User talk:Spinningspark/coaching

Assignment 4: User:Balloonman/AIV

Here are some practice AIV reports that Nishkid64 created. You must tell me if a block is appropriate and what duration the block should last for. Good luck!

Example 1 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
• 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3)
• 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Answer 1: The final warning is timestamped after the last recorded incident. A block should be declined until the IP vandalises again.

Example 2 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized pages at 19:51, 19:55, 19:57 and 19:59. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4)
• 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-2)
• 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Answer 2: Same as example 1, no vandalism since fianl warning. Decline to block.

Example 3 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP vandalized pages at 23:11 on 12 March. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings:

• 20:00 UTC 11 March (uw-4im)
• 19:58 UTC 8 March (uw-3)
• 19:56 UTC 7 March (uw-1)

Answer 3: The new vandalism has occured substantially more than 24 hours after the final warning. Unless there is evidence that we are still dealing with the same person then the apropriate action would be a new warning eg (uw-2).

Example 4 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) School IP vandalized at least 10 times on March 12, directly after a 3-month block. The last vandalism edit occurred after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Last three warnings: 20:00 UTC 12 March (uw-4) 19:58 UTC 12 March (uw-3) 19:56 UTC 12 March (uw-1)

Answer 4: Clearly should be blocked again and for a longer period. For a school to attract a 3-month block I would expect there to have been a whole series of shorter blocks immediately preceding it. I would satisfy myself that this was really the case before deciding that a new 6-month block was really justified. I have heard the phrase "school block" but am unsure exactly what is meant; as far as I can tell there is no class of block specific to schools and all that is apparently meant is the use of the schoolblock template as a blocking reason. Collateral damage should be avoided where possible, but continuous ongoing vandalism like this has to be stopped.

Example 5 XX (talk · contribs) Registered user vandal created an account and has made 6 vandalism edits, 1 of which came after a final warning. The user was then reported to AIV.

Answer 5: Presuming that there is nothing but vandalism here, I would block forever. There is no need to give any leeway to a registered account since it is identifiably one person and no one else can ever use the account.

Example 6 xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shared IP last received a vandalism warning (uw-4) at 19:00 UTC on March 11. Someone from the IP has made 4 vandalism edits at around 12:00 UTC on March 12, but has not received no final warnings (uw-2 was the highest). The user was then reported to AIV.

Answer 6: There is a 17 hour gap between the final warning and the new spate of vandalism. Unless it can be established that these two sequences are likely the same person (similar comments, same articles attacked etc) then WP:AGF dictates we should assume that they are not the same person. By that reasoning, the current vandal has not received a final warning. There is a point at which a user is being so damaging to the encyclopedia that it would be appropriate to block without warning. This user has not really crossed that line and the appropriate action is to give another warning. Since the user has accumalated four vandalisms in a short period a final warning (uw-4) is appropriate - it does not matter that previous warnings only got up to (uw-2).

Mid-January review

Ok, it's been a while since I've reviewed you, but here it goes. First, your little escapade in December is really going to hurt your chances at an RfA for a while. Unfortunately, I was hoping to nominate you in late January/early February, but that instance needs to be 3-4 months in the past, before you have a viable chance at RfA. That is how serious of an issue it was. But you know that.

As for your edits over the past month or so.

• You've been quite busy writing some new articles... I see several DYK's to your name.
• I've noticed that several people have come to your talk page seeking help, particularly newbies. In one case you indicated on your talk page that you responded on the persons talk page, on the other you didn't (but you did respond on their page.) If you do respond on their page, it is helpful (but not required) to indicate that. I say this in case somebody else has the same question or if somebody wants to know your answer.
• You are doing some great work at AfD. Giving reasons behind your votes and not just voting. Your voice is being heard often cited by others as part of their rationale for taking the stand that they do. That's a nice feeling isn't? But it indicates that you're reasoning is solid. This afd in particular is impressive as I have a lot of respect for DGG.
• I'm glad to see you participating in other areas, such as editor assistance. You are giving great advice there as well. Citing policies and providing links... goodjob.
• You seem to be very technically minded, this is a selling point when we submit you for RfA. A lot of people are afraid of technical subjects.

Overall your edits look a lot more mature and thought out than they did even a few months ago. Again if it wasn't for the faux pas I would probably be about ready to nominate you... but that is the type of mistake that people want to see time pass before running :(---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

• You didn't finish your sentence about talk page help so I am not quite sure what you were going to say, but I guess it was something on the lines of "keep conversations together". If the second example you referred to was User:Matthewsei, the reason I did not note the reply was on his page was because the thread started on his page and I posted his comments back with my reply.

• Newbies turning up unexpectedly on my page - the reason for that is that my name is on this list. I am finding that quite disconcerting; working the help pages is one thing, you can pick and choose the ones you feel comfortable helping. But a direct request to you personally kind of obliges you to help. When I put my name down I naively imagined that I would be asked stuff like how to format a table, not to sort out nightmare difficult content disputes.

• Resonant capacitor AfD - yes DGG's comment does puff me up with pride. Unfortunately, I think it is a bad idea to turn my words into an article in this particular instance. I had better leave a comment in the debate - thanks for highlighting it, that point might have passed me by otherwise. SpinningSpark 20:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think your words should have been the article, but it was still nice to see. As for people coming to your page, good to know... it's great prep for life as an admin because you never know what people will ask you. Similarly, it's amazing at the places people start to know you... I've had people make comments about my being a "long time admin" or something even more favorably, and didn't know they knew me. People sometimes do, unfortuntely, give the opinions of established admins more credence than non-admins.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Question you are likely to get when we throw your hat into the ring

I've been thinking alot about your mistake in December. It was a mistake, but part of the problem was that you went offline after submitting the two cases for review. While you were offline, your initial mistake blew up, and became a bigger issue than it might have had you been around to adress it immediately. If you are promoted to admin, you might get involved in controversy, how do you alleviate the concern that issues may blow up on you again during the week when you don't have internet access?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to say is that I have learnt a lesson, and I would not in future take an action that is likely to become inflamed immediately before going offline for a lengthy period unless it was truly necessary to do so. In cases where it is necessary I would try to make sure the situation was covered. Possible actions that spring to mind are informing the relevant parties when I will be back to deal with it and/or asking someone else to watch over the issue. Of course, everyone has to go offline at some time; only the bots do not sleep or have some other kind of work to do. It is also not possible to predict every item that may become an issue - there are always surprises. However, things may change by the time I am nominated, I may be in a position to access the web daily - this is not just hypothetical, it is a real possibility. Wikipedia activity will still be low during the week and I may need to ask people to alert me by e-mail if I need to log on for some urgent issue, but nevertheless I may be more accessible than I am now. SpinningSpark 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)