User:Magog the Ogre/Admin coaching/Lesson 4
Before responding to anything here, I would appreciate a response to my questions/comments on lesson 3.
- Let's get started with blocking, one of the sysop group's most controversial tools. I'm going to ask that you read/skim WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, and answer the questions below. It's alright if you're not sure how to approach a question, we can always go over it if necessary.
1. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
- A: A ban is a community decision that an editor can not edit a page or range of pages on Wikipedia (including a site-wide ban). A block is simply a means of forcing an IP or username not to edit Wikipedia because it will cause disruption. A block is often enforced without a ban, e.g., an IP is blocked for 5 months, but no specific editor is blocked. Occasionally, a site-wide ban could exist without a block, e.g., for a user who is unblocked only to comment on a ban thread on ANI.
- 2. When, in your opinion, is it alright to block a vandal who has not received 4 warnings?
- A: According to WP:V, "accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning." Specifically, general procedure has us giving warnings to new users or IPs without recent edits. But should it become obvious the a user warrants an exception to the rule, less (or no) warnings may be given. For example, an IP that has had 5 blocks in the space of a year, and 300 edits, all vandalism, and returns 12 hours after the most recent block to commit vandalism in a way that makes it look like it's the same person at that IP. Or a user that goes on a bot-aided vandalism spree and vandalizes 20 pages in 1.5 minutes before being warned. Or a user who professes to editing Wikipedia to push a point of view advancing pedophilia. Any one of these would work.
- 3.Under what circumstances would you undo a block without the consent of the blocking administrator?
- A: When there is community consensus that it was a bad block, or the blocking administrator agrees otherwise, or an office/arbcom action. Only then.
- Good. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A: When there is community consensus that it was a bad block, or the blocking administrator agrees otherwise, or an office/arbcom action. Only then.
- 4. During your duties as an administrator, you come across an experienced editor with a fairly decent track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude). In a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologize to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?
- A: Ack :P? Seriously, I've never considered myself a specialist on personal attacks; usually I think they're not warranting of a block unless there are repeated warnings. And really they fall under the umbrella of civility. And violations for civility, minus excessive cases, require a warning before a block. The linked policy asks for a request to refactor before blocking, so yes, asking an editor to strike out is plausible. To be honest, I'd really have to take it on a case-by-case basis, to decide if outright deletion or strike-out was more appropriate; and in most cases I would defer to WP:ANI.
- 5. A fellow administrator begins randomly pushing the stop buttons on some of our most active bots without good reason. Would you block them? If so, when would you block them? And after how many warnings?
- A: *Yes, I would block the administrator if it had become obvious that it was vandalism, as in an account compromise (e.g., the edit summary for all of the edits is something about Grawp's penis). I read a few years ago about a similar streak with several compromised accounts, and the vandal was simply able to unblock himself, so - unless the policy and/or software has changed - this would only serve to slow down the administrator vandal, and only for cases where a bot can stopped by editing a page (e.g., User:DASHBot).
- In the obvious vandal cases, the proper course of action is to post to m:Stewards' noticeboard and WP:ANI (the latter just for notification).
- In other cases, the proper course of action is to contact the administrator and/or put a note asking for community input on WP:ANI.
- I would like to stress, of course, that only obvious cases of vandalism apply to the former case. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Answers to this open ended question are all matter of opinion really. Responses can range from block on-sight and wheel war to do nothing and reverse all the administrative actions after emergency desysoping by a steward (which usually happens within minutes). You're in the middle of extremes, so qualms here. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A: *Yes, I would block the administrator if it had become obvious that it was vandalism, as in an account compromise (e.g., the edit summary for all of the edits is something about Grawp's penis). I read a few years ago about a similar streak with several compromised accounts, and the vandal was simply able to unblock himself, so - unless the policy and/or software has changed - this would only serve to slow down the administrator vandal, and only for cases where a bot can stopped by editing a page (e.g., User:DASHBot).
- OK, I've added everything I can think of. I suppose there may be an unlikely scenario in one of the above occasions that hasn't occurred to me, let me know if I am amiss! Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you've got the ethics of blocking down, so ow let's briefly go over some technical aspects.
- I'd like you to read over the following pages: WP:AUTOBLOCK, WP:RANGEBLOCK, and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Setting_block_options. I'm not going to have you answer any questions this time - just read the pages/section carefully and get a general idea of what you'll be dealing with. At any rate, it'll probably make more sense once you've been sysoped.
- Indicate below once you've finished.
- A: Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A:
- Now I'd like you to have a look at WP:PROTECT and WP:ROUGH. Protection is typically fairly straightforward. Again, I'm not going to ask you to answer any questions (especially since you have not listed RFP as a place you'd like to work as an admin). Just get a general feel for the topic. Indicate below once you're finished.
- A:, with a big caveat. I do want to reserve the right to make protections and/or blocks, and I would not be willing to forgo that right if requested in my RfA. If you think I won't be requested to do so, I will proceed, but if you think not doing an in-depth enough analysis would require me to do so, I'd prefer the more in-depth analysis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never wanted you to give up blocking and protection! Protection is usually fairly straightforward; use of common sense will be sufficient. I don't think there's a big need to go in depth, considering you don't intend to dive headfirst into a heated conflicts as an admin, and have to make controversial protects and blocks. Actually, I strongly recommend you don't go down this path, because sooner or later, these guys will come after you. As for blocking, the same applies. You sensibly answered some difficult questions correctly above, and you usually won't be confronted with such situations on a day-to-day basis. For instance, if you want to work at WP:AIV, it's obvious a user deserves a block for vandalizing when they insert 'fuck', 'shit', and 'yo momma' into articles despite warnings. Of course, if you like, we can go in depth, but if you ask me, I feel that a close read of relevant policy pages will do just fine. I'll leave it up to you though. Would you like to go in depth or shall we continue? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's just continue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alright then, this is a last call for any questions, concerns, or requests for review before the quiz. You can ask me to go over and or reiterate anything we've already covered, or anything we haven't covered that you feel we should cover. If you feel you need more time to practice tagging files, read over policy, ect. that's fine, I'll wait. Otherwise, we'll be getting on with RfA shortly. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have more than enough experience tagging files (it's all I've been doing for days!). The only last question is the discussion I'm having with you on lesson 3. I'd be glad to start the quiz; we might want to leave any questions about copyrighted at home vs. copyrighted in the US until the end. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's just continue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never wanted you to give up blocking and protection! Protection is usually fairly straightforward; use of common sense will be sufficient. I don't think there's a big need to go in depth, considering you don't intend to dive headfirst into a heated conflicts as an admin, and have to make controversial protects and blocks. Actually, I strongly recommend you don't go down this path, because sooner or later, these guys will come after you. As for blocking, the same applies. You sensibly answered some difficult questions correctly above, and you usually won't be confronted with such situations on a day-to-day basis. For instance, if you want to work at WP:AIV, it's obvious a user deserves a block for vandalizing when they insert 'fuck', 'shit', and 'yo momma' into articles despite warnings. Of course, if you like, we can go in depth, but if you ask me, I feel that a close read of relevant policy pages will do just fine. I'll leave it up to you though. Would you like to go in depth or shall we continue? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- A: