Hi again, and sorry for the delay (I'm going on holiday tomorrow! :D)
I have read what you said in the previous mail, and I must say I agree
completely with you, in regards to the examples you provided. Of course I
have no problem with blocking an IP if it's been used on just about every
other WM projects for vandalism, it might hinder other users, but the
benefits outweigh the drawbacks anyway imho (what's the chance this IP will
be used by someone who will want to make an edit on wikiquote? almost null).
For the CU, as I said we don't have any on fr.wikiquote, so I have no idea
what we'd do if we had such a problem as you mentioned you had thrice...I
guess it then can be necessary to block for long amounts of time, I'll never
be really at ease with that, but if it can't be helped any other way...makes
me wonder what kind of people would spend their time trying to disrupt
others' accomplishment really though!
bye
chtit_draco
2007/7/27, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi, thank you for your feedback, guys.
On 7/25/07, Matthieu André <matth.andre(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Your proposal looks interesting, there are several points that need
clarification to me. Keep in mind that my opinion is mostly based on
what
you wrote, because (I think) most of it
doesn't apply to the french
wikiquote - where I'm a sysop - for several reasons.
Yeah, and thank you for giving us the information of French Wikiquote
management. I find it interesting your strict rule (no citation, no
submission). If I recall correctly, it is much severer than German
Wikiquote, which allows up to 5 unsourced quotes for deceased people.
On fr: we don't have any checkuser, so the
second point would be moot on
this project and I have nothing to rely on to judge your proposal. I
have
nothing against the fact that checkusers could
block - and think they
actually have to - at their own discretions because of their status, it
sounds pretty logical to me. I am however concerned about blocking IPs
for
several months.
Agreed. We need to be as
careful as possible, otherwise it might
affect many innocent people.
Most IP addresses are dynamic, thus the vandal
would have a
new one after a few days, so what's the point of blocking someone for
months?
I am happy to suppose you French Wikiquoters suffered no continuous
vandalism since your restart :) Basically CU isn't performed to
occasional vandalism. We need it for several vandalism with a similar
pattern, to determine if the IP addresses behind them should be
blocked without involving the existing community or even we need to
prohibit a new account from that IP address/es. Since we got local
CUs, we have used this tool for three investigations. Disruptions
created by those accounts continued for a month or more in two cases,
and the investigations revealed all of three were banned from other
projects already due to their disruptions. I think it sensible to
block those IP addresses for a month in such situations: disruptive
editing came for a month or more, and no good edit was done during
that time. Of course, it is no reason those clueless people use those
particular IP addresses for ever, so I think those IP addresses should
be blocked temporally, but for a reasonable term, some months in the
current situation.
I think the most effective way of dealing with
vandalism is by
having an active community that can check all edits made by anons and
new
contributors. On fr: we have the chance to be
able to do that, because
we
have a relatively large number of regular
contributors, and so we almost
never have any vandalism, and when we have it is dealt with extremely
quickly.
Agreed, and I think that is what English Wikiquote community are
doing. On the other hand, I think it pointless to leave an IP address
or account which is known used only for vandalism.
We also do not have any formal blocking policy on
fr, everything stays
at
the sysops' appraisal. We mostly block the
few vandals we have for
24hours,
sometimes up to a few days if the vandalism was
bigger, and it doesn't
go
farther. I also believe that our "
Charte" helps us against sneakier
vandalism (adding made-up quotes,...) that could ask for longer
blocking,
because we require strict references to each and
every quote.
Anyways, back to your proposal, and the
cross-project vandalism, I am
wondering whether you'd block the IP detected on at least two projects
before detecting it on your wikiquote or after having seen an edit
(provided
it is vandalism) ? The way it sounds to me (
proactive) would mean that
you'd block the IP before it even got to wikiquote. I'm not sure about
the
usefulness of that, you'd first have to keep
track of the blockings on
other
projects, and then block an endless amount of IPs
all the time, over and
over again ? It looks easier to me to just block at first sight :) and
foregoing the standard warnings if it's an IP proved to have vandalized
heavily other projects. What do you think about it?
Thank you for bringing it up. I don't mean we must watch other
projects constantly. I don't support that idea. It shouldn't be
mandatory. I would like to reword my proposal to avoid such
misunderstanding. It is only an opinion when sysops eventually know
the vandalism made through the IP address in question.
My proposal intended on the contrary to allow sysops to prepare
possible vandalism. Luckily we have some sysops active on several
projects and occasionally know a crosswiki vandal which will possibly
attack our project. So I think in that case we are not necessarily to
treat those either potential or actual vandals as block-virgin on our
project.
For example, on Japanese projects, we have an anon vandal who is
banned from Japanese Wikipedia for two months. The same IP addresses
vandalized Japanese Wikinews in several times and now is banned for
two months. Yesterday it came Wikisource to vandalize it, and blocked
for two weeks. Is it likely to happen other projects are vandalized by
this anon? I suppose so, that is partly why to propose the crosswiki
vandal clause, since it is sadly not an extraordinary pattern of
crosswiki vandalism.
Cheers,
Byebye!
chtit_draco
2007/7/23, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)gmail.com>om>:
I would agree to all of this, but stress the fact that it as at the
sysops'
discression (as shown by our own policy).
>
> I also find your comment very important, we must stress that CUs know
what
others don't and can block at their own
discression.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
>
>
> On 7/22/07, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > this proposal mainly mean to the English Wikiquote and Japanese,
where
> > I'm active, but I'd like to
hear opinions from more wider audience
> > and write to this list. If you have a similar problem or rules
already
> > on your project, please let us share in
this occasion.
> >
> > My proposal is modification of Blocking policy with two new
additional
thoughts.
> >
> > * Cross project vandalism
> > * blocking based on CU investigation
> >
> > Currently two projects have some similarity on those Blocking
policy.
> The
English version, Wikiquote:Blocking says
>
>
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:BP#Vandalism
> > Vandalism
>
> > Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise
Wikiquote. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static
IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators
may be
blocked for a maximum of one month; there are
various rules of thumb
that
sysops follow in how much to extend the blocks of
habitual vandals, none
of
which are formal policy. In general, casual
vandals should be warned
twice
before being blocked, though warnings are not
usually given for
deliberate
vandalism intended to discredit Wikiquote or
serve an activist agenda.
See
dealing with vandalism for overall policy.
> >
> > My proposals aim to let us take a proactive blocking for possible
> > vandal IP addresses/accounts.
> >
> > For cross project vandalism, my proposal is the addition as the
below:
> > If an IP address is detected
vandalizing at least two Wikimedia
> > projects, and it is likely this IP address will be used to vandalize
> > the other project, sysops may block this IP address on their
project.
> > Also they have not to limit the
blocking term within 24 hours, but
may
> > determine a reasonable duration.
> >
> > As for CU investigation, currently the maximum length of blocking on
> > English Wikiquote is one month, but I heard some sysops argue IP
> > addresses determined as vandals may deserve much longer blocking.
> > Personally I am inclining to this opinion. I therefore propose to
add
> > a new clause about CU investigation, as
following:
> >
> > IP addresses which are determined to be used for vandalism as a
result
of Checkuser investigation may be blocked up to X
months, exceeding
the normal limitation of one month.
The substitution of X could be arguable ... I think six months could
be an opinion, but I am open to other opinions.
Cheers,
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote:
http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
_______________________________________________
Wikiquote-l mailing list
Wikiquote-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
_______________________________________________
Wikiquote-l mailing list
Wikiquote-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
_______________________________________________
Wikiquote-l mailing list
Wikiquote-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote:
http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
_______________________________________________
Wikiquote-l mailing list
Wikiquote-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l