1. In your own words, describe WP:CSD#F3 and a page that would be deletable under F3.
- A: From User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/Archive: Improper free use tag listed. E.g., for non-commercial use only, or GFDL < 1.3. E.g., "I contacted the artist who said I could use it on Wikipedia."
- Remember - A claim, "I contacted the artist who said I could use it on Wikipedia" by itself would fall under WP:CSD#F11 (tag with {{subst:npd}}). Something like "I contacted the artist who said I could use it on Wikipedia only" can be subjected to immediate deletion under WP:CSD#F3. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- A: From User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/Archive: Improper free use tag listed. E.g., for non-commercial use only, or GFDL < 1.3. E.g., "I contacted the artist who said I could use it on Wikipedia."
- 2. Define and differentiate between WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8.
- A: The three don't seem to have much to do with each other; I'm not sure how an administrator would get them confused. As such I'll just define them from User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 3/Archive again:
- 1: There is no free equivalent, and none could feasibly be created.
- 3: If one non-free image or one part of an image is enough to convey the meaning, then do not use more than that one or part of one.
- 8: The file must serve the purpose of significantly improving the understanding of the article that could not be accomplished with only free content.
- 3. An author of a B-class article gets in a dispute with other editors who edit the page sparingly. The author subsequently requests speedy deletion of the article per G7. Do you honor this request? Why or why not?
- A: Only if:
- a) no other editors have made a substantial contribution to the page. Given that it was a dispute, that sounds very unlikely, only the kind of thing that would end up at WP:LAME, e.g., edit warring over whether {{reflist}} should be used instead of <references /> and
- b) the request was done in good faith, i.e., not to spite the other editors. While not always easy to judge, edit summaries like "fine, fuck you all I'll ask for the page to be deleted" would prove to not be good faith.
- For all intents and purposes, the answer is "no I would not", just because the two above scenarios are so unlikely.
- 4. An IP tags the userpage of a retired, but established editor with {{db-u1}}, claiming to be that editor. How do you proceed?
- A: Remove the tag and inform the editor that s/he needs to sign in and can reapply it. In an unusual case like the user can't remember or reset their password and is very intent on vanishing, other provisions might be made but would have to be hashed out based on the scenario.
- 5. When, if ever, would you indef an IP editor?
- A: When handed a request by the office. This is not entirely inconceivable - for example, a bank has an IP that is never expected to change, and doesn't want its employees to be able to put sensitive information out in the open, so it contacts the office, which indicates it will comply with the request. Open proxies should not be blocked forever, just for a really long time per Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Open_proxies.
- 6.When do you feel that it's important to ignore a rule, and have you applied that philosophy to any decisions you've made in the past?
- A: I would ignore a rule only when it "prevents [me] from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." And I cannot think of anything off the top of my head where I can show you a diff of me ignoring a rule. As such the diff probably doesn't exist. I try to be conservative about that kind of thing - the world will not self-destruct if I wait for process to finish. It's usually not a big deal.
- 7. Close this deletion discussion: Discussion, File. Explain your reasoning.
- A: The result of the discussion was keep. Nominator seems to be implying that image fails WP:NFCC#2, and while IANAL, the nominator fails to make a strong enough argument in favor, whether showing that Getty has been protective of this image or proving it might have substantial financial loss if it's up. [Note to Fastily: Before closing this debate, I would have first made comments addressing this issue directly to the nominator, and only closed as such if the nominator didn't respond.] As the subject is deceased, WP:NFCC#1 does not apply. As for the argument that a terrorist organization cannot own a copyright, I could not find anything that substantiates the claim, so the image will remain marked as fair use.
- 8. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
- A: Yes, a sockpuppet, or intensely gross forms of vandalism (e.g., racial/sexual insult of someone on a talk page), or a compromised account.
- 9.Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
- A: In general, no. This violates WP:NFCC#1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created (emphasis mine). A free equivalent could easily be created to demonstrate the appearance of an individual. There are exceptions, such as picturing someone at a notable historical event, or individuals who are fugitives and unlikely to ever be found (e.g., Mohammed Omar).
- 10.The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.
- A: It is not a violation because it's fair use. United States fair use laws indicate that anybody may use certain copyrighted content under restrictions. Thus the content can be freely distributed and altered so long as it's within the fair use framework.
- Granted, fair use is not (always) applicable outside the US, which does mean it's not as free as it could be, and there have rightly been complaints about this. But within the US, fair use is absolutely fine.
- 11.What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?
- A: Vandalism by unconfirmed users (this is the worst, not the only issue). I'm not just talking about adding "PENIS" to a page. I'm talking about adding patently slanderous material (e.g., this, which was unreverted for an hour and a half, and the slanderous link remained for a half day). I would apply page protection policy to BLP articles much more liberally than non-BLP.
- 12.If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
- A: Consensus at AFDs is based off of policy based arguments. The one you pointed to is a very difficult choice - one only need to look at the number of administrators who !voted yes vs. the number who !voted no, and you'll see that there is disagreement even within the community, and there is no clearcut issue on this circumstance. I would probably not close the discussion, but if someone put a gun to my head and made me do it, I'd go towards delete, as the arguments are much more policy based. The keep votes so far as I can tell are WP:ITSNOTABLE. It's hard to tell because I can't see the article, but from what I can see, his only notability in the press comes from the fact that... he is a member of the press (and as such will be mentioned more often), which will skew the guidelines of WP:BIO a bit. I hate to have to make this call, as I'd really prefer to just !vote in this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! Fantastic work! You answered just about every question with at least a picture perfect answer. This quiz proves you're completely ready, if not over prepared for RfA. I am looking forward it already. Next section please. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)