User:L'Aquatique/RFA FAQ

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; margin-bottom:10px; background-color: #9d00c4; border: 1px solid #9d00c4; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" Return to Thoughts
 * style="width: 80%; background-color: #e4a4f4; border: 1px solid #e4a4f4; border-right-width:8px; border-bottom-width:8px; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="3" |  RFA Question and Answer Session with L'Aquatique

What admin work do you intend to take part in?
I have a wide-range of interests and a tendency to wake up one morning thinking, “hmm, I should do this today.” At the current time, I think the admin area that needs me the most is WP:ACC- account creation requests. I’ve been working with the tool and group for the last couple of months (I’m S.A., for those of you on the accounts-enwiki email list) and at this point there are very few admins on the team. Just for those who don’t know, at this time there is a function called anti-spoof that automatically stops non-admin users who are trying to create accounts similar to existing ones, which is the reason 99% of potential users end up having to request an account from us. However, it is generally accepted that if the existing account has not edited in over a year, the new account can be created, so we almost always have a backlog of admin needed requests. I spend a lot of time on-wiki, so if I am given admin tools, I will be able to keep that backlog clear and make requests faster and less painful for all parties involved.

I also participate in AFDs, and would be willing to help close them, but only after I have spent some time as an admin so I can get experience in determining consensus. I have also noticed there are backlogs at Candidates for SD, requested moves, etc, and of course I will help out there whenever I can. I also would like to work at UAA, since I already have mucho experience working with usernames and I have the policy down pat.

I usually try to spend about an hour a week doing mindless-huggle-vandal fighting- I find it mellows me out (weird, I know). I also keep a careful eye on articles that matter to me most; specifically those related to Alaska, South Park, and Judaism. Anyway, I would also probably do some work with the admin-side of vandal-fighting; blocking vandals, protecting pages, etc.

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?
Well, I’m a member of medcab and I work on RFCs and AFDs, so hell yeah I’ve been involved in editing conflicts! However, it’s my job as a mediator or sometimes just the voice of reason to stay chill and not get too stressed. It’s only Wikipedia after all! That being said, I can honestly say that I probably could have handled a certain relatively recent incident better... I was co-mediating a medcab case and one of the involved editors started making personal attacks against my fellow mediator, even threatening to take him to Arbcom. I came to his defense on the editor’s talk page and very explicitly (but civilly) explained that such behavior, if continued, would lead to trouble. He demanded that I apologize for my slander, and I lost my cool a bit and said ‘it will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for being honest’. I probably could have phrased that better!! Anyway, the editor in question is currently in RfC for incivility and edit warring, so I was ‘’right’’, the question was, was I ‘’tactful’’? I’m afraid the answer is probably not.

If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
First, I would rollback the page to the version it was before the vandalism began. Then, I would semi-protect it for a relatively short period of time to stop the vandalism. Finally, I would warn the editors with the proper talk page templates, or temporarily block them if they have already been sufficiently warned. I would them go from there: if after the blocks and page protection was lifted the users continued to vandalize I would block them again for increasingly long periods of time.

What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A block is a technical measure built into the MediaWiki software that allows administrators the right to, at their discretion, not allow a particular user or IP to make any edits, except to their own talk page.

A ban is a sanction placed by the community through Arbcom or by Jimbo Wales (although I imagine he has better things to do most of the time) that basically tells the user that he or she should not be editing. A user can be banned from the entire site, from only specific namespaces, or even just individual articles. A ban in and of itself does not actually technically take away editing privileges assigned to any particular account, but according to policy (a flawed one, I believe- see below) all edits by banned users to areas they are banned from should be reverted, and blocks are often used to enforce bans.

When should cool down blocks be used and why?
When users try to trip up admin hopefuls with trick questions at RFA.

I’m kidding of course. I strongly support the policy of discouraging cool down blocks. If a user is so upset that he or she is violating policy- i.e. making personal attacks, legal threats, etc, after being warned repeatedly (or, in extreme cases, without being warned at all) then I would block him/her for that, but never simply to get him/her to “cool down”. Now, that’s not to say I wouldn’t strongly suggest that they stop editing for a while, take a tea break maybe, until their head clears, lest they say or do something they will regret later. But I wouldn’t force the issue with a block unless it got into the realm of serious policy violations.

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?
My action would largely depend on whether or not the material was referenced using verifiable sources. If the material was unsourced or poorly sourced, I would likely do nothing, as it is very important for BLP articles to be completely sourced to avoid problems and it’s probably just as well the material was removed.

On the other hand, if the information was well sourced with verifiable third party sources, I would contact the administrator who removed it and voice my concerns. I would never just revert because there is always the chance that that admin knows something I don’t. Better to discuss first, revert later if necessary.

What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
Ignore all rules is, in my opinion, the most important policy we have. There are so many rules, policies, and guidelines in place here that it is mathematically impossible (as well as probably futile to try) to anticipate every single possible situation, so the idea of a rule that basically says, “hey, we’re here to build a great encyclopedia, and all actions we take should be moving toward that goal. If, under unusual circumstances we run into a well-intentioned policy that obstructs that goal, we should ignore it.”

On the other hand, it’s probably the most abused bit of policy as well. Anyone who wants to invoke IAR needs to read the policy carefully and be completely sure it applies to that exact situation. The truth is, we’ve spent literally years crafting our policies, guidelines, and other rules, and IAR is designed to be a last resort used only under very unusual circumstances.

What is your opinion of WP:AOR and would you add yourself to it?
I think AOR is fundamentally a good idea, and while there have been conflicts and controversies regarding it, I do plan to add myself (I haven’t really thought about criteria, I’ll cross that hurdle when I get to it). The community gave me the tools, they deserve to take them away if I am acting in a manner contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Of course, I can personally promise that that will never happen, but in the off chance that I am hacked or whatever, I think the faster I can get desysoped and the matter straightened out the better so as to minimalize the damage to the encyclopedia.

What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
I support parts of the peaceful polling pledge, yes. My concern is with the last bit, the part about harassing opposing votes. Now, harassing people is never okay, but I strongly, strongly believe that WP is built on consensus, not votes, and it is very, very important that everyone justify their opinion with a good argument, otherwise what purpose does it have? I’ve noticed that, especially in RFA, people have a tendency to be more likely to explain their vote if they are voting support, but often when consensus is clear in one direction or the other, people just think it’s okay to say “support/oppose/delete/keep etc, per above” which, wake up and smell the coffee, means absolutely nothing! Asking someone to explain their vote in a clear, non-harassing way absolutely makes sense and so I do not agree with that portion of the pledge. Otherwise, I’m 100% on board.

You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
My main worry would be that the account had been hacked or otherwise compromised. My first action would be to try to get in contact with the admin- or whoever it is running the account- and try to find out what is going on, along with warn them that their actions may result in a block. If I got no response or an unsatisfactory response and the vandalism continued, I would be forced to contact a steward so the admin could be desysopped.

If an IP address is very disruptive, would you go to the point and block such an IP indefinitely? If not, why would you not block an IP indefinitely? Explain your reasoning.
No, IP addresses should never be indef blocked, because even static IP’s can change owners over time. While it may be easier to just indef block a very disruptive IP, in the long term it may result in otherwise good anonymous editors being turned away. I strongly support using long-term but not indefinite softblocks.

Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
Ideally? Never. I’m a staunch advocate of fair use images, but when whenever living persons are brought into the picture it’s basically opening a Pandora’s box full of angry poisonous vipers. WP:FU (I love that shortcut, by the way. I think it describes working with fair use images perfectly) policy states that a non-free (aka fair use) image of a living person can be used when an individual or group is retired or is no longer acting in the capacity that gave them notability and their notability rests largely on their appearance. In other words, if understanding of the article would be impaired without the image and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a free image at the current time, a fair use image should be used- but only with a well-written rationale!!

What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?
Well, I hesitate to state an opinion here, simply because this is one of those questions that I think should be handled on a case-by-case issue. I think the best way I can phrase this is: if something is vandalism, a personal attack, or in any way harms or obstructs our main purpose- to foster an environment conducive to building an encyclopedia, it’s got to go, whether put there by a banned user or not. I also agree that all processes- XFDs, RFAs, etc initiated by a banned user should be stopped unless there is a clear consensus already in place. On the other hand, if a banned user has made appropriate and/or helpful edits to an article, reverting them only because the user is banned would be purposeless and even harmful to the encyclopedia. If a banned user is making only appropriate edits, it’s been some time since the case wherein the user was banned, and the user has stated that they have “learned their lesson” would like to rejoin the community, I would support re-opening the arbcom case and unbanning them.

==If you were asked to review a block (according to the log, blocked for "personal attacks"), but in the editor's limited number of contributions, there are no personal attacks, but a large amount of edit-warring, how would you respond? What actions (if any) would you take? Assume the blocking admin is away on holiday.== I would assume that the blocking admin simply made a mistake in labeling the block. If the amount of edit-warring was sufficient to warrant a block of the type and length consistent with the current one, I would leave the block in place and contact the blocking admin when he or she returns from holiday to clarify the situation. If I felt that the block was not appropriate for the amount of edit-warring that occurred, I would probably ask another admin for a second opinion and then shorten or end the block, of course leaving a message with the original blocking admin explaining my actions.

Given that blocks can be (and often are) undone, would you say that it doesn't matter too much if a mistake is made (in making a block)? Discuss.
Oh no, I strongly disagree. Even though blocks can be overturned easily, they can still be upsetting, even insulting to the user that was mistakenly blocked and may discourage him or her from contributing in the future. I believe that it is the admin’s responsibility to be very careful when blocking and come right out and be honest and ready to apologize if he or she has made a mistake.

If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
Indef block them, of course! Haha, well, I would probably assume that the person is tired, in a foul mood, or otherwise temporarily incapable of thinking straight. I am very aware that sometimes the impersonality of internet conversations allows us to forget that we are talking to a real live human being on the other end, who might be having the worst day in the entire world and is inadvertently taking it out on me. I believe the best course of action in a circumstance like that is to stop the discussion (or at least stop responding), and say that I myself am feeling stressed and would like to continue this conversation in a day or so to recoup and reorganize my arguments. Hopefully, the other editor will get the message and after a short period of time we can return to the discussion and at least act like the adults we’re supposed to be!

==What effect does incivility among contributors have on Wikipedia achieving its purpose (and what is that purpose)? Is incivility treated more seriously than other policy violations? Why do you think so?== Incivility is bad, is basically my view. While the most often stated purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, encyclopedias don’t just build themselves and this is a community comprised of volunteers who have no contractual obligation to do what they’re doing- they do it for intellectual stimulation, for amusement, or for a variety of other reasons that I don’t pretend to know. Long term incivility creates a hostile and toxic environment and people start to think, “Well hell, I don’t have to put up with this! I’ve got better things to do than to spend my free time getting verbally abused!” And there go our volunteers. So while I don’t believe your garden variety incivility is the biggest threat to our encyclopedia’s well being (I’ll reserve that honor for users who make ethnic, religious, or racial slurs or death threats), it’s certainly up there and users that display a long-term trend of uncivil or dickish behavior need to realize that they are putting a bad face to our encyclopedia and making it difficult for the rest of us to edit in a stress-free and fun manner. That being said, people have bad days, off moods, etc, and occasional incidences of general incivility (but not the really bad stuff I mentioned earlier, there is no excuse for that stuff) are to be expected when thousands of people with differing worldviews and opinions have to work in close collaboration on often controversial topics.

Under what circumstances should a page be given semi-protection or full-protection?
A page should be semi-protected when it is receiving a lot of vandalism from unregistered or non-autoconfirmed users.

A page should be full-protected when it is the subject of an ongoing edit war in order to encourage the involved editors to take the conflict to the talk page, an RFC, or medcab. Sometimes, very visible pages (i.e. the main page) or commonly used templates that appear on many thousands of pages are indef full protected because vandalism to them would be very obvious and cause a lot of problems.

What, in your view, is the role of administrators?
Administrators are Wikipedia’s police force. They uphold our laws, protect our citizens, and generally try to be exemplary editors. Many people argue that administrators are janitors (oh G-d, weasel words!!), but I disagree. Since there are so many administrators and so many different administratorial tasks, to say more would likely be generalizing, but some things that I consider sysop’s work include closing AFDs, deleting articles considered CSD, handling blocks, deleting the main page, protecting pages, watching for problem behavior and usernames, and various other tasks.

==Could you please explain a bit more in detail your thoughts on AFD? And as an admin would you unilaterally put those theories in practice about only closing AFDs when there is clear consensus? What if that meant keeping an AFD open for weeks at a time?==

AfD… can’t live with it, can’t live without it. I firmly believe that it is the job of AfD to act as a giant swiffer mop and clean out Wikipedia’s disgusting floor dirt. I’ve worked with AfD quite a bit, and the vast majority of articles brought before the panel are non-notable subjects that were prodded and then contested by the article creator.

As this question was designed for someone else, I can’t really answer the bit about my theories… because I have none (other than that lovely metaphorical gem I offered up earlier). I do agree that consensus would sometimes require keeping an AfD open longer than five days and I see no reason why that should be considered a bad thing. Consensus takes time, and no one is in any hurry here.


 * }