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? Michaelas10
AfD is where Wikipedians discuss it, so in other words IP comments should not be counted and it would also be important to read and understand the comments made by the IP's and the user and then determine whether deletion would be in order, which it would in this case. The SunshineMan 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd relist it in such situations. IP !votes should generally not affect closing decisions because they can come from a single user, and the weight of one or two users' arguments isn't enough to determine consensus. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First, we do not count !votes on AfDs; we derive consensus. If a singular AfD argument (even if coming from an IP) has greater weight and within policy; all other arguments should be rejected in favour of the one within policy. In case of conflicting policies and guidelines, no consensus is sometimes, a better option. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
*Yawn*, I apologize for the above. I've changed my perspective regarding AfD closures since my original answer. Michaelas10 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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? Michaelas10
I would search Google or another search engine in an attempt to find a source for the information, if I could not find one or it was not reliable, I would remove the original research, stating this on the article talk page and inform the user of WP:OR and that everything must be reliable and verifiable, I would also inform them they cannot make three reverts to a page within a 24hr period 3RR), if it continues it may be appropriate to temporarily block the user but not semi protect the page. The SunshineMan 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. Remember you should never perform an administrative action on a dispute you're involved in, even if the user was warned for his behavior. The best solution would be first listing the page at WP:RFPP, then establishing consensus with the rest of the parties at the talk page. If he continues to edit war after an agreement the edits are inappropriate, he may be blocked by a different admin. Another solution, somewhat as you've purposed, would be warning the user and putting him at WP:AN/3RR after a further revert, but this may prevent him from giving his position on the talk page. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree with Michael. An admin should never use the administrative accouterments while being involved in any kind of disputes, even if peripherally. If the admin has been involved with the user on other pages, usage of of admin tools to temporarily restrict access is frowned upon. There is a better option of reporting the incident on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 11:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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 the page currently contains unverifiable or wrong material. What would you do? Michaelas10
I would tell the editor to discuss the matter on the article talk page and see if consensus can be determined for the change to happen and I would tell the editor in a kind way that I cannot make the changes until consensus is reached and ask him to provide diff's on the article talk pages (which are reliable) which would prove the current information in the article is incorrect and then if consensus is in favour of the change, make the appropriate changes and if it seems to have calmed down, unprotect the page and if it begins again, fully protect it again and give the editors involved a polite yet firm warning and inform them about the 3RR when the page is unprotected and if they've violated it, a possible 24hr block maybe in order. — The Sunshine Man 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost. If there appears to be consensus, you should immediately unprotect rather than "waiting for things to calm down" — any editing against consensus will result in a block. Moreover, affirming the "diffs" are inconsistent with the added information would be engaging too much in the conflict, simply judging consensus would do the trick. Michaelas10 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
First, an admin cannot be too sure as to what the duration of the block should be, without actually gauging a real-time situation. Frankly, it is a matter of discretion at a particular point of time. There can also be consensus among community members for block durations. Please remember, blocking established users seldom resolves any issues and generally escalates the situation into something unmanageable. It is almost easier to convince someone not to do a thing, rather than block him and say – "You did wrong" (I am not implying in anyway that you would do it :-). If there is a consensus in favour of unprotection, the page should be unprotected. If there is still a significant number of users not in agreement, then they should be asked to pursue dispute resolution. If you start judging the links for their consistency and appropriateness for inclusion as a RS in an article, then you can be considered to have become involved in the content dispute. Judging consensus will do the trick. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 11:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You wish to copyedit a certain paragraph in an article, but it has been fully-protected due to disputes. What would you do? Michaelas10
Even if you are an admin, you should not make any changes to articles when they are fully protected due to content disputes, they should be taken straight to the article talk page in an attempt to determine consensus, if the edit is made without consulting other,s it will most likely be reverted by another admin. The SunshineMan 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if it has nothing to do with the dispute, there really isn't a need to present it at the talk page. It's probably the best to wait until the full protection expires. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyediting is perfectly fine. Noncontroversial edits to a page like spellchecks, grammar fixups, removing broken links - this sort of thing should be done to a protected page, because you're the only person who can. Just because our editors are having a fight doesn't mean our readers have to suffer. Riana⁂ 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Only till it is restricted till copyediting. If the admin intends to make substantial changes, it is better to wait for the protection to expire. The another administrator will probably not revert you, because after a page is protected i.e. restricted for sysop-editing only, continuous revert-warring becomes wheel-warring. As a rule of thumb, one should not take an administrative action, when one knows that another administrator opposes it. It should be thoroughly discussed on WP:ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 11:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Among the tools you get when you're an admin is rollback. Rollback allows an admin to revert vandalism quickly, but should only be used to vandalism - there have even been arbitration cases involving inappropriate use of rollback, with admins using it to revert edits they dispute, but which are not outright vandalism. So, here's a quick vandalism test for you. I'll give you 6 diffs - please tell me whether you think they are vandalism or not, and why. Riana⁂ 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would revert diff 1 because: Its an NPOV edit about an individual who doesn't have a Wikipedia article and its vandalism
Why do you call this vandalism? Riana⁂ 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, what was I thinking - that was a mistake, however it is inappropriate as it saying non-neutral and unnecessary content for an article about somebody totally different to the articles actual coverage. The Sunshine Man 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The ideal way would be to revert this diff manually, but I wouldn't label it as misuse if the admin is using it in good faith to revert newbie users while on RC patrol; provided that the admin leaves a message or an appropriate template on the talk page of the user without biting them. Although, if the new user reverts the admin's edit, the admin should engage them in discussion rather than revert him back again (manually or with rollback). — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would revert diff 2 but place an edit sumamry informing the user who made the edit in good faith that I'm assuming good faith, and leaving a note on the article talk page if necessary.
Why would you leave a note on the article talk page? It's a pretty obvious nonsense edit, IMV. What's your reasoning? Riana⁂ 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're right, I had the feeling it might have been in good faith because if you were going to add nonsense into an article you wouldn't normally add a mathematical formulae into it so I thought it may have something to do with it. The Sunshine Man 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would revert diff 3 because the edit was clearly made in bad faith and does not contribute to the article in any way, its vandalism
I would revert diff 4 the edit and AGF, it seems to be internet slang and its unreferenced but I would specify in my edit summary that its not suitable for Wikipedia articles and leave a note on the article talk page.
Why would you revert it? Remember, I am speaking of revert in the strictest sense - using automated tools. You could revert it. And I am talking about HighwayCello's edit, not the stuff he removed. Riana⁂ 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not quite getting what you mean here, oh hang on, sorry I wouldn't revert HighwayCello's edit because information which about whats is said on chatrooms is not reliable not suitable. The Sunshine Man 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An admin should not use admin rollback to revert an established user on an article or any other page; unless under special circumstances, like WP:CANVASS or WP:SPAM, admins are strongly advised to seek consensus on WP:ANI before making large number of rollbacks though. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would revert diff 5 because using the actual change makes the section header not make sense and its not correct English so I would revert it in good faith and specify in the edit summary that its not suitable and again AGF.
I would not revert diff 6 as it seems to be valuable information, it may need re-wording but its certainly not vandalism and would need a rollback. The SunshineMan 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you mean 'it does not need rollback', that's OK. Riana⁂ 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
How well do you think you handle criticism? As an administrator, your actions will always be scrutinised, and people are much more eager to offer criticism than praise. How have you dealt with criticism in the past? For example, you lashed out against comments people made after your RfA comment at CharlotteWebb's RfA. Frankly, as an administrator, you will have to handle such criticism - and worse - quite frequently. Riana⁂ 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, at that time I was stressed in real life and I have encountered CharlotteWebb in previous months and no here not to be polite as Ryan Postlethwaite had opposed above for the same reason, I was OK and I knew they had a right to question my oppose so I tried to explain it but this just got me so angry that he was calling me an abusive sockpuppet and normally I'd try to avoid swearing in edit summaries but I was just so annoyed by it, I suggested he read WP:SOCK as multiple accounts are allowed as long as they are not being used abusively, however here I thought I dealt with criticism well by not insulting the vandals, I cant think of any other times, I was stressed in real life at the time of CharlotteWebbs RfA so I just became enraged but thats a one off, seriously. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I generally take a break if I get angry, and keep away from the submit button. Riana knows about it. Frankly, I think Nick was right when he notified you of WP:SOCK, although he could have worded in a better way. You do have a right to vanish, but when you are opposing some user, pertaining to some reason related to your previous account you should make it abundantly clear in your edit that you used [that] account in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be clear that Nick in fact attempted to remind you that whenever mentioning a previous account of yours, you should explicitly state that it indeed was yours (regardless of where else this information appears). Your comment may also be perceived, in one way or another, as a form of sockpuppet abuse — even trough this term sounds harsh for you. By the way, this is very wrong. Whenever some insults you, you should avoid feeding him. Frankly, playing sarcasm with a vandal is often worst than insulting him back. Michaelas10 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was in the wrong there and although I have come across that policy before I can see that I was in the wrong. The Sunshine Man 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
When it is correct to ignore a rule? Under what circumstances is it right to invoke admin IAR? Is IAR suitable as an explanation for one's actions? If others decide that you have erred by citing IAR, is it still fine to continue to cite it? Riana⁂ 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion there is a limit as to how much IAR could be enforced, theoretically it could be used to justify vandalism and page blanking if taken to the extreme, I personally don't believe there is really a right or wrong answer to this question as everyone has there own views but I see IAR as an encouragement for new users to edit here and then learn the rules and to learn not to stick by them to every word and that the rules can be broken once or twice if it will benefit the project. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Rules generally scare away newbie editors who get intimidated by the enormity of the various guidelines and policies of this place. It is generally appropriate to leave them a welcome template on the talk page, and refer to the particular parts of the policies and guidelines if they make a mistake in good faith. In that manner, administrators and other established users make permanent users out of newbies. In any other case, IAR is perhaps the most simplest of the rules of the place. Wikipedia:Use common sense and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules go hand in hand. If it improves the encyclopedia, do it; but be prepared to give an elaborate rationale for your actions, particularly while using admin tools or doing tasks that are generally restricted to administrators. Remember, everybody makes mistakes and even if you commit a mistake and others respond to you in a sharp manner, you should not return their favour. Express regrets, learn from the mistake and move along. :) — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What is your understanding of the snowball clause? When is it correct to use this as an explanation for administrative actions? Riana⁂ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:SNOW is cited regularly throughout Wikipedia, especially on RfA's which have little to no support and all the rest oppose or neutral, I think it means for example that if an AfD is running for an article like Tree then it can be closed immediately without having to run through the five day AfD time as the outcome is clearly going to be speedy keep and the same with speedy deletion. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What does the term rouge admin mean to you? Riana⁂ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a large supporter of that, although I would never ask a user to put themselves there if they didn't want to, I think it is important and helps keeps trust up within the community so Wikipedians now that if necessary a user will voluntarily stand down from adminship and admit they have done wrong, I see this as important but however I think that their should be certain rules set for sysops who add themselves to this category as if they dont have any rules about standing down then a user could create sockpuppets and ask them to stand down, even though they dont have to it defeats the point of the willing to be open to re-call. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that all of the policies especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV blend into this policy as if an article contains information which is unsourced and is not verifiable then it can be safely removed per the BLP however such moves should generally be discussed on the article talk page (consensus), I believe that without BLP that Wikipedia's autobiography articles would be allowed to contain non-neutral and controversial information so I believe it benefits the encyclopedia and should be adhered too. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that you ignore controversial questions like these on your RfA. (which I hope you are not planning in the near future). We could speak about this over email, if you want. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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).
An image has been tagged for deletion as lacking a fair use rationale, but an editor adds {{restricted use}}. The usual seven days period has passed. Michaelas10
The image should still be deleted after sven days have passed if no fair use rationale is added using {{Fair use rationale}} or another similar template, per WP:FAIR. The SunshineMan 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. While {{restricted use}} or {{non-free fair use in}} are good to have under the fair use rationale subheading, they in fact are not a substitute for the rationale itself. It should be thoroughly explained why is the image significant to the article ("Purpose of use"), either in a templated or a non-templated method. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor tags an article which was only edited by himself with {{db-author}}. After looking at it, you notice it perfectly meets our policy and has been on for a while. Michaelas10
The speedy deletion is not appropriate, the user does not own the article so if it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion the tag should be removed and you should notify the user. The SunshineMan 12:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, all content submitted to the mainspace becomes everyone's property, with no personal credit. You may only delete a page per CSD G7 when the author added the tag in good faith. If the reason for this isn't explicitly stated, put the deletion on hold and contact him for his rationale. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
GFDL is copyright. The mediawiki software accredits each and every user for the edits they make on this place. Once the text is released into GFDL and can be used for any kind of purpose as long as it accredits the person who made it. It cannot be revoked. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain yourself further? Are you trying to say that everyone is entitled to remove their own submitted content even if it's legitimate? Perhaps there's a flaw in my understanding of copyright. Michaelas10 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, they cannot revoke their rights once they have posted the content. They cannot get their articles deleted, because they are now licensed under GFDL and rightfully attributed to them. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What would you do if an editor says that he has revoked the GFDL of his edits? What would be the repercussions on the previous edits made by the user? — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont quite get this, The Sunshine Man 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
An admin would have to block the user indefinitely. The user would be restricted from posting content again from that account. His previous edits will remain licensed to GFDL, as he agreed while posting on a GFDL-complaint Wiki. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean if they violated the GFDL because the were violations of copyright? The Sunshine Man 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The following are examples of WP:AIV requests (add (b) for blocking, and (r) for removing).
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. Michaelas10
A correct set of warnings should be used throughout, if the vandal was was blocked very recently and it had just expired and they were vandalising again, then under certain circumstances it would be appropriate to immediately block, if it is more than one month ago a correct 1-4 set of warnings should be given, although some may skip some due to a previous history of vandalism - the correct levels of warnings should be issued, or you could use {{subst:uw-vand4im}} in some circumstances. The SunshineMan 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. If the IP vandalized again within two days after having his block expired, then you may skip warnings. A period of several days without vandalism already requires you to re-issue the usual 1-4/1-3 warning set before performing another block as it may concern a different person. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Warnings should not be skipped as a general rule. If the IP has a long record of vandalism, it is probably because it is a shared IP address and many users are using it. Vandalism is the best thing that can happen to Wikipedia. We need more and more users to experiment with our pages, so that they get a good idea what this website is about. A straight set of warnings should be given out as a general rule, and other users must be encouraged to report users only when they have vandalised after the fourth and final warning. Users who report on AIV before the third/fourth warning or the final warning has been issued should be reverted immediately and a note should be left on their talk page, citing WP:BITE. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. If vandalism continues from the same IP a sort period after the block expires, it's likely he is the same person as the one who the block was originally referred to. This may of course depend on the admin and situation, but templates like {{uw-v4im}} are issued for the exact same reason. Michaelas10 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A registered user vandalized past level 4 and hasn't been previously blocked. Michaelas10
This depends, if all of the four warnings were in approximately 24hrs of each other then a block would be appropriate if the vandalism after their level four warning, then a temporary block (24hrs) or indefinite if it is vandalism only.The SunshineMan 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost. If it's a vandal-only account, it may be indefblocked after a single {{blatantvandal}} warning. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism is subjective; and more so, when it's an established user you are talking about. If the edits are in the line of "BITCH, FUCK, CUNT, COCK", then an admin could block this account indefinitely and report on the WP:ANI for discussion. It is entirely possible that the account was compromised. More urgency is needed if it is an admin account. If the user is making disruptive edits or plain trolling, it would be appropriate to talk to them on their pages and if not, then it should be taken to the admin noticeboard. Once again, discretion is required. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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).
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. Michaelas10
(s) If the article is receiving mass vandalism in a close period of time by multiple new user accounts/IP addresses then Semi protection is appropriate, but if it being vandalised regularly only by the same user/IP then no protection would be neccessary, the IP would be temporarily blocked and if it was a user account it too would be temporarily blocked (or indefinitely if it was a vandalism only account). — The Sunshine Man 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. While you should definitely semi-protect it, in requests where there's continual vandalism regardless of multiply protections, you should apply an indefinite semi-protection (if the page's popularity and susceptibility to vandalism is persistent) or a very prolonged one. Michaelas10 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor requests semi-protection for an article edit-warred solely by IPs. Michaelas10
(s) The article should be semi protected for a short period of time until it ends, if the article is a regular viewed and well known person which would attract vandalism (e.g George Bush) then permenant semi-protection should be applied, The policy of 3RR should also be informed to the IP address and if they have violated a firm warning should be given or a 24hr block. The SunshineMan 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Semi-protecting in cases of IP edit wars often leads to one IP or another registering and reverting to their preferred version. As for the other parts of your answer, vandalism has absolutely nothing to do with the matter, and edit war blocks are hardly affective in cases of IP addresses. Michaelas10 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
... and if notice that the IPs are very attached to the article, they should be persuaded to create accounts, citing the advantages of having an account. Perhaps you could use the {{anon}} template to welcome them. :) — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor requests semi-protection for a book that would be advertised at a popular TV show the next day. Michaelas10
(d) Pages are not allowed to be protected as a simpe precautionary mesaure and not on request (userpages can be indefinitely semi-protected if a user requests it — per the WP:SPP). If the page has received no vandalism and is not at high risk it should not be protected and the request should be denied, however some high risk articles should be protected and the ones which are displyed on the Main Page should also not be semi protected (WP:MPFAP) unless in extreme circumstances. The SunshineMan 09:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but "semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" would've been a good answer. Michaelas10 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
How would you say I was doing so far please, I got a few right, a few almost correct and one wrong, I hope I can get better but how would you say I was doing please? Thank you.... The SunshineMan 09:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You're doing fine. I think you should avoid over-citing policies in your answers, and overall improve your language skills. A GA or two will definitely benefit. Michaelas10 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments such as this still indicate vast gaps in your knowledge of the FAC process and encyclopedia in general. Michaelas10 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think this, the persons comments did seem a little in violation of WP:OWN as he typed on someone else talk page: I've nominated my article...., I do think though the article is far from the FA status. The SunshineMan 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWN is usually described in situations where an editor reverts edits to an article if he sees contradiction with his own. As such, making this strong claim due to a single word ("my") — not actions — isn't a very polite thing to do. If he did do something wrong through those discussions, and which you probably should've mentioned, is canvassing. As for the !vote itself, perhaps you could provide some examples of criteria for why you don't believe it's worthy of FA status? Michaelas10 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course I didnt mean to violate WP:CIVIL but I honestly dont think its ready for FA status, mainly due to its size, it does not even have an infobox, thats all I think but I just really dont think its FA material -- The SunshineMan 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have striked it out and apologised to the user in question. The SunshineMan 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you admins completely resite WP:CSD from complete memory, I can remember three quarters of it. The Sunshine Man 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
