Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:30, 10 April 2008

See also: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Coach (with Husond, in May 2007)

Hi Dihydrogen Monoxide,

I've looked over your RfA's, talk page, and edits and I do think that you can be an excellent admin---I honestly thought you were already. That being said, if you were to go up for an RfA today, I would probably oppose. Mainly because of the same concerns that were raised in your previous RfA's. That being said, there isn't anything that can't be 'fixed with time.' Your previous RfA's failed for specific reasons:

• The first one failed primarily due to inexperience.
• The second one failed because of your essay Misplaced Pages:Template the regulars and posting of private conversations.
• The third one due to the allegation of colussion involving good articles. There were other issues such as changing your name and your views on who should/should not be an admin. But those later points probably would have been overlooked if not for the Good Article fiasco.
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2 was killed due to an incivilility at an RfB, an editor review and concerns about lack of maturity/poor judgment. It was also hampered by the fact that it was your fourth RfA in less than a year.

I would be willing to be your admin coach with some ground rules:

1. Applying for an RfA is like applying for a job. It doesn't matter if you are qualified for the position and would do the job well, you have to convince others that you can be trusted. This means acting in a way that conforms to the societal norms of the position desired. This is at the heart of acting in a mature manner. It means doing things that you might not want to do. As you are still in H.S. people are going to be four times as sensitive to maturity issues as they would be to somebody in their 30's.
2. You indicated that you weren't planning on running for adminship again for a while. I agree. I think you have to show some definitive changes to convince others that you are ready to be an admin. That means getting serious now and letting others see you as an admin. You want others, even your detractors, to say, "Yes, I see definite changes and he's addressed my concerns." Then you have to live by those changes to prove to the world that you weren't making them just to pass the RfA. Thus, I wouldn't run for Adminship for at least another 4 months. (I have some ideas on how to reform the negative image that some have related to your judgment/maturity.)
3. That you don't run for Admin until I say you're ready (or if we terminate our coach/coachee relationship until at least August.) I will not nominate you until I am convinced that you have addressed the concerns brought up in your previous RfA's and can demonstrate such changes to your critics. If you accept me as your coach and run before August I would oppose.
4. I am probably one of the tougher Admin Coaches out there. I want people at RfA's to see my name associated with a coachee and not even think twice about supporting the candidate. I mention that because we are going to be working on your image/reputation, which is not going to be easy. It is easier to get somebody article writing experience or to coach them on policies and procedures, it is a different thing to get a person to "grow up" in the eyes of the community. I might have you jump through some hoops that you might not want to (but I'll always be open to alternatives.)

If you are interested, the first homework assignment for you is to clean up your UserPage and subpages. Review them and ask, "How would a potential boss view these pages? Would a person reviewing these pages hire me or not based upon what I wrote? What will they think of my maturity/judgment reading this?" If it would reflect poorly on you, then fix it. (And yes, if I were to be reviewing your User Page now as a potential admin candidate, I might use it in my rationale to oppose!) EDIT: I LOVE your RfA criteria page! Balloonman (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Notes

In addition to admin coaching, I use this page as a place to keep track of issues that I like/don't like in regards to my coachee's edits. (I try to monitor their edits because I don't want to be surprised during an RfA and I want to be able to give appropriate kudo's where necessary.)

• User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA is excellent... I feel the exact same way!Balloonman (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it was something that I had put a lot of thought into, and, as I used to be one of those who had been harassing him somewhat, something I found interesting to write. The response to it was slightly disappointing, as it basically turned into an argument over the meaning of the word "troll", which wasn't my point. He might be a troll (I don't think he is, and I don't define it in a way that suggests he is) but his RfA commentary is perfectly valid, in my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Don't you dare! ;-)
  • Well, since you've read that, I don't think the strategies noted there would work! ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Man you were slammed for passing a questionable article in what appears to be was a quid pro quo exchange. But reviewing your edits, your GAN reviews are superb! Keep up the good work, don't repeat that mistake!Balloonman (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was a really unfortunate event, and since then I've really put a lot more work into my GA reviewing (and generally participated a lot more around the GA area) in the hope of trying to regain the trust of the community there. Something I've tried to emphasis is that we didn't agree to pass each other's articles, and that I have no interest or opinion in the relevant area there (Soviet Occupation). I sure won't repeat that mistake any time soon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you said that. You learned from this incident and are trying to redeem yourself in that community---that is a sign of maturity/taking responsibility that we are going to highlight during your next RfA. My philosophy is that we don't hide shortcomings, but you take them and turn them around. What did you learn? How did it change you? What have you done differently as a result of your past mistakes. Those are the questions people want answered. (That goes for other mistakes that may come up---if you own up to them in advance, then people don't hold them against you. If they discover them later on, it becomes an issue---such as your past RfA not mentioning your previous RfA's as Giggy. It might not have been intentional to omit them, but it didn't sit well with people.)Balloonman (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remember your mantra, Responsibility, Civility, and Maturity.Balloonman (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Noted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Excellent edits on ANI... also I really like your comments on the RFC for Cabals.Balloonman (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and thanks. It's something that I feel strongly about, so hopefully I'm making a difference. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Business Trip

I'm going to be going on a business trip this weekend and probably won't have access to wikipedia for about a week... keep up the good work... and remember your manta... Responsibility, Civility, and Maturity.Balloonman (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

*repeats 100 times* I'll do so! Enjoy your trip, I'm sure Keeper and Keilana will keep an eye on me. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Home work Assignments

A quick note about the homework assignments... these are intended to be done over time... there is no rush to have them done tomorrow. To change people's opinions about you, it will take time and showing changes over time.

First homework assignment

Y — I hope! I went back to an older version of my userpage, combined with some newer stuff. A lot less silly, admittedly...tell me what you think. I've now gone and cleaned out a bit of my userspace, too. I blanked User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall, though I intend to put some sort of criteria there at some stage (perhaps with your advice?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, you should highlight you /articles page on your main page somehow. Second, you need to work on your /clutter page.Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The /Articles page is linked to via the images in the top right corner...I don't really care to make it more prominent. It's also linked to from my talk page, and I almost certainly will link to it in my Q2 answer. As for the /Clutter, is there anything specific you're getting at in relation to that page? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page an ask yourself these three questions: 1) I want to prove to the community that I can be trusted with the tools. Is there anything on the page that says I might not adhere to policies/procedures? 2) I want to show the community that Their assessment that I am immature is wrong. Is there anything on the page that is High Schoolish? 3) I want to show the community that their assessment of incivility is wrong. Is there anything on the page that may be perceived as incivil?Balloonman (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point. I've gone and reformatted the page removing some of the material you've noted could be taken issue with. Now there's babel info, WikiProject and WP:ADOPT info, a few other things, and that awesome picture of Pedro's son that summarises quite well why I work hard on this project. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Homework Assignment

Ok, one of the things that killed you in your recent RfA's was an editorial review of The Random Editor. It looks as if the two of you had some issues prior to your Editorial Review and you let those issues cloud your judgment. Could you explain the history between the two of you prior to your review?Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...well, we got on OK, and we were both in similar situations, I guess you could say. Going back to that "Passing RfA" essay you mentioned above, I think we both were in (well, in retrospect I'm almost certain I was, but if TRE reads this I don't mean offense to him, this is just my opinion) the position that the essay promotes, one of gaming the system, editing mainly for adminship, in a sense. It's harsh, but that's how I feel about myself back then (I wrote that essay while thinking about how I had edited) and to a lesser extent him.

Shortly after WP:RfA/Giggy was unsuccessful, some real life stuff came up which caused me to have to get my userspace deleted and leave for a while, then come back with this name. When I came back, I co-nominated him, and around the same time, Pedro. Late in Pedro's RfA, TRE said something about it being close to WP:100, and (I guess I was developing the admin-only-editing opinion that I have now) this pushed me over the edge and I ended up neutral on his RfA.

After he passed, he asked me to ER him...this was after he had left a series of messages which I thought were just plain weird (and out of character) on my talk page (1 2). Here he asked me for an editor review, which I eventually got around to doing...and yeah, that's pretty much it.

After that, he renamed to Eye of the Mind (talk · contribs), and we probably spoke once more...and then he deleted the Main Page. Haven't seen or heard from him since. This has already been said in public, but he assured me he didn't leave because of me. I don't know if that's true or not, but yeah...

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the thing that got you in trouble was an editor review, I want you to do at least 8 more editor reviews between now and your next RfA... and I want there to be at least two per month. I don't think this will be a problem for you as you seem to be a fan of editor review.Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Homework Assignment

One of the knocks against you is maturity/judgment. I want you to become involved in a place where maturity/judgement are necessary. One of my guiding principles in an RfA is that a person doesn't have to have the buttons to be an admin. You want others to see you as an admin---don't claim to be one if you're not, but that doesn't mean that you can't 'act like one'. If they already accept you as an admin, the voting "Support" becomes a whole lot easier. (If you noticed some of my !votes, I've voted "support" for people even though they don't meet my official criteria---why because they already act like admins...to me an admin is somebody who is trusted by the community and sought out to help others because they are helpful. The tools are not what makes an admin, they just help the admin do their job better.) To that end, I'd like to see you become involved with ANI and/or the Help Desk.

I'd also like to see you become involved in an area that really challenges you. I'd like to see you become involved in some controversy! Perhaps at third opinion? Request for Comments? Article Rescue? Wikietiquette? If you can participate in these areas, and maintain civility, you can go a long way towards proving your maturity and civility.

Note, you don't have to spend a ton of time working on these, just make a point to get involved here and there over the next few months. Make a solid footprint. The rationale behind this assignment is that maturity is about doing things that you don't necessarily want to do and doing so in a responsible/grown up manner.Balloonman (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point here. I have done a bit of Help Desk work and Mediation before, never was overly fond or overly successful with either of those. I have the article rescue page watchlisted but I just can't find the time/enthusiasm to check the category every day...if they could get a bot to update a list of articles tagged with {{rescue}} I would definitely be more active with that. So on that note, I'll watchlist ANI and try and help out there a bit more. I've been semi-interested in RFC in the past, but I'll take another look now, though I don't expect to spend much time around that because the format of the thing (and, I guess the idea of it) isn't one that particularly appeals to me (whereas ANI seems to a bit more). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm open to what exactly you do (ANI/Help Desk) are merely two suggestions, but the two things I want you to do is find a place where a) you can help others and b) be seen as an admin. I also prefer if it it was someplace where it highlights your knowledge of policies, procedures, and general wiki how-to.Balloonman (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, based on your comments, I've watchlisted ANI and will take to commenting regularly there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh about RESCUE, if that is an area of interest to you, you don't have to check it every day (none of these things have to be done daily). I'd rather you check it on regular basis and do a few jobs good than checking it daily and doing a lot of jobs "ok". Quality is more important than quantity.Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely, I see your point. I'm a rather forgetful person, and if I don't make a daily habit of visiting rescue I'll probably forget to ever do it...so we'll see! Anyway, I commented at ANI yesterday a bit, tried to help resolve a dispute/defend an editor being accused relentlessly of sockpuppetry. Hopefully I made a difference. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fourth homework assignment

We haven't officially "accepted" each other as co-coach/coachee, but I would have a much better feel based on the answers to these questions. If you prefer not having me as a co-coach, let me know on my talk, and you of course don't have to answer them. (Unless Balloonman makes you :-)

1A. Why are you an inclusionist?

A. I'm an inclusionist...because I see Misplaced Pages’s strengths in different areas to others. There isn’t really that much difference between inclusionists, deletionists, citationists, and everyone else – they all want this to be a high quality encyclopaedia. They just define “high quality” in different ways. Inclusionists realise that we aren’t Britannica, but that we are what our editors are interested in. Deletionists would like to see us writing about the “real world” notable stuff, and that’s fine. Citationists just want whatever they can see a source for, and that’s fine too. (And forgive me if I’m misinterpreted these).
I think that as an online project that has a lot of teenage contributors, it's better for us to be realistic to our writers and just write about what we like, rather than to be "forcefully" steered into Britannica-style writing about 600 year old wars and extinct elephants. Perhaps that's because I edit a lot of pop-culture stuff, if you will. I've got nothing against, no issue with, those who would prefer that we wrote about real encyclopedia things, it's just not my kind of thing. Something that does bug me though is those who rarely do anything on articles, but instead just hang around AfD endorsing the deletion of the majority of them. But that's another story! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to 1A I like your perspective, you've made some good comments here. I'm pretty sure I agree with you, with perhaps one exception. You stated it's better for us to be realistic to our writers and just write about what we like, rather than...Brittanica...600 year old... without addressing who the Encylopedia is for. The encyclopedia isn't for the writers (not explicitly anyway), it's for the readers. We write for others, not for ourselves (which is the implicit reward, and why we do it without pay). Deletionists and inclusionists, at a purely philosophical level, have the same endpoint in mind: a compendium of human knowledge that is clear, precise, accurate, detailed, sourced, and reliable. A gift, presented to our readers. Deletionists are trying as fervently as inclusionists to make it the best gift possible. And they both get carried away doing it (both groups "hang around at AfD"). There are as many "trigger happy" inclusionists there as well. As an admin, you will be expected to determine what the community of writers believes is best for the readers of the encyclopedia, by deleting what they tell you to delete, and by keeping what they tell you to keep. I've heard a lot of mumblings about deletionists having some kind of advantage, I would differ with that and say the inclusionists actually have the advantage (just ask, per guidelines, how do you close a no-consensus deletion debate? It could just as easily be the other way). All that to say, I'm glad to see in 1B that you would follow the community's wishes, regardless of your own. As far as closing XfD though, remember you don't have to close anything. If you see a debate that is closing (by consensus) a different way than you would personally want it to close, don't close it! Not necessary at all! !Vote in it instead. My general rule of thumb for closing any debate is that I am dispassionate about the article or the article's subject. When I'm closing, I don't give a rat whether article x gets kept or article y gets deleted. Just "following orders like a janitor should". I will not close anything related to topics I care deeply about. To easy to be biased, to easy to get challenged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to response... You've put it better than I did, and I agree with you on most points. Yes, the encyclopedia isn't for writers (it's for readers), but at the same time, the readers aren't writing it, and we are volunteers. Thus we shouldn't be forced into writing what they come here to read. But that's my POV, and yeah, I'm not going to go against the community's opinion just because I think differently. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1B. Will your inclusionist philosophy unfairly bias any admin actions that you may decide to partake in, as far as deleting pages and closing XfDs?

A. No. Mainly because I'm not that big on the whole inclusion/deletion thing (as noted above), but because I'm big on consensus. For mine, it trumps all. Call me a consensusist, if you like. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Why did DHMO RFA #2 fail?

A. Because I made some poor decisions which demonstrated some poor judgement. The Majorly chatlog, the TRE review, (I deny Majorly's 3rd point about me revealing one of his socks, because it's simply bollocks) the GAN stuff that Bishonen presented in September, and this diff, which I find rather disappointing in a sense (that people can't let it go even though I've definitely changed my behaviour in that regard. But it takes time, I know). I have seen numerous requests for an satisfactory explanation of the Bishonen evidence, I would intend to provide a full write up, at some stage...possibly somewhere in the next RfA. I don't know for sure, but I definitely want to put it somewhere where people can read it and consider it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3. You have earned profound respect from several editors and admins based on your prolific, valued, and varied experiences here, your terrific essays, and overall pleasant and refreshingly smart commentary and meta-logic. You also have some highly respected editors and admins that may never support you as an admin candidate. What have you done/what are you doing to maximize group A and minimize group B? (Short version of the question: What are you doing to rectify the problems/opposers in DHMO RFA #2?)

A. Good question. Regretfully, I can't think of much that I have done, in retrospect, that would have moved people from Gp. B to Gp. A (rather, I imagine some of my work has strengthened the stance of those in Gp. A, which is appreciated, but not as useful if we're thinking about it in this way). I imagine those trenched in Gp. B are there because of my maturity, and I understand that. So I guess trying to be "mature" and show it is a big thing, and that's something I have been trying and will continue trying to do. The ANI stuff, etc., that Balloonman has suggested will hopefully be beneficial in this regard.
I don't want to assume any bad faith, but I imagine there are some who are, or have moved to, Gp. B because I have opposed their RfXs...there isn't really much you can do about that, I guess. I'd rather say what I think, give my opinion on important matters, than be an admin now, because ultimately the project's future is more important that me being given the tools. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated and likely unnecessary, I really really wanna rename this page to Water/balloon. But I won't.  :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More Questions (can this be called the 5th homework assignment?)

1. What is your opinion on IAR? When would you cite or not cite it in an admin decision?

A. IAR is pretty darn useful if you want to improve the encyclopedia without going through pointless bureaucracy. After all, process is important, but process for its own sake should be avoided, and just getting the job done is generally a better solution than discussing it infinitely. Ideally, IAR should never be cited, rather, just ignore the rule! A good example of when it should be used, though, is when someone has made a report at WP:AN3, but where all of the warring users have agreed to stop and discuss. In that case, even though they've broken 3RR, a block would be silly, and ignoring the rule and letting them discuss the issue would have the most benefit on the encyclopedia. It should not be cited in relation to BLP content, or to OTRS stuff (I can't think of any others off the top of my head). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military brat (U.S. subculture) is another place where it is better to IAR. Generally, you don't have a dab (U.S. Subculture) on articles unless there are other articles of a similar nature. In this case, there isn't research on other countries but leaving this as just "military brat" would create other problems. Thus, even though the rules say not to use a disambig label, practicality says otherwise.

That being said, while ignoring all rules is an important policy, one should remember that rules should only be ignored in exceptional cases where there is a solid reason for doing so. The scenario you provided isn't breaking the rules, but rather adhering to the rules! While the templates use strong language, admins are not bound by them.

The reason that I find IAR to be valuable is that it limits wikilawyering. If it didn't exist, then the person who knew policy/procedure would always get his/her way because they would be able to point out all of the reasons why their position should be taken. But with IAR, the other person doesn't have to know every rule but can appeal to common sense. "I can't point to the specific policy, but I know it has to exist and if it doesn't then it should."Balloonman (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Where should IAR be applied almost never?

A. BLP and NPOV issues don't have any realistic IAR exceptions that I can think of. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

3. What do you think is the most important quality in an admin, why, and do you think you have that necessary quality? Please be honest...

A. The most important quality...hmm...well, going by my RfA criteria, it'd probably be an understanding and appreciation of WP:ENC and WP:IAR. Civility, AGF, and helping to calm situations are also good virtues. I hope others think I have these...I certainly think I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your answers. Cheers, Keilana| 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

:) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, IAR is pretty important to me...good answers, I'm quite pleased with them. Nice job. :) Keilana| 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Homework Assignment---Policy and Guideline Questions

Take your time with these:

As an admin nobody expects you to know all of the rules, but they do expect you to be able to research the policies and guidelines--show me that you can do the research and navigate them. These questions deliberately do not include links and some are deliberately vague and open to interpretation. If the question is vague, demonstrate your expertise of the subject by covering the different options. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay), please answer the following:

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

They are strict to prevent disagreements on what does/does not meet criteria, with the aim of only being used in obvious cases. Thus, if there's a disagreement on an item meeting the criteria between reasonable editors, the criteria should never be applied (rather, XfD discussion should take place). From WP:CSD; These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion.

Btw. tell me if you object/have concerns about me quoting to supplement my answers. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

Proposed deletion, but only for uncontroversial deletions. Anything in which there could be disagreement should go to XfD for discussion.

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

The level 3 assumes that the user being warned is not acting in good faith, and is a "cease and desist" notice. However, it is not a final warning, and so gives some leeway, if you will, rather than saying "right. You're gone."

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Cases of sockpuppetry/CheckUser related things, obviously. Other instances...if they've gone off the rails and started vandalising...if they're being disruptive through personal attacks, etc...that sort of thing. I good give a yay or nay on some specific cases if you like.

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

Some IPs are blocked for up to a year. However, you should always show caution becuase IPs can change ID easily. They should never be blocked indef. (I don't intend to do a lot of blocking, but WP:IP seems to cover it if I would ever be in a position beyond straightforward AIV vandalism.)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

Technically, if you revert 4 times you've broken 3RR. However, you can be blocked for edit warring without breaking 3RR (goes back to what you said before about wikilawyering vs. IAR)...3RR is there as much to prevent "27RR" (back in the old days). Edit warring is the real problem, not the number of reverts.

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

There is no way for me to be certain. However, some ways to check suspicions are using a tool which I've been searching for for ages but can't find...you can also request CheckUser, or bring your suspicions up at WP:SSP for discussion.

8 What is "rollback"?

It is a function (described here) that allows you to revert all edits by the last editor to a page.

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

Semi protection only prevents anons and accounts less than four days old from editing/moving pages. Protection prevents all accounts except administrators. Semi protection can thus be done for IP vandalism, etc. Protection should be used for content disputes and the like, or in the case of sleeper account vandalism.

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

If it's anon vandalism, and it's significant (ie. just reverting won't cut it) and from multiple IPs (ie. a range block won't stop it) then it can be semi protected. In cases of sleeper account vandalism to a similar degree, and where blocking the user won't suffice, it can be fully protected.

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

It's difficult to guess an IAR circumstance off hand...I've mentioned the 3RR one previously, my limited imagination is preventing me at the moment. Again, feel free to ask and I'll give a yay or nay. (It's always a nay for BLP/NPOV related things.)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

You can "salt" (WP:SALT) the page. I understand you can also protect against recreation (rather than the transclusion style of salt I'm familiar with on Commons).

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

They request a name change at WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U (depending on the existance of the target username), and this is processed by a WP:CRAT.

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Per WP:U, names that are offensive, disruptive, or confusing. Blatant usernames can be reported at WP:UAA and blocked, but not-so-obvious cases should be discussed at WP:RFCN.

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

If it's on a living person, remove first, then discuss on the talk page. In other cases, depending on how libel it is, it can stay and be discussed, or be removed and discussed. In any case, caution should be taken with all forms of libel, for legal issues.

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

Legal threats should be reported to ANI, and the foundation should be contacted. I wouldn't be certain in such a situation, but there are users who watch ANI regularly who would know what to do. Relevant policy is WP:NLT, and blocks per legal threats are common (until the threat is withdrawn).

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. Understanding and appreciation of WP:ENC and WP:IAR, ability to assume good faith and be civil, and a focus on article work are the main points.

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

Revert it - don't give them bait. If they continue, report to ANI, as I don't block users I'm in a dispute with.

Feel free to ask for expansion on any question. I've tried to not blab on too much on any of them, but I'm happy to go into more detail if you wish. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility, Civility, Maturity

Just a mental note that I'm placing here for a future nom. I've been recently very impressed with your objectiveness, and "RCM", with regards to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your view, and rewording of your view, have gained wide acceptance and it has even been suggested that perhaps you should write the "cabal" guideline. Most impressed by this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been suggested I should write the guideline? Ooh boy, where? :) I have watchlisted User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy and commented on it, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misinterpretted. MoP said he was working on something in your endorse this summary section, and then Andonic said "he'd support this as a guideline". I assumed he meant he'd support you as writing the guideline, but perhaps he meant MoP. I've watchlisted the User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy as well. Either way, your opinions seem to hold high regard there (and elsewhere). I recently saw an RfA where several editors said, more or less, per Dihydrogen Monoxide. That's a good sign! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, less confused now! Yeah, I went ahead and made some changes to MoP's userspace page, hopefully looking to go ahead with that some time in the near(er) future. Things going well. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

So, now that this has settled a bit (and it came and went very quickly much to your credit!), how 'bout a bit of reflection? Maybe a paragraph here about the evils of Wikidrama, the pros/cons with blogging Wiki-related issues? Disclaimer, I believe you handled the entire mishap gracefully and maturely. Disclaimer #2, I've read your blog, the relavent talk pages, ANI, so I know the "timeline of events". Disclaimer #3, as I've stated before, I strongly dislike all off-wiki "commentary" (be it blog, review, IRC or even e-mail) of on-wiki events/editors/etc.  :-) So, there's the assignment! Reflect! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew. This might take a while. Mind if I get back to you in about 24 hours? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I mind greatly. You fail miserably. </sarcasm>. Absolutely fine, no rush. (Wouldn't it be ironic if I rushed you in an assignment called "reflection?") Take your time, B-man is still OOT. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Offline reflection, which did take quite a while, follows. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've raised quite a good few points in your question, so my answer will be a good deal more than a paragaph.

Evils of Wikidrama

The problem with "drama" is that it easily detracts us from our goal (yeah, this one, which I mention quite a bit!). Human nature is generally to be inquisitive; to see what's going on, what people are making a big song and dance over. It's very rare that said song and dance is made over expanding and referencing an article - certainly, not if this is being done in a constructive and collaborative manner. More often, the song, dance, and drama is taking place over disagreements, arguments, or sometimes, just plain sillyness, often referred to as Wikidrama. The problem with this is that having a lot of people all come to look, see what's happening, and voice their opinions, can inflame the situation more often that solve it. Even people who are skilled at resolving issues can have great difficulty doing so (and sometimes, end up doing the opposite) if they're up against an inordinate number of people who all want their opinions heard, and acted upon. Wikidrama makes compromise, or "consensus", /much/ more difficult. "Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians." etc.

Wiki-blogging

It and of itself, I wouldn't call it inherently bad. We have m:Planet Wikimedia, after all, and it's not a house of abuse or anything like that. The problem with blogging, compared to onwiki commentary, is the level of accountability present - blog comments can be edited or deleted without a trace (more on this in relation to the specific case comes later), while (except in the case of oversight) this can't happen onwiki. In that sense, if you want to make up some rumours that Jimbo slept with Rachael Marsden, but later found that he didn't, you could erase this off your blog and pretend it never happened (there are still google cache issues, but that's the gist). So what this comes down to is the idea that the medium itself (althought it might not have been intended this way) is built towards a "climate" of not-so-much accountability for the things you say on it. And that is a problem if used the wrong way.

How I handled the mishap

I was quite glad when I read your comment here to see that the relevant ANI section was already archived. I also thanked El_C after he archived it, for doing it quickly and trying to minimise the drama that otherwise could eventuate. I had a few people I already regarded (the_undertow, Tiptoety) give their opinions (which I respect and have taken into serious consideration), and I've developed a good deal of respect for Cenarium as a result of this, and the cabals RfC. (I also appreciated Cohesion's comments...and in a way it was interesting to see that he had probably been around longer than anyone else involved...but that's another story, and I'm not trying to justify antyhing...). Something I would note, as mentioned above about the medium, is that I have not touched the blog post since. When it was first linked to, I could have edited out the "mean stuff" or just deleted the whole darn thing, but it's still there. Not saying that this makes it OK, and by leaving it up, I inevitably open myself up to more criticism in the long run...but by hiding it, 1) it's likely someone would repost the material somewhere else anyway, and more importantly, 2) It wouldn't be right to hide from what I did by abusing the power of the medium I used. It'd be like oversighting all the stuff that got my last RfAs opposed. There was no PII or anything else like that on the post - just my (sometimes harsh) opinions - and so it should stay as a record, both for others who wish to judge me, and also to remind me of how not to behave.

Anything else to say?

I've said about a million times in various places that I've apologised. I have apologised. Compwhizii subsequently reverted/removed his farewell message from his user/talk pages, and his comment here indicates he emailed me. I won't disclose the contents of the email, obviously, but the fact that he's returned is positive and is something I was (ultimately) glad to see. I hope he will be more careful in the future - I'm sure he will, he's a good kid. He's got the best intentions. We all do. But sometimes it's hard to see these intentions for what they are, because we sometimes act in a way that seems to be not-so-well-intentioned to others. He treated that newcomer poorly (I stand by that, and I think he agrees that he did...that isn't the crux of the issue. Certainly I won't lie and said he treated Drmiko the way we should all treat newbies), and I commented on it in an innapropriately harsh manner. I think he'll be more self-aware when communicating with new users. I'll excercise more self restraint in publishing my opinions.

We all take something positive away from this. Or, in the words of a song on from what will soon be my next FA (note; positive blogging!), "mistakes don't mean a thing/if you don't regret them".

Hopefully, that covered everything for you. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)