User:Xcentaur/Admin coaching



OK, part 3! I've removed your older answers here and here, just to prevent clogging up the page.

Deletion-related

 * 1) You come across an AfD with 4 keep !votes coming from IP's against 1 delete !vote coming from an established user. What would you do?
 * 2) I believe it depends on the arguments put forward in the AfD. Whichever solution is logical and satisfies our policies should be considered correct. AfDs aren't vote based, so whether the voter is an IP or reg ed hardly matters. Again, IPs sometimes don't sign up simply because they don't want to, it doesn't in any way hamper the quality of their views. Similarly, simply because someone has registered doesn't guarantee that they're right. Each !vote should be taken on merit, based on the logic and explanation behind it. If the case is vague, larger community feedback and discussion could be required, for which the AfD might be even be relisted for consensus (if required).

Blocking-related

 * 1) You revert an edit which you believe to be original research, but after checking the article's history, you notice the same user has already made 4 reverts to retain the context. A discussion was opened at the talk page with no response from the parties. What would you do?
 * 2) I think in such cases, first it should be clear that the content is original research. Once that is established, I believe three main steps are neccessary. First, report to WP:AN3. Second, start a discussion with the editor on the article talk and user talk to get some sort of response. If the editor is wholly unresponsive, the resulting 3RR violation block would be deserved. Lastly, contact all editors related to the page to have a look at the page to check the content and go through the history to check the erring editor's contribs. Although this might sound difficult and/or time-consuming, (in general) there are only a handful of editors working at any given point of time on a page. It is quite simple to contact the lot of them to have a closer look.

Protection-related

 * 1) You've fully-protected a page for an indefinite period due to edit-warring. Shortly after, a member of the conflict confronts you and requests you revert to his preferred version whilst protected because it currently contains unverifiable or wrong material. What would you do?
 * 2) Its a running joke that admins will (apparently) always protect the wrong version :P What must be noted here is that it is not up to the admin to decide what is correct on the page and what isn't. A discussion of the content which the editors claims is wrong should be followed through on the article talk page. Once it is clearly established that the text is wrong/unverifiable/etc and (more importantly) the editors agree about what text should replace it (if at all) then the page can be unprotected and the changes made. Or if no consensus but it is decided that the text can be removed, then while retaining protection, the protected edits could be made (by any admin requested through template-editprotected).
 * 3) You wish to copyedit a certain paragraph in an article, but it has been fully-protected due to disputes. What would you do?
 * 4) So long as it is only a copy-edit and nothing related to the content, such an edit is simple to make. Copy the text/markup to a text-file and make the changes there. Go to the article talk page and enter the template and explain what changes have been made and copy-paste the copyedited version onto the talk page. Some admin passing by would definitely change it at some point.

Requests
Please add a thorough explanation of the decision and cite the appropriate criteria

CSD

 * The following are examples of CAT:CSD requests (add (d) for deleting, (l) for listing at a deletion forum, and (r) for removing the tag).
 * 1) An image has been tagged for deletion as lacking a fair use rationale, but an editor adds . The usual seven days period has passed.
 * 2) Request further clarification within a week. If nothing reasonable comes up, delete.
 * 3) Okay, fair enough. I would delete, but I'm rather agressive when it comes to fair use, I've been told ;)
 * 4) An editor tags an article which was only edited by himself with . After looking at it, you notice it perfectly meets our policy and has been on for a while.
 * 5) Keep. While WP editors have the right to vanish, they do not have the right to delete individuals with articles on a whim. It would be incorrect to delete an article which satisfies our policies, so I would say keep.
 * 6) Absolutely. When an editor releases their text under the GFDL, they do not own it anymore.

AIV

 * The following are examples of WP:AIV requests (add (b) for blocking, and (r) for removing).
 * 1) A IP has been blocked a month ago for vandalism, and now began vandalizing again, but this time had only received a level 4 warning.
 * 2) Warn once more then block if required - assuming that the vandalism did deserve a level 4, and it was continous vandalism within that time period, the IP should be blocked. This does not mean that it is the same individual as a month ago, just that serious vandalism should be dealt with seriously.
 * 3) Ok.
 * 4) A registered user vandalized past level 4 and hasn't been previously blocked.
 * 5) B - There are three possibilities here. One, vandalism only account. Block. Two, registered long term user suffering burnout and goes on rampage. Block. Three, account hacked. Block. Of these, I feel the second case could be further investigated if needed - supporting/encouraging the burnout editor to be constructive and not destructive. In my experience, hacked accounts are rarely returned and it might be wiser for the editor to start fresh.
 * 6) Ok.

RFPP

 * The following are examples of WP:RFPP requests (add (p) for fully-protecting, (s) for semi-protecting, (m) for move-protecting, and (d) for declining).
 * 1) An editor requests semi-protected for a page which was semi-protected 3 times during the last month, each time resulting in a large amount of vandalism whenever expired.
 * 2) D - only if there is current vandalism. If there is a lot of vandalism at the moment, then S again. On the other hand, if it particularly severe vandalism, then P for a short while.
 * 3) OK, but why fully protect? That shuts the article off to a very small group of editors.
 * 4) P for a short while has several advantages - one, the vandal sees that zie cannot do any harm to that particular article; two, if it is an article frequently targeted by vandals and has had semi-prot several times, it might make sense to full-prot it - bandwidth saving, reduction of reverts, time saving on the part of the editors who don't need to continously look over it on their watchlists. Content improvement can take place on seperate sub-pages/talk page discussion. Article can also be unprot later, thats why I would not fullprot it for too long. xC | ☎
 * 5) An editor requests semi-protection for an article edit-warred solely by IPs.
 * 6) S - doesn't let the IPs war, and allows them to discuss things over. Of course, if they all decide to sign up and then hit the battlefield, P might be neccessary.
 * 7) OK, except this rather smacks of 'anonymous users aren't as important as registered users - their disputes aren't as pressing as ours'. I haven't come across such a case, but if I did, I would probably protect fully. Probably. It's a bit of a gray area.
 * 8) Exactly. I wasn't all too sure about this myself, but since it was mentioned in the article that only IPs were hitting it, I figured at least an S would end those issues, giving at least the registered users a chance to improve the article (which would be denied by P) xC | ☎
 * 9) An editor requests semi-protection for a book that would be advertised at a popular TV show the next day.
 * 10) D - protection is not a measure to be taken in advance.
 * 11) Excellent.

20 Questions :)
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: I would be very careful in the situation. Its very rare for an an experienced editor to use sockpuppets, and it wouldn't be right to make allegations without proof. If possible, I would discuss it with the editor. I would discuss the matter with more experienced admins and file an RCU, and if the CU results are clear about abuse, then definitely take the matter to ArbCom.
 * OK, although it's not as rare as you might think... we've had some incidents lately with admins abusing multiple accounts and getting desysopped. There are probably many users who do, but obviously finding them out would involve a lot of time and effort, and a lot of privacy invasion.
 * Riana said I could possibly pop in and give a couple of thoughts, if that's OK with you. Most of this is just personal interpretation of the situations, which makes it no more or no less correct than your response. I just thought I'd throw some ideas around and see what you thought of it. By the way, one the whole, a very good set of answers to some pretty difficult questions.  Daniel  07:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With this one, I wouldn't discuss it with more experienced administrators. Administrators are known gossipers, unless you know and trust them very well. I figure that, given the question wording, this is the result of conclusive behaviour or trends. I would ask for a private checkuser, outlining the case to them and showing how such a check meets one of the code letters at WP:RFCU. If it comes back as a match, the checkuser will generally refer the evidence to the Arbitration Committee via their private mailing, such as what happened with Runcorn. Daniel
 * Thank you for having a look, you're welcome to pop by anytime :)
 * I took note of your comment very seriously. You're right, it is possible for things to hit the gossip-mills, which is definitely not a good thing. I'll do as you said above, it keeps things low profile, no doubt. Also, in case I'm wrong about the CU, at least there won't be any noise in public. I hadn't thought what happens if things go awry. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) xC | ☎

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: Talk things over with the admin, requesting zir to restore the page. If the admin disagrees, request a deletion review. If indeed the page deserved to be kept, then the review process will ensure it is restored.
 * Okay. Just don't restore it yourself! Bad, bad idea :) Riana
 * If the administrator disagrees, my next step would be to ask them what would need to be fixed to make the article no longer deletable under the criteria they used. If they respond with some things that you find acceptable, ask the deleting administrator to undelete it and move it to your userspace, where you can work on. If they continue the stand-off, then I would take it to DRV like you. Daniel
 * Noted. Point about shifting it to userspace, I had thought that might be controversial in case of pages with controversial content. Thats the only reason I hadn't mentioned it anywhere in the answer...then again, if its in userspace, theres no harm done, I guess. xC

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: Assuming that the speedied articles were patent nonsense/attack pages/vandalism/etc then the anon is merely creating trouble and should be blocked. Here the previous block doesn't carry much weightage since it might be another person this time round. If it is a vague matter, or an issue related to say notability, or such disputes - I drop a note to the anon pointing zir to the right policies/guidelines to look up and leave a warning for the vandalism. If the vandalism is repeated, then block. Either way, if I wasn't sure or had any hesitation about it, I would immediately seek guidance of other admins. I am sure their experience in such matters would guide me right.
 * Yep, OK. I don't see it as a sign of weakness that you wish to ask for help... it's a collaborative project, and no one should feel like they have to make every decision solely on their own steam. Riana
 * Anonymous users can't create articles, I believe. Otherwise, nothing wrong with this :) Daniel
 * I had thought if an anon clicks a redlink, zie would end up with an empty page to work on and then save. I honestly don't know if thats changed anytime recently. xC
 * Nope, anons can't start pages thank God! ;) Another stolen question, by the way, sorry about the mistake in it... Riana

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: I feel such a matter doesn't need to be taken to ArbCom in the first place. I would mediate, but after full-protecting the article for a week (to stop warring). I wouldn't block the parties involved, so that they can discuss matters on the article/user talk page and clear things out. If the warring continues/hostility or the situation escalates, I may place a short block to let things cool down.
 * A: On the other hand, if the other admin has taken things to ArbCom, I would definitely respect the other admin's decision. Once I understand things properly from both sides and the proper chain of events, I'd give my comments in RFAR. If ArbCom rejects the case, then I would suggest going through the usual channels of talk page discussion to resolve the dispute. Whatever the issue is, both sides willing, an amicable solution can be reached through dialogue.
 * Try to avoid mediating a dispute which you've protected the article in. Some users don't appreciate the concept of The Wrong Version, and may consider you biased if you happened to protect the article on the "other sides'" version. Also, blocking participants can also cause similar angst and make them view you as the mediator in a non-impartial way. Daniel
 * Very true. I'll make sure to steer clear of disputes in which I've protected an article. xC

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: Firstly the evidence they give must itself satisfy WP:RS. Secondly we would have to make sure that none of it is WP:OR. I would relist to allow a larger number of people to have a look at it, and if there is still no clarity then close the AfD as No consensus. At a later point of time, if things become clearer then we can go about it the right way.
 * How long would you let the AfD continue without clarity before closing it as ncs?
 * About a week, I think. Or can it be allowed to hang on for longer? xC
 * You could let it go on for longer, but I don't see much point in letting a discussion run stagnant. One of the great things about Wikipedia, in my opinion, is that we have time limits for important things. It forces us to be decisive about things. Riana

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
 * A: Theres not much I would like to change, except one. Theres a general tendency of leniency towards vandals, which is counter-productive. I've seen vandals making half a dozen vandalistic edits, get the respective warnings, to then get a final warning, and only after that get blocked. Blocks are preventive in nature, so once it is clear that an IP or user is intent on vandalising, we should not delay in applying them. That does not make us trigger happy, the fact remains that playing laser-tag with vandals will not help the project. We should do our best to allow the editors and well-meaning anons to contribute, without having pages replaced with poop or LOLZ HAHA KING KONG WAS HERE or other such disruption. That is perhaps the only thing that I feel might need a look at.
 * The above examples seems to be 'test' vandalism, which can actually form a good introduction to MediaWiki. Does the no-tolerance angle you take cover testing as well as malicious vandalism? Daniel
 * Not at all. Testing is fine, I assume good faith. No doubt there, at all. The thing is, someone replacing a page once with poop may have made a mistake or din't mean to throw out the content, zie'll get the test1 message stating []...Please experiment in the Sandbox. Thank you. and if they mean well, they'll stop emptying out the page and instead will learn more and read more and edit more and be a true part of Wikipedia. On the other hand, someone replacing the same page five times with poop even after the warnings clearly isn't here to help out and should be dealt with as neccessary. I meant to say that once its clear that the editor (reg/anon) isn't here to help out the project, we shouldn't be lenient enough to let em run amok. A short block ensures that the article(s) aren't disrupted further. At the same time, it shows we deal with vandals seriously. After all, blocks are preventive in nature, and once we know that the intentions are to damage, then preventive action should be taken as soon as possible. Possibly the examples brought things out differently from what I meant - my bad. xC
 * OK, for a vicious vandal-blocking admin who hangs out at AIV all day, this looks fine ;) Daniel is more of a problem-solving type :) Riana

7. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A: I would first like to say that indef blocking a user is a serious step and shouldn't be taken lightly, so without direction from ArbCom I would be hesitant to do something this harsh directly. However it is merited in some situations. For clear vandalism of a continous nature, recurring disruption, hotility to other editors/threats/personal attacks, sockpuppetry/spamming/inapproproate usernames, or any other such negative editing over an extended period of time. In other words, if a registered user is clearly working against the project and there is evidence of this, then it becomes a case for indef block.
 * Which of the above examples apply to established editors, and which don't? Daniel
 * All of them apply to all registered editors - whether newly registered or old time veterans. Disruption is disruption, regardless of who does it. IPs cannot be indef blocked. xC
 * Hmmm, OK. Something about this answer makes me uncomfortable, I'll return to it later and see if I can articulate myself better then ... Riana
 * On further thought... my discomfort about this answer may have been caused by an incident which occurred prior to my own RfA, and which may have indeed influenced the outcome of my RfA (I could tell you more in private, if you like). The answer seems fine to me now :) Riana

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: Editor burnout is bad enough, but it is more disturbing when an admin loses control, simply because of the greater damage they can cause. I am well aware of this, having seen several editors leave WP and seeing recent problems related to an admin on rampage. I ensure I don't edit when I'm stressed, to be honest. Its self defeating. In case of content disputes or any other issue, it makes more sense to walk away for a while and get a fresh perspective. I've done this in the past and found it to be very helpful, and also allows the other side to cool down. I don't think stress is an issue with me, no, and I'm quite sure I'd be able to handle the additional responsiblity. At the end of the day, we're all volunteers here, so there isn't much to stress about.
 * I wish everyone thought that way :) Riana

9. Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A: In two words - to help. I've been around here for a long time, as a registered user and before that as an anon, and I've seen how things go. Often similar issues eat into a lot of time. Backlogs are ever present. Vandals seem to exponentially increase every day. As an admin, you get a few more buttons to help the community. Whether it be clearing backlogs, blocking obvious vandals, helping out disputes, or any other responsibility that comes my way, I would like to help the project in whatever small way I can. Wikipedia has transformed the dozens of unproductive hours I'd waddle through into something more useful, and taught me much, in terms of knowledge as well as dealing better with people, so I'd also like to take this opportunity to give something back to a community which has given me much.
 * So, it's not just your burning desire to take over the world? :) Riana

10. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A: I believe its both, considering the sort of responsibility that it is. Although, it c(sh)ould be considered more technical, and less political. It is possible to be a good admin without being political, but the technical responsibility cannot be ignored.
 * 'Political position' as in 'they are forced to act in a politically-correct way to effectively use their technical ability', or as in 'position of heightened political position'? Daniel
 * I believe its required rather than forced to act in a politically-correct way to effectively use their technical ability. At the same time, they do fall into more politics (in general) and being administrators does put them in a heightened political position in such matters. Both, I'd say. Although if I could, I would choose the first over the second choice exclusive, WikiPolitics isn't my forte. xC
 * OK. It becomes political when you're in a dispute though. I have sometimes noticed that people tread carefully around people with a block button in their armoury. I personally try not to make people feel as though they have to treat me differently because I have a few extra tabs. Other admins don't, sadly. Riana

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: If there is a content section that I don't agree with, I first post a note on the talk page. If no-one answers or if the other editors agree, then I go ahead and make the changes. To reply to this question, I would have to say no, there haven't been such occasions.
 * Tricky question because it's often hard to recognise a POV problem in your own edits :) Riana

12. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?
 * A: To me extreme POV pushing is a form of vandalism simply because of the disruption it causes. We can initiate a discussion related to the content and discuss there what form the content should take and why. Clearly extremism has no place in an encyclopedia, where we should strive to provide a balanced view free from personal biases. The editor must realise that, and do zir best to improve the article aside from zir own personal views. If the editor intentionally disrupts the progress of the article, keeps changing it to a skewed bias, or halts improvement of the article in any way, I would consider it a form of vandalism.
 * Is POV-pushing after warnings any different to POV-pushing before it, especially when applied to the general Wikipedia definition of vandalism? Daniel
 * Allow me to quote Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. - WP:VANDAL
 * POV-pushing after warnings is an intentional addition to a page which disturbs its NPOV and compromises the quality of the content. To me, POV-pushing after warnings is at the same level as vandalism. xC
 * I'm happy with that answer. Riana

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: To be honest, no. It completely depends on the quality of opinions offered, and not simply quantity. For example, one good suggestion can swing an entire discussion one way. These are not vote(ie.numerical count) based procedures. While we can argue that a certain number of !votes may be required to obtain consensus, it is difficult to set an exact number. Still, for a run of the mill XfD I'd say at least a half dozen people should have had a say. In the end consensus should matter more than the number of !votes, as consensus is the fundamental ideal of WP.
 * What about IfD's? Daniel
 * I don't have much knowledge about IfDs,to be completely honest. Haven't had much work there. Even then, I'd say this goes into a case by case thing. For example, Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg had an IfD that went into dozens of people commenting. Others were resolved within two individuals. Considering most IfDs end with just one persons comment, I'd say at least three sets of eyes is a good number to look at. xC
 * Okay. Riana

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: I feel here it comes down to a case by case. Semi-protection is not for editing disputes, where full-protection would be more effective by locking the page and forcing discussion on the talk page. Frequent, rather incessant, vandalism on a page means semi-protection (if not full) does make sense.
 * OK, cool. I'm happy with your interpretation of the protection policy, at this point. Riana

15. How would you act, as an admin, to help defuse situations between other editors?
 * A: I would request the disruptive editor(s) to make note of WP:POINT. Having a calm and civil discussion about the problem would be more productive. In case of continued disruption, or persistent refusal to co-operate, a short block might be neccessary.
 * In your opinion, how effective are these types of blocks on experienced contributors? Daniel
 * Good question, made me think, that did. I'd say it depends on the individual. Some cases end up escalating. Some are left bewildered that in trying to help content they ended up being blocked. I honestly think that, if for nothing else, blocks help by forcing the other person to think about what happened. If you can't edit/revert war and you spend that free time trying to understand the situation better, you might gain a fresh perspective and come back to things a lot more calmer. No doubt blocks have different effects on different contributors, but I'd say an experienced contributor would learn from the experience and ensure the same mistakes/actions aren't repeated. In essence, yes, I feel they are effective when dealing with experienced (or otherwise) contributors, although we must note that everyone reacts differently, so it can't be a blanket answer. xC
 * You may be wrong there... cool-off blocks rarely work. In fact, an established contributor caught up in the heat of the fight is more likely to get furious, spam hundreds of unblock requests, and file an 'admin abuse' report on ANI the moment they return ;) Blocks are definitely a worst-case scenario thing, and should be treated with respect. Riana

16. Will you edit your preferences/editing to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
 * A: Yes, although I have a habit of filling in the summary now, so its not really needed.
 * OK. This was another stolen question, to be honest, but edit summary usage is still an important thing - I ran across a new admin a couple of days ago who was blocking people with no reason defined! So you can see that 100% edit summary usage is a good thing :) Riana

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: No, for the sake of transparency, I feel it would be best to discuss everything through the proper channels on WP itself.
 * Good. There's been some trouble over this in the past, especially involving the admins' IRC channel, and I for one firmly believe that any blocks of established users should be thoroughly discussed in a transparent manner. Riana

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: First off, I believe my content contributions are not insignificant. What I meant earlier is that a large portion of my time (and consequently edits) end up being devoted to administrative tasks nowadays. I have absolutely no doubt that an admin who is immersed in article writing will understand an editor's grievances better than one who isn't involved in the article writing process. Writing an article also involves you in direct collaboration with other editors, and so you understand your fellow editors better, which is no doubt a desirable quality in an admin. Personally, I believe I would understand an editors view even if I've been away from content creation for a while simply because of the time I have spent on WP and witnessed its dual nature of warmth and hostility, improvement and downgrades, collaboration and tensions - up close. Even if I am unable to improve an article directly, I have no doubt I would be able to help out a fellow editor in every way that I can, simply because I have been there before.
 * Holy crap, sorry about that... that question was stolen, and I didn't check it out properly. Please don't be offended! :) Scratch this question. I know you contribute quite prolifically in the article namespace. Riana

19. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: WP:SNOW is what lets us speed things up. If an AfD is obvious in its conclusion, might as well close it. A vandalism-only account shouldn't be treated with kid gloves. Things of that sort, I believe its just a fancy name for common sense. WP:IAR is a little different, in that I feel it means that the rules by themselves should be followed more in spirit and less in bricked out words. Similar to how policies/guidelines are sometimes disputed, it could be that the rule in one particular case would be damaging to the article instead of helping it. So if the rule hampers the improvement of the article, ignore it and take things from there. This doesn't mean we chuck all our policies to the wind, rather on a case by case basis, if the rule is limiting or hampering us, it might be wiser to be more flexible.
 * Nice interpretation. I like it. Riana

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: I feel this would depend on the page. If it is not covered by CSD but is still not suitable for WP, such as dict defs or rants as mentioned above, then it seems fair to speedy them. In the end, a page should contribute to the encyclopedia. If it doesn't, then we could delete and be better off for it.
 * Very good answer :) Riana
 * Dictionary definitions are actually covered by WP:CSD :) Daniel
 * Lol :P xC