102. Oppose There should be no globalblock for these people. Would you want an unidentified user coming and blocking you from all wikimedia wikis? I wouldn't. Hamtechperson 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Before we get started, here are the standard RfA questions. Answer them to the best of your ability so I can get a general idea of your current activity; as the admin process goes on, I'll ask them again periodically to monitor your progress. Cheers. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism work is great, but keep in mind that RfA voters generally look for other experience, such as with writing articles. Have you made any substantial contributions to the project? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, here's a bit more from another admin's coaching process:
Have you ever:
– Juliancolton | Talk 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Answered. Ham tech person 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel an editor's age affects their ability to contribute to the encyclopedia? Why or why not? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you're interested in reverting vandalism, I'm sure you've seen many types of unconstructive edits, from the standard graffiti to the subtle fact-changing. Most unhelpful edits are exceedingly easy to identify, although there are times when seemingly bad-faith contributions are actually a bit more complicated than that. For example, when an IP or new user blanks a section in an article about a living person, it can usually be reverted. However, these sorts of edits require a bit more thought than your typical spam. They may be the subject removing incorrect or libelous information. If reverted and warned on sight, they can get frustrated, understandably, and quite a few issues can arise. In cases where you accidentally and unknowingly reverted someone's good-faith edits, always be sure to apologize and clean up after yourself. Any questions or comments? Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Once you've gotten the tools, blocking will probably become a daily activity for you. Hundreds of vandals are reported every day, unfortunately, to the point where even the current admins can't keep up at certain times. How many reasons for blocking a user can you list off the top of your head? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion is another technical function administrators have access to. Its purpose is to allow the removal of offensive, disruptive, or libelous content, or more commonly, articles that simply don't meet content policies. Deletion is carried out via multiple community-driven processes, which can take either minutes or weeks. The most significant and universally-known (at least on enwiki) means of nominating an article for deletion include speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. Images, templates, and categories each have one or more custom processes. That said, there are certain circumstances under which deletion may be executed even if not explicitly advised by policy; can you think of any? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
102. Oppose There should be no globalblock for these people. Would you want an unidentified user coming and blocking you from all wikimedia wikis? I wouldn't. Hamtechperson 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Before we get started, here are the standard RfA questions. Answer them to the best of your ability so I can get a general idea of your current activity; as the admin process goes on, I'll ask them again periodically to monitor your progress. Cheers. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism work is great, but keep in mind that RfA voters generally look for other experience, such as with writing articles. Have you made any substantial contributions to the project? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, here's a bit more from another admin's coaching process:
Have you ever:
– Juliancolton | Talk 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Answered. Ham tech person 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel an editor's age affects their ability to contribute to the encyclopedia? Why or why not? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you're interested in reverting vandalism, I'm sure you've seen many types of unconstructive edits, from the standard graffiti to the subtle fact-changing. Most unhelpful edits are exceedingly easy to identify, although there are times when seemingly bad-faith contributions are actually a bit more complicated than that. For example, when an IP or new user blanks a section in an article about a living person, it can usually be reverted. However, these sorts of edits require a bit more thought than your typical spam. They may be the subject removing incorrect or libelous information. If reverted and warned on sight, they can get frustrated, understandably, and quite a few issues can arise. In cases where you accidentally and unknowingly reverted someone's good-faith edits, always be sure to apologize and clean up after yourself. Any questions or comments? Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Once you've gotten the tools, blocking will probably become a daily activity for you. Hundreds of vandals are reported every day, unfortunately, to the point where even the current admins can't keep up at certain times. How many reasons for blocking a user can you list off the top of your head? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion is another technical function administrators have access to. Its purpose is to allow the removal of offensive, disruptive, or libelous content, or more commonly, articles that simply don't meet content policies. Deletion is carried out via multiple community-driven processes, which can take either minutes or weeks. The most significant and universally-known (at least on enwiki) means of nominating an article for deletion include speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. Images, templates, and categories each have one or more custom processes. That said, there are certain circumstances under which deletion may be executed even if not explicitly advised by policy; can you think of any? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)