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,
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
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.
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. 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 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.
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?
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
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
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@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
Hi! I put a draft of the revised version of "en:Blocking policy" online. Please review. The draft is not complete, it may be better to alter the mail contact part, as noted on that page: the current version was written before we launched our contact address hosted on OTRS.
On 7/31/07, Matthieu André matth.andre@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again, and sorry for the delay (I'm going on holiday tomorrow! :D)
Nope, and sorry for the delay. I was on holiday a bit, too (from 31 July to 9 Aug, in Taipei).
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.
Thank you for your feedback and understanding. I tried to reflect our discussions to the draft, but I may still miss some points. Please feel free to edit it. It is a wiki, anyway :)
wikiquote-l@lists.wikimedia.org