User:OrenBochman/Your RFA

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
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:
Additional questions
4. As an administrator would you be open to recall? And, optionally, if so, would you please briefly outline the criteria and process you would use, such as W:User:Lar/Accountability and/or sample process?


6. Do you think that as an admin it would be beneficial to the community for you to gradually move out of your comfort zone (sports) and use the tools in other areas of the project, while still remaining active in your area of expertise?
A:
  • 7. Quote: I won't deny that I'm cynical about the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but I'll respect the rules that we have in place.
What do you mean when you say that you're "cynical" about Wikipedia's philosophy?
  • A:
  • 8. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.
  • A:
  • 9. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
  • A:
  • 10. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.
  • A:
  • 11. User:Alice leaves a message on your talk page that User:Bob and an IP have each been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:
  • 12. Also, you do quite a bit of interaction with IPs (link). Though I have seen a few collaborative questions, for the most part there are a lot of warnings. Based upon your answer to #7 above, do you feel that IPs in general should not be able to edit articles?
  • A:
13. How would you feel about the following usernames, assuming that they were new accounts:
A:
14. When is it acceptable for an article to be indefinitely semi-protected?
A:
15. On 10 June, new User:Zuhairmehdi created a vanity page as his first edit to mainspace (as so many editors do). Shortly afterwards, talk:Zuhairmehdi&oldid=497017509 you wrote on his talkpage:

I moved Zuhair mehdi to your userpage because it contains insignificant content for a Wikipedia article. If you are notable, your article will be started by third-party users soon. You should not restore the content at Zuhair mehdi, rather consider adding the info to the appropriate place: your user page.

However, instead of moving the page, you instead redirected it to his already-existing user page. Shortly afterwards it was tagged by a bot and a few hours later it was deleted by an admin—wiping out the content he'd created. And unsurprisingly, he hasn't been back since.
My questions:
  • Do you think that this was an appropriate action towards a newbie?
  • Do you think that this was an appropriate action in general?
  • In what ways do you believe that this message is superior to the standard template?
  • How does this differ from non-admins being able to delete articles at whim?
BTW, I talk:SwisterTwister&oldid=497013275 notified you about the mess on your talk page just a few minutes after the redirection, but you never responded to me or to the new/ex editor.
A:
16. A newish user, welcomed in the conventional way and editing on a single topic of reality TV, has an article feature placed prominently on his User Page. It could look like this, [1] but may have fictitious rather than real details within it.
What, if any, user page guidelines have been breached? What action would you take:
(a) if you came across it yourself?
(b) it was drawn to your attention as an Admin?
(c) if the editor had previously rejected advice that user page guidelines might have been broken?
A.
17. When, if ever, would you invoke WP:IAR to speedily delete an article?
A:
18. Historically , a de-facto requirement for passing AfDs was substantial content work. The rationale generally was that an administrator should be familiar with content work as well as administrative tasks. You appear to have started five stub articles, and to have little work in article improvement. (a) Why is this? (b) Why should someone with limited content work be an administrator?
A:
19. Last month, you gave a relatively new user advice on how to move a page. The user then got into a move war that led to this 3RR report. In retrospect, was the advice you gave to the user the right advice? If not, what should you have suggested to the user?
A:'
20. How and why is it important that the answers Administrators or experienced editors give to new editors is accurate and complete? As an administrator, is your role considered a position of trust and how can it harm the encyclopedia when your answers are not complete and taken out of context?
A:
21. Can you please expand on your answer to question 2? You say that some of your best contributions are at new page patrol, so could you identify some new articles that you have found there and improved, for example by adding content or references, or fixing grammar or formatting?
A:
22. This is complementary to Q4. Уладзіслаў Чаховіч is reported at WP:UAA. Please set out the policy behind your decision to accept or reject.
A:
23. Have you ever been involved with any talk page discussions about content disputes? If so, can you please provide examples? If not, why not?
A:
24. Do you agree with or disagree with the statement: "SwisterTwister has virtually no experience with article content disputes"? Why or why not?
A:


25. Review Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_70#Daily_DYK_scandal. What should you have done differently, if anything, at any point in the process before, during, or after that episode? Why?
A:


26. You say in response to Q1 that you would like to participate in anti-vandalism. Could you describe your previous experience in this area?
A:
27. Imagine you are already an administrator and are patrolling CAT:CSD. You stumble upon the following articles; all have only received two edits, one by the page creator and one by the tagger, and none is eligible for deletion under A10. What do you do? First article, second article and third article.
A:
28. Do you believe administrators should be required to have reached the "age of majority" to be eligible to serve in that capacity? briefly explain your answer
A:
29. In your answer to Q3 you mention a conflict you had with me, for which you provide a link and which you claim has now been smoothed over, yet I see no postings from Crisco 1492 there. Who were you then?
A: My apologies, the disagreement with you came later, in September. I called you a troll, which I agree now was a mistake. I will strike your name above.
To answer the question directly, I've been Crisco 1492 since I can remember. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that you ought to be a little more careful in your answers? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, and my apologies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation of trolling appears to be a direct response to my comment that "So if DYK is not about article improvement then why is it explicitly mentioned as one of DYK's goals on this main page?" So I suggest that you strike any suggestion that you and I have made up in your answers to the mandatory questions, because we most certainly have not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I assumed to much. I have left my praise of your copyediting, as I genuinely feel you did a great job, but noted that I was wrong about us having made up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
30. One role administrators perform is handing out user rights requested at WP:RFPERM. Administrators are expected to be able to judge whether the user requesting the rights "can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s)". Given this, consider the following hypothetical user: within a few months of registering, they have made six requests on and off-wiki for rollback, been granted it once, had it revoked once, requested file mover despite zero edits in the file namespace, launched a self-nominated RfA with less than 200 edits, applied on Meta to be a global sysop, requested to be made a 'crat on a Wikipedia version in a language they don't speak and many other requests for permissions across a wide range of WMF-hosted wikis. If you are given a mop, would you grant this hypothetical user rollback? Please explain your reasons.
A:
31. if the user I described above were to nominate you for adminship, would you accept their nomination?
A:
32. Are there any areas of administrative work you have little intention of taking part in, and for what reasons?
A:
33. regarding this edit, what was your reasoning for nominating the article? Did you do any kind of research before nominating? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
A:
34. Following up on the last question three more subquestions:
  • Do you still believe the article meets A7?
  • Do you think that this article should be speedy deleted according to guidelines?
  • Do you think it's a good idea to speedily delete this article?
A:
35. Suppose you are closing an AfD or RM. In the first case there are 10 support votes who all cite the same policy based point #1, and 2 oppose votes who cite policy based point #2. In the second case there are 2 support votes who cite policy based point #1, and 10 oppose votes who all cite the same policy based point #2. Same case, same arguments. Q: Would your closure be different or the same, and why? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Request clarification: By support you mean delete? I'm not used to RM and will probably not do much there (that's an area I forgot when answering Q11 above).
Assuming by support you mean delete, at an AFD I would look at how well the different faction's argument fits with the article. If those ten delete voters are quoting no RS's in the article but there are two references to The New York Times, three to The Guardian, and five to The Huffington Post (to choose random examples) I would consider those !votes invalid. If the keep votes are quoting RS and the article has nothing but references to The Onion, well... same thing. The policy quoted does not match the actual state of the article. That would be a consideration.
Assuming the arguments reflect the state of the article and are not misleading, I would attempt to weigh which argument is stronger. Should someone quote PORNBIO to support deleting an article that flies through the GNG (say, the performer received no awards but has had in-depth coverage in several mainstream publications), I would probably decide to keep the article. If I were unsure, I would consider relisting.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
36. How will admin tools help you improve Wikipedia? Why do you want to be an admin?
A:
38. Are you an inclusionist or a deletionist?
A:
38. Administrators are supposed to be models of civility, especially towards newcomers. In what way have you demonstrated, or can demonstrate, that you can uphold that standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChromaNebula (talkcontribs) 02:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A:
39. I notice that on your user page you have a user box which says that you perform non-admin closures at AfD. Could you please provide some examples of the discussions which you've closed? Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

catagory:obtut