User:Dusti/CSD Coaching

This page is for users Dusti and Kingpin13 to work on CSD related material, to help Dusti gain better understanding and knowledge of the CSD policies and practices.

Okay, let's take a look at the different criterion. We'll look at them one by one, and start with some questions so I can see where you need to review. Try not to just read the policy page and give answers from there, instead say what you would actually know (it's fine to read the policy page though, the idea is for you to learn, rather than to test you. Just make sure you don't give a misrepresentation of your knowledge ). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

G1 (nonsense)

G1

Question 1: Give a short summary of G1 in your own words:

Answer: Basically wlekjasf;kj would classify as gibberish. Only things that are literal nonsense can be considered gibberish. Otherwise, it would be considered something else (i.e. A3, etc.)

Question 2: Does a page with the content "hye dudes, wuts up? lol, had a gr8 night yesterday" meet G1?

Answer: No, that would be G2 or G3

Question 3: Does a page with the content "ghhbhjbvdjhvbyellow red green" meet G1?

Answer: This one is borderline vandalism. Granted the "ghhbhjbvdjhvbyellow" is gibberish and literal nonsense, but it would be up to the administrator deleting the page to classify it as either vandalism or gibberish (G1 or G3)

You seem to pretty much understand this. Basically a random string of words/letters without meaningful content. A couple of points about your answers: (2) G2 would probably not be appropriate, since the user isn't testing how to use Wikiepedia. Personally I would use A3 (chat-like comments). (3) What would you personally delete this under, G1 or G3? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have deleted it under G1. It is more gibberish than vandalism. It's not an attempt to really misinform or disrupt anything, rather than just random letters and colors. Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So would have I :). G1 is pretty easy once you get your head around it, and you seem to have. If you haven't already, I suggest giving WP:Patent nonsense at least a quick look over, this page is vital to fully understanding G1 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

G2 (test)

G2

Question 1: Give a short summary of G2 in your own words:

Answer: This applies for "test" edits. Basically, if I wanted to test out a new userbox and created a new page for it rather than using my own userspace or the sandbox.

Question 2: Where is it acceptable to make test edits (don't need a long list, use generalization)?

Answer: It is generally frowned upon to make test edits outside of your own userspace and the sandbox.

Question 3: Is a new page with the content "why was my page deleted?" a test page?

Answer: No, as you're not testing "how to use wikipedia" or other items. I'm not sure what it would be deleted under though?

Question 4 Give a typical example of a test page:

Answer: A page created by a new users that says "Did this really work?".

You seem to understand this pretty well again. Personally I would delete the example in Question 3 under A3 (chat-like comments) again. The mainspace is obviously not the right place to hold a conversation, and "chat-like comments" fits the bill for me. I'd also make sure to reply to the user's question on their talk page. G2 is often used as a fall-back when tagging pages, I'm not sure if you've done this, but you should be extra careful when applying this, consider if the user was actually making a test edit or if they were trying to contribute content which they wanted to stay. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

G3 (vandalism)

G3

This is fairly obvious, so we'll focus on the page move vandalism. Say a vandal has moved User:Kingpin13, to HAGGER?, which pages will need to be deleted, and moved, in what order, and under what criterion, to get User:Kingpin13 back to it's right place?

Should a user be stupid enough to do so, it all depends on what exactly was moved during the process. If the vandal was nice enough to not check "Move associated talk page", then you would simply delete the original page (in this case User:Kingpin13), and move HAGGER? to User:Kingpin13. Now, if they were pure douchebags and DID click "Move associated talk page", then you would need to delete User_talk:Kingpin13 and User:Kingpin13, then move HAGGER? and check "Move associated talk page". Whew. Now, the criterion that should be used (I think) is G7. You would be considered the author of the page. Unless it could be considered blatant vandalism. I think I covered everything?

And the reason that you CANNOT simply copy and paste the text then delete HAGGER? is because you wouldn't be moving the page history as well. The move function also transfers the page history. Otherwise, it'd be easy.... Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, although the actual criteria that I would use would be CSD G6 for the original page (to make way for a move), then move the page back, and then CSD G3 for the HAGGER? page, if a redirect is left behind (admins can choose to not leave a redirect behind). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

G4 (recreation)

G4

Question 1 Briefly describe this criterion in your own words:

Answer: Basically, if a page appears again that was previously speedy deleted or deleted according to AFD (or other deletion discussions.)

Question 2 Why does this not apply to article deleted under ProD?

Answer: I would say because ProD isn't a discussion or a vote. It's originally for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable. If someone recreates the page, that generally means that it's being contested or there is some kind of conflict, to where the best case (to prevent edit warring) is to simply take it to AFD.

Question 3 What effect can policy changes have on this?

Answer: Errr, if the page was originally deleted under has changed, then it could possibly be recreated

Yup, correct, the thing with ProD is that if anybody can contest it. So creating the page again can be taken as a contestation, which means deletion per the ProD would be inappropriate.

G6 (technical)

G6

This is fairly broad. Give some examples of when it can be used, and quickly summarize.

Generally when (as stated above) pages need to be deleted to make way for a move (i.e. if the page SHOULDN'T have been moved in the first place) then G6 can be used. It's basically like housekeeping and should only be used when doing such. I.e. if you accidentally make a page and you misspelled it, you could either make a redirect or delete that page citing G6 or G7 (which we'll get to next). Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, there's a quite large number of things which fall under this. But the important thing to remember is that the move/deletion has to be uncontroversial. I actually got this question in my RfA, you can see Question 7 for a star answer .

G7 (request)

G7

Question 1: Quickly explain what this is:

Answer: If a user has created a page, and is the only "main contributor", they may blank the page or add {{db-self}} to the page to request deletion under G7.

Question 2: Who is the "main contributor"?

Answer: The main contributor is meant for a page with a small page history. For example, let's say there are 7 edits to a page. 5 out of the seven are from me, and one edit is you thinking you are fixing a typo of mine. You click save, and suddenly realize that you haven't had your coffee yet, and that there was no typo. You rollback your edit or reverse it. You're still (even if you did actually fix the typo) not the main contributor, as you haven't significantly worked on the article, I would be.

Yes, but remember that the number of edits isn't important ;). - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

G8

Question 1: Briefly explain G8:

Answer: Basically, if a page was deleted and the deleting admin forgot to delete the talk page, or if someone has accidentally created a redirect loop, or if there was an image page for a deleted image, anything like that, it should be deleted under G8. (Kinda like housekeeping).

Remember that G8 excludes any page which is useful. This is of particular importance when using G8. Try and think of an example where a page would generally be deleted under G8, but would not be because it's useful.

User talk pages, or talk page archives? Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Although user talk pages wouldn't be deleted since users can choose not to have a user page, but they need a talk page. A good example would be a talk page which contains useful information for another article, or on which there is an active debate etc. - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

G10 (attacks)

G10

Like G3, this is pretty obvious. Imagine a page was replaced with a serious BLP attack, but had useful content in the history, try and think of three separate ways to deal with it.

If, as an admin, I came across something like this the first thing I would do is revert to the last pure form of the article. Granted, this would take a minute, but it's important that someone doesn't just rollback the last change. A lot of people that have rollback simply just click rollback thinking that the problem is fixed and go on, but it's not. With the purest form in tact, I would then consider either semi protecting or full protecting the page (Depending on if it was an IP/New user or if it was a user who was auto confirmed). If I was iffy about page protection I would take it to RFPP or see if there were any admins on IRC to confer with first. Sometimes the best way to protect a page is to block the offending users, and the best way to figure that out is looking through their recent contributions. If there was a long history of editing abuse either scattered throughout several pages over a long period of time or even a short spurt of a dozen or more edits just to this BLP attack page, I wouldn't have an issue on blocking this user without going through warnings first. After the page was protected or a consensus came about that, depending on the severity of the attack, I would consider requesting oversight on selected revisions, again- depending on the severity. These are all the possible things that I can think of on dealing with this.

Yes, that all seems to be fine. Although I was hoping you'd mention that admins can delete certain revisions of a page, without having to have the whole page deleted (you delete the entire page, and then restore the good revisions). - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

G11 (spam)

Question 1: Quickly explain this criterion:

Answer: Obvious, blatant advertising

Question 2: Give an example of a spam page (doesn't have to be word-for-word, just summarise the page content)

Answer: McDonalds in Tampa Bay, Florida is now offering buy one get one free McDoubles. Get yours today!

Question 3: Give an example of a page-"type" that is commonly mistakenly tagged as spam:

Answer: A Biography of company that is very detailed is generally mistaken as spam. Also new companies that are notable can sometimes come across as spam, when in fact it's simply a legitimate article that could probably be rewriteen just a little to make it sound less spam-ish.

G11 is often misused. It's important to remember that the whole page has to be spam, and has to be blatant. Even if the neutral information only amounts to a stub, it's better to keep this and just remove the spam. If the page isn't blatant spam, AfD or ProD can handle it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Looks like we're going to need some more review on G11. What made you think UsageTracker and Carico were spam? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tasks

Okay, if you want something to do this evening (for me), I suggest you take a look through the C:SD category, and try "saving" pages which are incorrectly tagged; remove the deletion tag, and, try improving, maintenance tagging, or taking to AfD/ProD (see Wikipedia:BSD and WP:BEFORE for ideas). If you're unsure of any, don't bother taking any action; an admin will review it sooner or later. If you want me to look at your removals, list them somewhere, and I'll look through them when I get the time.

List:

Altervision
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnivores (band)
Carico (changed the tag from -corp to -spam)

... taking a break to go to Busch Gardens

Okay, for Altervision, I think it's defiantly better to use ProD, since it's not completely (or even blatantly) spam. For Carnivores (band), you should remember that just because one user creates pages over and over, isn't a reason to not CSD tag them if they meet CSD. In this case however, since the band has been aired on notable radio stations, and have released singles, and are signed to a label, AfD is more appropriate, since this is a question of notability, rather than importance/significance. For Carico, I think either A7 may have been slightly more appropriate, however, it seems JoJan agrees that G11 was better. Maybe you could explain the reasoning behind changing it? Simply being a company, saying what it specialises in, where it is located, and having an external link to your website isn't enough for G11. If it was we could delete most of our company pages. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My Endeavors with WikiAlerter

Let's see how much you yell at me for this :) Lol (I'll list what I did one by one)

Dhrubajit gogoi For A7
George discan devereux iv for A7
S.O.D. Money Gang For A7
Zirconia Starfighter A7
The Pointe of St. Paul A7 - changed to ProD
Concealable Stab Protective Body Armor ProD
Test Double CSDx
2007–08 Cuban National Series A7
UsageTracker G11
2001 IIHF World Championship rosters G11

No problems with the first two. I'm not convinced S.O.D. Money Gang was a suitable A7, but since it was deleted under A7 we'll not look at that just yet. Zirconia Starfighter was correctly declined; this person has been the subject of multiple independent (etc. etc.) published works, so they pass NN which is higher standard then A7, so A7 is clearly not suitable. To avoid this problem in future, I'd suggest that you check Google and any external links/references in the article before tagging. If they exist and are independent of the subject, it's safer not to use A7. Also, since this person has performed with several notable DJs, this is another suggestion that A7 may not be appropriate. Moving onto The Pointe of St. Paul, 2007–08 Cuban National Series and 2001 IIHF World Championship rosters, one of the first things to consider when tagging under A7 is is the subject a person/animal/organization/web content? If not, don't mark the page as A7. Also, regarding the first two, when using "unreferenced" as a reason in ProD, make sure you have actually searched for references yourself, if you haven't, use {{unreferenced}} rather than {{prod}}. When using {{Deletebecause}}, make sure you don't use a reason listed in WP:NOTCSD, as you did at Test Double. As for UsageTracker, this is the same problem as Carico above; what in this page strikes you as advertising, looks like a company page without any blatant promotion to me.

Hope you don't feel like I'm being harsh on you, but I'm mainly picking up on the things you've done wrong so as you can improve. Some of your tagging is very good, and it's great to see you working hard at the new page backlog :). So to summarise:

Lessons learned

Check external sources (use Google if none are mentioned and you're in doubt) before tagging as CSD A7 .
Don't use CSD A7 for any thing other than people/animals/organizations/web contents.
Again, check for sources yourself, before using a prod with the reason "no references".
Don't use WP:NOTCSD reasons in {{Deletebecause}}.
Don't presume that company/product pages are spam.

Hope all of that helps :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)