answering questions at WP:RD, !voting in WP:RFA (and be sure to update the tally after you vote).
4. You have 9 edits to Wikipedia Talk. That's also too low. Make that exceed 25-30. My favorite place to do that is WT:RFA.
5. You work on your article creation goal that you mentioned on my talk page.
6. We must exhaust the remaining questions that I have for you in coaching and any questions that Keeper76 has, if he does decide to co-coach and co-nom. Useight (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that June is too early. I believe that I should wait until 3 months after that (make that 6 full months of 500+ edits) which would put it at 500 edits into September. What do you think? Razorflame 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Razorflame, as a theoretical question, would it terribly bother you if your coaches suggested you wait another full 12 months before running on en.wikipedia for admin? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 12 months is too long, but at the same time, I believe that 3 months is too short. That is part of the reason why I have requested that we wait until September of this year to do this. Thanks for your express concern, Razorflame 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, September would be a good time, too. Six consecutive months of 500+ edits would show dedication and consistency. Now that I think about it, I too had 6 months of 500-1000 edits before passing RFA. Let's shoot for September then. Useight (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts by Keeper

I have a couple of questions for you to think about. They are really just "questions to think about", you can answer them if you wish, but certainly not required. I mean these questions sincerely, I promise I'm not a mean guy. Please don't take any offense to some of my honesty here, I mean every word here in good faith, as constructive, not destructive.

1. Why do you want to be an admin?
2. Why do you want to be an admin right now?
3. Why do you want a co-coach?
4. How many admins have you asked to coach you?
5. Do you feel you will have met your own criteria for adminship in June?

After looking through your contribs, and seeing some of your comments, I'm getting a "vibe" that you see your sole purpose here as "gaining the tools for the sake of the tools". The admin tools are not a big deal, and are not a "trophy" or level to attain. I like your sentiment that I saw on your userpage that you like set goals and to achieve - a noble cause! What I'm worried about is that you are going through certain steps that you feel will help you pass an RFA. The purpose of creating articles is not to pass an RfA, the purpose of creating articles is to, well create articles for readers. . Expanding articles is not meant to be a step to passing an RFA, neither is vandal reporting, reverting vandalism, or participating in Wikipedia:talk, or AfDs. They purpose of all of them is to make a better encyclopedia, not to pass an RfA. You can do all of this without admin buttons. So why do you want the admin buttons?

As far as formal coaching, I'm going to decline, but not because you are not a good candidate. I think you'll make a fine admin with enough perserverance and work. I've stated elsewhere though that I'm drifting away from admin coaching, or at least the formal WP:ADCO system. If you look at my entry there, you'll see that I have 2 coachees currently; I took those on before I had a change of heart about the formal coaching program, and have been working more in a new mentoring program that is more in line with how I feel editors can help other editors. I sincerely mean no harm to you, or Useight, when I say this, but getting to xxx number of edits in particular areas, and x number of edits in other areas isn't necessarily the type of coaching I want to do, nor do I think it's particularly effective. You should edit where you want, when you want, how you want, and nothing more. For example, I have never made a single post to WP:AIV that I recall. Not one vandal reported, not one vandal blocked because of an AIV post. I don't enjoy it, and didn't want to do it. My RfA went fine without it. I've never posted to RFPP, or CHU, or SSP, or RCU. Don't enjoy it. I've only "created" 6 articles from scratch, none of them very good. Don't enjoy it. I think all of these activities are extremely valuable, but I don't want it. If you are editing in areas you are uncomfortable in, you will have two problems: One, you're likely to make mistakes because you're not interested, and Two (and more importantly) you'll burn out on-wiki and leave, and I hate to see a good editor leave. The other problem I've seen recently is that those that go through coaching, jump through all the hurdles, make "all the right moves", etc, end up leaving after they get the tools, because the tools, frankly are a let down. I wouldn't want that to happen to you either.

Ok, I've rambled on quite a bit here. My recommendation to you is to edit what you want, where you want. Help build this place up! Like vandal fighting? Go for it! Like Deletion discussions? Do it! Don't worry so much about the actual "deleting" and actual "blocking". Eventually, someone down the road might say, "hey, Razorflame has been doing this forever, he should be an admin", and they'll nominate you. No coaching required. I would recommend waiting at least 6 months before even considering an RfA. That gives you the right amount of time, to edit where you want to edit, and how you want to edit without worrying about "passing an RfA". Cheers my friend. Please consider what I've said to be costructive. Feel free to ask me any questions if something I've said needs clarification, or if you have any comments. And please don't be hurt by these comments, they are meant to help you enjoy Wikipedia and make it a better place. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An update, I just saw your post above about waiting until September instead of trying June, meaning you can disregard about 2/3rd of this, and about half my questions :-) Have fun editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say that I am not offended by what you said. I believe that critizism is the best way to gain knowledge to better yourself and others. I learnt a lot from the post you just posted and, to be honest, in just the first paragraph after the questions, that was my mentality about administratorship until about 3.5 months ago.

I would first like to say that I am, by all means, happy working in any area of this Wikipedia, however, there are certain areas that I have absolutely no interest in. I have absolutely no interest in Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard (kind of ironic, eh?), Requests for changing usernames, and anything else to do with checkusers. I am completely fine with editing articles, fixing up little things here and there, assessing articles for WikiProjects, fighting vandalism, and articles and images for deletionl.

The first thing you said was that I am wanting the tools for the sake of the tools. I guess you could say that this is partially true, but only to a certain extent. I do not think of the tools as a trophy, or that they elevate me to a higher status than other users. The main reason why I want the administrator's tools is the fact that without them, I feel like I am not able to help deal with vandalism to the fullest extent (that is, blocking persistant vandals) without them. I know that I can still report them to the WP:AIV page, but that just makes me feel empty. I would like to help Wikipedia more than I do already by editing articles and what-not.

I agree with you that the main goal of Wikipedia is building up the encyclopedia to be the most efficient and helpful site around.

The answers to your questions:

1. I want to be an administrator so that I can benefit the English Wikipedia more than I already do by helping to delete pages that meet WP:CSD and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, to help close open AfD's, to help block disruptive users and vandals according to the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and generally to provide more to the English Wikipedia than I already do by editing articles.

1. I have no inclination to become an administrator at this very moment (that is, to post up an RfA).

1. If you want the straight and honest truth, the reason why I am looking for a co-coach is because of the fact that I have looked through the archives of successful and unsuccessful Requests for Adminiship, and I have found that people who have a co-nomination fare better at the RfA. Another reason why I would like a co-coach is because it would make me feel more secure and/or sure of my abilities beause I would have 2 other points of perspective other than my own. That means that I would be able to benefit and learn more about the workings of this Wikipedia.

1. To tell you the truth, I have only asked one other admin to co-coach (User:Balloonman), who turned out to be too busy at this time to co-coach me.

1. I believe that June is too early. I feel like I will have a better chance to pass an RfA in September or October of this year than June because I will have had more time to learn and grow as an editor.

You do not have to worry about me becoming inactive anytime in the near and somewhat out there future (next year). I am firmly rooted here and will continue to contribute for many, many months to come.\

Thanks for sharing your opinions, Razorflame 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You've answered this very well! I'm very impressed, and a bit relieved that you didn't take any of this the wrong way. Looking forward to seeing you around. I believe you have the right perspective on what Wikipedia is about, and I look forward to supporting a well-timed RfA sometime in the future. If you ever need "another opinion" on anything, and don't mind generally long-winded, rambling answers, feel free to visit my talkpage. It's always open. :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I realized that as soon as you left me this message here. I don't mind long rambling answers, but having to reply to them (sometimes, I have to type what seems to be a huge response) might take me too long. I will have to take you up on your offer to get a second opinion about something in the future, and please look for my RfA sometime in the near or somewhat distant future. Razorflame 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a discussion. I'm sorry if either of you feel that I have been taking too technical of an approach, but I'm very left brained and take things from a mathmatical, logical angle rather than from an emotional side. So, basically, I can provide advice and tips on improving your stats, contributing in the right place, increasing your knowledge of policy, etc, in order to pass an RFA, but when it comes to the "soft stuff", like "Why do you want to be an admin?", someone like Keeper76 would be more helpful. Useight (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this was meant as any sort of slight on you, your efforts, or your left brain, I promise. But I'm a righty for sure. Waxing poetic. I need a calculator for simple math (and I used to be a junior high math teacher - what a disgrace....). There's room forboth of us though, and I'm sure R-flame has been very appreciative of your efforts. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already been very grateful for all the help that Useight has given me (and some that others have given me) as they help me to better myself so that I am able to help this Wikipedia out more. Cheers, Razorflame 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What-if scenarios

A lot of times, what-if scenarios will be asked of you during an RFA, these are some sample ones to get you thinking.

1. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be?

   Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I have already changed this policy several times over the past 5 months and I definitely believe that this would be the one policy that I could change without fear of opposition or reversion. Razorflame 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. When do you feel it is appropriate to decline a request in WP:AIV?

   I feel that it would be appropriate to decline a request in the WP:AIV page under a number of different circumstances.

The first reason that I can think of in which I would decline a request at the WP:AIV is if it was made by a banned user evading his block using sockpuppets or IP addresses. That is the most obvious and easiest way to decline an AIV request.

The second reason that I would deny an AIV request would be if the request was not made in good faith. If the user who was requesting the WP:AIV request did not do it in good faith, then doesn't that violate the WP:AGF principle that the Wikipedia runs on?

The third reason that I would deny an AIV request would be if it did not meet any of the criteria listed under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. If it was borderline (meaning it was close to breaking a rule), I would consult another administrator to get a second opinion of the matter at hand.

The fourth reason that I would deny an AIV request would be if, after looking at the user's contributions (that was reported, mind you), and found no evidence of vandalism from this account.

After all 4 of these instances, I would most likely provide the talk page of the user who reported the user in question with a message stating that he/she should re-read the blocking policy to make sure that they understand the policies. Razorflame 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

   The most likely cause for the full protection that I provided for that page would be because of an edit war. If a page that a user asks for semi-protection on is currently undergoing an edit war, and there are no active discussions into the matter, I would fully protect the page to force them to talk about why they are reverting each others' changes.

The only other circumstance that I can think of is if, under the rare circumstance that a sockpuppet of a banned user requests semi-protection of his user page or talk page, and he has already been confirmed as a sockpuppet, I would fully protect both the user page and user talk page to help minimize the disruption from that sockpuppet. Razorflame 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope that these answers have helped you in understanding me better. Cheers, Razorflame 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Review from Balloonman

Hey there Razor, I'm not going to be your admin coach, but decided to go ahead and do a little review of where/what I thought you might want to work on. I'm going to go through your pages with an eye of what RfA reviewers might look at.

1. I agree with Useight when he told you that your page is a little too green.

   I've already fixed this problem. I allowed Useight to tone it down for me :). Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

2. You might want to remove your age from the page. Youth is a reason that many people oppose candidates. Because of your youth, you have to show twice the "maturity, civility, and responsibility" as somebody twice your age! It is not impossible to become an admin when you're still in HS, but people are less forgiving of mistakes and look for signs of immaturity. (To that affect, you might want to review your user page. It has a somewhat 'myspace' feel to it.)

   Believe it or not, I've never had a myspace before. I will remove my age and a few other random things, but other than that, I don't see any reason to remove anything else. Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3. To the above point, your first encounter with me put me off a little. You were a little abrupt/curt---Eg I felt that you were expecting a response right away and if I wasn't willing/able to answer right away you got upset.

   I guess I can get a little impatient, but who wouldn't after a day or 2 of what looks like someone ignoring you? Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

   Two days isn't too much... especially when you consider how much time I dedicate to reviewing people... I spent about 4 hours looking at you here... and do the same with others...Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yep, I've realized that now and am thankful for all of the help that you've given me. Cheers, Razorflame 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Your May talk page was great---no warning bells, signs of civility/maturity/responsibility. April was a little different. While you continued to show civility, you appeared to be a little in a rush and made several mistakes. Those mistakes, in and of themselves, aren't enough to garner any opposes (especially in light of your responses to them) but they might motivate people to dig deeper into your other contributions.

   I will strive to keep my talk page like this in the future. Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Your discussion related to welcoming vandals and people with inappropriate accounts MIGHT hurt. It's been 6 months, but you did seem to respond somewhat defensive. On the positive side, however, your welcomes generated a lot of traffic to your page of newbies asking your questions, to which you were very civil and helpful.
6. The breadth and depth of your experience is limited. You haven't edited the same article more than 9 times! This is a very low number, without looking at your actual contribs, it is a redflag that you don't contribute constructively to articles too much.

   I don't like editing articles much, but I do try to edit articles a lot :) Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

   Breadth and depth includes other adminly areas. Diversification is very helpful.Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

7. Your contributions to user talk pages (besides your own---Useeight, Keeper, Rudget, Irredescent, and mine) are often related to obtaining the tools. This makes it look like you are, in Kurt's favorite phrase, power hungry.

   Believe it or not, that actually wasn't the reason why I posted to the above people's talk pages. The main reason why I posted to the above people's talk pages was so that I could get critisism from them so that I can improve upon what they said that I needed to work on. Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

   But the impression that people will get is that you are in this for the tools/power. That WILL get opposes.Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

8. Your contributions to wikipedia talk pages is non-existant.

   Are you suggesting that I should edit the Wikipedia talk pages more?

   I'm suggesting that you contribute to different areas of the project---including the talk pages of different projects/policy areas. Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

9. This is a killer IMHO, you've only been active for two months. I don't count November because you were a noob then and then disappeared for several months. People want to see at least 4-6 months of consecutive edit history before a run. This means that you should probably wait until at least Aug/Sept to run---which also means that it gives you a lot of time to address the other issues I'm bringing up.

   Me and Useight (admin coach) have already decided on a September target.

10. You are doing a great job over on XfD's.

    Thanks! You are doing a good job as a mentor :) Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

11. You need to consider getting involved in other "adminly" areas. I don't like drive by participation, but rather establishing a foot print someplace. Find an area where you are comfortable and make a footprint. Common areas include, but are not limited to, ANI/Helpdesk/Village pump/Any policy talk page discussion/etc.

That's about all the time I have right now, I hope this all helps you out.Balloonman (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I would rather prefer to stay out of the AN/I for the moment because that is really too much drama for me and I would rather not get so stressed out over editing Wikipedia.

   It doesn't have to be ANI, but getting exposure in an area where you discuss policies/guidelines is helpful. Not only from the "rfa" perspective, but from the personal developmental one. By contributing to these areas, you show others that you can be civil and discuss interpretations. You also get exposure to how others intrepret things and where your own understanding may not be in sync with the overall guideline. We each have made incorrect interpretations, by contributing to the "wikispace" on wikipedia, you are showing that you've been exposed to policy/guideline discussions.Balloonman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   I will look into a particular place for me to possibly edit like that (might take a while). Cheers, Razorflame 22:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and I hope that my answers shed some light on some concerns that you have raised. Cheers, Razorflame 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman has brought up some excellent points, and I'd recommend heeding them. A lot of your user talk edits are about adminship, you might want to branch out some there. As I have pointed out before, you need to edit in Wikipedia Talk more as well. His final point was good, too, something I hadn't thought of, find some niche and fill it. Have a focus. Be an expert in some location. Useight (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already decided to make my niche in WP:AFD. Cheers, Razorflame 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Just be sure not to !vote at AFD too quickly or it will look like you didn't put enough thought into your responses. However, I've been looking at your !votes and they look great. Useight (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions:

1. What is the general amount of support that you need in order to pass an RfA?

   The actual number of support !votes doesn't really matter, people have passed with 100+ and people have passed with 35. What matters is the percentage of supports versus opposes. The closing bureaucrats use more of an art than a science, taking everything into consideration, but the guidelines are as follows: below 70% support will nearly always end up as "No consensus" (or "Failed", if there are more opposes than supports); 75% and above will nearly always result in a successful RFA. I use "nearly always" because there are a few exceptions to this rule. The gray area is between 70 and 75 percent in which some are closed as successful and some are unsuccessful, depending on many factors, such as the strength and quality of the !votes. Yes, this is somewhat subjective, but that's just how it is when an RFA is on the border. Useight (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Do you think it is a good idea to ask questions of candidates on their RfA's in relation to RfAs that you might run in the future?

   I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this question. Asking an RFA candidate about your own future RFA? If that's what you're asking, then no, you'll want to keep the questions related to the topic at hand, the candidate and his/her RFA. Useight (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   What I meant by this question was asking candidates questions like the ones we practiced a few sections up. Is that a good idea? Cheers, Razorflame 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. Well, you can go ahead and use some of the questions for sure. Useight (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Do you think that I might be ready before September (even though I won't most likely run until September) (This is just for opinion).

   Yes, I think you'd be ready before September, although it's still probably a couple months away. July at the earliest. There's still some things you need to do before it'll pass, I think. Like edit more in the Wikipedia Talk namespace and don't use Huggle so much. People at RFA are starting to not appreciate the excessive use of Huggle. Useight (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think that I use Huggle all that much. I've only run it twice in the past week. And I only use it when I want to revert vandalism; I never use it for general editing (I use the regular Wikipedia page for that). As for the Wikipedia talk edits, I've been working on them, but it is hard, because oftentimes, I don't see a need for me to edit them. I am still looking for ways to edit the Wikipedia namespace more. Cheers, Razorflame 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Razorflame 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Razorflame 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that I would like to tell you my progress in the editing of other adminly areas. I've edited the Help desk once and will continue looking for other 'adminly' areas to edit. Cheers, Razorflame 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. Remember to avoid !voting in AFDs too quickly. Useight (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I am not voting in AFD's too quickly. Thanks for the advice, though! I will continue to vote in AfD's that I can actually have an opinion on. Cheers, Razorflame 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this and this were one minute apart, as were these two. And these two were also one minute apart (with another edit in between). Here's some at 16:02, 16:03, 16:04, and 16:05. The comments you make at the AFDs are usually pretty darn good, but you've got to take your time between them. Useight (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure not to do this in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)