User:ToBeFree/Admin sandbox
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It was last substantively updated 2019-01-03 (5 years ago). If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 2019-01-03 (5 years ago). |
 | This sandbox wasn't necessarily a bad idea, and it may provide interesting insight, but all time spent editing this page could better have been spent taking actual action instead of sitting in a sandbox.
Making entries on this page required me to be faster than the blocking administrator, using slower tools. Outside of the sandbox, there is no such speed requirement, and making decisions too quickly can be harmful. For Wikipedia, it does not matter who makes a necessary block. If no administrator was around, a perceived preventative urgent need for a block might also have turned out not to exist. The applicability of a block can change while a report is waiting at WP:AIV. See WP:BLOCKP for details about this point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC) |
What if everyone could use administrator tools in a sandbox, affecting nobody while publicly logging their actions?
What if RfA candidates could be judged not only by their requests for action, but actually by their actions?
What if there was some kind of non-destructive, non-dangerous "trial adminship" that allowed candidates to prove that they have a clue?
Because there is no script, no template and no standardized process to help with this task, it will be time-consuming and relatively inefficient. I'll try this anyway.
How this specific implementation works[edit]
Rules[edit]
Maybe especially on weekends, when neither vandalism nor administrator actions are frequent, and when there is a large backlog at RfPP, AIV and UAA, I will be working through the logs from the bottom to the top. If an administrator is simultaneously processing the log, I will still be able to do this for a few minutes. The problem is that, without a script to assist me, I will always be slower than an actual administrator at work. If I decide to "block" a user, they might already be blocked before I can add my "action" to the table below. A reader could then say: "You didn't do this yourself, you just copied an administrator's actions."
For this reason, whenever I am coincidentally slower than a real administrator, the table entry below is invalid. To avoid an unfair negative bias on the statistic, this applies to all table entries, not just the "green" ones.
I have modified my Wikipedia preferences to display ISO 8601 dates with seconds instead of the default dates. You can do the same thing to verify that my sandbox action happened before the administrator action.
Possible actions when viewing a log[edit]
An administrator can...
- Accept,
- Ignore or
- Decline
...a request for administrator action. As an inexperienced, new administrator, it is probably best to avoid declining requests. It requires a lot of experience to be able to say "nobody will do this". For this reason, you will see few "decline" entries in the table below. However, to learn from these cases, I will add "Ignore" entries to the table if I closely looked at a request and carefully chose not to take any action. When this happens, I will try to explain the reason for ignoring the request.
Legend[edit]
Green action: After my sandbox action, an administrator has actually done the same thing. This also applies to blocks and protections if the administrator has chosen a longer duration than me.
Yellow action: After my sandbox action, an administrator has done nearly the same thing. They have, however, chosen a shorter duration for the block or protection. This means that I have been suggesting an action that was unnecessarily strong.
Orange action: After my sandbox block, SQLBot has removed the request as "stale". This should not happen.
Red action: Instead of erring on the side of caution, I did something that an administrator has declined. This must not happen.
My performance[edit]
I sincerly hope that this will not end up with a horrible amount of red entries. Now that the page exists, I can't really go back. This feels like standing on a 10m springboard with a queue behind me. This is a good thing, but I'm nervous!
AIV[edit]
Administrator intervention against vandalism. This is about preventing further vandalism, not punishing a user for past vandalism. For this reason, if there is a large time difference between my "action" and the actual action, an administrator may decline a request that would have been valid before.
| My Timestamp | My Action | User | # | Administrator | Administrator action | Result | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-10-08T17:49:44Z | Block indef, abuse-only | Dittma794 | # | GeneralizationsAreBad | 2018-10-08T17:50:20Z blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account: See also edit filter log) | 
|
／ |
| 2018-10-08T17:50:36Z | Block indef, abuse-only | Therealhenryford | # | GeneralizationsAreBad | 2018-10-08T17:50:50Z blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account: See also edit filter log) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-08T18:09:52Z | Ignore, not obvious | "Minskpepin" and "Fev2018" | # | ／ | 2018-10-08T22:00:16 report removed by SQLBot (BOT: Removing Stale AIV Reports BRFA stale time at 4 hours Explanation.) | 
|
／ |
| 2018-10-08T18:13:41Z | Ignore, requires more experience to clean up the mess | Actuallyzaarif | # | Alexf | 2018-10-08T18:24:01Z blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-08T19:01:03Z | Ignore, not obvious vandalism, not a new user | MrsCaffrey | # | WJBscribe | 2018-10-08T20:00:50 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Persistent addition of unsourced content) |
|
Note the time difference, while others have been blocked in the same time. I think that this indicates that multiple administrators have chosen the "Ignore" option, and that AIV may theoretically have been the wrong venue for the report. |
| 2018-10-08T19:31:36Z | Block indef, spam-only account | Klmeekota | # | Alexf | 2018-10-08T19:55:16 deleted page User:Klmeekota (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace),
2018-10-08T19:56:21 blocked with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) (Vandalism) |
|
Requiring an unblock request or at least a comment before unblocking would probably not have hurt in this specific case. "Vandalism" seems to be a bit unspecific. |
| 2018-10-08T20:25:19Z | Block indef, disruption-only | Sounsarath | # | Hut 8.5 | 2018-10-08T21:00:36 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-10-10T18:26:04Z | Block indef, vandalism-only | Takethissitedown | # | Zzuuzz | 2018-10-10T18:29:24 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) |
|
See the AbuseFilter log of the user; bot-reported by DatBot for repeatedly tripping the anti-vandalism filters by attempting to blank "Battle of Groton Heights". Later, there have been repeated attempts to add huge amounts of "LLLLLLLLL" to the article. Combined with the username and lack of any other contributions, an indefinite block is justified |
| 2018-10-10T18:46:15Z | Ignore, not enough warnings | 207.179.200.20 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
To be fair, Widr has been processing the log at the same time, and the list contained 8 blocked entries as well as this non-blocked one between them. |
| 2018-10-10T19:11:59Z (block)
2018-10-10T19:16:24 (unblock) |
Undo block; I have misinterpreted the warning messages and did not look at the timestamps closely enough. Both "final" warnings have been given *after* the last incident. |
82.38.96.118 | # | Caknuck | 2018-10-10T21:38:52 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) |
|
They seem to have created a new page after the previous incidents. I guess that's a gray checkmark. |
| 2018-10-10T19:20:39Z | Block indef, vandalism-only | NateDogDeMan | # | Widr | 2018-10-10T19:23:47 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-10T20:39:48Z | Warn with uw-ew for edit-warring. Is probably going to be blocked by someone else anyway, for having done nothing else. | Amogh0101 | # | ／ | 2018-10-10T21:52:03 Report withdrawn by CLCStudent (diff) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-10T20:42:12Z | Ignore, not necessarily easy, not a completely new user, not really obvious vandalism | Inccongress4 bsr | # | Ritchie333 | 2018-10-10T22:06:54 Declined with {{aiv|dc}} template (diff) ("Declined. Looks more WP:COMPETENCE than vandalism to me.")
|
|
／ |
| 2018-10-10T20:44:26Z | Ignore, this time carefully deciding by the timestamps: Final warning given in same minute and *after* the last incident. | 76.81.249.42 | # | Caknuck | 2018-10-10T21:34:36 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Persistent addition of unsourced content) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-10T20:46:51Z ("ignore")2018-10-10T20:47:25 to 2018-10-10T20:48:17 (welcome, uw-selfrevert) (1, 2, 3)2018-10-10T20:54:19Z (block) | Ignore, user has self-reverted at least once, Special:Diff/863416912 -- may simply have been beaten to self-revert by another userAdditionally, I have added the "welcome-anon" and "uw-selfrevert" templates to the user's talk page. I have then replaced my automatic duplicate "October 2018" heading by "Thank you".Block for 31 hours, will unblock on request: After the same thing has happened again, I believe that this is a shared IP address by someone vandalizing and someone else attempting to clean up their mess. I believe that the issue needs to be solved in the real world before an unblock can be made. | 173.164.236.77 | # | Caknuck | 2018-10-10T21:36:24 blocked 173.164.236.77 with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) |
|
After a new warning and an AIV comment by Apokryltaros, the user has been blocked for exactly the same edit that has caused me to "block" them as well. |
| 2018-10-10T21:08:50Z | Ignore: Not recent | 217.23.230.72 | # | Anna Frodesiak | 2018-10-10T21:08:48 blocked with an expiration time of 6 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{school block}}) |
|
Editing had been automatically re-allowed after a 3-month school block, and the first and only edits have been vandalism again. |
| 2018-10-12T17:21:21Z | Ignore, not recent, final warning has been given minutes after last incident | 2601:1C2:1200:D132:4DE1:131D:8CA3:8905 | # | Ad Orientem | 2018-10-12T17:26:46 blocked with an expiration time of 72 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Using Wikipedia for spam purposes) |
|
Is it the different amount of experience or a generally different blocking philosophy that makes most of my gray checkmarks end up as blocked users? |
| 2018-10-12T17:46:30Z | Ignore, not warned since 2018-10-03T11:53:01! | 94.204.192.155 | # | Vanamonde93 | 2018-10-12T18:26:29 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-12T17:52:04Z | Ignore, because the report has been created by myself. It can't hurt to treat WP:INVOLVED very carefully. Else, I'd block indef, disruption-only. | Samh02 | # | Widr | 2018-10-12T17:52:49 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-12T19:54:51Z | Ignore, does not appear to be "vandalism". Better at ANI | Et43 | # | JamesBWatson
Bbb23 |
2018-10-12T20:15:08 blocked with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
2018-10-16T00:29:05 blocked indef (account creation blocked) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Abusing multiple accounts: Please see:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Et43) |
|
Theoretically, I guess WP:AN/EW would have been a more appropriate place to request the first block. |
| 2018-10-12T21:56:06Z (warn) (diff) 2018-10-12T22:01:53Z (decline) | Decline, defer to ANI. Non-admin action actually done by me: Warn reporting user for apparent 3RR violation on Talk:Modern architecture | "Coldcreation" had been reported by "AugustusMarbleBoy" | # | Ad Orientem | 2018-10-12T22:41:28Z: Declined with {{AIV|a}} template (diff) ("This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI.")
|
|
My first (sandbox) "Decline" action at AIV. |
| 2018-10-12T22:07:07Z | Block indef (disruption-only). | 0fficialg0p | # | Oshwah | 2018-10-12T22:09:18 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) |
|
Disclosure: I have requested revision deletion for two BLP violations, one of which has been considered to be severe enough for revision deletion. The block is a result of the IRC request. |
| 2018-10-15T18:36:52Z | Block indef, vandalism-only, also per edit filter log | Eoiuweuiew | # | Widr | 2018-10-15T18:37:12 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-19T18:26:30Z | Block indef, mass reverts, edit warring only account claiming to be a known "vandal" per linked profile page | Mlpwtfisthat_Backup_2.0 | # | OshwahOshwah | 2018-10-19T18:32:13 blocked with an expiration time of 36 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)2018-10-19T18:41:19 changed block settings with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing -- Abusing talk page access; revoking) |
|
Yellow to green: Indef did not hurt and was the final result. |
| 2018-10-19T18:29:14Z | Ignore, will probably be blocked for being promotion-only, but the strange AIV request made me avoid a potential mess | Bangladeshtourist | # | Floquenbeam | 2018-10-19T18:47:20 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes) |
|
As expected. |
| 2018-10-19T20:35:08Z | Block indef, vandalism-only | Hijfklds | # | Widr | 2018-10-19T20:37:22 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-19T22:46:51Z | Ignore, probably better at ANI. Not a new editor. Probably not vandalism. | Chicken9182 | # | Ronhjones | 2018-10-19T22:55:02 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) |
|
May be worth checking again in a few weeks. |
| 2018-10-27T17:43:11Z (warning) | "Ignore", create Template:uw-attempt1 (permanent link), warn using new template (diff), add new template to Huggle config (diff), add Twinkle feature request (link) | Kenz Koshy | # | Ronhjones | 2018-10-27T17:46:58 removed bot report as "warned", Special:Diff/866010796 |
|
My warning caused the administrator to remove the bot report. I guess this is a "green" checkmark. 
|
| 2018-10-27T23:16:07Z (explain situation, diff) | Welcome user (diff), collapse ClueBot warnings, remove "Template:..." HTML comments to avoid collateral damage, explain situation (diff), implement blocked edit (diff), comment on AIV bot report (diff), report edit filter false positive (permanent link), report ClueBot NG false positives (permanent link). | Emanuel Fresh | # | 5 albert square | 2018-10-28T00:12:30 declined as "false positive" (diff) |
|
What a mess, caused by edit filters and ClueBot NG. |
| 2018-10-28T00:08:13Z | Block indef, vandalism-only | Silly.boy.420 | # | CambridgeBayWeather | 2018-10-28T00:41:51 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-28T00:11:09Z | Ignore, not vandalism, one-time incident, user has promised not to continue on their talk page | Brandanlee | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-10-28T00:16:27Z | Ignore, not recent, all edits happened within 10 minutes, no previous incidents, no new filter log entries | 100.1.206.122 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-10-28T00:20:00Z | Welcome (Welcome-coi) (diff) | Excelsior2000 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
Not vandalism, but a possible conflict of interest. The user had been automatically reported by DatBot for repeatedly tripping filter 68 ("Pagemove throttle for new users"). |
| 2018-10-28T00:56:19Z | "Ignore", warn (uw-attempt2, diff) | Alejandropc08 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-10-28T01:25:14Z (decline)
2018-10-28T01:31:55Z (block 31 hours, vandalism) |
Decline, no edits since warned / not sufficiently warned. Non-admin comment (diff): Both the level 3 and level 4 warning (2018-10-28T01:16:57, 2018-10-28T01:17:51) appear to have been created after the last edit (2018-10-28T01:16:54).
Update: Block for 31 hours, user has vandalized again. Non-admin comment struck and replaced (diff). |
2601:600:9480:5A4A:D00:B26C:780B:E4B7 | # | Alexf | 2018-10-28T02:04:13 blocked with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Vandalism) |
|
／ |
| 2018-10-29T17:13:28Z | Ignore: not vandalism, user is discussing on another user's talk page and complaining about the reverts. They *may* be edit warring, but there is no vandalism here.
I've taken a moment to defuse the situation a bit, hopefully. See Special:PermanentLink/866320923. One edit has later been mentioned at Special:PermanentLink/866326552#Reverting_edits. |
Gatomon 15 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-10-30T19:46:51Z | Block indef, vandalism-only, per filter log and only contribution | Carter.moore5854 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-11-02T19:08:11Z | Ignore, no real need for a block -- would need to be very long to catch the next vandalism attempt | 50.206.60.27 | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-11-02T20:54:25Z | Ignore as good-faith and possibly actually here to improve the encyclopedia. Yes, AIV is also for obvious spam, but creating an autobiography is something else than someone promoting their commercial internet shop by spamming links on hundreds of pages. | Konstantinjaenicke | # | Admin | AdminAction |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-11-04T03:46:17Z | Block, uh, indef I guess. Not forever, but this requires an unblock request. Compromised? Lost interest in Wikipedia? | Tatenbelzer (talk, contributions, block log, filter log) | # | L235 | 2018-11-04T05:28:57 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
I'm not sure about "Vandalism-only", but the block is needed. |
| 2018-11-04T03:49:17Z | Block indef, vandalism-only | Sesamestreets (talk, contributions, block log, filter log) | # | Spencer | 2018-11-04T06:00:41 blocked indef (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) |
|
OptionalExplanation |
| 2018-11-04T03:50:40Z | Block indef, disruption-only | Kieran6220 (talk, contributions, block log, filter log) | # | L235 | 2018-11-04T05:22:59 blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) |
|
(also see the user's filter log) |
| 2018-12-08T18:02:08Z | Block indef to enforce discussion (unblock request), repeated edit-warring after multiple temporary blocks | Храмулин Владимир Валерьевич (talk, contributions, block log, filter log) | # | Ad Orientem | 2018-12-08T18:41:23 blocked with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing Looks like a serious case of IDHT. This is likely the last block that will have an end date.)Message left on talk page: This is your third block for disruptive editing in a short period of time. You are in the express lane heading for the exit marked "indefinitely blocked." I suggest you switch lanes while you still can. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
Let's see what happens after the week.Update: Yup. That's a green checkmark now. |
RfPP[edit]
Requests for page protection. Semi-protection for persistently vandalized pages or targets of frequent disruption, like WP:BLP violations. Full protection to stop active edit wars between autoconfirmed editors. I will probably not be applying "extended confirmed protection" (ECP) to any page, because it is a minefield: Even where it is required to stop disruption, there will be a large amount of false-positive edit denials. How is a user supposed to reach 500 edits if all the interesting topics are locked away from them? Have you ever been told "you're too young for that yet" as a child, and how did that feel?