Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?
Would you please comment on your understanding of REVDEL? Please describe a specific example of material you would deem appropriate to remove under each of criteria 2 and 3 of CFRD.
When performing an admin role (reviewing a close challenge, reviewing user conduct, etc.) that involves a controversial discussion/issue (politics, gender, religion, etc.), can you completely separate your own opinion regarding the subject and act fairly and impartially towards the users regardless of the side they've taken on this controversial issue?
In relation to the increasing number of sysops who work in the categories you identify yourself as, but the decreasing number of total sysops, what do you think about the entirety of possible areas to work in in general? Especially areas that don't relate to any user groups; sysops are still editors.
Let me change the topic from diversity of our "flags" to our human being psychology. Do you pay attention to the personality differences of users? You know that Wikipedia is approaching its 20th anniversary, but "blocking" is still the last option. And the most interesting thing is to judge users based on block log, not the number of articles they have written. Can you take a step to change this "tradition"?
Suppose that someone publicly identifies as a supporter of the actions of the Stasi on their User page and that they have a userbox that states This user supports the actions of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit in its anti-fascist struggle against the internal enemies of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. If you were to encounter this in the wild as an administrator, what would be your next steps and why?
While we know that neutrality is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, how do you approach contentious situations that are on the opposite spectrum of your religious or political beliefs? (For example: Let's pretend you are Armenian and the case is about Armenian genocide, or pretend that you are conservative and the case is about liberalism)
Which of the 5 pillars do you feel is most important?
In what areas of Wikipedia do you lack experience/are you weakest? (Perennial favorite)
You're writing a BLP of an older trans person who has recently come out. They don't use neo-pronouns, but they do describe themselves with the older term "transsexual", and have openly spoken of the time before they came out using their previously-used pronouns. You consult with other editors, but ultimately, the decision on what to write and how to write it falls down to you, as everyone else is swamped under in differently articles and projects. Though you don't feel the need to lay out a precise outline before you start writing about this person, what angle do you approach it with?At the same time, you're working on a BLP of a younger trans person, who has openly stated that they commonly use slurs they have reclaimed to describe themselves, but do not use the term 'queer', as they believe it to be an unreclaimed slur, and offensive when used in reference to them. Though they have not spoken about how long they have identified differently - no statements on "I always considered myself to be X", "I started identifying as X at Y age", or "when I look back, I can see that I never identified as Z" - they have also not stated a preference for how they should be referred to when speaking of the time in their life before they came out. Again - everyone else is swamped under writing about ducks or something, criminally vital articles they just cannot put down. Without needing to write up the Iliad on the Talk page before yuu edit, what's your approach?
Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than a week. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe averaging one random incident per week. The most frequent anonymous IP edits, however, involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although the anon's edits are explained with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
In what area of Wikipedia are you weakest?
What is your interpretation of WP:IAR, and when is it appropriate to invoke it?
Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?
Do you think to have Mainspace edits > 50% is important in RfXs?
How long have you been editing Wikipedia?
Most of your edits are semi-automated edits which by an humourous essay called editcountitis has proved that back in history or present people don't support rfa when semi-automated is over non-automated. Is this supposed to be taken as a serious or minor case?
I dug up dirt on you and found something from the ANI archives from about 13 months ago. Explain.
Based on your experience in dealing with administrators, what would you say constitutes being a "bad" administrator? (by "bad" I mean someone who should never have been approved to be an administrator). Please provide two examples to support your answer.
Have you ever used or are you currently using any other alternate accounts, or is this your only Wikipedia account?
Throw them in the deep end (aka "Please resolve my arbcom case for me")
An IP adds an infobox to Buckingham Palace as their first edit. Two minutes later, an established editor with 5 confirmed contributions to WP:FAC reverts this edit with a summary "no consensus". The IP adds the infobox back with the edit summary "looks better". The established editor reverts "no consensus, go away". The IP re-reverts with a summary "pls leave my edits alone you bully", which is reverted by the same editor with the summary "you wouldn't know a FA if it came up and gave you a haircut, now piss off". Immediately after this, you stumble on the article history - what do you do?
A user is a member of a fringe political group and is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. He disagrees with the provisions in WP:FRINGE, believing that they are unfair to fringe viewpoints, and has written alternative versions of WP:FRINGE and more policies that might impact how Wikipedia describes fringe viewpoints. The editor welcomes new users and provides them with links to his own versions of policy rather than the actual policy pages. However, in discussions, he prefers to cite the actual policy pages, only rarely citing his own versions. What do you do?
Editor 1 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" in an article. Editor 2 reverts with edit summary saying there is consensus for "Taiwan" and to discuss on the talk page. Editor 3 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" again. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 4 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 5 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 1 comes to you and asks you to block Editor 2 for edit warring with multiple other editors. If you were an admin, how would you respond?
