User talk:Spawn Man/Admin coaching

Admin coaching:

Grrr, the person I asked for admin coaching is a no-show and as promised, I am now betrothed to you Firs. ;) If you have time that is, but I know you'll be more active than my last few coaches... Reply if yes - I've set up a page here for discussion. For a first lesson, could you check out my recent edits? I've been welcoming editors, tagging pages for speedy deletion and have started a sock puppetry investigation - somehow I don't feel I'm doing it all right! I've also tried to revert some vandalism, but no one's turned that damn bot off so I can ge tin first lol! ;) Well anyway, it's kinda fun in a way, but totally time consuming... Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I had someone indef blocked, but now I feel bad for ruining their day. Sure they were being disruptive, but it's kinda sad having to be the one to report them. Maybe I'm just too empathetic... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spawny!

I'm so glad you've allowed me to help out with your coaching, and I'm sorry to hear other folks are busy at this time... of course, since Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, we can't expect everyone to be available all the time.

You obviously know a whole lot about Wikipedia, article building, RFA, etc, so there's no sense in me explaining any of these things as I normally might. You've been here too long and are too experienced for that sort of thing. You want to know how to be an admin. My first question to you, obviously, is why do you want to become an admin? (Yes, I know you've answered this previously, but bear with me; it's a question that will be asked at your RFA again).

One of the most important things I want to stress about adminship is: when you become one, it is so, sooo important to try to treat every editor with the utmost respect, no matter if he is a Featured Article writer or a vandal. Treat every user as if s/he is secretly a reporter for the New York Times doing a story on Wikipedia admins: you never know if s/he really is, as some of our former admins have discovered.

Act professionally when warning or blocking vandals. Never tell them off or start swearing at them, even if you're tempted to, and even when they're doing it to you. Remember that when you become an admin, you are representing an official of one of the world's ten largest web-sites. Swearing at or threatening vandals looks unprofessional... and sometimes ends up in the press. Wikipedia doesn't want that, and neither do you. :) I tell you all this, Spawny, not because I think you'll tell vandals off or anything, but because we actually do have admins who end up in the press for silly, immature behaviour. You're better than that, of course, but it's something that deserves discussion right from the start. Adminship is about cleaning up an encyclopedia; not so much about power trips or ego (we can build up our egos just fine through FA writing, right? ;)

How many pages are on your watchlist? We get tons of dinosaur vandalism, and if you want to start reverting more vandalism, add the popular theropods to your watchlist: Spinosaurus, Velociraptor, Giganotosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus receive daily IP vandalism. It never ends with those four. We get either "size queens" (editors wanting to make their favorite dinosaur the largest by switching out some numbers); fundamentalists blanking the page, adding "Thay nevar existed!1!", or "Thay olney lived 6,000 yeers ago!1!"; or (apparently) small children adding their thoughts about dinosaurs. Watch for sneaky vandalism: two edits from different users or IPs made nearly at the same time, so that when you revert, you only catch the first vandal. Try to make sure that the version you are reverting to is also free of vandalism. Be sure to warn the user with the appropriate template on his/her talk page: {{subst:test1}} ~~~~ to start with. Never block without a warning. Do not send templates to heavily-experienced editors. Blocks usually start out at 24 hours for IPs and user accounts. Vandalism-only accounts can be blocked indefinitely. Good-faith users should never be blocked indefinitely. Use blocks with caution; avoid them if possible. If diplomacy can achieve the same result as a block, don't block.

That's all I can think of for a beginning. I'll check out your edits as you requested. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all that Firs - it must've taken you a lot of time and I really do appreciate it. I'll try and adress as many points as I can. :) First and foremost, I want to become an admin because I was to achieve something - everyone has to have goals and I've set that as one of my big ones for my time here (Among writing the most FA's etc etc) ;). Secondly, I see AfD discussions which could've been closed ages ago and admin work which sits dormant for weeks before it's dealt with - Not saying that admins are doing a bad job or anything, but it'd be great to have the tools to be able to help out and work on the backlogs without waiting for someone else to do it. Thirdly, I want to be able to help people! Sure I can help people now, but you have to agree that new editors actively seek out admins for help. I like helping people and I feel with adminship that role could be opened a lot more for me than just a normal editor. Those are my basic reasons for wanting to become an admin.

Watchlist? I have a watch list? I do use it occasionally, but not very often. This is predominantly because I have so many articles on it (Well over 1.5K!) and I have other methods of searching out vandalism. My main problem is that I'm very slow when reverting - I first have to check if it actually was a vandalism edit, then click undo and then type "reverting vandalism" in my edit summary after the automated stuff and by that time that damn cluebot has reverted it or one of those faster admins (Heck, even an IP beat me to it once!!). I've found that I've had far more success with tagging new pages for speedy deletion or prodding them lately as well as welcoming/warning users where I can take my time a bit more. I'm aware of the warning templates and how to use them, although I may not be familiar with all of them.

A couple of questions: "Do not send templates to heavily-experienced editors" So say if I was doing the vandalism, you would only informally warn me (No templates) or just block me straight away? "Vandalism-only accounts can be blocked indefinitely" So if it's clear that they're only here for vandalism, they're blocked indef without any warnings? Not 24 hours first or any warnings? As for me, I'd prefer not to block willy nilly - I'd much rather favour talking to them and coming to a resolution than simply hitting the block button.

Thanks Firs - I'm thinking of letting myself get nominated after the 1 year mark from my last block has passed (So April) giving you around 4-5 months to turn me into a vandal fighting, policy knowing, awesome admin wannabe. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Spawn! Thanks for your lengthy replies. :) From your description above, it sounds like you could really use the admin tools. Are you sure you want to wait until April of next year? Well, think it over. In the meanwhile, there are other tools you can get to help prevent vandalism: Twinkle, Popups, and VandalProof. I liked the third one the best when I was reverting articlespace vandalism regularly: you can check the diff, and and revert and warn the user in just one button click. That's fast! Obvious vandalism? Just click "Revert+level 1 warning". Already warned? click "Revert+level 3 warning". You can get VandalProof at WP:VPRF, if you're interested. You must be approved first. They are likely to approve you for use because of your long service to the project. Popups is also useful for reverting vandalism quickly, but it requires adding code to your monobook.js and has strange effects sometimes. I've never used Twinkle.

It sounds like your watchlist is overloaded. If you have 1,500 pages on it, consider removing 500-1,000 of them so the list is usable again. At some point, your watchlist will no longer be useful anymore. It could be that you've reached that point. Removing a few hundred pages will allow you to actually be able to check the eidts of pages receiving edits. I have 1,544 pages on my watchlist, but I try to keep it under 1,200. Still, vandalism will sneak in if your watchlist is too large: you won't have time to monitor all of the pages: you'll be stretched out over too many pages, and end up suffering burn-out. We don't wan that. :)

Re:Vandalism templates for well-established users: don't send them. Send a friendly message. "Hey, a recent edit you made to page X blanked the article. I just wondered what was going on. Should I restore the page, or was there a reason, such as you're moving content elsewhere or somesuch?" Someone with thousands of edits already knows what vandalism is; giving him or her a test1 template which asks them to read WP:VAND won't help. Do not ever block an established user unless you're certain the account has been compromised (because it's obviously vandalizing many articles), or the user is clearly disturbing Wikipedia by continually making edits and has already been warned not to do so. Also, do not block an editor with whom you are involved in an edit conflict. Reverting blatant vandalism doesn't count as being in an edit conflict.

About your question, "So if it's clear that they're only here for vandalism, they're blocked indef without any warnings"... Give the user warnings first. If s/he's got dozens of contributions, all definitely vandalism, but has never been warned, it's a vandalism-only account and can be blocked indefinitely. But always try to warn first. If the user has an inappropriate username (such as something like user:FuckWikipedia!) it can be indefinitely blocked with {{tl:usernameblock}} with no need for a warning. If the name is just very questionable, send him/her a nice note asking him/her to change his/her username at WP:CHU, and link to Wikipedia:Username policy in your note. When in doubt, ask another admin for a second opinion. Always remember that blocks are to be used to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Never block when diplomacy can be used.

More later... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted all my watchlist and have started again with the pages I frequent most often and those I want to keep an eye on (Under 100 for now, but more to come over time). Cheers Firs! Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Do you think you're ready for some speedy deletion exercises, Spawn? Do you think you could tell the difference between an article which is speediable and which is not? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure! This sounds exciting! :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

These CSD practices were created by EWS23 for his admin coaches. We're stealing these for our own purposes. This is a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases which have been discovered while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through deletion logs to see if it was deleted, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (it is in use for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything, but remember that in real cases the page history is important. Don't worry if you get any wrong; that's what coaching is for. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 trailier

• I'm not sure as to how to deal with this one; I'm running down the line of trying to verify the conent and merge it into the Halo 3 article, speedily deleting due to lack of notability or lack of context or just prodding it.

It's misspelled and there's no assertion of notability. I would probably just redirect it to Halo 3 or delete per CSD A7: "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Firsfron of Ronchester 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

K. Forgot to add that it was mispelt... *Sheepishly grins*. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) A lot of times, there's no one right answer, anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Milllwright

• I would speedily delete this article under CSD#A3 (No content and comprised solely of external links to other sites) and CSD#A7 (Doesn't assert notability). A google search doesn't turn up any secondary sources or news articles on the company and almost all mentions are by the company themselves or others closely involved with them. In any case the page name is spelt wrong with an extra 'l'.

Yep. This article clearly meets CSD A3. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I got one right! :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Webs

• I would speedily delete this article under CSD#G1 (Patent nonsense) and CSD#A7 (Doesn't assert notability). The article is filled with OR and most likely COI (Due to there being an email address in the article). It reads more like an advert than an article.

It's not really patent nonsense (PN is usually just gibberish). CSD G11 is probably the best fit: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." As you say, it's an advert, not an article. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, must've missed the G11 aspects (Although I did mention it was advert-like). Sorry about that... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil Haverton Smith

• I would speedily delete this article under CSD#A7 (Does not assert notability); a Google search on Neil Haverton Smith turns up zero hits, and the first few pages of a search for Neil Smith does not turn up anything resembling the subject. The subject simply isn't notable enough to have an article.

I'd probably delete this as a G10: the article states that he's 15, gay, and is dating his own cousin; it's likely an attack page created only to disparage the subject. Per WP:CSD, "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to" should probably be deleted. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Grrr! How'd I miss that last line of him dating his cousin!? I was just assuming that he was proud of the fact he was gay, but how'd I miss that attack!? *Pulls out metal cilice to atone for mistake*. ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Put the cilice away, Spawny! This is just Wikipedia, not Opus Dei. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just watched a doco on them and thought I'd work it into my conversation. ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

• I would not speedy this article because the subject is notable, has secondary sources and meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC. I may try to include notability in the lead, but other than that, the notability is established throughout the article. The page is already tagged with a cleanup/rewrite template so there isn't much to be done here.

Yes. This article clearly indicates notability: they have multiple albums and singles from a real label, they're Grammy-nominated, and the article has reliable sources (well, at least one, from the All-Music Guide). This was probably tagged by mistake. In this case, you should remove the tag, with a comment such as Removing Speedy Delete tag; article asserts notability. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that one was easy since they're everywhere nowadays... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

• I would not speedy delete this article. The subject is clearly notable and has secondary sources and is fairly well covered in the media. I'd remove all OR and badly written text and tag the article with a cleanup tag. But since the removal wouldn't leave much useful text left, I'd probably tackle the article myself and add a few sources and make the article look respectable. If I wasn't willing to do this though, would it be suitable just to place a stub and clean up tag on it? I'd think if very little useful information was left (Since all that'd probably be left would be "Bar Jonah is a convicted child sex killer. He was convicted in Dec 2002 of murding a neighborgood child") then it'd probably be deleted anyway due to the article having very little encylopedic information...?

It's clearly a poorly-written article, but the subject is notable. If you can clean the article up and salvage it, that's preferred over just sticking maintenance tags on it, but there are situations where this isn't possible: for example, if there's a topic where you know little about the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know all! ;) And if I don't, I make sure I do. That's where I think being an article writer might come in handy for cases like this... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done them all. Some were easier than others and some were damn near hard to come to a decision on! Maybe it was too easy and I missed something obvious and made myself look like a fool. Ah well! Cheers Firs for the effort you're putting into me! :) Thanks, Spawn Man (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not foolish at all. You're clearly reading the policies, and it's obvious you have an understanding of most of them. We can work on these more later, if you'd like. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well apart from a couple of boo-boos, I think I did better than I had anticipated. What's next sensei? Are you going to everything you'd normally do with me, or just selected stuff? (I'm happy either way). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. We'll work on this more later, if you'd like. It's clear you understand most of the CSD categories, and you're not likely to misuse them. We will only do what you want to do. If there's something you don't think is useful, we'll skip it. CSD is important, though: every admin will encounter it at some point, no matter where s/he works. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Buttons"

When you become an admin, you'll get a set of extra "buttons". These aren't actually buttons, despite what people call them: they're tabs and links that appear on the top and side of the Wikipedia page.

Admins have a few extra "buttons" that regular users do not have:

1. Protect/Unprotect

This is a tab that appears on the top of the page when you are logged in as an admin. Protection should only be used to prevent disruption on a page. There are different levels of protection. A page can be semi-protected (logged-in users can still edit, but IPs cannot), fully protected (only admins can edit it), cascading protected (fully protects any page transcluded onto the protected page), or move protected (protected from move vandalism). Protection should only be used to prevent vandalism, stop an edit war between two other parties, etc. Protection should be used as little as possible, because we want people to be able to edit as freely as possible. Protected pages are considered harmful. Read WP:PROTECT for more details. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Do you have any scenarios/tests for me in regard to protection like you did with the above speedy scenarios? I'd be willing to do that, since I feel protection would be something I'd be very interested in if I were an admin... :) Only if you have time of course... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure!

Scenario #1:

IP user 123.45.67.890 has added "is gay!" to Vampire ten times. The user has been warned repeatedly. A logged-in user has requested you semi-protect the article so that the repeated vandalism will stop. You just noticed the IP has added the vandalism yet again.

There is no need to protect the page since it's only one ip, so I'd probably block the ip for a period of 24 hours since he's been adequately warned. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. 24 hours is the standard block range for a beginning block, and blocking the IP will still allow any other IPs to edit, reducing potential collateral damage. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Scenario #2:

IP user 012.34.56.789 wrote "Dinosours Thay nevar eggsistid!" on Elopteryx two days ago at 3 PM. The same IP vandalized yesterday at 2:52, and today at 3:04. No warnings were ever issued: the IP's talk page is still red.

I'd warn the ip and if the vandalism continued, I'd block the ip for a period of 24 hours. However, if it's obvious an ip's edits are intentional vandalism, do I need to issue a warning or just block? I know that registered vandalism accounts do not need a warning if their single purpose is for vandalism, so is it the same for ips? (I know that blocking ip accounts should be avoided however...). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Always try to warn first. Despite Wikipedia's presence at the top of most Google searches, there are still many people who have never heard of Wikipedia. A warning lets them know a little more about us before they potentially get blocked for vandalizing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Scenario #3:

user:I'mRight and user:You'reWrong have been reverting each other on a daily basis on Capture of Valdivia. They only revert each other once per day, and have not technically violated WP:3RR. I'mRight has been warned about revert wars. You'reWrong has not. Today, an edit war has broken out on the article. I'mRight has reverted four times. You'reWrong has reverted three times. user:UninvolvedUser has reverted twice. An admin has blocked I'mRight for breaking 3RR. An IP has appeared on WP:AN/I to complain about the unfair block, and admin bias.

I would semi protect the page and set up a discussion on the article's talk page between the two disputing authors and warn everyone involved (Well not the blocking admin) and only unblock the page when a resolution can be met (Unless one can't be). I'd have preferred not to have anyone bocked, but since an admin blocked I'mright, would it be wise to block You'rewrong for a similar period (Hence fixing the accusations of admin bias and teaching everyone a lesson not to edit war)? A trickier situation and all the interferring editors sure do amke it harder to keep track of everything. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably handle it the same way as you. This is a difficult scenario, but these types of situations happen regularly, so it's good to prepare yourself for them. Since both editors edit warred, blocking for edit warring would be acceptable, but since neither can edit the page if it's protected, no block is truly necessary: blocks are to prevent disturbance, and since neither party can edit the page... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Scenario #4:

A logged-in user has been reverting some of your edits to Admiralen class destroyer. All of your edits are sourced to good sources. The user refuses to talk, preferring to revert each time.

Normally I'd prefer to talk it through with the user, but since they're not willing, I suppose I could do one of two things - If they've broken the 3RR, then I could either warn them (Do you warn or just block - if it is block, then I'd ask another admin to suggest blocking due to my COI). Or I could apply that the page be protected from editing until a resolution is made or something; I know it's bad practise to protect to serve my own purposes. Hopefully that was kinda correct? Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Try to avoid conflict of interest (or even the appearance of COI) whenever possible. Ask for a second opinion on WP:AN/I if you have to. Never use protection to protect your version in an edit dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you do in each of these scenarios? There may be more than one "right" answer, as always. In some cases, there may be no "right" answer, as someone may still be unhappy. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done them all. *Gulp*... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You did great. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Whenever you want to begin the next lesson, I'm ready, but I probably won't be on until a few days after Christmas from tonight so Merry Christmas Firs and thanks for all the effort you've put into me so far! :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 08:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas back to you, Spawn Man. :) I'll put the next section just below, and we can work on it whenever you're ready. There's no hurry. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Delete/Undelete

Like Protect, Delete is a tab which appears at the top of the page when you are logged in as an admin. It is the sixth tab over, following [Article], [Discussion], [Edit this page], [History], and [Protect]. Admins can delete articles, project pages, and images. They can also selectively delete portions of the history of an article. Like all tools, deletion should be handled carefully. The deletion policy is covered at WP:DP. Please read it carefully. Undeletion is mostly covered at Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops. Undeletion is not a tab, so it is trickier to use. Never delete something that should not be deleted without cause, and never undelete something that was deleted with good reason. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I go, a quick question: If you accidentally press the delete or protect tab, does it come up with a message first such as "Are you sure you want to delete/protect"? Or does it just do it in which case I'd be screwed! ;) Spawn Man (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hee! No, it gives you a box asking you why you're deleting the page. Then you put the reason why. It would be way too easy to delete a page if they just allowed you to click a tab. Many pages would be accidentally deleted. In the text box, you enter the reason why you're deleting the page. Use something descriptive (not just something like "CSD#8"; that tells the average reader nothing, and s/he will want to know why his wonderful article was deleted), and if it is being deleted because it is an attack page (WP:CSD G10), make sure no part of the deleted page shows up in the deletion summary box. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Same thing with protection: it gives a "confirm protection" page, asking why you're protecting the page. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've read everything there. I'm not sure I really need any practises since it's pretty similar to the speedies above and I know how to do AfDs etc. Would you be able to evplain prodding a bit more to me? I've hardly used it and I'm not experienced in using the prod template yet. If that's okay that is... :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Course it's ok. :) Prod is actually much more straightforward than most of the deletion processes on Wikipedia. If you feel an article is "uncontroversially a deletion candidate" (it's likely that no one would object to deleting it), but it doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria, you can propose its ddeletion (prod), by typing {{subst:prod}} at the top of the page, explaining why it should be deleted in the edit summary. If no one objects in the next five days, the article can be deleted. If someone does object, all they have to do is remove the tag (the tag states it can be removed for any reason at any time by anyone). Articles that have already been proposed for deletion (through prod or AFD) cannot be re-prodded. Never re-prod a page that has been de-prodded: the tag clearly states the tag can be removed by anyone who objects. Make sense? Firsfron of Ronchester 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what's next coach? ;) Although I may still be a bit inactive for the next few days... Spawn Man (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Block/Unblock

We've talked about the extra tabs, but there is a very important admin tool which is not a tab. It's block user, which appears in the toolbox on the left (on user pages and user talk pages only). You already know that blocks are used to prevent disruption, and should never be used as a "weapon" in a dispute. Do you have other questions that aren't covered at WP:BLOCK?

When you get to the block page, there will also be an option to unblock the user; there isn't a separate link in the toolbox. Unblocking policy is covered at WP:UNBLOCK, and should be used with as much caution as block. You should never unblock yourself if you are blocked, though it is technically possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I definitely want to know more about these things: "Setting Block Options", Autoblocks, Softblocks, Bans, Arbcom, Mediation & RfC. I was hoping for a brief sort of explaination on all of those things (IE, the route through mediation to Arbcom etc to banning) and then maybe some exercises or something to do with mediation, banning and blocking. I know about blocking, and I know a tiny bit about banning, but I'm not well informed of that whole area etc. Thanks for the stuff so far Firs, it was helpful reading the blocking pages. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the first thing I should clarify is the difference between blocks and bans. There is a real difference, but a lot of users do not understand it. Any admin can block a user. But as Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban makes clear, only five groups have the ability to ban users: The Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom, an ArbCom representative, Jimbo Wales, and the community itself. You will never ban a user (unless you become an ArbCom member, etc). If no admin is willing to unblock an indefinitely-blocked user, it effectively becomes a ban, but this is the only time when the two resemble each other.

When you go into the 'Block user' page, at the very bottom, you will see the user's block log. You will be able to tell if the user has been blocked for the offense before. As WP:BLOCK states, blocks usually start off at 24 hours, for both IPs and registered users. Once you're sure the user has been warned repeatedly and continues to indisputably disturb the encyclopedia (vandalism, adding nonsense, repeated personal attacks, etc), you use the pull-down menu next to Expiry and choose the appropriate time limit. Then use the second drop-down menu to choose the reason why. Write it in the box if it doesn't fit any of the predetermined categories. "Prevent user from sending e-mail" gets checked only when this account would cause havoc by being able to send e-mails. "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" are left checked by default. You generally don't want the user to be able to immediately create a new account. WP:AUTOBLOCK explains autoblocks better than I could.

When the block expiry and the reason are filled out, you hit the "block user" button. You will receive a message that the user has been blocked. Be sure to tell the user s/he has been blocked. Leave a note on the user's talk page, such as {{subst:block|24 hours}}. Explain why. Show diffs. Make your reasons clear and concise. Don't argue with the user, and be prepared for a nasty comment or two. Let it go over your head.

If another admin undoes your block, don't wheel war, just inquire politely why. If you ever block a user incorrectly, undo it, and apologize for the mistake.

Mediation... hmmm... That's a whole other topic! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh. Sounds bad lol... ;) Spawn Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions?

OK, what do you need to know, Spawn? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just take me over all the basics with all the links - vandalism stuff, speedies, afd, blocks, bans, prods, cites... Everything... Spawn Man (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I can address everything, Spawn Man. Some of the items above, however, may have changed in the past few months anyway... :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And you call yourself and administrator... ; ) Spawn Man (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)