HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 3

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Redirected from HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive3)

[edit] Template Overload

the Stinkoman 20X6 game has its own template, and much more recently Old-Timey got its own template thanks to bkmlb, which is looking good... shouldn't the 20X6 world (not the game) have its own Navigation Template as well? I think it's big enough it deserves one. --Stux 04:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think we may be going overboard with the templates. Some of them are too big (this one would be), and when pages have two templates it looks odd. That's what I think anyway.

Username -talk 04:05, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with HSRUsername, we have some templates that are flat out useless in my view. 20X6 would be to big, like Old-Timey is. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:07, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you think pages get big with all the templates, check out some of the longer Wikipedia ones, like some politicians. -- Tom 04:16, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for my comment, or if a more central location would be better, but I think we're going a little overboard on nav templates here. For example, the only common thing about the Shorts is that TBC call them all that. I think we should consider removing some of the new templates from pages that don't really need them. — It's dot com 06:21, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I not... not, not... not! not! not! not second that. You do like me! Eh, I find them rather helpful when I want to randomly jump around or see what's related. Sometimes it can help when you're looking for a certain something related to so-and-so, but don't know what that first thing is ... called? I dunno. But yeah moderation is not, not... er I mean definitely a good thing. --Stux 18:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm reading your comments correctly, but if I am, then you're right: I don't not dislike not you. Seriously, I think you're doing a good job around here. These templates, however, do need to be examined more closely, and we need some more feedback. — It's dot com 19:26, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Gah! The templates! They're- they're attacking! O_O It's the gallery thing all over again. The way I see it: Use them where it's logical, such as SBemails and Stinkoman 20X6, but don't use them just to use them, like Shorts and Old-Timey. - Joshua 19:29, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think that templates should be used for things like games, where we would have to list them at the bottom of the page. Like at Stinkoman 20X6, we would be listing all of the related articles at the bottom of the page is it wasn't for the template. We don't say

See Also:
Short
Short

On another short, do we? Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't like the sudden onslaught of templates either... I think we're kinda pushing it a bit. Some things make good logical sense to group together, like Joshua said. Others... I don't think so. It seems we ARE using some, just coz we can. There are already lists for some of these things, too. Shorts, for example, are all already listed on the Toons page. Seems to me like the templates are really just trying to do the job that the categories already do... I just think they're getting a little clunky is all. Un...settling. --DorianGray

2 cents: We are going overboard with the templates. I don't mind the SBEmail, PQ, Stinkoman 20X6 (game), and Sightings templates; but things like CC, Old-Timey, and 20X6 are best left to the Categories. —BazookaJoe 19:43, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will let you in on a little secret page of mine (one of two that i keep) with all those teplates. Just make a list of which one are fine and which need to hit the road. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:13, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind templates all over the place, but can we at least keep them one color? They look so inconsistent in green, orange, purple, etc. They should all be the same blue as the Strong Bad Emails one. That's just my 2 cents. —

Joey (talk·edits) 19:44, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Joey. There's been a recent influx, but I don't think they're a bad thing. As long as they're peacefully at the bottom, they don't affect scrolling or anything, and are a handy navigation tool. I wouldn't mind keeping them all. The colors could be uniformed, but I don't have much of an opinion on that. I'd be fine just leaving them be. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 19:55, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with the CC and Limozeen temps is... if we use them, then why not follow the trend and make more templates like, say, Fluffy Puff and Dangeresque? Can't we leave such things like those to the categories? —BazookaJoe 16:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BazookaJoe. It's what I said: some of the templates are trying to do the job of the categories. I like the categories better anyways. --DorianGray

Since voting seems to have stopped, we have three templates that have a majority of people in favor of deleting them. Shall we continue the voting, or delete these templates. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think if no one else votes in the next day or so we could go ahead and start removing those three. We also need to discuss the ones where there was no clear consensus (Limozeen and Cheat Commandos) to see whether we can get a better majority (a one-vote difference is not very clear-cut, especially when I personally could change one of my neutral votes and either tie the vote or make the difference a little bigger). — It's dot com 00:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been approximately a day. It seems like the templates will be deleted Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding delete temps to the templates themselves is problematic for the pages that contain them. Templates that have been voted for removal will be... removed from the pages that they occupy. Until all templates have been removed from pages, they will not be deleted (my main reason for not deleting the templates outright is for E.L. Cool to preserve [or not preserve] them in any manner he wishes). —BazookaJoe 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this and removed all references to {{Toons}}, {{Shorts}} and {{OldTimey}} from their respective pages. Even though the delete template is gone, it's something that would have to happen anyway, and it's easier to do while the templates are still there so you can use the "what links here" feature - currently only E.L. Cool's page links to these 3 templates. phlip ^T_C 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with E.L. keeping the templates. On the other hand, he could substitute the code if we wanted to be thourough and remove the pages themselves. — It's dot com 02:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would be more inclined to keep the two that are on the bubble if, like Joey suggested, the colors were standardized (or at least toned way down). They could probably all use it. — It's dot com 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, so can we delete those templates? They are now off the pages. Oh, and no probablo with E.L. Cool keeping the temps.Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template Voting

Due to the large number of templates, we are voting to see which we should keep and which should go.

Joshua - Okay, going through your list from top to bottom, here's my opinion:

Strong Bad Email #1 - Delete These things don't really go together too well. They just aren't related closely enough. I.E, I don't really see Floppy Disc Container relating to SBEmails by Length enough to share a template. I know they were grouped together before, but then it was under "Additional Information," not "Strong Bad Emails." Am I making sense here?
Peasants Quest - Keep It has a purpose. Although I'm not sure if the "Scalding Lake" link is nessecary.
Teen Girl Squad - Partial Delete At least the Characters part. The Issue section is actually okay.
Limozeen - Delete Not needed at all.
Sightings - Keep Useful.
Cheat Commandos - Delete Pushing the limits here...
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep A-okay. Although I don't like how the 12.2 hangs out like that.
Main Characters - Delete I know this one's been around a while, but I don't think we really need it.
Toons & Shorts - Delete For reasons stated above
Videlectrix Games - Keep I actually like this one. Many of these games are little known and closely connected.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep Very useful.
Main Pages - Neutral I don't know about this one. It's sort of like Shorts and Toons, but I like it for some reason.
Old Timey - Delete No. Just, no.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep Probably the best template out there.

— It's dot com 20:43, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC):

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep. The different ways of organizing the information should be interlinked.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Delete. I think the category would serve this one fine.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Keep.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep. It's been around for a while with no complaints till now.
Toons - Delete. These technically are unrelated to each other.
Shorts - Delete. Same as above.
Videlectrix Games - Delete.
Decemberween In July - Keep.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Delete or severely prune. Again, maybe just the characters, or something...
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep. Good ol' sbemails.

--DorianGray:

Strong Bad Email #1 - Neutral.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Partial Delete. Just the episodes.
Limozeen - Delete.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Delete.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep.
Toons - Delete. They're unrelated and can all be found at the big Toons page.
Shorts - Delete. See previous answer.
Videlectrix Games - Keep. Some of these are obscure...
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Delete. This is just too big and clunky.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep. This is pretty important.

On a side note, is there a better place for this? Maybe in Da Basement? This is getting to be pretty big, especially if everyone wants a vote. --DorianGray

It will probably need to be moved and eventually archived. But, on the other hand, this page is relatively empty other than this discussion. — It's dot com 21:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

— Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:19, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Info: See this talk. Keep
Peasants Quest - Keep
Teen Girl Squad - Keep
Limozeen - Keep. If not all, then leave just the charactes.
Sightings - Keep
Cheat Commandos - Keep. If not all, then leave just the charactes.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep
Main Characters - Keep. Used it several times. Very important.
Toons - Delete.. We have the Toons page.
Shorts - Delete. Same.
Videlectrix Games - Keep
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep
Main Pages - Keep
Old Timey - Keep, but just the charactes. Too long!
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Meh.. I mean Keep!
Decemberween In July - Keep

In short: leave episodes and characters, take out the toons.

Username -talk 01:45, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) This looks like fun!

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Delete. Use the category
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Delete. Use the category
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Neutral. Small, not really used
Toons - Delete. Use the category
Shorts - Delete. Use the category
Videlectrix Games - Neutral.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Delete. Use the category.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep

Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:56, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Awesome. It's old stuff all over again.

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep I like it.
Peasant's Quest - Small pruning Take out Scalding lake, and I like it.
Teen Girl Squad Keep - Not to big. Only 4-5 characters
Limozeen Delete - Same reason as HSR Themed Username
Sightings Keep - A good, solid template
Cheat Commandos Severe Delete - Hate it. Use the category
Marzipans Answering Machine Keep - Different from shorts because of common theme
Main Characters Neutral - A little small, but nice idea
Toons - Severe Delete Use the cat.
Shorts - Severe Decline Same as Toons
Videlectrix Games - Keep Maybe expand it to include all the games, but I like it.
Stinkoman 20X6 Keep - A nice, solid template.
Main Pages Neutral - Good template
Old Timey Ultra Delort - To huge, toons don't have a common theme
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep I was wrong, this is a template.

--Stux 03:12, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

 shamlessly adapted from: — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:19, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)'

Strong Bad Info: Keep!!!
Peasants Quest - Keep
Teen Girl Squad - Keep
Limozeen - Keep. At least leave members and (some?) songs.
Sightings - Keep
Cheat Commandos - Keep. At the very least leave the characters.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep but make it prettier.
Main Characters - Keep. Yeah this one should be kept.
Toons - Delort.
Shorts - Delort. BUT if we delete these two, how are we linking back to the "Toons" Page? Maybe make both into a single link to that page?
Videlectrix Games - Keep Definitely keep.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Need to Keep
Main Pages - Keep Definitely keep.
Old Timey - Needs some serious Cleaning! Shorten.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Perhaps in the near future we may have to break it up? into say:

| < emails 1-75 | email 76 | email 77 | ... | email 99 | email 100 | emails 101-136 > |

Where emails 76..100 would be replaced by the real names.

I dunno. As big a monster as the sbemail template is, I kinda like it intact. — It's dot com 03:25, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about when we get to like email #1000!? ;) --Stux 11:46, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

— Lapper (talk) 17:48, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep It's cool. Bulky, but cool.
Peasants Quest - Keep
Teen Girl Squad - Keep I like this one.
Limozeen - Keep Not sure what purpose this serves…
Sightings - Delete The pages are cluttery, anyway.
Cheat Commandos - Delete This stuff should probably fall under toons and/or characters
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Delete This thing is almost never updated anyway.
Main Characters - Keep Gotta keep this one.
Toons & Shorts - Keep Love those toons.
Videlectrix Games - Delete We really don't need to know about all these. There's only, like, 5 games that work.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Delete Really don't need this.
Main Pages - Delete Nope.
Old Timey - Delete Big, gray, no point.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep It's spunky. I like it.

BazookaJoe 18:39, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Delete. Use the category.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Delete. Use the category.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep.
Toons - Delete. Use the category.
Shorts - Delete. Use the category.
Videlectrix Games - Delete. Use the category.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Delete. Use the category.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep

⇔Thunderbird⇔ 19:55, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Keep.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Keep.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep.
Toons - Keep.
Shorts - Keep.
Videlectrix Games - Keep.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Keep.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep

--Acekirby|^{My Talk} 20:07, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Neutral.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Keep.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep.
Toons - Keep.
Shorts - Keep.
Videlectrix Games - Keep.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Clean it up.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep.
To be direct, they're all useful in some way or another.

-- Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 23:27, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad Email #1 - Keep.
Peasants Quest - Keep.
Teen Girl Squad - Keep.
Limozeen - Keep.
Sightings - Keep.
Cheat Commandos - Keep.
Marzipan's Answering Machine - Keep.
Main Characters - Keep.
Toons - Keep.
Shorts - Keep.
Videlectrix Games - Keep.
Stinkoman 20X6 - Keep.
Main Pages - Keep.
Old Timey - Clean it up ALOT!.
Strong Bad Emails #2 - Keep.

Templates are used to organize links so they can be viewed all at once. All of these do that. If the Toons and Shorts don't get kept, somewhere on there should be what kind it is. As in, on there is the running time, characters and if it's a toon or a short.

That may be true, but templates are only used if you must say See Also at the bottom of the page. That is true with some pages, but most do not. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:50, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There is a link to the Toons and Shorts at the bottom. Right after the word Category. — It's dot com 23:58, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totals

Template	Keep	Delete	Neutral
Strong Bad Email #1 (small)	10	1	1
Peasant's Quest	12	0	0
Teen Girl Squad	11½	½	0
Limozeen:	6	6	0
Sightings	11	1	0
Cheat Commandos	6	6	0
Marzipan's Answering Machine	11	1	0
Main Characters	9	1	2
Toons	3	9	0
Shorts	3	9	0
Videlectrix Games	8	3	1
Decemberween In July	2	0	0
Main Pages	9	1	2
Old Timey	2	7	3 (clean up)
Strong Bad Email #2 (big)	12	0	0

[edit] Bug 3231

I'm sure some of you have noticed, but be aware of bug 3231. -- Tom 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the easiest way to recover from that bug:

1. Go to the affected page's history.

2. View/restore deleted edits. Hit the restore button.

3. Go back to the affected page, which will still redirect to itself.

4. Go to the history. There should be two items, view the second.

5. View previous version. View previous version again.

6. Hit the edit tab, confirm that it's the article and not the redirect, and save.

Anyone have a better way? Homestar Coder 20:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that's the correct workaround. -- Tom 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a better place we could put this solution? It took me a while to figure it out and BazookaJoe was having trouble with it too (yesterday). Homestar Coder 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

~~This may sound trivial, but just to be sure: it would prolly be a good idea that the two admins involved in the collision agree which of the two will fix the problem (lest another collision occur).~~ Would it be possible to have some kind of log that would allow admins to mark which pages they are reverting in order to avoid this in the first place? --Stux 21:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys! As an exercise in thought I figured I'd try to see why this bug occurs. In fact it's not a bug per se, but a side effect of all of the wiki features running properly, but doing so concurrently. Anyway, I wrote down step by step what happens between the two admins and the contents of each page (where oldpage is the original wiki name, and newpage is the new vandalized name). I hope this isn't mind-numingly obvious to all, but serves as an informative tidbit about computer stuff. And I like pretty tables.

Order of execution
Step	Admin A	Admin B	Page contents
1	Initiates Request to move page	Initiates Request to move page	oldpage = redirect to new page name newpage = real contents this is the original state, nothing has happened yet
2		Completes Request to move page	oldpage = real contents newpage = redirect to old page name
3	Completes Request to move page		oldpage = redirect to old page name newpage = redirect to old page name the redirect to the old page name from the previous transfer is what gets copied, not the text and history we want to move

--Stux 21:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A solution to the problem ON WHEELS!

Willy on Wheels has decided that he likes this Wiki... but I'm wondering if there isn't some way to thwart him besides just reverting and blocking his names. On the "Protect" prompt, there is a button labelled "Protect from moves only." Is this what it sounds like? Can this be used to prevent a page from being moved... without making it uneditable? I think I would like to test this... --Jay (Talk) 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Jay, this was already brung up. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Was it? Hold on, let me look for it. --Jay (Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Check out HRWiki:Da Basement#Willy On Wheels Strikes Again. Homestar Coder 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that now (dang me for not using Control-F). Tom seems to think it a bad idea, but as I stated up there:

I see where you're coming from, and this applies to many pages... but to 'toon pages? I mean, is suntan or Strong Bad is a Bad Guy likely to be moved legitimately at any point in the future? --Jay (Talk) 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I like this Wiki because I don't want to lose my sysop account on Wikipedia! Since I don't get to be a sysop here, I just vandalize! WOW sock 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't vandalize, then you could become a sysop here, too. - Kookykman (t)(c)(r)

EDIT: Woah! I forgot who this guy was. Do all of his accounts have any kind of common IP? We could do an IP range block...if you can do that on MediaWiki. - Kookykman (t)(c)(r)

Unfortunately, I believe Willy has a dynamic IP. It changes every time he enters the site. --DorianGray

It's now becoming obvious that a waiting period of at least one day should be enacted before a user can move pages. We've had about 3 WoWs in the same number of hours, and I honestly think those sockpuppets could have been blocked given the usernames. If we change Template:welcome to reflect this, then I don't think new users will have much of a problem with not being able to move pages. --ENUSY , 22:59, 24 October 2005 (BST)

[edit] Willy On Wheels Strikes Again

I don't think that he is going to come back. I think that he knows that this is a lot smaller than Wikipedia, and will move to a different wiki. -- Rogue Leader

Looks like that's not the case. Just thought I'd meantion to whoever didn't know, he just struck again, moved a bunch of pages, and was valiantly thwarted by Kilroy. Isn't there anything more we can do that will be a bit longer lasting than a few days? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:29, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Kilroy did the blocking, but don't forget Some HSR themed username. He moved the pages back to where they belong so fast that I couldn't even help him. — It's dot com 22:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have added User:Be's careful to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels. See the inter-wiki section. He not only vandalizes WP and Wikitionary, but WP in other languages, and other wikis like ours. —BazookaJoe 01:00, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This guy has some serious problems. At least it isn't nearly as bad as Wikipedia. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:09, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dude! He's a wiki-vandalism-maniac! (Excuse the non-SySop-type person post please.) --Ookelaylay 22:21, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oh man. That guy is. . . well, persistent normally applies to diligent, good-natured people, but Willy is darn persistent on Wikipedia. Wow. — Lapper (talk) 1:51, 17 Sep 2005 (CST)

Ah peas! He's back, as Homestar walker! Didn't someone block the IP range last time this happened? --

ENUSY , 17:34, 23 September 2005 (BST)

It's like playing pong...yeah, that address needs to be blocked. Now. THE SMOKING MONKEY16:36, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so he moved pages and now is removing his vandilisim? What the heck?--

Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 16:41, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

~~Well, he's still moving stuff, so he's not repentant. It's an insincere apology, I think.~~ Man, in the five minutes I go to put a pizza in the oven, look what happens. You'd think he'd tire of this by now. He's been doing it forever. What kinda pleasure does he get from it? --DorianGray

EDIT: Misread the recent changes. He did stop, but I still don't buy his story.

Dunno - I mean, if annoying people you don't know is how you get through the day, then that's what you do. It's curious, though - without the internet, what would this guy/girl do? Make prank phone calls? It almost makes me want to crack the old pscyh books and try to figure out what stage of mental development everything went wrong for this guy...almost. THE SMOKING MONKEY 16:51, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe he's just plain bored. (I'd like to think I have a bit of expertise in the matter, being WOW myself.) Homestar walker 16:54, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there's more than one or something? I mean, anyone could create a WOW style account and start moving pages. I could be a respected contributor or something. Homestar walker 16:49, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But you're a page-move vandal. Were you planning on contributing? THE SMOKING MONKEY

Maybe, if I can find something to contribute. If not, I won't vandalize UNLESS I am blocked. Homestar walker 16:56, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There's always something to contribute. Everyone has a specialty. Some people just help with smaller edits and things. You don't need to do something big to be respected. Take me for example. I was here for months before we found a use for my love of making lists. But page-moving's not a good way to get noticed. --DorianGray

I know, so I'm now trying to find an anon welcome template (see my contributions for my attempt at welcoming an anon.) Homestar walker 17:01, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Walker, it's like this: this is a community. Certain behaviors are expected from members of the community. A new member of the community might not initially realize what they are doing is not approved by the community until somebody tells them so. And, as a representative of the community, I'm telling you: you cannot come in here, vandalize half a dozen pages, repent, and then threaten to do it again if you are blocked. I'm sorry to say you will be blocked, because people are blocked for behavior nowhere near as bad as yours was. If you are truly sorry for what you've done, that's fine - but that still doesn't erase the fact that you kept at it for over five minutes. The sysops are not very forgiving of such willful and brazen behavior, and whether or not they forgive your behavior is entirely up to them.THE SMOKING MONKEY 17:08, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh! Now I see a user called No wheels. Don't know if it's WOW, but this person blanked Gavin except for the words "No wheels". could somebody please check him/her out? Name sounds close, but I don't know just how comparatively close it is to all the other incarnations of WOW. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 06:31, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

According to the block log, he's got a ban of indefinite for been WoW. So presumably, yes, he is WoW. --

ENUSY , 07:36, 28 September 2005 (BST)

Another Troll. His name's User:Hydro. He's blanked or vandalized at least 50 pages within the past half hour or so. Maybe a Wow? — Lapper (talk) 12:32, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Just a regular troll. Blanking's not Willy's MO.

Username -talk 12:34, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that doesn't make him any less annoying. He needs to be blocked. — Lapper (talk) 12:35, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness... User:Me ON WHEELS!, et al. (groan). — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 05:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so, HomestarCoder, Me ON WHEELS!, and the hundreds of random created usernames that filled up the recent changes page. Did you know that until HomestarCoder moved it, Stu's user page hadn't been touched for two days less than a full year? — Lapper (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Homestar Coder != HomestarCoder. ;) Homestar Coder 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's kinda weird... EVERY time Willy's struck, I've been up getting something to eat. And half those times, it's been pizza. I should do the wiki a favour and stop eating, eh? Also, this was the first time I got moved in a Willy attack. And I also saw the names 'DorianBlack' and 'DorianWhite' among those new creations. I mus' be getting popular to have a play on my name for eventual trolling, eh? --DorianGray

I was eating pizza too. Clearly pizza attracts Willy on Wheels. Also, "congrats" on getting your own troll-parody name ;) Homestar Coder 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(This snippet is the intended reply to these messages, copied from the section below): LOL. On my behalf "congratz" too! I can't say I have been so blessed (as you or Homestar Coder). --Stux 16:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. Look at the first 29 users (I'm not sure about 1. ! though) on Special:Listusers. All of them have ON WHEELS, or a variant of an established username in the username. If you don't want to click the link, then

!
!!!!Willy on Wheels has an admin account on Wikipedia
!!!Wikipedia ON WHEELS!
!!!Willy ON WHEELS! AKA Homestar Coder
!!AOL on Wheels!!
!!Admin on WHEELS!!
!!BAZOOKA JOE ON WHEELS!!
!!Bubs on Wheels!!
!!Coach Z on Wheels!!
!!Grape Nuts on Wheels!!
!!Homesar on Wheels!!
!!Homestar runner on wheels!!
!!It's dot com!
!!Its dot org!!
!!JOEY DAY ON WHEELS!!
!!Jimbo Wales on Wheels!!
!!Marzipan on Wheels!!
!!Spam on Wheels!!
!!Strong Bad on Wheels!!
!!Strong Mad on Wheels!!
!!Strong Sad on Wheels!!
!!The Cheat on Wheels!!
!!Vandal on Wheels!!
!!WILLY ON WHEELS
!!WILLY ON WHEELS!!
!!Wheels on Wheels!!
!!Wheels without Wheels!!
!!Wheels!!
!!Willy on Wheels!!

Can a sysop block all/most of these (depending if ! is WoW)? And the ON WHEELS users lower down on Special:Listusers? --

ENUSY , 11:32, 25 October 2005 (BST)

EDIT: Whoops! According to Special:Log/block, all of the above (except "!") were blocked this month. Sorry.

Well, Venusy, as noted in the following comments below, we might be able to, but it could be an inconvenience. — Lapper (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, have you seen this WOW sockpuppet? *Shudder* — Lapper (talk)

[edit] Deterrence

(This was a reply to Dorian Gray and Homestar Coder's messages on 15:22, 24 October 2005): LOL. On my behalf "congratz" too! I can't say I have been so blessed (as you or Homestar Coder). (From here on, this is a new topic): I was thinking, why not write a script that would prevent page moves/usernames to contain the string "ON WHEELS" (case insentive, ignore whitespace) that would disallow such moves/creations without the approval of an admin? I'm not sure if this is what wikipedia does (it's close but more stringent), and of course, the attacker can switch to "0n \/\/|=|33lz" or something crazy like that but at least it would deter the On wheels joke. --Stux 16:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As an aside: In contrast to Wikipedia, HRwiki's page names are pretty static (that includes user names) -- generally things are added to the homestar world, note renamed, I don't see much harm in globally protecting all pages from being moved/renamed. In the event of such necessity sysops could do the move/rename through some request system. If this is too burdensome, is it possible to grant a certain set of non-sysop users page-move privileges?--Stux 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

While what you suggest is possible, it's best not to inconvience ourselves in any way, shape, or form because of a troll. That's what they are trying to do and we should try not to help them. -- Tom 17:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, but I have a question. There was talk that this version of MediaWiki would prevent a user from moving pages until they had some small number of edits. This was to prevent Willy on Wheels so that we could catch them in the trolling edits stage rather than in the massive page-move stage. It also would not be much of an inconvenience to anyone since pages are moved so infrequently and usually moved by users who have been around at least a bit. Does this ability exist? What do you think about exercising it, if it does? Homestar Coder 18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I did see a mention of that somewhere before we installed 1.5, but I don't believe it actually exists/works. There are bugs filed [1] relating to the issue that I was hoping to link to, but I can't at the moment since the MediaWiki Bugzilla server is down. -- Tom 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, yeah nevermind my "on wheels" idea -- that's too cumbersome. However, I don't see the 'move' protection idea that unfeasable. If 1.5 does not implement that already I could forsee two simple(?) code changes: make all newly created pages move-protected by default (this would alter the PHP SQL query for handling new pages), and then apply an SQL script that would make all current pages move-protected. This is assuming there is such a flag (I thought I remembered a discussion about some pages about this), which would allow general page edits, but not moves. --Stux 19:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki. The number ONE rule of any wiki is that anyone can edit. So, maybe some annony thinks of a better name title down the road, tries to move it, and bam, he can't move it. Reverting move trolling isn't that hard. I think its even fun to combat our friend Willy. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and this applies to many pages... but to 'toon pages? I mean, is suntan or Strong Bad is a Bad Guy likely to be moved legitimately at any point in the future? --Jay (Talk) 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Very true, but I really don't think that we shouldn't go to extremes to stop WOW. i really think that it is simple to remove his moves (Excuse the pun). Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. --Jay (Talk) 20:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is almost fun to stop his vandalism. I can imagine he's surprised at how resilient we are. I would rather block moves than have to deal with this, though. - Kookykman (t)(c)(r)

Jay, it is probably ok to block moves from 'toons and games, but other articles not so much. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhere between Jay and Rogue, but leaning more toward Jay. I think you could protect basically anything that's not likely to change: Toons, Games, Characters... Anything that has an official name or isn't likely to be given an official name, due to its being a one-time joke or something. There's really very little that's likely to need a renaming. --DorianGray

Yeah, thats what I meant. Like, protect Homestar Runner from moves, but not Jack Hamma. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what that would accomplish. There would be enough pages left that he could simply target those that remained unprotected. It takes just as much effort to have to fix a Jack Hamma that gets moved as it does a Strong Bad Email. And then there's also the danger, however unlikely, that a rarely-seen page would get lost in the shuffle. Therefore, since it would be such a hassle to pick and choose which pages to protect, and the benefit might not even be realized, I think the page-move protection should apply uniformly to every page with one setting (that Tom would handle) or not at all. — It's dot com 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I just can't imagine that he will this up for long. He basically has no life and is probably under 13 years old. He can't find this fun for long. I think he gets the picture that every move he makes is fixed almost instantly. He will get bored of this game soon. I R F 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You'd think so, wouldn't you. People have predicted for a while that the attacks would stop eventually, but that does not seem to be the case. Additionally, we don't know how many copycats are out there. I doubt this is the same guy who's vandalizing Wikipedia (I mean, seriously, who are we?), but you never know. — It's dot com 22:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize that protecting only some of the pages from moves won't fix the problem completely, but I suspect that what he does is hit "Random Page" on the sidebar and move whatever he hits, sometimes targetting a specific page. (Because there really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the pages he moves.) If a significant number of pages were protected from moves, it would, at the very least, be strong discouragement. And here's the big question: why not protect 'toon/character with official name pages from moves? What does it hurt if we do? --Jay (Talk) 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User pages need to be protected too -- it is not every day (except maybe upgrade to 1.5 day) that a user changes the name of his/her page (subpages perhaps, but even then). I think it makes more sense (and would probably be less laborious) to protect all pages. --Stux 01:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree, because I don't, but many people (including, apparently, Tom) don't like the concept of making lesser pages unmoveable by ordinary users. I was trying to find a middle ground, but I do agree that page moves are mostly unnecessary on this Wiki - only a very few pages here are likely to ever be moved, especially since most of the big pages are given the same name as 'toons or characters that TBC do. --Jay (Talk) 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am pulling a John Kerry on this one, but now I think that it isn't the wiki way. HRWiki_talk:The_Stick says that, while a page may not be edited, it is still an extreme to protect it. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But apparently trolling is the Wiki way? I'm not suggesting that we protect the pages from any edits at all, I'm merely suggesting that we prevent pages that have no excuse to be moved from being moved. --Jay (Talk) 10:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not going to solve anything. There will always be movable pages in the Talk:, User:, User talk:, HRWiki, HRWiki talk:, Template:, Template talk:, Help:, and Help talk: namespaces. —BazookaJoe 11:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is why my suggestion has been to protect from any moves all pages within this site, but not protect them from edits. --Stux 13:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, seriously. Someone take a good look at the Move Log. The only non-vandal and non-de-vandal edits were the removal of minor typos, changed usernames from the last move, and mis-remembering which toon a STUFFed fact came from: 7 in the last 100 or so, 5 of them by sysops anyway. 9 in the last 200. Sooner or later, someone's likely to miss one of Willy's vandal moves for even just a little too long. It's such an easy fix that will barely impact the regular usage of the Wiki. Are we just going to keep letting him do it? --Jay (Talk) 21:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I say no. We won't let him. Why even have the 'protect from page moves only' option if not to use it against vandals? I see very little drawback to it, especially after you posted those figures. I'm all for move protection to any extent. --DorianGray

I too am in agreement with Jay (Talk) to protecting page moves from all but sysops, or perhaps a seperate group of any common trusted users below sysops with page move privilages. I'm sure that he would probably just move on to edit or page create vandalisms, but it would be an easier revert than moves. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Thunderbird, here. The topic of "mover" users has been brainstormed before, and it would be a nicer alternative then having to manually revert every WOW move. — Lapper (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And now I'd just like to point this thing out again... As if we need reminding after today's hat trick. Surely anyone who was present during this can agree that we need to start the page-move protection for, well, just about everything. There was even an occurrence which a page was updated while under its WoW influence (a STUFF page, I believe). This needs to stop, yeah? We've seen the statistics, and the damage. Now we need some action. --DorianGray

If it was up to me, I'd have already done something. But it's not up to me. --Jay (Talk) 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here, here!! I'm all for it after today's "hat trick", as DorianGray called it. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 06:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not like we do nothing when the defacement occurs. The most recent comments almost make it sound like all we do is watch it happen.

However, we will not be move-protecting pages. It's not the wiki way. Besides, it's not like they couldn't just find a different way to deface. It's not hard to deface a wiki. But it's also not hard to fix the defacement. -- Tom 06:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. After looking at it with these comments in mind, I see the other side. It is really easy fixed. I just wish there was more we could do. The wiki's my second home. More than that, it's a friend of mine, really. And I just don't like when people mess with my friends. But I'm-a hereby dropping the subject and going to bed. Good night, fair wiki. Maybe one day you will see an internet utopia where your pages remain untroubled. I look forward to that day, as I'm sure we all do. --DorianGray

While I'm not much of a troll fighter myself (Those are too fast for the common gmone that I am), our wiki is the first site I chack when I wake up, and the last site I close when I go to sleep. This morning (My morning, your evening) I even tried to chat on the IRC channle while chacking for updates and got too distracted to do both. I had two options: The quit the chat channel or to stop chacking the wiki. I choose the latter. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 08:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleep is a good thing! Let me tell ya... My posts should be more coherent now ;). First, E.L. you said that you chose to quit the latter. So you chose to stop chacking the wiki? I'm just making sure cuz I always have trouble myself using the correct one (former vs. latter) much like I can confuse left and right (no, no, your other left!).

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier! Way up at the beginning of this discussion, I mentioned an SQL query and code change would do the trick (ha! how misguided I was -- even that would be a lot of work!), it would actually be an even simpler thing to protect all pages, past, present, and future, from moves this way: modify the code for the SpecialMovepage.php object to only allow the appropriate users to access its features! This should only be a few lines of well-placed code.

Why did I make mention of this? While it may not be the Wiki way to take such drastic measures, I do ask that we step back and reflect on our philosophy for Wiki...ing. As far as understand, the Wiki way is not a set of rules written in stone, but rather a solid set of guidelines built on common sense and a dream. Most of the rules in the big wiki I am sure arose out of guidelines and user experience in order to formulate the best course of action to take in the case where there are problems. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them arouse out of the consensus of Wiki's many users and administrators. Each set of rules is developed under a certain context: the big Wiki's amazingly large article count, as well as user base, has made their set of rules into what it is.

Our situation is a little different, as has been pointed out in previous posts in this thread, and the consensus here seems to move in a slightly different direction. Even the big Wiki's own Page-move protection policy mentions the policy being appropriate in cases of frequent or on-going page-move vandalism, which almost seems like our case (compared to the number of actual moves we do). The article makes little mention of when not to move pages. So personally, I don't think this is actually such a drastic measure given our circumstances, and the context in which our policies can be built upon. This proposed policy would not inconvenience others, but rather aleviate some of the work done by already-busy administrators. Please understand, I am in no way trying to dictate what to do -- it has been you, not me, who has been entrusted to be the keepers and guardians of this wonderful wiki. I am just hoping that what I say is reasonable, and that in the end would prove to be a good thing for this wiki. Good day all! --Stux 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The latter - I choose stying on the wiki. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If we did lock the page moves, I think it would be simple matter of putting a {{tobemoved}} template on a page. Sysops could then check a To Be Moved page just like we check the To Be Deleted page. It would take some getting used to, but given the relative infrequency of real page moves, I don't think it would be that much more work compared to fighting vandals. So the technical side is easy; what I'm more concerned about is the philosophical side:

I'm ambivalent toward this issue. On the one hand, this is a real and annoying problem, but on the other hand, if we do anything about it, it won't actually affect my ability to move pages. So I pose this question to you non-sysops who are advocating limiting or eliminating page moves by regular users: Are you really comfortable giving up your rights just to satisfy this troll and the problem he's creating? Think carefully about that one, because it sets a serious precedent. Now, here's the kicker—the answer to the question may be yes. Perhaps you are willing to give up functionality in return for security. It is a sad but true fact that houses all have locks, and some even have burglar alarms. There are a thousand other examples you could find like that in any society. Note, however, that I am not necessarily advocating locking page moves as the correct course of action; I'm merely saying that you should realize what you're asking for and the potential ramifications. — It's dot com 16:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I would. I operate by the creed 'better safe than sorry'. And it wouldn't really be that much different from my view. I like the To Be Moved idea as well. And I also point out of the Help:Contents problem we're also currently having. That required some sort of extremism too... --DorianGray

I just had a thought, someone hit me with a clue-by-four if it's been suggested already on Wikipedia or somewhere, but the main problem is basically that reverting each page move individually is tedious, Yes? The Wiki Way is that mistakes should be easy to fix rather than hard to make - what we need is a way to make it easier to en masse revert page moves. Perhaps someone (either here or from the wikipedia community) could develop a (presumably sysop-only for obvious reasons) "revert all edits/moves by this user" button? phlip ^T_C 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh. I like that. I never would have thought of that myself. Would such a thing be possible to develop? My knowledge of current technology is somewhat limited... --DorianGray

As a non-sysop here, I'd have to say that I despise the idea of losing my ability to move pages because of a troll. Moving pages might not happen too often, but I have used it successfully in the past. (for example, Cheat Commandos Commercial --> Cheat Commandos (toon) ) Some of you admins might not care about page moving becoming sysop-only, but as a normal user I know I'd hate to lose that ability. Here's hoping that you guys can figure out a better way. (I like the whole sysop-only "revert all edits by that user" idea.) - Joshua 18:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to some users to give up on something ones they added it. Wouldn't you like to being able to delete pages? To block trolls? I know I do. I see a vandeled page and the thing I want to do the most is go right there and smack that dumb troll back to his cave. But I can't. And that's the way it is now. But if I did had that power, as a plain-old user, and someone took it from my hands I would be outraged to. Who are those sysops think they are? Taking my rights to delete and block? The same thing goes to moving pages. If you didn't had that right in the first place, would you realy miss it? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. To make that I wrote clearer, this is what I meant: The only reason you object to protecting the pages from moves, is because you could move them in the first place. If you never had that right, you would never miss it. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't really matter now, does it? If you never ever touched any type of electronics, you wouldn't miss computers, TVs or the internet. But now it's too late. You'd miss them. Ah, well. Basically, true as your statement may be, it doesn't change the fact that I'd hate to lose those powers. - Joshua 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Philip's idea, I would love it if they developed that. But I think it would be too dangerous, unless it had a built in 'hour time limit' or so. Otherwise some sysop accidentally reverts 5 years worth of edits, it could be chaos. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When a sysop views a user's contributions, he or she has a "rollback" link next to each edit that is the most recent for the article. These edits are also marked with (top) for all users, sysops or not. -- Tom 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right. I never really thought of it that way. Although technically it's not a central button, it's a page with the buttons all right there though, which is almost as good. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, does this button only work when the edit is the (top) edit? --Stux 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the rollback button only works for the top edit. Only sysops have it, if you're looking for it. — It's dot com 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, yeah I knew only sysops have it. I may have delusions of gradeur time and again but um... oops did I just say that out loud? I wanted to know the limits of its functionality. --Stux 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, in case no one knows, Wikipedia's policy is:

Wikipedia now only allows users with 25 edits or above to make page moves, and the reason must be stated.

Found here. --Jay (Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good policy to me. That way, normal users aren't penalized, and trolls will be discouraged, or be caught and banned before they start moving pages. I am in favor of this if it can be done here. Homestar Coder 00:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also for this idea, but I think we should change the guideline to 25 main namespace edits to be sure that the user is actaully here for the benefit of the wiki.

Username -talk 00:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for my knowledge, and so I can understand what's being suggested, what defines a main namespace edit, as opposed to just any edit? Heimstern Läufer 00:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Main namespace" is the part of the wiki with the articles. The part that doesn't have "User:" or "HRWiki:" or "Help:" or something in front of it. But can someone tell me if that includes those articles' talk pages? --DorianGray

Talk pages are in the Talk: space, not the main space. Homestar Coder 01:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Dorian Gray and H*C. Yes, this sounds like a good idea, as it wouldn't affect non-sysops who are still good Wiki-editors and might deter some trolls. Heimstern Läufer 01:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, and it sounds like it'll make everybody happy. Any objections to doing what the big ol' 'pedia does? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way someone with the inexperience of under 25 main edits would be able to move a page for the better anyway. I say do it. - Joshua 11:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but with one question: how did they set that up from within the software? I'll try to research this, but if anyone else can find some clear instructions it would be very helpful. I have no problem setting this up as soon as I know how. —

Joey (talk·edits) 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a hack in the backend code. I could set it up. Let me know. -- Tom 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth it. If you know how to set it up, I say go for it. One caveat, though. If you set this up will your have to re-do it each time we upgrade? —

Joey (talk·edits) 18:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I know dot_com from #hrwiki! mayby thats a wow account!

strongfan 00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When to list a WikiTroll

Hey, what's up? I just have a quick question. If users only do two acts of vandalism and then stay quiet, do we still put em up in the WikiTroll page? My guess is no, cuz it's a one-time thingy majig so I didn't. But I wanna be sure. Thanks! --Stux 09:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answer to this, so I moved your question here. If the answer isn't always yes, then I guess it would depend on the severity of the vandalism and whether you think it will continue. I don't know how much of a complete record that page is supposed to be, if at all. — It's dot com 16:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The WikiTroll page is not supposed to be a complete record, I don't think. The block log does a much better job. That's why you don't have to add someone to WikiTroll if you think they should be blocked. Homestar Coder 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well if you think they should be blocked, then yeah, add them to WikiTroll, and one of the sysops will take care of it. But as far as I know, sysops don't actually have to fill out WikiTroll, they can just block them and let the Block Log fill it's purpose. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing better to do than to revert pages

It seems like NGS is having fun? An by that I mean this guy which is the first of a series of reverts from seemingly dissimilar IP addresses. Thus far only two addresses have had repeated entries, making it almost useless to add them to the WikiTroll page. Only one IP has been used often, but the supply seems endless. Are there any countermeasures to this? Does this guy actually have control of THAT MANY ip's (seems hard to beleive)? Are they being spoofed? And if so, is there a way to prevent/detect spoofed IP's (at the very least in editing)? So yeah i think this has been mentioned before... somewhere, but I don't know where that topic of conversation would be. Cheers! --Stux 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking everything in sight now. Protecting the page won't do anything, as they'd just move elsewhere. Everything is going really slow now too. All this action is slowing everything down. More than it should, really. I'm looking into it. -- Tom 05:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a great deal of slowdown... They're really fast too. Or maybe that's just coz of the slowdown. I hope there's more we can do... The wiki's become a real vandal house in the last few days... Willy on Wheels, the WikiTikiTavi guy, the other spammer on Talk:Main Page, and now this guy. Sheesh. --DorianGray

Yeah slowdown seemed to me like it might've been some sort of DOS attack, but who knows. Glad to see the page is back in action! --Stux 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, after blocking 43 IPs and consulting with some folks in #mediawiki, I decided to disable anon edits for a while. -- Tom 06:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger. This is really getting ridiculous, but there doesn't seem to be much we can do that we aren't already, especially with these guys coming at us so fast. Heimstern Läufer 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, anon edits are back. Let's hope I don't have to do that again. -- Tom 07:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so I just noticed that Thursday's Wikipedia featured article was Dogpatch USA. Guess whose vandal script created that page (Dogpatch USA) on our Wiki earlier today? -- Tom 03:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stupid question... why didn't we just slap a {{vprotected}} on the page for a bit instead of blocking all anon edits? — Lapper (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that too, but Tom pointed out that the spammer would just move to some other page and do the same thing over again. --DorianGray

Good to see the site back up. I was starting to have withdrawal symptoms ;). Anybody know why we were out for so long? --Stux 04:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That is mentioned here. — Lapper (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you! --Stux 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Log in to edit

How come you must log in to edit now? – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 08:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a temporary countermeasure to the problem that led to the denial of service yesterday. All will be returned to normal soon. — It's dot com 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I just thought it was wierd. – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 09:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally think you should always have to log in to edit. It's safer, and it's not like it's hard to log in or register. Ju Ju Master 17:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, but it's "not the Wiki way", apparently. - Kookykman (t)(c)(r)

Apparently, the Meta wiki argues that Wikipedia isn't the Wiki way either. We could go on about this, but the fact is that since annonymous edits have been banned, trolling levels have dropped to virtually nothing. — Lapper (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You put up with the bad to get the good. I started my wiki life as an anonymous contributor, and remained so for several months. I'm not sure whether I would have jumped right in if I had had to register. — It's dot com 22:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I loved my IP number to pieces. In fact, I wrote the bulk of the original Horrible Painting article with my IP. I delighted in my original ~~anominity~~ ~~annonymousness~~ lack of a name and, in fact, steeled myself to not make a username 'til invited to do so. Which I was. And the rest is history. --DorianGray

This is truly not the wiki way. By that I mean our wiki way. No matter how bad a troll gets, we don't just let an entire group of people be banned from editing. Like It's dot com, I also began as an annony. Sure, tons of my edits were reverted, but I loved the ability to edit a page freely. I know that trolling is annonying and, in some cases, destructive, but we can put up with it. Besides, trolls will just simply log in and troll. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

True true, but I don't think we really should spend to much time on this issue. As dot com said, we'll probably remove that ban in a few days. At least, I hope. Oh yeah, and excuse my non-sysop-ness. — _talk Bubsty _edits 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, bubsty, you don't need to be a sysop to talk here and later apologize. I post messages here all of the time and I am not a sysop. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the limitation to be removed as soon as possible. (Right now maybe?) Do you really think those trolls are stalking here waiting for the ban to be lifted? Personally I think now that the threat's over, we should either lift the ban now or never. - Joshua 23:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for those wondering what's taking so long to restore anonymous editing, we are making sure to block as many proxies as we can to hopefully avoid this problem in the future, and that takes a while to get all the ducks in a row. But, rest assured, we've got our top men working on it 'round the clock. — It's dot com 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

They've fixed it now. :strongfan 23:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

false alarm! :strongfan 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Hi guys. First of all, you guys have been doing a superb job of fighting these vandals. It is sad that you have had to take such drastic measures. As a result I was thinking of suggesting some partial standing measures myself that would help prevent the vandalism yet allow legitimate new users to join our community. Forgive me if I'm just repeated things you've thought about yourself. Anyway here goes:

Limit the number of new users per day. (To a reasonable number like 10-15). We don't get many new users, and this would prevent phantom accounts from being created. New addition : we can also implement the "edit number thingy" (those pictures with numbers and letters that are skewed so that only real people can read them) in order to prevent bots from auto-registering.
Limit the number of edits/day for a given new user (to say 15-30 or so, or stagger the limit 5 the first day, 10 the second, etc) that way we can get acclimated to the user's behavior and determine if it's suspicious. They cannot have their restrictions lifted until they have a reasonable number of decent, main page edits (i.e. they cannot just sit there and do nothing until their edit moratorium on per day edits ends).
~~(optional)Give a xx hour (12?) moratorium on new accounts before they can edit (except for their own page).~~
(brought from a discussion above)Implement the 25-edit min before moving pages.

I know this is not the "wiki way" but neither are vandalism and being forced to shut everything down. These can be relaxed as time goes on and the threat subsides. This would involve a lot of coding (??) but the code can be kept and reactivated if necessary. That is if there isn't code for that already. I have not mentioned anonymous edits -- for this to be effective, their restrictions would have to be even stricter than the new user restrictions on the first day. --Stux 17:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I like 1, 2, and 4, but 3 doesn't seem all that great. You can delay them, but once they can edit, they'll do the exact same things trolls would've done even if you hadn't delayed them. (Did that make sense at all?) — _talk Bubsty _edits 17:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense. I made it optional cuz i wasn't sure of its effectiveness. Note I have made an addendum too.--Stux 17:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Not good, F--. Kidding. I don't like the idea. it would be much simpler to have you put in and email when registering AND click a confirmation link in the email sent to you. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but even that can be easily automated. We could limit each email to one user account which would force an attacker to control dozens of emails. A sufficiently adept attacker may be able to do this. We would also limit the few (presumably young) users that do not have email accounts. I figure there should also be free PHP packages that would implement the funny text thingy too. --Stux 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant. One email per username. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Until we know for certain that the bot is gone, we will have to stop annony edits. Implementing the number idea is probably the best idea. Email confirmation is my worst enemy. My email blocker blocks anything that isn't from AOL, so I had to get someone to activate my account on the forum. No offense, hate the others. It seriously doesn't feel right at all. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without options 2 and 4, we're back to square one. (A person can register on behalf of a bot... a slightly more manageable problem but still unpleasant). --Stux 18:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it would take a long time for him to create as many users as a bot can. I suppose that in one day, that they can start with a set number, but 15-20 is to little. Try about 50. Perhaps they first need to edit their userpage first, than wait five or so minutes. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 18:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict Not really... think about how quickly some of us can revert pages and and do other miscellaneous tasks. In just a matter of minutes we can deal with 10-20 pages. Now picture an attacker, determined enough to mess with our site (we saw him adapt his script to create user names), that would only need to look at a picture presented by the bot, and type in the correct number. He could potentially register dozens of users at once. Each bot in turn can modify dozens of pages if not more before being caught and banned. And yes, perhaps 15-20 might be too little, but 50 might be too much. The numbers I gave are rather arbitrary and were just guesses I came up with at the time. --Stux 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Setting up stopgaps in the registering system is a secondary concern. What is most important is the blocking of open proxies so we can open up our anonymous editing. I can tell you there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of proxies we still have not blocked. Any possible way to get this bot to stop, either by proxy blocking or diplomacy, is what we are putting our efforts behind at this point. —BazookaJoe 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you find the open proxies? Is there some sort of compendium available online? Is there any way we can help form the list? Although I hope diplomacy works, it is my personal opinion that the chances of success are minimal. --Stux 18:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but oh well. Now, I don't know anything about bots, but could we have one that reverts bad words or cleared pages? Like, have keywords of the curse words and stuff and make it revert to the last version. I don't now, maybe users can only do that.--

Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 18:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stux: Feel free to write your own MediaWiki extension to do your above suggestions. -- Tom 20:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Tom! I'll see what I can do and I will keep you updated. --Stux 23:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot thrive on speed and volume. How about a speed bump? If the new user count rises too quickly, or the wiki experiences edits that are too many to be human, the annonymous contributions and new registration would auto-shut down until the sysops asses the threat. We all know the aproximate volume of edits that happens on a monday when a toon releases, its usually no more than about 15 active users and about 5 - 10 edits a minute. If all of the suddent the wiki gets 30 edits in a minute it would auto shutdown...almost like a fuse.

I R F

13:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice Idea, but it would become a fuse anyone could activate at any time if they knew about it. They could be constantly "plugging the system up" just for that purpose. --Stux 14:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello HRWikipedians. I'm an admin over at the big Wiki, and wanted to let you guys know what have done to stop Willy et al. The restrictions on page moves were in effect, buy the throttle only prevented the newest 1% of accounts from moving pages. Willy was found registering "Sleeper accounts", which then gamed the system so he would be able to make page moves. So, the throttle didn't work. Then, a new log was made to list all new users (Wikipedia:Special:Log/Newusers) which listed all the new user accounts created. With this new log, an admin could block any inappropiate username, sockpuppet, or vandal account quickly. Finally, Wikipedia:User:Curps wrote a bot which automatically blocked accounts. I'm not sure how this all works, but it has helped a lot in quelling Willy. Good luck to all you here! H*R is pretty cool, and this wiki is fantastic. Regards, Bratsche ::talk 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing/Inactive

I was thinking of creating a notice template for missing and/or inactive users. It might be useful in several ways, such as to post at the top of talk pages or user pages. It could also have its own Missing Users category.

{| style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px; width: 85%;
border-spacing: 3px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
|-
|[[Image:Exclamation Mark.png|48px|Notice]]
| This user, '''{{PAGENAME}}''',  has been missing or inactive since ''{{{1}}}''
due to not having [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|made an edit]]
for a minimum of six months. [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|Contacting]]
of '''{{PAGENAME}}''' through HRWiki is discouraged due to possible lack of response.
|}

This user, Da Basement/Archive 3, has been missing or inactive since {{{1}}} due to not having made an edit for a minimum of six months. Contacting of Da Basement/Archive 3 through HRWiki is discouraged due to possible lack of response.

What do you guys think? — Lapper (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to bother people. If they've left, they've left. Let them leave. They don't want to be bothered. -- Tom 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. Besides, inactive users probably wouldn't be contacted about anything important anyways, for lack of presence on the Wiki. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like kind of an "idiot warning" (what my mom calls the car's announcements that it's running low on fuel, etc.). Anybody who really wants to can examine their contributions. —AbdiViklas 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The template looks like the user did something wrong, especially with the exclamation mark. If a user leaves, he/she can leave a message on their userspace themselves if they wish. «Rob» 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I bow to the decline of this template and therefore decline it myself. How about, instead, we keep a list of missing users? I again link to Wikipedia's list here. — Lapper (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. — _talk Bubsty _edits 02:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace/Interwiki list

I've made a page, which is intended to be moved to Help:Namespaces when it's done (with Help:Interwiki as a redirect perhaps). Mostly so it can be linked to from HRWiki:Glossary#N and maybe also Help:Link. But before I call it "ready" I just want to know:

Are there any objections to this page?
Have I missed any interwiki links? I got all of the namespaces, according to Special:Allpages but there doesn't seem to be a list of the interwiki links anywhere (which is half the reason for the page).

Of course, as always, if you see anything, change it. Your thoughts? phlip ^T_C 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Phlip, and if something was missed, you know someone will spot it and fix it. :) — It's dot com 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I love it! I was looking for the Fanstuff interwiki link the other day and couldn't find it. I ended up putting the full URL. (In fact... why don't I change them back now!) --Stux 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's been moved. phlip ^T_C 06:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Interwiki part could be split into a separate Help:Interwiki article. While the method of linking looks the same, it's really quite different and at least in my mind, deserving of its own page. -- Tom 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Should it be Namespaces, or the singular Namespace? "Help:Namespace". — It's dot com 06:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think namespaces, since it's a listing of the different kinds. However having Help:Namespace redirect to it would be of no harm. --Stux 07:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 3

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents

[edit] Template Overload

[edit] Template Voting

[edit] Totals

[edit] Bug 3231

[edit] A solution to the problem ON WHEELS!

[edit] Willy On Wheels Strikes Again

[edit] Deterrence

[edit] When to list a WikiTroll

[edit] Nothing better to do than to revert pages

[edit] Log in to edit

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Missing/Inactive

[edit] Namespace/Interwiki list

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

External Links