2007/7/27, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com>:

Hi, thank you for your feedback, guys.

On 7/25/07, Matthieu André <matth.andre@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@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikiquote-l mailing list
> > Wikiquote-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquote-l mailing list
> Wikiquote-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l