User:Ruslik0/RFAFAQ

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

Initially I am going to work in XFD area, where I has some experience, and in speedy deletions. As I learn more, I will begin participating in other areas including page protection/unprotection, making changes to protected pages (especially templates, of which I have a good understanding now).

What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

My best contribution are presented on my user page. They include several FA and GA articles. I have also been participating in Sweeps and contributed to the improving quality of Good Articles. I often review GA nominations and provide feed back for FA nominations of scientific articles.

'''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?'''

I think I have not been in a serious conflict with anybody, partly because I am not a conflict person myself. When I foresaw possibly of a conflict I always tried to find a compromise solution (with due regard for wiki policies). However there was this DRV (see also this thread). I do not know if it qualifies as a serious conflict. In addition, a few minor conflicts happened, because I participated (and continue to participate) in WP:GAPQ/S.

In your own words, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia?

An administrator is an editor who made a lot of valuable contributions to wikipedia and earned trust of the community. As a result they was given additional tools necessary to perform sensitive actions.

'''A new editor has created a string of utterly non notable, though well written articles. He has not received any contact from the community other than speedy notifications. What now?'''

I think it is a good idea to welcome this editor. This can be done by an administrator or other experienced editor. The welcome message should include necessary information about the notability guidelines.

'''In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?'''

The relevant policy (WP:V) states that the content that lacks any sources can be deleted and modified by anybody. So that editor was right, and those disgruntled editors should be reminded about this simple principle. The consensus is not relevant here.

'''As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?'''

I absolutely agree that “it is important to keep a cool head”! However I can not give specific examples.

'''Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?'''

I will continue to write and review articles, so, if my RFA is successful, I will be a writing admin. Although I realize that I will need to decide how to divide the limited time that I have between administrative duties and article writing.

What does BLP mean and when should one ignore the policy?

BLP means that living people should be given due respect by editors who write about them. Special care must be taken to avoid inserting false information or violating their privacy. BLP policy is also connected to the existence of libel laws in all countries.

What does WP:V mean?

It means that any non-trivial statement must be supported by a reliable source.

'''When you are in a dispute with a user, and you revert war with the user concerning a page. Should you block the user if you and him both brink 3RR? Why or why not?'''

Administrators should avoid using their tools in disputes, which they are involved in. They should seek help from a neutral administrator.

'''When would you block someone for incivility? How do you define incivil?'''

The incivility often begins when instead of discussing the improvements to the articles or policies, editors begin discussing other editors. One of examples is ad homenon type of argument: an editor is a bad person, so all his proposals and ideas are wrong. Blocking may be appropriate, when incivility includes personal insults.

'''Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why?'''

I do not any have major disagreements with wiki policies. However I disagree with some of their interpretations. An example is sometimes overly zealous interpretation of WP:V, when sources are required even for trivial facts. I think common sense should be exercised when judging what should be cited and what not.

What is AGF and How do you understand it?

I understand it as a refutable presumption – kind of presumption of innocence. It means every editor should be assumed to be acting in good faith, until proven otherwise. Vandalism is an example of bad faith edits.

What is the difference between block and ban?

Ban is actually an expulsion of a troublesome editor from the community. It is applied either by the community consensus or by ArbCom. Basically when the community is fed up with the behavior of an editor, it shows them the door. Banned editors can not edit wikipedia even under different account.

The block is a technical measure that prevents an account from making edits. It is used by administrators to prevent further disruption of wikipedia. All accounts of a banned user are blocked.

Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

I would delete page tagged for speedy deletion if it meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion, and would not delete it if does not meet any CSD criteria. Hangon tag only serves to inform an administrator about objections from the creator of the page, or to ask for more time (A7 and A9, for instance). An administrator, of course, should take objections from the creator of the page into account when they makes decision to delete or not to delete the page. If the Hangon tag merely asks for some additional time (A7 and A9), it is reasonable to wait. However Hangon tag is not binding upon administrators, and does not prevent speedy deletion if the page clearly satisfies CSD.