User talk:Xenocidic/admin coaching

Watching
Sorry for the possibly newbish question but is there an easy way to watch a user? xenocidic (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. :) . My trick is this; if you have tabbed browsing, open up a new tab with the users Special:Contributions. Then just refresh that tab every minute or so to see if they make another bad edit. That any help? I see you're going nice and slow at AIV - good stuff! It's too easy to whack the hammer. Pedro : Chat  13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been just taking 'er easy, anything I'm not sure about I'll either comment or let another admin take action so I can see what others thought appropriate. Yes, that does help. Too bad you can't RSS a user's contribs or something. xenocidic (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And that particular school just got a seven day block for one bad edit today. Okay, there's a history and it's a school, but .... hmmmmm. Oh well, to each their own. Feel free to hit me up with any questions at all though - it's a bit disconcerting the first few times you use the buttons! Pedro : Chat  13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I noticed. /shrug. Know of any admins that have a nice admin dashboard? I'm trying to improve mine, particularly looking for a way to add CSD in there. xenocidic (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about User:WJBscribe/Desk ? Pedro : Chat  13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful, I'll pilfer borrow some elements from there. Unfortunately that category track isn't being updated anymore as far as I know. But I think I might be able to pimp it out using the thingee I learned about a while back. xenocidic (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also User:Gonzo_fan2007/Desk ( I put this here so I can find it later ). My admin dashboard in progress is here : User:Xenocidic/dashboard. xenocidic (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Accounts that have degenerated into vandalism only
Wasn't quite sure what to do about this user, some constructive edits in the past, but pretty much vandalism only these days. I dropped a 24 hour, as they've not been blocked in the past. xenocidic (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 24 hoursd is fine, and just watchlist there talk or something and indef. if they do it after their return. There as been some talk recently about not leaping in with indef. even for clear bad faith accounts - but no guideline came from the discussion IIRC. Pedro : Chat  15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On deletions
So you're like me! Refactor reply - I replied on their talk page, but copied it to my page. Improper usage of the term? As far as getting the hang of things, I've so far only blocked the test accounts (naughty, naughty test accounts), but I've deleted a potentially sensitive revision. Other than that, haven't done much. Was busy yesterday, and still getting my thank-spam out. =) xenocidic (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great addition to the TPS page there. and you thought you didnt have it in you ;>. i wouldn't mind you taking a quick look at my deletions - I've been really sticking to the non-controversial for now, but what I've been doing is watching some of the more controversial ones, saying in my head what criteria I would've used and seeing if it matches the closing admin's action. I goofed on one of the deletion reasons at -4UTC-15:52, June 6, 2008 (pasted the wrong thing)... no biggie? it was during all that page-move vandalism madness. also, you might be interested in checking out my admin dashboard. Feel free to steal borrow whatever you want, or you can even transclude the page and it should work fine (and then you can benefit from any additions as I improve it ;>). xenocidic (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It all looks good to me. I like your substitution of rationale at J.D. Mann. (And I like that I can discuss this with you with only links, since you can see it yourself. :)) I didn't look at your U2s and your G6s. I looked through all of your A10s and verified that the authors had been warned by the taggers. (So as I could see if you filled in that step when it was missed. It's not required, as it is with G12, but it's jolly good practice. :))


 * The only one that I would have handled differently is Logan Haffner. It needed to be deleted, but I don't think it technically fit the criterion, even though I see a lot of people tag (and delete) that kind of stuff that way. It made sense to me. :) I myself would have deleted it as a G3, vandalism, as a blatantly unencyclopedic page. (Blatant and obvious misinformation, in this case. Note that the definition of vandalism also includes "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc".) If I delete an article as vandalism, I always make sure that the creator has either a uw-create template left on his or her page (generally I started with Uw-create2 or, if the creation seems to have been more silly than malicious, I'll sometimes leave Uw-joke1. In any event, the article needed to go, and I don't think that the majority of admins addressing CSDs would have any issue whatsoever with your deleting it as G1, though I can think of a couple of regulars at Talk:CSD who would. :)


 * By the way, I had a look at User talk:Apokolypz to see that the tagger treated it like vandalism (which I think is good), but that talk page really raised my eyebrows. The contributor has one contribution. Seems he is also and, based on the history of the usertalk page. Very odd.


 * Occasionally I've goofed on deletion rationales. I don't think it's a big deal, unless it's a case where the creator may later visit the deletion log to learn a reason and be misled. In those situations, we'd probably undelete and redelete with the correct rationale. In this situation, I wouldn't worry about it at all. :D


 * How is it going with watching to see what other admins are doing? One caveat there: before following suit, you might want to check the admin's talk page to see how often they come up at DRV. :) I can think of a couple of admins who are quite liberal in their application of the tools.


 * I have myself branched out in the last month to more controversial deletions. I did CSDs for about 7 months before really delving into AfDs. Now, when I have time (busy time at work) and the CSD backlog is small, I'll head over to see what's been hanging around. Naturally, the ones that are hanging around are the ones nobody wants to touch. :)


 * I've taken a look at your dashboard--seems quite handy! If I can find a good place in my userspace, I may transclude it. Otherwise, I might just link to it and click over to look at it in your place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks moon, I'll definately take those suggestions under advisement. I came across this one today: Tendai Madzorera. Not sure why the writer is requesting deletion, as the article meets the inclusion criteria, in fact, I even found a source via Google News. what is the reccomended course of action in a case like this? (never mind, that news article was for someone else with the same name) P.S. as for the dashboard, I don't know if you noticed it but it has some neat functionality where if there are more than 0 attack pages or wikipedians looking for help, or more than 50 articles needing CSD, those rows turn red. when there are more than 0 empty or user-requested pages for deletion, those rows turn green. xenocidic (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eep! I didn't look far enough up the page this morning. :) Very cool dashboard stuff. I like snazzy cody things that I can't do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Prods
I make new section, so you don't miss it ;>

Regarding prods...what do you usually do? Just let rip the delete button if it expired? (doubt it!) xenocidic (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as the deletion rationale seems reasonable. I wouldn't delete, say, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster for notability concerns. But I've seldom met a PROD that wasn't good to go. :) Of course, there's not so often a backlog at PRODS, so I've seldom met any of them.


 * New section = good. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll keep that in mind. My dashboard shows me prods which are (probably) ready for deletion, so that's why I ask =). xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On unblock requests
(I was talk page stalking on todd's talk page...)

I haven't looked in detail at your block of 8bitJake, but it is highly inappropriate for you to "review" and decline an unblock request stemming from your own block. The entire point of the template is to allow a blocked user to request that a third party, uninvolved administrator examine the reason for blocking. This block may be, and probably is, kosher. But you should never, ever, ever decline an unblock request related to your own blocks. FCYTravis (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I wondered about that before I took the action. I checked WP:Unblock and while it didn't say it was ok, it didn't say it wasn't and led me to believe it wouldn't be a problem. It seemed to be focused on preventing wheel-wars.  Sorry for the transgression - not my intent.  That does make sense though.  I'm going to edit WP:Unblock and add something about that.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention!  Toddst1 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be dropping eaves here, but I noticed this discussion and also took a look for any mention of this policy/guideline regarding unblock. The only thing I could find was a section from WP:APPEAL which said "When a block is appealed, other editors - most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter - will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it. Requests for unblocking are listed at Category:Requests for unblock." So it would definitely behoove us to add something to the blocking policy page to codify this presently unwritten rule. In the interest of disclosure, I've currently declined one block that I've placed here, though I doubt anyone would take issue with that as the unblock request was done in poor faith. I'll let other admins review my blocks in the future. xenocidic (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, xeno. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one in this boat. I've started a discussion on the policy talk page Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy and would appreciate some discussion there. It's a policy so it needs discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gunna keep an eye on that, but being a FNG I have nothing much to add at this time. =] xenocidic (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figure it's the FNG's that need that information. It's clear I fall in to that category - at least in this case.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

unblock-un requests
Just a note -- I saw your response at User talk:Dynotech, and in general requests to change username when the username was the issue don't need to be discussed with the blocking admin. Username blocks are normally intended to be non-judgemental of the user, only the name, so if they agree to change name they should be allowed to. (It is worth checking that there wasn't another reason for the block, such as vandalism or spamming. Sometimes people get blocked with the username block template when they really should be blocked for other reasons like test7 or spamusername.)  Anyway, just a friendly note, hope it helps. Mango juice talk 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that helps. I'll keep that in mind for the future and check for aggravating circumstances. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Si. Anytime there's a reasonable rename request, it's an auto-unblock. I don't consider those part of the standard unblock cycle.  Thanks!  Kuru  talk  00:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

rangeblocks with collateral damage
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.127.18.18&oldid=223079086 for how this is handled. Suggested message below:

''Wikipedia is occasionally forced to block large blocks of IP addresses due to abuse from an individual user. If you have an account, you can edit despite the block. As the block prevents you from creating an account, we can create one for you. If you email me ([mailto:xenowiki@gmail.com xenowiki@gmail.com]) from your ISP email address with your preferred username, I will create the account for you. You can check whether you account name is taken at Special:Listusers. I apologise for the inconvenience -- it really is necessary to combat widespread abuse of Wikipedia and it is unfortunate that you have been innocently caught up in it.''

indef blocked users who request ub to contribute constructively
User talk:Timeshappy is asking for an unblock. Thoughts? – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Might be worth trying a 2nd chance. If he responds positively to that, I wouldn't object to an unblock. Best, Gwernol 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the link, I've never seen that one before. cheers, – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that didn't work. Oh well. Perhaps time for page protection... Gwernol 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - it worked smashingly. It quickly sorted out a troll from a possible constructive contributor. Thanks for the advice! – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) Gwernol 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)