the page is about islam not the english defence league it is totally in-appropriate. so what is the point of it being mentioned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.168.194.183|86.168.194.183]] ([[User talk:86.168.194.183|talk]]) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
the page is about islam not the english defence league it is totally in-appropriate. so what is the point of it being mentioned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.168.194.183|86.168.194.183]] ([[User talk:86.168.194.183|talk]]) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Why not? The [[English Defence League]] is relevant to Islam in the UK and should stay in the article. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 09:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:Why not? The [[English Defence League]] is relevant to Islam in the UK and should stay in the article. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 09:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not make any changes in any page i think there might be someone piggybacking on my wi-fi
Did I decline your article submission? Take a look at this page for information. Posting here will not help.
Please sign your message with ~~~~. I will try and watchlist your user page if I left you a note, however a talkback is always appreciated. If you need to really get in contact with me, I'm always hanging out in ##legoktmconnect when online, otherwise email is the fastest. Thanks, Legoktm (talk)
Legoktm is taking a short wikibreak to get ready for exams and will be back on Wikipedia once the exams are over.
This is Legoktm's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Aye, please elaborate on the policy involved. The lack of consensus is only going to persist so long as the discussion remains a back-and-forth between the two sides, but more voices on the issue itself should help to actually resolve it and you are in a position to contribute. -— Isarra༆20:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it probably would have been better had I given an extended rationale at that time. I'm a bit busy right now, but I will try and leave a note there today evening. Legoktm (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About to post it on your talk page, but check the filter log button, you'll notice that they are actively trying to vandalize (not succeeding though), and my reports are correct. Legoktm (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not entirely true though. Look at Special:Contributions/142.33.224.2 who's actively vandalizing. A few of their edits have gone through, and a few have been blocked by the filter. If we know they're vandalizing, and have made/tried to make enough edits that are our normal threshold for blocking, why should they not be blocked? Or what about registered accounts that are obviously vandalism-only-accounts? Should we just let them be and keep trying against the filter? That doesn't really make sense to me. Legoktm (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Blocks are preventative. If we know (with a specified level of certainty) that they are going to vandalize (and that their intent is to vandalize), isn't a block the right solution? Legoktm (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because if they're not getting through the edit filter, they're not actually harming anything, so there's no preventative value in a block. Preventative not punitive means that it's not about what they want to do, it's about what they're actually doing, and an edit blocked by the filter does nothing. (Side note: I've become much more conservative about using the buttons after I gained the ability to do so. :) ) Side note 2: JamesBWatson overruled and blocked, which is perfectly fine, too, so carry on, I guess. :)Writ Keeper⚇♔20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fair enough. That's probably a more conservative interpretation than I would make, but still valid.
Hm. So I'm guessing that there are different standards among the admin corp as well on what is blockable and what isnt. I think this discussion (how much a filtered edit is "worth" in the 4-warning system) should probably be brought to a bigger audience then. Legoktm (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, probably not a real division; Cavalry and I are probably just being oversensitive. That would be an interesting conversation to have, though, if you want to start it. Purely for myself, I'd say one real vandal edit and a bunch (three or four-ish?) of filter hits would do it. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once I have time in a few weeks after finals
I'll try and see if I can follow that, my current "standards" are 5+ filter hits, and depending on the seriousness of the edits (BLP vs "fuck shit bitch") I might wait for a few more hits.
One of the things I mentioned on IRC recently was that the edit filter merely throws up the same level warning over and over again, not escalating them based on repeated triggers. I'm planning on filing a bug about it (as a feature request), and I think if that could be implemented, it would make the two systems much more comparable. Legoktm (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The standard I've dealt with - which is really the standard for AIV - is a level 4 warning, which necessitates that vandalistic edits are actually made. You asked, "Blocks are preventative. If we know (with a specified level of certainty) that they are going to vandalize (and that their intent is to vandalize), isn't a block the right solution?" - the answer is no, unless the level of certainty is 100%. This is because we must always err on the side of letting people edit. Even if vandalism happens, it's rapidly reverted, and no harm is done - but one (admittedly immature) vandal has learned that he can edit Wikipedia - and in ten years, he'll add something useful. That's why we need to go lightly on vandals, IMO. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the difference. If the editor vandalizes the "traditional" way, he hits the save button after each edit, which is promptly reverted by a human or bot, sees the orange banner, ignores it, repeat 4+ times. Now lets say they vandalize today, hit the save button, and see a warning that tells them that their edit is probably vandalism. They try hitting save again, at which point the filter tells them that their edit has been disallowed, repeat 4+ times. There are two major differences in that scenario, first, that it was the software that warned and prevented their edits, not humans. And secondly, their edits never made it to the history, so a human/bot didn't have to revert them. In both cases, the vandal's intentions were exactly the same, and performed the same actions. Why should those two scenarios have different outcomes? That's what I'm not following. Legoktm (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it in the context of a prisoner in a police cell: if they keep throwing themselves against the cell door, trying to escape, you don't take any action until they actually break through the door. The edit filter (or cell door) is in itself preventative; until they break through, there's no need to spend admin time on it. Does that make sense? The Cavalry (Message me) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your analogy, but I'm not convinced by it. My first thought would be to just get a better door if you know they will be able to get through it. I'll take some time to think about it. For now I'm only reporting editors who actually breached the door (making an actual edit), BLP violations, or LTAs. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. Legoktm (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Barnstar for You!
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
Congratulations, Legoktm! You're receiving the Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 63 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DOn't leave talkback notices on my talkpage unless I have failed to respond for several days. Did you even bother to read my talk page editnotice? Or the big notice at the top? I'm beginning to wonder if you pause to read any directions, as you are repeatedly failing to follow the clear instructions on AIV and now have ignored utterly my clear editnotice. Slow down and read a little, it is at least as important as doing. Re the rest, I'm not going to waste my time explaining what others have already explained in the section Recent vandalism, above. KillerChihuahua?!?12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I did read your edit notice, and as far as I can see there is nothing about waiting a few days before posting a note. I apologize if that is what you wanted.
The AIV instructions don't include info about LTA's nor users given warnings by the edit filter, which show up in logs, but not on their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the other section goes in relation to this one, I already stated that I messed up on reporting the first one. I also said the second one was an LTA, which was able to bypass the edit filter. I'm not sure what was wrong with that report. Legoktm (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was polite. Please read it again. It clearly states: If I messaged you on your page, please reply there. If you message me here, I will reply here. There is no need to place a talkback notice if you are replying to me on your page. . DO you think I should rephrase, like Don't spam me with those moronic notices, do me the courtesy of thinking I'm competent enough to watch where I posted to someone"? Do you think that would help? Because you see, I don't. I think if people give a shit, they'll read that and not leave one without me having to spell it out or get nasty. KillerChihuahua12:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't follow your editnotice as you had spelled it out. By my count I waited 6 minutes before posting on your talk page. I've seen the damage a LTA can do in only 1 minute and how much resulting time and effort it takes to clean up. I wasn't sure if you had seen the note I left, so I left the note to make sure you would get the banner. I'm sorry if that upset you/pissed you off/etc. That wasn't my intention, I only wanted to make sure a potential LTA was being addressed and taken care of. Legoktm (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't pay attention, do you? The IP was blocked by me for 3 months before I ever posted the first message here. Even if I had not, it might help you to remember the world will not end if something isn't done right this second. KillerChihuahua13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the IP of the still-just-one-edit whom you still haven't warned? Yeah, I'd say we're ok there. He's not exactly destroying Wikipedia, and you failing to follow the instructions on AIV still applies. The essay is legend, like TIGER. I'm glad I linked it; didn't know if you'd read it or not, but thought you probably had and just weren't applying it. KillerChihuahua13:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that one. From what I've always seen, you don't bother warning a LTA per WP:DENY and all that, it's just WP:RBI for them. Seeing as they've probably moved on, that IP is stale now.
Well, DENY is an essay, and can run a little bit counter to VAND, as VAND calls for clear warnings. The edit isn't clearly enough a marker of a LTV to me to be certain whether the IP is a repeater or someone who just tripped a filter, and given that I prefer to AGF and err on the side of caution, I'm not inclined to pronounce judgment on that IP. It's sometimes like sock investigations. Might be the same person, might be someone who just agrees. Sometimes RI is the best approach. KillerChihuahua13:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. As a somewhat tangent, whats your opinion on edit-filter warnings (an example) counting as one of the 4 warnings typically given by humans? It's a bit different since (most of the time) they still have the ability to save the edit, and the warnings don't escalate in severity. I had previously held the opinion that they should be equal, however based on comments from you and the section above, I'm not sure that's a widely held view. Legoktm (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Cluebot warnings equal, although they don't escalate and Cluebot makes mistakes. But no, not Abusefilter. Abusefilter is like a Hey, are you SURE you want to do that? It is a caution, not a warning per se. I realize they generally say "warning" but they immediately follow it up with MIGHT be (whatever problem.) It is not the same as "you did wrong" it is "hey, that might be wrong.. not sure... whatevs" You see what I mean? I realize I'm paraphrasing madly here but hopefully you'll catch my drift. KillerChihuahua14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the abusefilter is working and we don't need to do a thing, but it's still not a warning. OTH, if someone attempted three disallowed edits in a row, then managed to get a vandal edit through, I'd probably skip ahead to a level 3 warning, or add the problemIP welcome to their page. KillerChihuahua14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, final question (hopefully)! Would you consider blocking a user if kept making edits that were getting disallowed by the filter but wasn't able to make an edit? Take for example a newly registered user who tries to blank an article 10 times by replacing it with "poop" and gets disallowed each time. (Assuming this isnt LTA, obvious sock, etc). Legoktm (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is someone whose edits aren't getting through, right? It's less of Would I block, than it is Why would anyone bother? The idea of blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. No damage, no block. Now, if someone else blocked, I wouldn't quibble (more waste of my time and their) unless they made a habit of it, but I'd think they were wasting their time and effort and server load and so on to basically do what we are specifically instructed not to do in the blocking policy; preemptive blocks. You simply are not supposed to do them, it is against policy. (With the exception of open proxies.) And should you ever become an admin here, I advise you not to block preemptively either, for while I may ignore such blocks that may not be the case for everyone, and blocking against policy has led to admins losing their bit, because they're not doing their job correctly. KillerChihuahua15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Development
Deployed new code on wikidata.org with a lot of bug fixes and a new Special:EntitiesWithoutLabel (all changes here)
http://test2.wikipedia.org now uses Wikidata (click “edit links” at the bottom of the page), and we are working to enable the synchronization of changes to test2 and display links from the repository
Added wbsetqualifier API module
Added wbremovequalifiers API module
New JavaScript wb.Api now used for labels, descriptions, aliases and sitelinks
Improved Selenium tests and PHPUnit tests
Selenium tests now independent from ULS
Selenium tests for statements UI
Existing statements can be edited now
Filtering anons and Wikidata in RecentChanges on client now works correctly
Added extra checks on client RecentChange save point to avoid duplicate entries
Started an experimental branch with API methods for claims
Link to Commons Media displayed for Snak values of related data type
Improved styling of statements in JavaScript mode
Improvements in templating engine
Started working on adding Statements to existing section of Statements
I had to revert edits in the Tony Evers article; Evers is seeking reelection for the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction in the Wisconsin 2013 Spring Election. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though, your talkpage is totally broken with this black skin. Not that that would necessarily be an issue, but there is just so much partially-defined inline css everywhere that I just don't know what to do with it all. -— Isarra༆06:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better what, wikipedia? Can I replace all the wikipedians? That wouldn't actually help, but it would make making a skin work with the content a lot easier. Less content = less completely stupid style conflicting. So many parsers and templates and html bits everywhere... -— Isarra༆06:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want to be pink, eh? What are you, an uncyclopedian? You should know I went out of the pinkifying other people's userpages business years ago. Like... two years ago. Or possibly one. I dunno; I kind of wandered off at some point and then everything exploded and there was FIRE. FIRE, man. -— Isarra༆06:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-hiring you. Fire is also acceptable, however it shouldn't slow down page loading time nor affect usability for other editors (blaring colors, etc). Legoktm (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, it might be best to leave hidden filters to Edit Filter Managers as they can see if the filter has been correctly triggered. I am not saying this is the exact case but false positives do happen. Another thing, how do you know the edit was correctly blocked? (this) If you somehow had access to examine the attempted edits (asked someone to look into it), sorry for leaving this message. -- Cheers, Riley15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
