User talk:Werdna

If you are here to tell me you replied to a comment of mine in a discussion, don't bother unless it's been a few days. I've probably got it watchlisted.

Blocking of IP Proxies

Someone mentioned that you were the one who wrote the code for IP-exempt.

I have an idea for something, but before I present it for discussion among the community, I thought I would ask if it's "possible".

Right now there is a concern about IP-exempt being used for anonymity reasons/to bypass proxy blocks.

It's clear that this is something that needs close scrutiny.

So at first I was going to suggest that the exemptions be split. But upon reflection, a block is a block, and so being exempt from a certain kind of block would be no different to the software.

So what I'm wondering is this:

Could a tool called "blockproxy" be created, such that the normal "unblock" and IP-exempt would not affect/bypass it?

To go along with it, of course, would be the tools unblockproxy and IPproxy-exempt.

(Note I really don't care what the tools' names are. Just using these for reference.)

This would make the logs easier to follow, and also possibly place each tool in the hands of those who would need to use it (and less likely to abuse it, as, as others have noted, there have been vandal admins).

Who would get the tools could be discussed once implemented, obviously.

If implemented, all open proxies could then be blocked, and those who might suffer for it (such as those from China) can request IPproxy-exempt. And should the IP no longer be a proxy, it could then be unblocked by use of unblockproxy.

And this is just Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I can see where this might be useful to others using this software, who might have different editing policies. (I can think of quite a few examples, as, I would guess, could you. : )

So, would this be possible? - jc37 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Adding a timestamp "bump".) - jc37 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The code for blocking proxies already exists in MediaWiki — it just needs a bit of modernisation. The proxyunbannable right is available in place of ipblock-exempt. My favoured implementation would include automatic blocks for tor exit nodes, and a checkbox on Special:Blockip to allow a block to be marked as a proxy block. — Werdna talk 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I think I understand, but let me ask a couple questions for clarification.

So how would these interact with each other?

For example, if proxyunbannable is applied to a user, could they still be rangeIP blocked?

Can the "appearance" of the checkbox be customised to only appear if the user has certain user-rights - such as CheckUser - similar to how certain checkboxes appear in preferences for admins, or how certain extra options appear on Special:SpecialPages?

And if so, can that be done for "unblock" as well?

Would there be a separate "block/unblock proxy" log for transparency?

Thanks again : ) - jc37 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The interaction is the same interaction you get when you try to edit the main page while blocked. Or when you're both blocked and globally blocked. The error message displayed gives all the reasons that you can't edit the page — a proxy block would be just one of them (alternatively, the same behaviour as when you're both blocked and rangeblocked could be implemented). proxyunbannable would prevent only proxy blocks. Yes, the checkbox could only appear if the user had the right permissions. It would probably be done in the regular block log. Note that I can't really give specifics here, as there are a few things I want to implement before I start playing with this proposal, and there would need to be more discussion than a few back and forths between a developer and a user on a user talk page somewhere. Likely, a discussion would need to be had between whoever implemented it (possibly me), and a number of other developers, probably including Tim Starling and Brion Vibber. — Werdna talk 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That pretty much answers my questions. - jc37 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive prod

You appear to have neglected to include a deletion reason with your prod on Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive. Could you fix that? Thanks. Klausness (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the prod from the article, since you haven't added a deletion reason. Klausness (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't get to this before you did. I'm not going to re-add the prod tag yet, but I'm keeping an eye on it (it originally came as a copyvio of a press release by the company. — Werdna talk 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I should have waited a bit longer. It does appear that this may be non-notable, though I'm not quite sure. I see that someone's just deleted the maintenance templates, but I've restored them (though with Refimprove changed to Citecheck), since they seem appropriate. Klausness (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugs

I've seen it elsewhere said that just creating a bugzilla entry isn't enough, it's apparently necessary to "bug" (pardon the pun) one or more developers, especially on irc. If that's not personally an option, what then?

I ask because I've had a "bug" in limbo for some time (11499 - essentially having the namespace filters drop-down boxes in various places (watchlist/contributions/whatlinkshere/etc.) to include an option for "only all odd namespaces" (all talk) and "only all even namespaces"), and am wondering if that was my mistake : )

What would you suggest? - jc37 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

;-)

Glad to see that your RFA is off to a good start. Good luck, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there, just a few more days until you're an admin!! ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:STBotI

You seemed to have approved this bot for some of its functions [1] [2]. I was wondering if you could come and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_again. In particular, for images uploaded long ago with fair use rationales, this bot should;

1. not mark them for automatic deletion if the fair use rationale exists but isn't in the bot owners preferred format.
2. not make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
3. not leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
4. not have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid' [3].

--Duk 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Machine readable rationales

The link you gave me require that fair-use media be machine readable as fair use - this is accomplished with our fair use copyright tags. It does not say that the rationale for that media has to be machine readable. As a member of the BAG group who approves fair use bot applications, it's unacceptable that you don't understand this. I'll wait to hear your reply before taking this to ANI. --Duk 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotl

Hi Werdna, it seems my breath is no longer being wasted and the conversation is moving forward. Let me repeat that the reason I'm bothering you is that I saw your name at the approval checkmark for STBotl, and the bot's owner was uncooperative. I don't know the hierarchy or workings of the Bot Approval Group, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, let me know, please.

First, here are some quotes from WP:B;

• In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users.
• Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.

So here are just a few small things (to start) that STBotl could do better:

1. STBotI failed to identify a fair use rationale here. That is a mistake. Compare it with this image, also a written rationale instead of the template rationale, where the bot succeeded. The bot should have left the same set of templates on both examples, but it didn't. Please note clearly, I'm not saying that the rationale in the first example is sufficient, it isn't, it lacks an article link, even though the copyright tag has a rationale and article link. I'm merely saying that the bot missed the rationale all together and that is a mistake. Also, regarding the prior section on your user page, please note that this bot does seem able to identify non-templated rationales (usually).
2. STBotI at this image

   a) bloated tags: Between the edit summaries and the image page and user talk tags, the editor has to read over 3,000 characters - that's 500 words - to uncover a single small WP:NFCC#10c link. That's more that twice the size allowed for Wikimedia board candidate statements! [4] Even experienced users will have trouble deciphering that they merely need to add an article link to the rationale. Fewer words, more clarity, let the actual problem, WP:NFCC#10c, stand out and be visible.

   b) misleading edit summaries.Instead of "This image has no valid rationale", which will trip up and slow down most users, the edit summary could read something like "This fair use rational needs an article link to be valid".

   c) poorly written tags: the template on the user page in particular should have a section heading that clearly identifies the problem instead of mindlessly shouting "Disputed". How about something like "An image you uploaded needs its rationale updated"

Please note that in addition to cooperative bot owner behavior, the Bot Policy places a high emphasis on accurate edit summaries and good communication. STBotl currently fails all three of these requirements. --Duk 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Transferred to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. — Werdna talk 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Werdna for following up on this. I had no intention of generating drama and am sorry that was the case. I hope bot owners will keep this episode in mind when they interface with us 'stupid' 'idiots' and perhaps things will go a little smoother next time. Still hoping you can address the machine readable thing loud and clear, but everyones probably clear on it regardless.

I will not block this bot again due to our history and will do my very best to avoid it. Thanks again. --Duk 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the successful RFA Werdna. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved Andrew! Have fun! :) Al Tally ^talk 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - it was a pleasure to nom you! If you need any help, let me know :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yayyyy finally :D naerii - talk 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, Werdna. :) Here's your new T-shirt to go along with your new tools. Good luck! Acalamari 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who contributed. I was overwhelmed with the support (186, just shy of WP:200), and I am glad to have received feedback from those who opposed or who remained neutral. — Werdna talk 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)