User:Asenine/AC

Checklist
Pretty much stolen from Malinaccier (one of my past candidates) :D Rudget . 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stage one - ✅
 * Stage two - ✅
 * Stage three - ✅
 * Stage four - ✅

Stage one
Have you ever:


 * supported, oppposed or "neutraled" in an RFA? ✅
 * listed a vandal at AIV? ✅
 * requested a page to be protected? ✅
 * had a name change? ✅
 * participated at deletion review? ✅
 * reviewed an editor at editor review? ✅
 * signed up for the Signpost spamlist or otherwise read it? ✅
 * use automated tools/.js tools such as TW, AWB, VandalProof, etc.? ✅
 * contributed to an XFD other than AFD? ✅
 * posted or answered a question at the reference desk? ✅
 * mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute? ✅
 * participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI? ✅

Stage two
The questions 1-3 (as you already know) are the standard questions for all candidates on their RFA, this being the best way to express what you know about Wikipedia and how that knowledge can be applied using your discretion or prior experience. Hopefully it won't take you that long. :P

Questions for the candidate

 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Firstly, please allow me to address the underlying question behind this - which is "Why would being an administrator improve your input into Wikipedia?". I believe that being an administrator would allow me to contribute more effectively and economically - both in article space help such as page protection, and with removing the incessant daily torrent of vandalism which Wikipedia receives thanks to it's fame, and the users who cause such problems. Being an administrator would mean that I could deal with these annoyances without the intervention of another sysop, thus both saving time and leaving the admin to whatever work he/she was doing before I called on him/her to intervene. Naturally, such an occurrence is of benefit to the whole encyclopaedia. To answer the question directly, my main area of sysop work would be anti-vandalism and spam. Whenever I open up recent changes I am shocked and appalled at the sheer levels of vandalism occuring - and I wish to stop that in it's tracks to the best of my ability. I know that one admin may not be able to stop it completely, but I will actively do my best to stop them from vandalising articles.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In my opinion my best work has been with helping newcomers and people who are unfamiliar with the new tools they have acquired. I have helped users out when they have been confused over boilerplate templates and article disputes (this occured with User:Susan E Webb), and I enjoy adopting users by giving them help and support. It brightens my life to see that I help out in the community. Article wise, I have created or significantly improved upon the following articles:-


 * Hazlerigg
 * Gosforth High School
 * Portal (video game)
 * Andy Luckey
 * Oxidizer (album)
 * Suture (album)
 * Initiatives of Change
 * Funeral Marches and Warsongs
 * Blood Puke Salvation
 * Sami Raatikainen
 * Newton Faulkner
 * The National Lottery People's Quiz
 * Lister Wilder
 * Lux (album)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have not been put under stress by other users before, but if I was to be faced by it I would leave them a notice regarding the problem, and deal with it directly and completely in good faith. I have been involved in only one edit conflict in the past over my addition of band logos to articles, but this was because I and another user (User:IllaZilla) were interpreting a consensus in different ways. The conflict was over soon after it began, as I backed down - I could see his point of view and I started to feel that his interpretation's end result was more of use to the encyclopaedia. This conflict was carried out completely in good faith. If another conflict were to occur I would discuss with the user why their point of view was as such and would quite happily back down as soon as I knew they were in the right. If I still believed I was in the right, I would discuss with the user how to resolve the problem in the best and most constructive way - possibly through a second opinion from another sysop.

Additional RFA questions

 * 4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: Banning is a community system, a way of the community removing a user's privelidges if it is deemed necessary. Blocking is a sysop privelidge that allows enforcement of these bans.
 * To steal Rlevse's excellent answer on my admin coaching page, here's a follow up:
 * A user that's indef blocked can be unblocked and readmitted to the community. A banned user has used all their chances and good will up and can't be readmitted (barring special dispensation from Jimbo or ArbCom--very very rare). A sock of a banned user is indef blockable on sight. Pretty much the same for an indef blocked user that is not banned. Rudget  (?) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A: Firstly I would discuss this with the other admin calmly and politely, asking their reasons for their concerns, and if we could not come to a conclusion, I would call in for an independent second opinion.


 * 6. When should "cool down" blocks be used? See link.
 * A: Policy says never. Common sense says all the time. Most blocks that occur on Wikipedia occur for a non-indefinite amount of time to let the user reconsider their actions. This, in effect, is a cool down block. See the discussion here.   Ase ' nine ' '' 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stage three
Breifly describe your time here, commenting on incidents that may have occured using diffs, like here for example. Thanks. Rudget . 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My time on Wikipedia has been mainly spent fighting vandalism and informing people new to the MediaWiki software and Wikipedia policies. I enjoy doing such things and will continue in the future. (You might want to provide diffs for this, it could in theory, really help) Rudget. 12:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issues I can remember having were that on the My Chemical Romance and other band pages when there was confusion over a consensus with User:IllaZilla (i cannot find the diff as it was that long ago, I will look again later). He believed that the addition of band logos to the infobox was against consensus, and I was opposed to that view. We worked it out eventually, and I dropped my addition of band logo SVGs on the basis that I could see his point, even if I didn't agree with it entirely.

The other one was with User:Omar otiniano about his confusion over the difference between SVG and PNG. It got sorted when I explained it to him. (diff)

Stage four
Here are some questions from Admin_coaching/Coaching_methods - an excellent area where you can brush up your knowledge of admin-related tasks. I will only ask a few though. :)


 * What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?
 * WP:AFD, and WP:PROD.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain how one goes about changing one's name (this question made me laugh :D)
 * WP:CHU, heh.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is rollback?
 * Rollback is essentially the fastest and most efficient way of reverting vandalism. Using it reverts the article to it's previous state.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?
 * Block per WP:NLT, but don't over look legal threats.
 * What types of names can be blocked?
 * The following types can be blocked:
 * Offensive usernames, which may cause offense or shock. Wikipedia is not censored, but there is no need for inappropriate offense.
 * Disruptive usernames, which are offensive, but can feature personal attacks or some feature that clearly is intended to be detrimental to the encyclopaedia.
 * Advertising/promotional usernames, which promotes (or implies that Wikipedia promotes) an entity.
 * Misleading usernames, which may imply (directly or otherwise) that the contributor is someone which they are not, that the account is being utilized by multiple persons or by a company/organization in whole, or that the person has authority which in fact they do not. Other username problems are covered by common sense.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer So many people can get this wrong and sometimes admin hopefuls don't know when to apply the correct discretion or when to ask them to change their username. Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?
 * Protection limits direct editing of the page to those with sysop privileges, whereas semi-protection only limits it to experienced users.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Make sure that you mention experienced users are registered users, there isn't much difference though. :) Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is 'experienced editors'. Newer named accounts cannot edit the page either.  a s e nine say what?  10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can IP addresses be blocked indefinitely? Or if not, for what period of time and why?
 * IP addresses can be blocked indefinitely, but it is strongly discouraged for obvious reasons (limits all users using that IP).
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Very well done, shame I didn't know that. :) IPs are generally only blocked indefinitely if they are anonymous or open proxies (but generally only with due consideration beforehand). Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?
 * Warn them for disruptive editing
 * Ask them why they are recreating the page
 * Tell them why the page is being deleted
 * If they are incessant and persistent, they could be blocked/banned - but only if it is serious.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Banning may be a little excessive, but generally correct. Rudget  ( review ) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Discuss it on the talk page. No matter how right I think I am, Wikipedia uses consensus.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Make sure to apply common sense when appropriate though. Rudget  ( review ) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I warn them for vandalism, and calmly continue the discussion.
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|23px]] Correct answer Good. Rudget  ( review ) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Area specific questions

 * How can you determine whether a user is a sockpuppet of another? (SSP)
 * You can use checkuser if you have privileges, or request it at Requests for Checkuser. You can also look for similar editing patterns.
 * Do you know how RFCU works?
 * Yes. (I am not sure what you want me to say, really! Sorry!)
 * Do promotional names get blocked on first sight, or do you have to wait for promotional contributions?
 * They may get blocked on first sight per username policy if it is blatant. If it is not blatant, then usually waiting is a good idea.
 * How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?
 * As the name suggests, the answer is 3. An editor can be blocked before that number, but only rarely, and it would not be because of the 3RR.
 * Well, despite the name, generally, and less well known, is that it becomes a certain blockable offence when there is four reverts. Make sure to know when 3RR applies (i.e. content disputes). Rudget   (Help?) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is certain at 4, but it can happen before then per WP:GAME, point 4.
 * Oh and also, I forgot to mention this - if you think the answer is four I may have read your question wrongly. I read "How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR?" as "How many times can they make an edit without breaking 3RR?".   Ase ' nine ' '' 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)