User:Unionhawk/Admin coaching/RfA Questions

This is exactly how the first three questions will appear on an RfA. Please reply so I can get an idea of how you rate yourself. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Basically, I want to use pretty much every tool in the administrators' tool belt. I initially had a long, my-English-teacher-would-be-proud-of-me answer, but that's pretty much what it boiled down to. Observing some RfA's, this kind of general answer is not good enough
 * A: I intend on closing discussions at AfD where a Non-Admin Closure is inappropriate. I already preform some non-admin closures there, but, obviously non-admins can't delete. I will also monitor Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, on the rare occasions that it has any requests, and reviewing requests for Rollback permission. As my Wikipedia experience grows, my interests in Admin experience/observations on where it is needed tell me I should change this answer
 * A: I have noticed a serious delay at CAT:CSD. When I think of speedy deletion, I sort of think of same-day deletion. Yet, most of the time, the only thing speedy about it is the fact that it doesn't take 7 days like the other deletion methods. I also intend on working at WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, among other areas.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am really proud of my work with RuneScape, which is currently up for a GA nomination. I have looked at that article in my early editing stages and thought, there's no way this is a Good Article, which, eventually resulted in it being delisted. Now, things have improved, and I'm just waiting for it to get reviewed. I also feel proud in my work with welcoming newcomers and convincing anonymous vandalism fighters to create an account, as well as converting a few vandals. Unfortunately, all of said vandals have simply become inactive, but, it's a little better than rampantly vandalizing Wikipedia. The GAN ended with a quick fail due to a rs? tag


 * 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: Not really. I have had to deal with a few disputes, as well as some userpage/user talk page vandalism, but, getting over that is incredibly easy. Either ask for a 3rd opinion, or revert and warn. Nothing too stressful. I am seriously done with scuro's behavior. Currently, there is an ArbCom case surrounding him, and, he is very likely going to get a ban of some form. He has officially exhausted my patience. My patience with inclusionists is also running thin, particularly the ones who hate everyone who ever !votes Delete at AfD.
 * A: I have been in multiple stressful conflicts, such as an ArbCom case. That one didn't cause too much stress, but I found that I stopped editing other articles, and missed the GA Nomination of RuneScape (which was ultimately quick-failed). I will definitely work to handle conflicts better in the future, since I'm not too sure I've handled some conflicts as well as I could have. Since this question is ultimately designed to see if I'm up to the stress of becoming an admin, my answer to that is yes.

Commentary
I see that you take pride in your work with RuneScape and a variety of other articles; being an active editor will always boost your chances of becoming an admin. You have good experience fighting vandalism, welcoming new users, and communicating with others. You demonstrate excellent civility and seem like a person with whom others would get along.

I've seen you on AfD a couple of times; to be an admin, you should get more experience in that venue. When participating in discussions, remember Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as notability, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view. Try to avoid "delete per nom" and other arguments listed at ATA, as you did at and. The best way to fully grasp the deletion policy is practice, practice, practice. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I see your point. Delete per above, per nom, and other arguments that are sort of habit for me don't really generate discussion, which is, ultimately, the goal at AfD. I could see how this could hurt me in a RFA.
 * I have also been confronted recently about CSD; how I have been tagging stuff as G3 (Pure Vandalism) when, as a matter of fact, it should have been tagged under G11 (Promotion) or something like that. Either way, it gets deleted, and the job is done. However, my slight noobishess as far as deletion discussions and speedy tagging could absolutely hurt me in the end.--Unionhawk Talk 01:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the CSD thing. I would recommend against tagging CSD's purely for strategic reasons. If you do a lot of them successfully, they will help, but not as much as participating in AfD's, which show your maturity as an editor and your understanding of policy. If you do a few wrong, they really like to pick on that at RfA. So basically CSD tagging is high risk, low benefit. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking questions

 * Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
 * 4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: A block can be for a short amount of time for general vandalism, which can eventually become indefinite. Blocks are made at individual admin discretion. A ban is issued by the community, arbitration committee, the Foundation, and Jimbo himself. Bans can range from indefinite blocks from the whole project, to not being allowed to edit a certain article for one month.
 * Good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 5. When should cool-down blocks be used and why?
 * A: Never. There is no such thing as a cool down block. Block only inflame situations.
 * Good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 6. You see a UAA report for the username "Foobar Records." The account was created 6 hours ago, and has made no edits. What action should you take?
 * A: First, I would check to see if this was a legitimate company. If it is, that would result in an indefinite block. If it's not, I would proceed to discuss this with the user.
 * This is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with it. However, the recent feeling seems to be that per WP:BITE, it is more appropriate to give the user a notice rather than a block. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional Optional Questions
 * 6.1. Would you ever block a user without any prior warning?
 * A: Only in the event of a blatant username violation (stuff that a filter would probably pick up on anyway). Like "ScrewYouUnionhawk" or something (which would probably be a WP:DUCK sock of another user anyway...). Other than that, never in very few other cases.
 * There are other cases, like a WP:DUCK sock (as you mentioned, but not necessarily with an inappropriate username) or an experienced user for WP:3RR (since they already know of its existence). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see... So that's blatant username violation, obvious socks, 3RR on experienced users, compromised accounts, open proxies, ect--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion questions

 * Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
 * 7. What is the difference between no context (CSD A1) and no content (CSD A3)?
 * A: No context is just meaningless... meaninglessness... such as "they don't like people with red hair and I don't like them" and stuff like that. No content is either purely links, see-alsos, categories, ect. (and is not a disambiguation page).
 * Good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 8. Why is merging and deleting not a possible outcome for an AfD?
 * A: If content is merged, the article is most likely a plausible redirect, and therefore, should be redirected to where the content is merged. Also, the license prohibits it, as deleting it would get rid of the page history.
 * Good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 9. A user comes to you asking why his article got deleted. You look in the log and see that another admin deleted it with the reason "Expired PROD." What action should you take?
 * A: Restore it as if he contested the PROD before the deadline. I would then subsequently nominate the article for deletion, with the original PROD concerns as the nomination comments, but a clear statement that I am neutral in the discussion.
 * Well, according to a recent discussion, it appears that such procedural nominations are discouraged. Therefore, only nominate if you believe that the article should be deleted. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 10. A non-free image is brought to FfD under the grounds that it does not significantly add to the reader's understanding. We end up with 5 people !voting to delete "per nom," and 5 people !voting to keep because it cannot be replaced with a free alternative. How should you close this FfD?
 * A: If the image does not add significantly to the readers' understanding, whether or not a free alternative can be found or created is irrelevant. A non-free image has to satisfy all ten criteria at WP:NFCC. Since it apparently fails criteria 8, I would close as Delete
 * Good. Few people can close this correctly. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions (normally from Coffee)
 * 10.1 If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
 * A. Deletion is normally a last resort. I would relist or close as no consensus, given that the article is compliant with BLP (which, if it wasn't, it probably wouldn't have made it 7 days through an AfD). If the discussion had inappropriate commentary, I would courtesy blank the discussion.
 * Hmm... This is a policy that I'm still a bit unfamiliar with...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection questions

 * Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
 * 11. Why are pages not preemptively protected?
 * A: If we fully protected pages as a precaution, that would contradict the openness of Wikipedia. If Barrack Obama was fully protected while he was running, it would never have attained featured article status.
 * Good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 12. An article is reported on RFPP for vandalism. About how often (in hits per week) does the vandalism need to occur in order to justify semi-protection?
 * A: The article has to be vandalized to the point where blocking all of the people vandalizing it would not be practical. It has to get completely out of hand, and not involve autoconfirmed users to justify semi-protection. I have no idea what "a lot" is in hits per week, but if 100 hits per week is a lot, then let's go with that.
 * Well, 100 hits/week is probably too high a bar. I would say 20 hits/week, probably, as long as there are almost no constructive edits. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Now I know. I had no idea what counted as "a lot"--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous questions

 * Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
 * 13. What do you interpret IAR to mean? When will you invoke IAR?
 * A: IAR means simply, that if any rule keeps you from Wikipedia better, ignore it. It reinforces that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IAR should be invoked when there's a rule keeping you from making an improvement. For instance, let's say an editor is topic banned from and article. Per IAR, he shouldn't be punished for reverting vandalism on a related article.
 * Good. Could you give an example of how you would use it (as in, action rather than lack thereof)? King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... WP:NAC is a good specific application of IAR, I guess...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 14. Some RFPP requests end up with a user being blocked, while some AN3 requests end up with a page being protected. As you can see, in some cases where an edit war is clearly occuring, there exists a fine line between choosing to block and choosing to protect. How would you decide which method to use in order to prevent editing?
 * A: If only one editor is vandalizing an article, that one editor should be blocked. If it's a bunch of editors vandalizing the same article, it should be protected. Likewise, if there's a large group of people engaged in a massive edit war, protecting the article would be more practical than blocking the editors involved individually.
 * Good. Just be careful - I might be misinterpreting your statement, but edit warring is not vandalism. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 15. You make an edit on an article, and another user reverts you. You re-revert, telling him in your edit summary to see the article's talk page, on which you initiate a discussion. That user reverts again without leaving an edit summary. You leave a note on his talk page and wait for a day, and he still does not reply. Now you revert again, assuming that he's given up on the issue. But he hasn't, and comes back with a revert. What do you do?
 * A: I would ask for a third opinion, and attempt further dispute resolution.
 * Somehow, I don't feel like this is enough... I'm probably just thinking about it too hard, but, I don't know...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's no one "correct" answer to this question. There are just some things that you should avoid: escalating the revert war, accusing the other user of bad faith, asking someone who knows you or the subject well to mediate, starting an ArbCom case, etc. But yes, going through informal dispute resolution is a good choice here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)