User:Dgies/Admin coaching

=Admin coaching= Admin coaching from and

Terence Ong

 * Sure, I'm free now and just contact Fang Aili that you want to be coached under me and she can make the arrangements. I'm ready to start anytime. Just post any questions and I will answer asap. Thanks. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, for starters, I've noticed you are fairly active in AfD. Since ideally the person closing an XfD debate is not someone who expressed an opinion on it, how do you weigh the need to raise an important point in a debate against the desire to close it with the correct outcome?  Or is this guideline not followed all that strictly? &mdash;Dgiest c 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It really depends, if it's controversial or something then you will have to think about it. Usually, clear cut AFDs for example majority or all feels that the article should be kept/deleted then there's no need to have a point raised in the deletion debate. Not really adhered to actually. Ok, can you create User:Dgies/Admin coaching asap? Thanks. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 09:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It took me too long to notice this; gotta clean out the watchlist... Anyway, started the page. &mdash;Dgiest c 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping me in the loop about what you're doing. Good luck to all 3 of you. --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond
I guess this is it. If you follow these recommendations, I hereby offer myself to nominate you in a couple of weeks time (should you require a nominator, that is). As a minor suggestion, perhaps I could also tell that I believe that your chances of being noticed by other users will increase if you have a signature that stands out. Doesn't have to be a weird creation, but if you add some color/bold type to your signature, other users will be able to recognize it when they see it on your RfA, and remember that they've been seeing some good work coming from you. Works for me, I always remember users by their signature. I hope this helped. :-) Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Enable your wiki e-mail.
 * Done.  &mdash;dgies tc
 * Try to bring your edit summary usage for minor edits to 100%.
 * Enabled "missing edit summary" JavaScript warning, at 97% now.  &mdash;dgies tc
 * Increase your vandalfight, you're already a very good fighter, but for other users to notice your work you often have to be an outstanding vandalfighter.
 * Aside from nabbing vandals as I come across them, I sometiems use VandalProof. Do you have thoughts on any other tools?  &mdash;dgies tc
 * I consider Vandalproof to be the best tool, so if you're using it, there's no need for other tools really. You may though try Vandalproof2, it's another concept of Vandalproof, also very efficient.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Participate in WP:XFD more often, you need to show that you are aware of Wikipedia's deletion criteria, especially WP:CSD.
 * If something is up for AfD, but I notice it also qualifies for CSD, is it bad form to tag it as such? Or should I just point it out in the debate?  &mdash;dgies tc
 * If you are certain that an article brought to WP:AFD should be speedy deleted, then yes by all means it is ok to tag it for speedy.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid doing this. One warning at a time, please. :-)


 * Thank you. That was very well thought out advice.  I usually try to avoid AfD because it can turn ugly frequently, but I'm fairly involved in TfD and poke my head in at MfD and RfD occasionally.  I guess these might be considered backwaters of the project.  And regarding this behavior, I'm not quite sure on the "best practices" of vandal warnings.  If its a first offence, I usually use a level-2 warning, unless it is particularly bad.  But L2 warnings do not make any faith assumption1, so when I see multiple edits of obvious vandalism, it sort of makes sense to send a L2 and a L3 to try and say "the first one could have been a mistake, but the second one is obviously naughty".  What would you do if you saw a newly active user make several edits of obvious vandalism?  Just go straight to an L3? &mdash;Dgiest c 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even if you see that a user has a series of vandalism edits for which they have not been warned for, you just need to place one warning (not two or more for each edit). Generally, this is what I do:
 * as first warning (user received no warnings in the past 24 hours, or has no warnings at all):
 * - if you're not sure if the user is vandalizing, they could be just testing.
 * - if it's obvious vandalism.
 * - the vandalism is obvious and it's severe (I use this one particularly if I notice that the user has vandalized more than once without having been warned).
 * - extreme vandalism, "this is the only warning you will receive".
 * escalating warnings:
 * - user has vandalized after been warned with a.
 * - user has vandalized after been warned with a or.
 * When to report to WP:AIV:
 * User has vandalized after a or.
 * User has vandalized in quite a severe way after a or.
 * I hope this helps. :-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, RE: signature. You might have noticed I changed it.  If you are interested, there were some other things I played with at User:Dgies/sigs. I kinda liked the old terminal-style amber on black, but was a bit worried about markup length at 252 chars.  &mdash;dgies tc 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this one, although blue is a color that doesn't stand out as well as other rather unusual colors.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

March 5
OK, 2 questions today: &mdash;dgies tc 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you do if you have a content dispute with another user, but they do not respond to messages left on edit summary, talk page, or user talk page?  I opened a RfC, but what happens of they choose to ignore that too, but continue reverting while not violating 3RR?
 * 2) How do you determine "consensus" in a contentious deletion debate where there are references for notability, but those references are either of poor quality (say a small town newspaper) or the claim to notability is weak (first prize in an event of minor importance)


 * 1) Users are required to explain their edits when other users dispute them. If a user refuses to talk about their edits either on the article's talk page or directly to you, then you may start placing an appropriate set of warnings on their talk page (e.g. ). If the user refuses to cooperate after the set of warnings, they may be reported to WP:ANI for admin consideration, or even to WP:AIV.
 * I couldn't really find a warning appropriate to the feud which spawned this question, but now It seems the uw-ownX series is obvious.
 * 2)Closing deletion debates is at admin discretion. Usually the admin decision is equivalent to the outcome of the debate, but sometimes an admin may enforce their own personal decision if based on Wikipedia's policies. For example, if an article brought to WP:AFD is a blatant case of WP:NFT but the outcome of the discussion is "no consensus" just because many users in the discussion !voted keep because they like the subject of the article, the admin may still delete the article because the users willing to keep failed to present arguments based on Wikipedia's policies to counter the WP:NFT. Deletion debates closed by an admin that decided to disregard the outcome often end up on WP:DRV though.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So would it be appropriate to say that in contentious XfD's, just use your best judgement and trust that if you get it wrong they can take it to DRV? &mdash;dgies tc 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. But remember, only in a few rare occasions it shall be appropriate to disregard the outcome of an XFD discussion and enforce another decision.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was unclear. I didn't mean "substitute your judgment for consensus", I meant "use your best judgment at reading consensus".  &mdash;dgies tc 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you were clear and that's what I meant, "use your best judgment at reading consensus". I should add that you must also use your best judgement at reading lack of consensus. ;-) -- Hús  ö  nd  01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of AFDs
I tried my hand at couple few AfDs today according to the DPR guidelines on non-admin closures. In particular, see these edits: Did I get that right? &mdash;dgies tc 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Articles for deletion/Marching Colts
 * 2) * close as merge/redirect
 * 3) * Merge/redir already performed, checked for double redirs
 * 4) * oldafdfull on talk page
 * 5)  Articles for deletion/The Smiley Morning Show
 * 6) * close as keep
 * 7) * clear afd tag
 * 8) * oldafdfull on talk page
 * Yep, it was correct. Hope you know what type of AFDs you will not close such as controversial ones, those with no consensus and those that need deletion. Terence Ong 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
For an in-depth insider's view of vandalism hunting, see User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/The Rambling Man, on vandalism.

Hope that helps.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: I enjoy vandal fighting so I would start out with WP:AIV. I'm familiar with the blocking policy so I know when to block and when not to; I've occasionally cleared invalid reports and left the reporter a message such as uw-aiv.  I would also help with WP:RPP and its neglected cousin Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.  I've done quite a bit of CSD tagging previously and know the criteria well so I feel I could help clear CAT:CSD.  I might occasionally help with TfD, RfD, and MfD.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: On the more metapedian side, after stumbling upon Requested templates I did a lot of work clearing out old requests and answering more recent ones, and I like to think I helped bring this project back to life. I'm also proud of the templates I made for requests there.    More recently, I found a request I liked at WP:SPATRA and took it upon myself to translate the original es:Hernandarias into Hernando Arias de Saavedra, which I then expanded and added references; it was later featured on "Did you know?". I am also pleased with the work I did on Mother insult in which I took what was formerly a nonsense page converted to a redirect, and managed to make a well-referenced stub in an encyclopedic tone.  I also like finding references and was pleased when I managed to add this fairly obscure old one.


 * 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: One time I had a feud over table formatting where we both (almost) broke 3RR.  I posted a message on the talk page to request a straw poll.  It went against me but I could understand others' reasoning and accepted the outcome.  I've also dealt with an editor who kept reverting an article to their preferred version.  I made many attempts to get them to discuss it, even opening an RfC, but they never responded.  The article got fully protected and it seems the other person gave up.  I've had miscellaneous times where other editors made remarks to or about me that were either uncivil or failed to assume good faith.  In these cases, I take a deep breath, count to ten, and as calmly as possible, explain the motivation for my actions, citing relevant policies/guidelines.  I've found a dispassionate response works best to avoid escalating the dispute.  Lastly for obvious trolling, I fall back on some variant of Revert, block, ignore (where for block, substitute WP:AIV).

Terence
1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A: The response would need to balance the best interests of the community (freedom from abusive behavior), against the possibility this is an inaccurate allegation, and if true, the goal of avoiding drama by allowing the editor to save face as much as possible.  I would probably leave them a note, by email if possible, laying out the evidence, asking them if they are puppeteering, and requesting that they stop.  If they stop or provide a good explanation for why the allegation is false, I would let it end there.  But if they continue the abusive sockpuppetry or there are other questions of their integrity, I would probably post on WP:ANI to ask for a second opinion, being careful to phrase it as more of an inquiry than an allegation.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * A: First I would look at the deletion log.  If it was speedied for some reason other than G1, such as G4 or G10, I would do nothing.  If it was purely a disagreement about nonsense/salvagability, then I would restore it, make a procedural listing at AfD, and notify the deleting admin.  I might also perform some cleanup to remove nonsense. Obviously it is better to discuss something before reverting, but if as you say three or four people dispute the admin's decision, that's pretty good evidence the issue needs wider discussion, like AfD.

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * A: If someone has been blocked before for personal attacks, continued personal attacks can be met with an immediate block. In this particular situation however, that would look strongly like a punitive block, which is not allowed.  I would leave a uw-npa4 warning and/or report to WP:AIV to let someone else handle it.  As for the article, I would probably just take it to AfD unless it was blatant vandalism or an attack page, in which case I might use WP:SALT.

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A: As described, it sounds like something ArbCom would not want to bother with, as there haven't yet been personal attacks or sockpuppetry, and ArbCom doesn't like getting involved in a simple content dispute. The other admin's decision to refer to ArbCom means they think other avenues of dispute resolution have failed.  It doesn't mean other's (me) can't still attempt informal dispute resolution so might try to communicate with the one who was ignoring me.  Regarding the block, I would not undo it, but if I felt it was completely unwarranted I would express my concerns to the blocking admin, or possibly on WP:ANI.

5. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?
 * A: AfD is not a vote, and this looks like no consensus, but there are clearly serious concerns about notability. I would close as no consensus, but probably tag the article with Bio-notability and add any references provided during the debate.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
 * A: I wish there was a better way to handle the situation where an IP is shared by many people, some of them positive contributers and some vandals. This is especially common with university IPs.  It's unfair that positive contributers can't edit as anon just because they have bad neighbors.  Conversely, it's a big waste of time dealing with anon vandals who use DHCP to hop between addresses and dodge blocks.  I guess I'd say I wish there was a way to identify individual editors while still preserving their anonymity.

7. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A: The ones that come to mind are vandalism-only accounts (not the same as a content dispute), user names violating WP:UN, sockpuppets of blocked users, in case of severe threats of "off-wiki" action, or in response to a community ban. None of these can justify an indef block of an IP user, as IPs can change.

8. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * A: I don't relish conflict with other users, but I think I've learned to deal effectively with it. When someone has questioned my actions or motives, I calmly explain my motivations, citing relevant policy or guidelines.  If they want to debate something civilly, I'm quite comfortable with that.  If they want to be abusive, it's more rewarding to take the moral high ground.

9. Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A: I suppose I first got the idea when I was a novice vandal fighter and new page patroller and I noticed that CAT:CSD was jammed and WP:AIV was too. As a novice performing cleanup tasks, it was rewarding to see an admin confirm my judgment.  Wikipedia depends on the maintenance activities of non-admins to keep this place from turning into a big ball of mud.  I feel that as an admin, I could help provide positive feedback to others by making CSD and AIV a little bit closer to instant gratification.  Lastly, I report quite a few vandals to AIV myself and it would be convenient to be able to skip that step after final warnings.

10. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A: It is a technical position in the sense that is is a software permission flag which admins use to apply policy and enact consensus decisions of others. That being said, it functions much like a political position.  This can be seen both in miscellaneous talk page comments where users will threaten to involve an admin, the "Are you an admin?" question I've seen while offering advice on policy, the occasional attempt to use WP:ANI for content disputes, and even the wording of templates like the uw-speedy1 series.  While adminship is a technical position, as a vetted position carrying powers, it is de facto a political position as well.  Admins should treat it like a technical position, not letting their personal politics influence their admin decisions, but must be aware that they are being held to a higher standard than the general community.

11. Have there been any times where you were insisting on a certain edit and realized later or during the dispute that your version in fact had a POV problem?
 * A: I try not to get too attached to any particular version. The closest I've been is where one editor was kept reverting to their preferred revision (which had POV problems) and ignored all attempts to discuss the issue.  I'm sure the version I reverted to also had some POV problems but I was a bit reluctant to try and integrate the two into a NPOV version while the other guy ignored all attempts to talk.  I've also responded to some RFCs and they seem to turn out OK so long as everyone is acting in good faith.

12. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?
 * A: This amounts to trying to determine of someone is acting in good faith and simply has a strong POV, or if their motivation is not the improvement of Wikipedia but the advancement of their agenda. If it is a one-time edit, I would ask myself if any mainstream source would print such a thing.  "John Johnson is the worst football player ever" is an example of bias but not vandalism, but "John Johnson is a waste of skin" carries no serious argument.  It is often helpful to leave them a message asking for clarification and explaining the NPOV policy.  If they respond by offering evidence, then they are acting in good faith, but if they ignore attempts at discussion or reply only with more screeds "Everyone knows John Johnson sucks!", this suggests they are not interested in contributing constructively.

13. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about TFDs, RfDs, MFDs and CfDs?
 * A: I don't think I'd apply a hard and fast rule. Since the goal is to determine rough consensus (or lack thereof), the arguments raised matter too.  An XfD could have poor participation if few people understand or care about the subject, in which case relisting makes more sense than closure.  But an XfD could have poor participation because the decision to delete is so obvious nobody felt the need to comment.  Conversely, a "unanimous" decision could have been the result of sockpuppetry or canvassing. Lastly, regardless of participation, an article may be deleted if it unambiguously fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or matches a speedy deletion criteria.  The previous statements apply to all XfD types, though particular guidelines like NPOV may only apply to some categories.

14. Can semi protection be used on articles where there are many edit conflicts or when vandalism is quite frequent but not all the time?
 * A: Semi-protection is not to be used for simple edit conflicts, this generally means an article is under active development and should not be protected except in case of edit warring (which would be full protection). Semi-protection should be used when there is vandalism coming from many anon or new users and almost all recent edits have been vandalism or reverts.  Indefinite semi protection is rare and should be reserved only for articles which are constantly subject to heavy vandalism.  Temporary semi-protection should be used in case of a recent outbreak of heavy vandalism, but not for sporadic vandalism, as that would be in effect indefinite semi protection.  The use of semi-protection should be minimized in order to preserve the ability of anons to contribute.

15. How would you act, as an admin, to help defuse situations between other editors?
 * A: The most common ways to defuse tension don't need admin power. It's just talking to people, informal mediation, consensus building and occasional content RfCs.  In the past when I've seen people in conflict over policy I try to express sympathy for their position but gently point out policy and suggest policy-conforming ways they can get their point across.  As an admin, I would also be able to speedy-close WP:POINT nominations, issue blocks for 3RRing or personal attacks, or protect a page in an edit war to allow for a cool-off period.

16. Will you edit your preferences/editing to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
 * A: Already did. Edit summary is 100/100 major/minor.

17. Do you think discussing blocking of the established editors over IRC instead of WP:ANI is appropriate? I am not talking about the rare case when the editor is on the vandalizing spree warranting an emergency action. This is not what an established editors would ever do anyway.
 * A: I think IRC is fine for getting a quick second opinion, but someone should never be blocked "per IRC". Any serious issue needs to be discussed on a fully-public forum like AIV where evidence (diffs) can be provided and people have a chance to defend themselves.

18. Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR, WP:SOCK, etc) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fair use policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? As you admit yourself, your involvement in the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. How can you make sure you will in your administrative actions be able to understand the editor's concerns if you continue to stay away from significant editing?
 * A: I think that in order to judge something like an NPOV dispute or 3RR it is helpful to have been involved in a similar situation. When I've been involved in these situations, I generally fall back on asking for or providing a reliable source, or for a POV/style problem, asking for a straw poll.  Most conflicts can be solved by discussion and asking people to explain their position.  For something like misunderstanding of fair use, it can usually be handled by words of sympathy and a plain-English explanation of policy.

19. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: IAR is a reflection of the fact that for every rule there is an exception and that the rules cannot cover all contingencies. IAR could be read as a free license to act unilaterally but that is incorrect.  Wikipedia depends on consensus, so to reflect that, IAR should only be used when you feel there is an implicit consensus for that course of action.  If you have any doubt, you should discuss it first to obtain consensus.  If after the fact, there is any reasonable objection, the assumption of consensus was incorrect, and the issue needs further discussion.  SNOW is essentially IAR applied to internal processes.  It is used when a clear consensus has formed early.  It is not used simply because a !vote is lopsided, as a well-argued minority position can change people's minds.  Most lopsided debates are not closed early by SNOW because there is little harm in keeping them open the normal time and it gives people a chance to build a rebuttal.  SNOW is generally used where keeping the debate open is itself disruptive (such as something contrary to policy).  I am uncomfortable seeing SNOW-delete decisions unless it also qualified for CSD, as an objection could have been raised late.  SNOW can also be used for things like obvious bad-faith nominations, or nominations which blatantly contradict policy.  I think it also makes sense for issues which were already debated recently and there has been no substantive change in the issue.  SNOWing these saves rehashing a well-discussed issue and discourages "forum shopping"

20. For what, if any, reasons might you consider speedy deleting a page not covered in WP:CSD? (As an example, some administrators speedy delete dictionary definitions and editorial rants, citing [[WP:NOT], even though neither of these falls under a particular criterion for speedy deletion.)
 * A: Ones I can think of are where a page almost qualifies for more than one CSD, such as a page that contains some genuine/realistic attack elements, but also makes claims of notability but those appear to be nonsense. Another would be images uploaded for use in a single article which was speedied.  Even if they were uploaded under GFDL, yet another photo of someone mugging for their webcam is never going to be used outside of that article so it makes sense to speedy it as an accessory of that article.  Dicdefs, if they are already present on Wiktionary seem to qualify as an extension of A5.  A dicdef which appears to violate WP:NFT should be sent to AfD because no one editor can know everything.


 * Good answers and you applied all the policies and guidelines correctly. No worries on that. You can actually go on IRC and try to know some of the Wikipedians there and know how IRC is like. Terence 10:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am actually on IRC fairly often but have never noticed you, probably because of the time zones. I'm most often on from about 03:00-07:00 GMT.  I'll keep an eye out for you though.  &mdash;dgies tc 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I would only see you during the weekends and my holidays. Terence 05:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond
1. You're about to close an XFD discussion and notice that one of the users involved has informed a few other users of the discussion, many of whom then joined in and took side with him/her. What would you do?
 * I would leave that person a note about the inappropriateness of canvassing, and then I would need to do an extra-close reading of the debate to weigh the arguments against each other and be sure not to read it as a vote. Relisting the debate is a nice idea, but the damage has already been done so I don't think it would help.

2. Give examples of circumstances under which you would remove users reported to WP:AIV without blocking them.
 * The most obvious is where there was simple vandalism and the user had not been warned recently. This often deserves a uw-aiv to help the reported learn the blocking policy better.  Another is "vandalism" with warnings where it really seems to be a content dispute.  Another would be where someone had been warned for vandalism, did not stop, but only got reported to AIV much later.  Unless it appears to be a vandal-only account (not IP), a block then would be punitive, not preventative.  Lastly prohibited username reports which don't seem to violate policy should be removed, although this is obviously a judgment call and the reported should be referred to WP:RFCN if they wish to pursue the matter.

3. A user requests an article to be semi-protected due to continuous disruption caused by an unregisted user. However, you decide to fully protect the article instead. Why?
 * It could be a content dispute, not simple vandalism. In that case, semi-protection would lock out the anon and give preference to the logged-in user's version.  Full protection might get them to discuss the dispute.

4. A recent article about a primary school is tagged for speedy deletion under A7. Would you delete it?
 * As much as I dislike having lots of articles about non-notable schools, A7 does not apply to locations. I might take it to AfD though.