HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 23:19, 2 May 2006

"Da Basement" redirects here. For the the basement featured in Homestar Runner toons, see Strong Bad's Basement.

Where all the cool guys hang out

Welcome to Da Basement! This is a messageboard for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the Homestar Runner Wiki. Although it is aimed mostly at sysops, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

Block link on diff

I have often wished for a contributions link on recent changes and a link to the block page when checking the difference between pages. We now have both. If you come across vandalism when clicking a "diff" link, you don't have to click back to the recent changes list for a "block" button, because now there's one right under the vandal's name. Also, not too long ago I added the following link to the block page:

• Search the log for (name of vandal)

This link automatically appears whenever you click on one of the "block" links, and it has the username or IP already filled in for you. That way, you can quickly and easily check to see whether a user has already been blocked before imposing one, and we can avoid double-blocking. (Just how long is two infinte periods of time, anyway? :) ) Keep on tranglin'. — It's dot com 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, shiny! Look how easy it is to block notorious vandal It's dot com! Mwahahahaha! ;) Seriously, grood job. :) Homestar Coder 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Dot com? Meh, it's been done... ;) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Says the user who once blocked himself coz he was bored. --DorianGray

Yup, I block all sorts of people when I'm bored. 'Cept JoeyDay. 'Cause, you know. Severe burnination being the result. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Severe burnination? He'd kill all your dogs! Well, now I'm done with the stupid references, so lemme get to the point. Why are Sysops able to block other sysops? I't just seems stupid, is all. Seriously ^(Talk) 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Supposing a sysop went bad... --DorianGray

Unless Thunderbird go's a little trigger-happy with the blocking (and he's the only person I'd suspect) no one would ever go bad. I'm watching you thunderbird..........Seriously ^(Talk) 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Navigation Templates

I think that Template:charnav and Template:toonnav are unneeded. Toonnav is unneeded for the same reason the Toons and Shorts templates were deleted - they have no connection. For example, 20X6 vs. 1936 has no relation to Arcade Game or The System is Down, apart from the fact that they are shorts. As for the chararcter navigation, there's really nothing to decide what order they should go in apart from how they are stacked on the character page. It is made pretty much pointless by the template at the bottom, anyway.

And that's my six cents. - Super Sam 06:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give that one a hearty AGREE'D! We went through a similar phase, when we started making templates for a bunch of questionable groups, like Old-Timey. This is the same thing. Nav Templates are good, but I think this is a bit overkill. Anything more that I say will just echo Super Sam's other excellent points. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. I wanted to sy something when I first saw them on my watchlist, but didn't had the time to. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. They don't do any harm and just as in the {{sbenav}} template they serve as easy navigation. PDF files have arrows to easily get from one page to another, and so it does nothing but good to make it easy for users to go to the next toon in the logical sequence. For most that means date order, for others such as the charachter page, it is in the order that it appears on the screen and how we list them on the toon page. I R F 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the nav templates serve two purposes: to easily browse through different toons and to easily 'watch' the toon in question without having to browse all the way to the bottom. I personally thought Old-Timey was too big for its own good, but complete removal was not something I was entirely happy with. --Stux 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should or shouldn't be navigation at the top, but I should point out that needing the navigation template for the "watch" button is beside the point, because there's always the {{watchtoon}} template. — It's dot com 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the navigation templates. It's true that the toons and shorts don't have much relation to each other, but it's also nice to be able to just look through them all quickly without having to go back to the previous page and click on the next one. Homestar Coder 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that they should be deleted. TBird pretty much sums up my beliefs. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Top of the World

I was wondering if it would be possible to have a [Top of Page] link next to the [edit] link? I R F 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? -- Tom 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it gets pretty annoying on long pages the scroll all the way to the top again. To see the table of contents or the top personal navigation buttons. I R F 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You might try poking around http://meta.wikimedia.org. They wrote this thing, so they know more about it than we do. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You could also submit it as a feature request if it hasn't been submitted already. BTW the "End" button does the same thing, unless you want to be able to go straight to the TOC. So i can kinda understand there. But if the TOC's somewhere else (like at the bottom of the page or hidden) then where would it go? Where the toc goes? the very top if it's hidden? hide the button for that page? --Stux 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think he just means the top of the page. And don't you mean "Home" button? — It's dot com 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I am doing something that I swore I would never do...use a MAC, and the GUI doesn't even have one of the scrolly ball things. That, and no end or home button either. Problem-matic. Its just temporary as my normal PC is not hooked up to the internet. I was just throwing the jump to top thing out as a suggestion but if its not a popular idea then nevermind. I think when Tom responds with a simple "why?" that told me about how far this idea would go. I R F 04:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Watch links

Please shoot me dead if I'm posting erroneously. Or even wrong.

The sbemails have, at the top, a "watch" link. Wow, would it be cool to have that on every page directly describing a toon. As is I need to hit END, click the "watch 'homestar eats a sandwich'" link, and then HOME to follow the commentary. Top and bottom is a good thing.

Just a thought. Qermaq 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that most have these now. My shame! I see we're all up ons with this. Qermaq 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those nav templates have been popping up pretty much everywhere. Once the ball starts rolling on a project, the whole wiki's changed formats within a week usually. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Projects Makeover

dicussion orignially from here

I am posting this request in a high-visibility location as there has been very little feedback regarding this topic about a new layout for the Projects Page. The preliminary new design is linked from within that discussion. Thanks! --Stux 17:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have applied IRF's new look he had been working on for some time. Questions, comments, praise (or otherwise) can go here. --Stux 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that came completely out of left field. There wasn't really a whole lot of discussion about this, was there? While I appreciate the boldness, I'm not so sure this was ready to go live. I can see IRF has worked hard on it, and I certainly don't want to discourage this kind of forward thinking, but I really think this should be pulled down until more discussion can be held and more tweaking can be done. — Joey (talk·edits) 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Joey Day on that. While being bold is important, it's also important to get approval before taking on a project, even if that project happens to be the projects page. About the new look, I can personally appriciate the work that went into it. You did a very nice job, Invisible Robot Fish. However, almost every page on this wiki has the standard white background for all text. If we can get a bit of approval on this design and tweak the code some, I believe we can have a solid page. — Lapper (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys. Most of the surprise would be my responsability. Instead of listing multiple reasons for my oversight, I will proceed to revert the changes and begin the discussion here. (IRF kept the two versions synchronized and I will do the same). --Stux 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion going on my talk page but there wasn't much discussion yet, feel free to tweak, discuss, whatever you want. I think that there should be some clear way to tell done projects from active or incomplete ones. We don't always have white backgrounds as evidenced by The Stick, STUFF and others. Althought I admit that this design isn't ready yet (which is why I had it here, I think it is close to being a ready to use design. I R F 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just how many times do I have to BEG for people to help/review/tweak/critique here or here? I'm sorry for the frustration, but Stux is the only one that has even commented and I have asked multiple times. Other people are obviously aware of this but haven't contributed in any way. This is beginning to feel like a pocket veto. I R F 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another week and still not one responce I R F 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then. --TheThingé 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am copying the following response from Tom:

I know I was very happy to see that you reverted the change. I don't think the page needs any type of different style. -- Tom 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(I personally like the new look, and IRF's rationale for the colors.) --Stux 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question: Why should this page have a special format? -- Tom 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I was very happy to see that you reverted the change. I don't think the page needs any type of different style. -- Tom 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom: I have copied your response to the Projects Talk page for IRF and everyone else to see. (I personally like the new look, and IRF's rationale for the colors.) Everyone else: if anyone has even the slightest feedback please let us know in that page. Thanks! --Stux 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have tweaked the design again here and am waiting for additional comments. I R F 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a background Marzipan in the design somewhere again. Also I wouldn't mind splitting "Ongoing" projects from "Unfinished" projects. Besides that, I think it's looking good. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct "overruled" spelling, but it seems clear to me. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Here's a question: Why should this page have a special format? -- Tom 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here was my rational... #1 Projects is a special page. It is not an article with information but a section to highlight what needs to be done on the wiki. It is directly linked from another special page The Stick The Stick, which also has a special design. In the STUFF section, there are different colored sections to let the user easily know Fun Fact issues that are already settled. The color give an instant sence of oh, this is different, let me take note. When I went to the Projects looking for something useful to do, I had a hard time knowing what was old and forgotten and what actually needed to be done. I felt that with the introduction of two different bg colors, that one who is scrolling would quickly be able to scroll to desired section because they stand out from one another.

Summary

• Precedent in pages like The Stick The Stick,Introduction and STUFF utilize different background for asthetic and practical reasons.
• Easy of use and functionality
• Crisp clean minty-fresh look!

I R F 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

HRWiki:The Stick (not The Stick) and HRWiki:Introduction have different formats because they are mainly for-display pages. They are not edited on a regular basis, and are designed to look pretty while having things layed out in a visually pleasing mannar. HRWiki:STUFF has a special format because of the voting process that it uses, which Ben developed and which uses all sorts of special templates and so on.

Putting a colored box around something isn't that complicated. As has been demonstrated, it can be done with a <div style="border:something> or I suppose even with a <blockquote style="color:something">. If putting a colored box around two sections is all this is about, then I don't see a problem, but I don't see any advantage to giving this page a special format (<div>s of padding, tables, etc.). -- Tom 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The sections could be divided into the categories you had them in, but as Tom said, there's no need to make this page visually pleasing like the more high-traffic pages that new users regularly hit. Not needing it is not to say that I don't like it. It looks excellent, but it's simply not necessary. — Lapper (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a few alterations based on Tom's suggestion. I R F 14:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Last week I made the code much simpler and only made the div codes around the two sections. Tom, can you take a look at it again. I have restrained myself to only asking about this about once a week...I can't go much slower. I R F 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's needed, but I made a few changes to your proposal page. -- Tom 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I get an up or down vote here? I see a few people that like it, a few that don't and I don't want to kill it or put it up until I see more input.

The proposal is, should this page design replace this page design?

Yes

1. I R F 13:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No

1.  -- Tom 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I've seen two, maybe three of his [Drwho's] sockpuppets make vulgar vandalism today. I, being an eleven year old, don't want to see this stuff (although I'm pretty mature for this age), and nobody else wants to see his absurd edtit summaries. We need to make a censorship plicy on the wiki, and urgently. By this I mean there might be something in the software that would allow any swearwords to be replaced with asterisks. If there is any way to do this, please do it fast, and leave out the freakin', crap, and other obligatory words in our wiki. If there is not, can you take away edit summaries so people don't have to see this? Thanks. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with automatic censorship, and would not want to see it implemented here. I realize that sometimes it's a chore to police it manually, but I think we do a good enough job as it is. Most casual readers don't look at the inner workings, and so as long as we can keep it off the pages we should be fine. — It's dot com 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess the only reasonable thing to do is make sure all of the IP addresses Dr. Who's used are blcoked permanently. — Seriously ^(Talk) 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that we don't block IP addresses permanently (not counting open proxies), but thanks for your concern. — It's dot com 01:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought at least some were blocked permanently. ??? — Seriously ^(Talk) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some used to be, but they were unblocked after policy changes, going by a thread up above. Not even my IPs were; even a completely static IP that literally no one uses outside of my house was blocked for a mere 2 weeks, and another for 3 months. (unfortunately that one is still blocked, but it hardly affects me). With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 08:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I also unblocked everything I saw that was a permanently blocked IP except some spammers. I have my reasons why I left the spammers blocked, though perhaps not even all of them need to be - I just didn't check which was which at the time. --Jay (Talk) 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Running Gags

I've made a formal proposal for the sub-categorization of the running gags page. I'd really like critique and advice as to whether this is a worthy idea to go through with. Additionally, feel free add, merge, or otherwise tinker with the places the articles are to go in the table. — Lapper (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The job is already done, but I gotta say good work. I had been thinking myself about proposing we sort our runnings gags. I was impressed when I saw what you did in recent changes. —BazookaJoe 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And now for the Inside Jokes category. Please see the followup discussion for the next stage. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting

Read first. I think that semi-protecting the whatsnew and the featured article templates would be a fantastic way to prevent oodles of high-visibility vandalism while still allowing responsible users to edit. While Wikipedia suggests that semi-protecting should not be used as an outright prevention of vandalism, I think that this type of wiki could survive using semi-protection for this purpose. After all, WP's main page templates are fully protected; ours are fully exposed. A vandal has demonstrated a few weeks ago the ability to vandalize with offensive images without having to log in or upload anything, and I think it's high time to save the main page from this, without sacrificing the priveleges of responsible non-sysops. I suggest that we set the ability-to-edit-semi-protected-pages threshold for logged in users to 5, 10, or 15 edits. (And while I'm at it, I suggest the same for Moving pages. Sorry to be demanding, Dot com :) ). —BazookaJoe 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The technical side of this would not be that difficult. The question is, what do we want our policy to be? Also, you're saying sysops need to be able to semi-protect and un-semi-protect specific pages, right? — It's dot com 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy for this, roughly put, is to prevent vandalism on the main page templates, and to put a temporary lock on a page that is persistantly vandalized over a short period of time (if range blocks fail). We won't need to semi-protect very much for the latter reason because we can afford to block ranges when larger wikis can't. We will likely only need to semi-protect something under extraordinary circumstances, like if there's a massive world-wide timed crusade against Strong Bad Email. Oh, and affirmative on the sysop function. —BazookaJoe 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and I think that if we do end up semi-protecting any pages, we should prevent only annonies from editing. There have been cases where a relatively unknown user with only one or two edits has noted an update on Template:whatsnew. I know that this does leave us open to vandals creating throwaway a counts to vandalize semi-portected pages, but I think it's worth the risk. I am also not deadset on this, and my opinion could be changed if presented with a reasonable argument. Username-talk 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Letting brand new or extremely lightweight users edit whatsnew wouldn't decrease vandalism enough to be worth the risk. Our persistant vandals who know their way around a wiki would create throwaway accounts as often as AOL shifts their IP, and our purpose for semi-protecting it would be largely defeated; it wouldn't slow down main page template vandalism desirably. New and anonymous users with a new update can still post it on H*R.com updates 2006, which unfortunately seems to have lost its priority to whatsnew more than it should have. It isn't going to be a problem if a new user cannot edit whatsnew, because once it is posted in H*R.com updates, it will certainly be added to the main page within minutes. —BazookaJoe 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to help, here's the link to Wikipedia's Semi-protection policy. -- Tom 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like this functionality is a part of MediaWiki version 1.6 (see Bug:1735), so unless you all think this is a hugely pressing need, I'ma just wait until we upgrade instead of hacking our current version. — It's dot com 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Waiting is good for me. -- Tom 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for semi-protecting. Yesterday I came to the wiki and was greeted on the main page with "N- STOLE MY COW" in massave font, several hundred times in a row in the "what's new" box, which took significantly longer to load and stretched the page to enormous size. The Main Page was originally unprotected when I first came to the wiki, and it was started being protected for the same reason way back when. I think we're getting to the point where we should take it a step further, and protect against any user with less than a dozen edits or so. As an added bonus, this will give another editing perk to respected users, but those that aren't up to the level of sysop. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting won't stop heavy trolls, but other then full protection nothing does. If a small time troll want to edit the whatsnew and see a "view source" tag at the top of the screen, and he doesn't know about the semi-protaction, we will just move to another, less important page. I'm all for it. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the extent of main page trolling, how often does it happen? I never seem to catch trolls so I don't know. If it is a nussance, then I say semi-protect it. I feel that if someone is a new user, they really don't have any business editing the main page. Its important that they learn the flow of how things are done here first. I R F 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See here, and look at the number of times an edit has been reverted. Most of those are troll edits. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

28 trolling total, in all of the template's life. Counted myself. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's 310 days, so about once every 11 days. -- Tom 17:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, for something so main, I find it unprofessional for the possibility of visitors coming to our site, and being greeted with vandalism on the first page they see. Most of the updates are made by power users. If we miss something, annonys usually alert us on the Main page talk. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

cout << endl; I always here people talk about not wanting to be restrictive and and is something nessesary, but my question is, what is the possible harm? Power users will still be able to do their thing, new users will be met with a friendly this section can be edited by users with x edits. Please contribute to a few more articles before attempting to update this page. I don't think think anyone will say, "forget it, if I can't edit 'what's new' on my first day, I'm leaving." It can only do good things like deter trolls. As I learned years ago, car alarms are stupid. When they go off, no one pays attention and they can be easily disabled usually. But with that said, my car alarm still kept two pesky teens from jacking my stereo. I didn't even hear the blasted thing go off, but found my car door open and my battery dead the next morning. The neighbors were pissed because they listening to punt reear all night, but my pricy stereo and CD's carelessly left on the seat were untouched. My point is this, yes anyone including bots can get arround this but the more people we deter, the better. I R F 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User categories

I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back, and I noticed that userboxes have become somewhat of a craze lately. I like the idea, but I think so far it's been missing one thing that would make it very useful: user categories. I don't think every userbox should have a category associated with it, but I've come up with a few that I think would be practical. I'd like to propose the following four categories that users will be encouraged to add to their userpages (assuming they really belong in the category):

• Category:Users who own strongbad_email.exe
• Category:Users who own strongbad_email.exe Disc 4
• Category:Users who own Everything Else, Volume 1
• Category:Users who own Strong Bad Sings and Other Type Hits

User categories like these would come in handy when trying to find wiki members who can help in situations like this, where someone who doesn't own one of the above is trying to verify edits to transcripts. I want to emphasize that user categories should be kept to a very functional minimum. Categories like Users who love The Poopsmith, while having the potential for a lot of fun, should not be allowed because they wouldn't serve any practical function. What do you think? — Joey (talk·edits) 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but kinda useless. Just my thoughts. And it's great to have you back, man. — Seriously ^(Talk) 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in it. Its also a good accountibilty thingy (to see which users are doing their part to TBC). j/k. Also welcome back Joey Day. I R F 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I find your reasons for the creation of these categories to be practical, but I believe it would end up being more hurt than help. The categories would fill with long lists of users, and only rarely is a merchandise check needed. — Lapper (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think user categories would be an extremely slipperly slope that we shouldn't go down. I'm already not ecstatic that we have the one category that we do. I don't want to get to the place where we have to police user categories. In addition, if someone really needs to know that information, it is available in the what links here section of the respective userbox images. — It's dot com 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

not everyone has gotten on the woodaver babel-box train though I R F 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether a user uses userboxes is irrelevant. He or she can still check the file links section of any given merchandise image. — Lapper (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dot com stole my slippery slope argument, so I'll just add an example. I'm not saying this is included in the scope of your proposal, but we really don't need things like a Wikipedians with an underscore in their username. -- Tom 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Another reason is the asking itself. If a user have a problem and needs information from one of the DVDs, it's better to leave the request on the page's talk page then asking a particular user. Doing so will resolve to a trend in asking only one user, which is bad. If someone have a problem, just leave a note on a talk page. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta reiterate the "slippery slope" argument. If it helps at all, I own all of the above. ;) ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, but why not just make a section on strongbad_email.exe, strongbad_email.exe Disc 4, Everything Else, Volume 1, and Strong Bad Sings and Other Type Hits' talk pages with a list of users that own that product? — DBK! 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone there? — DBK! 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one thought that was necessary. — It's dot com 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess youre right. Meh. — DBK! 04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiTroll

I was thinking about this, so I'll ask it out loud: Is HRWiki:WikiTroll necessary anymore? I can't remember the last time I referred to it for any reason. — It's dot com 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of it. Usually the offender is already blocked before they're even added. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I say just leave it unused, just for the rare situation that it could be used. -- Tom 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Dot com and T-bird. Now that we have more sysops with blocking privileges, we have someone blocked before you can say "Twees it." There are just those few very dull times where we may not have anyone on, but like I said—dull times. ♥ _tee^eff_oh! 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I bring this up is that it sometimes seems superfluous to block IP vandals who have already moved on anyway. And vandalism in progress that is caught by a sysop results in an immediate block. I'm not saying the page should be completely done away with, but its current format seems obsolete. — It's dot com 00:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "arms and legs and twees it out? Chest and flex and shoulder stance"! But I agree with Tom. I've seen countless times when people are taken over by the lack of sysops. I think that it is still somewhat useful. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In those cases, was the WikiTroll page used by a sysop to result in a block? — It's dot com 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but there are other reasons why this page is useful. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, I've been a sysop for all of four days now, so my experience isn't exactly extensive. But I will say that I don't anticipate using WikiTroll that often. Whenever I come back to the wiki after being gone a few hours, I always just go back through the RC to find out what's happened since I left (and was doing this long before Tuesday, when I was sysopped), and if I see the edit summary "rv/v", I know something's happened and that I might need to block someone. So, I think Dot com has a point in suggesting that it may be unnecessary. Heimstern Läufer 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Even though it's on my watchlist, I usually only actually open this page when I see it on Recentchanges or I'm tremenously bored. --Jay (Talk) 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this: Say there's a troll who has been listed as an offender. Several edits go by without a sysop coming. There's a very, very good chance of that happening and the edits not showing up. Just saying. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Seriously, I'm not sure the chances are all that good, especially now that we have as many sysops as we do (including some in far-off time zones). I think you'd be hard put to find any situation, especially since the recent promotions, where it took anywhere near 500 edits between a vandal attack and the block. Heimstern Läufer 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I'm stretching. I'm all up ons the idea of redirecting wikitroll tro recent changes. `— Seriously ^(Talk)

I'm really not talking about how WikiTroll was intended to be used or even how it might hypothetically be used. The point of this thread is to find out from sysops whether it is being used by them at all and whether it should continue to exist in its present form. — It's dot com 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I always just check Recent Changes for vandalism, I never use WikiTroll. I wouldn't mind if it were deleted. — Kilroy / talk 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here, Kilroy. I say unnecessary. ♥ _tee^eff_oh! 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And for the argument of using it as an archive for offenders (should it arise), we have the block log. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree WikiTroll should be retired. I've thought WikiTroll was rather useless ever since we switched to MediaWiki. There are just better tools for dealing with trolls in MediaWiki than there ever were in 'Tavi. (Heh, seventeen colons in front of this!) — Joey (talk·edits) 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I now agree with delortion. — Seriously ^(Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All factors have come together to make WT obsolete. Sysops are watching recent changes around the clock, and they often check back a ways on RC to see what happened during their absense. Addressing one of Seriously's concerns, if a sysop misses a vandal or troll that gets buried in RC doesn't get blocked, it really doesn't matter: It's possible that a sysop didn't miss the edit and is choosing not to block, and if there were only one or two troll edits and the troll went away, it wouldn't do much good to block. Only vandalism that is ongoing is of any real concern. —BazookaJoe 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Altough I never blocked anyone yet, I never used WikiTroll either. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiTroll has pretty much been less and less useful; I haven't used the page for weeks. Simply rolling back all the (top) edits after blocking the vandal is sufficient. — Lapper (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It always took ages to add a vandal to the table because it was way too complicated to do so! Indeed, WikiTroll is dead.

RIP WikiTroll

Please don't dig up the grave. – The Chort 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You have fake messages!

Look, before I go there's an issue I have to address. These fake "you have new messages" things on people's userpages that lead people to other stuff? I can't deal with them, they gotz to go. Much like guestbooks, they started out a funny trick. Now it's become a fad. It's seriously annoying for me to see this every time I go on Tampo's userpage—wait, scratch that. It's seriously annoying for me to see this every time I go on pretty much everyone's userpage, especially because I have always enjoyed getting messages. They've gotten pretty bad, too. Like one that logs out the user who gos to it. Now that's just mean. Can we please get rid of these? — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I thought you had left a while ago, I concur. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did leave a while ago. It's just that I was reminded of this, and I realized I had one last mssion. If you want to call it a mission. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked anyone to remove them? What was the reply? — It's dot com 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked no one. I thought it would be better to address this matter here. — Seriously ^(Talk) 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Does anybody even emotely care about this issue? Kinda getting annoying...— Seriously ^(Talk) 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I inadvertently started this talk; I mentioned in passing on Main Page talk that's annoying to have to update my message prank on Wikipedia every time they change the real one (it used to be like here, then "diff", then "changes", then "last changes"). Then another user commented that the message pranks themselves are annoying, then Seriously agreed and started a topic about that. I have one here too (it goes to Special:Mytalk), but I couldn't be less attached to it. (If they're banned, Yeltensic the Guestbook Vandal won't become Granola the You Have New Messages Prank Box Vandal.) With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really mind. I don't see the harm in having one on your userpage. What's the big deal? Why don't you just ignore them and wait until you're out of the User: namespace? If you can't deal with them and they annoy you this much, then you can always just stop looking at userpages. If you don't like them, don't click them. (And, if you don't mind me asking, Seriously, why does it bother you this much if you're not even going to be here to see them?)—FireBird|Talk 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue is not even close to a problem. Of the approximately 45 user pages/user talk pages/user subpages that use the "usermessage" class, only 4 people are using them in a way that directly imitates the new messages message (Granola, Not a Robot!, Tampo (6 times), and Whatever your user name is there). If it really bugs you, why don't you ask them directly. — It's dot com 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. {leaves in a huff}

Nah, I'm just kidding. I thought they were annoying, and I could safely say that many other users thought so too. I guess not. I also saw several similarities to the guestbook decision. Most of the arguments there were that people just never really liked them. I thought maybe, that could happen here too. Once again, I guess not. Whatever, see yous guys later. Way later. I'm happy I got one more debate to happen before I leave. — Seriously ^(Talk) 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the Guestbooks was that it was clogging up Recent Changes. The new messages links don't really do that. I personally think they're unoriginal and somewhat stupid, especially since for a while nearly everybody had them, but gradually that fad's been passing, and as Dot com mentioned, most of them now use the span, but don't directly copy the wording to fool you. It's more of a personal userpage choice then a problem that adversely affects the wiki as a whole. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dot com, for calling that to my attention...little did I know that, all along, my prank was incorrect. I wonder if I did the same thing on Wikipedia...? With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 03:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To back you up, Seriously... I hate 'em too. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)

I should clarify. They annoy me. But I do have that choice of not visiting those user pages. Fool me once and all. I suppose it's an avoidable nuisance and therefore not really any sort of crisis. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys are way behind the times. It was massively bad back then, but it cooled down. Like all fads, it'll go away by itself. Just let the person who has it on their userpage have some fun. - Super Sam 09:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mine is actually independent of the craze; I just have one here because I already had one on Wikipedia (where it isn't a big fad). With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 17:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I care. I used to use dial-up, and it took SO much time. And this is fast dial up we're takin' about. Bluebry 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know what? If we're shortening sigs for our dial-up users, why not get rid of something making them take up more time? Bluebry 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this fake message will really make dial-up-ers pages load drastically slower... - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Then use dial-up. Bluebry 23:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What? The time it would take a page to load with or without a "new message" indicator it virtually identical. It's just text, and not even much of that. Also, we didn't shorten sigs for dial-up users; we shortened them because they were getting out of hand. — It's dot com 23:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But, if you're new to a wiki, and fall for that, that's a VERY long time. I had it happen all the time when I was new, and am now lucky to have a fast connection. But, trust me, I spent too much time on that. That time could have been converted to productive editing. Bluebry 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I mentioned above, there's only a handful of people doing it, and only one who does it on pretty much every page in his user space. If you want, you could speak to them directly. — It's dot com 23:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for sysops

We're going to try out a new courtesy policy among sysops. You've probably noticed that double blocking is common now in part due to the recent promotions. (The reason we want to avoid these is because they look a bit unprofessional when different admins block for different durations for the same user, and it can cause degree of unintentional usurping of other sysops' decisions.) While it sometimes cannot be avoided, double blocking can be lessened if we follow this new "policy": The sysop who gets the first revert on a vandal becomes the commanding officer or case worker, and gets rights to the block at his or her discretion. This will prevent multiple blocks of varying durations on the same user, and will give the case worker the freedom to use diplomacy (that is, talk pages) to get the offender to stand down. Use your best judgment if it appears that the commanding sysop is no longer online — either Missing In Action or if the vandalism is separated by more than fifteen minutes' time. If a non-sysop gets the reverts and you don't know if other sysops are keeping an eye on the vandalism, keep aware of your surroundings, slow down a bit, and be sure you search the block log immediately before blocking (using the auto-link on the block page) to be sure someone already hasn't done the deed. Though usually, the vandal need not be blocked at all unless it is especially bad (spamming or otherwise) or ongoing/persistant. It won't do any lasting harm if we slow down a little bit and keep our heads cool... the worst that could happen is a few more bad edits slipping in before the block.

Also, when reverting good-faith edits, please try to avoid using the rollback button. Give your best effort to provide a reason for the revert (all users should do this as much as possible). In the best-case scenario, the rollback button should be used for vandalism only.

—BazookaJoe 03:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm highly in favor of both points. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If I can remember to actually do them. ;) I've kinda fallen into the habit of the rollback button, so I might have a harder time with that one. --Jay (Talk) 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a sysop, but when looking at Recent Changes it's HUGE help to me to know why an edit was reverted. I welcome this. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good idea. Wikipedia should have a blocking policy like that. With crap, Yeltensic (T • C) 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Especially the rollback one. I used it only once, and I hope it will stay that way. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 09:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to the software that drastically affects the first paragraph (thus I have grayed it for now). It is now impossible to double-block. Several of you already encountered this earlier when we had a WoW-style attack. The software seems to be functioning as I intended. It seems to me, therefore, that we shouldn't hesitate to block during a big attack, as only the first sysop will be successful. In less severe cases (where the threat is not immediate), seeing whether another sysop has been dealing with the vandal (perhaps trying a diplomacic approach) is a good idea. In short: Feel free to block as quickly as the immediate situation warrants, but if the vandalism is not in progress, take the time to investigate the relevant links, just as if the vandal had been listed on the old WikiTroll. — It's dot com 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: I think we should not use "unwelcome" as the reason for deleting talk pages. I understand that these vandals are in fact not welcome (and that what we're deleting is probably just a welcome message), but I think it looks bad to see in the recent changes. I suggest: "vandal talk page" or something similar. — It's dot com 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. No more "unwelcome". Sounds wise to me. And thanks for fixing the software to prevent double blocks; that should be very helpful. Heimstern Läufer 19:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a pretty nice thing to avoid during the quick attack. We had enough problems with double page-moving. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Double page moving? I don't remember any of that! I mean, I never deleted Has Matt?'s page! Umm, uhh, {beats a hasty exit}. NOT Heimi 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah that was me that came up with "Unwelcome". I thought it was a good play on words, they are unwelcome, thus they are un-welcome'd. But I see the logic. "Vandal talk page" is better, thanks. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 23:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just bumping this item into more recent history. I for one really appreciate knowing why my edit needed reversion, and I know the newest users do as well. If sysops rollback edits made in good faith, the new user won't know why the reversion was done, and might very well find it an offensive response. I'm trying to always provide a summary explaining the revert, so maybe next time I (or you) won't have to revert him again for the same thing. Also, I'd propose that if anyone sees a new user making the same editing mistake often, someone should politely and gently "school" them on their Talk page. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the rollback button is always readily available and easy to use, I for some reason still prever the good ol' go-to-last-good-version-edit-write-rv-and-reason-in-the-summary-and-save type of reverting. I think I used it here only three or four times (for trolls and one accidentally). — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to bring up the exact thing as your second point, BZJ, but I guess you already have that taken care of. I with it agree totally. Ed lim smildE / talk

Automatically block ON WHEELS!!

I am attempting to create a template that will automatically block any user with the phrase "on wheels" (not case sensitive) in the username. This could potentially save us tons of time on blocking. I need a little help, considering I have never created a template or a bot before. · · T²|_Things 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to help, but that wouldn't really solve the problem. If we did that, the vandals would just use "on wheelz" or "()|\| \/\/|-|33|_5" or something. Oh well. Keep on tranglin'! — It's dot com 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Another issue would be that there might be a legitimate user who would choose to be Pancakes On Wheels or something, and they'd be blocked. They might find that unwelcoming, which runs counter to our goal here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at the code, it doesn't look like it'll autonmatically block anyone at all. Bluebry 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that; but for now I have a template, a category, and a note on the Help:Vandalism page, so that new users will know what to look for in terms of vandalism. · · T²|_Things 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We have the delete template for troll pages. Example: {{delete|Troll user page}}. Bluebry 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I don't think new users should be too worried about helping to revert vandalism and report people for blocking. I'd personally prefer the new users to use their initial involvement to get to know the wiki, the sysops, how we do things, what's appropriate and not, etc., and in the process they'll figure all that out along the way. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily NEW users, just users who aren't as familiar with WoW style vandalism. I joined the RC patrol just after I signed up, and I recently began reverting, just a few weeks after sign up. I wasn't familiar with WoW style until last night. · · T²|_Things 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but, no one needs to know vandalizers styles, just that it's vandalism. Bluebry 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a bot to add a template to tell us that a user needs to be blocked. We've had a discussion beforehand about if we even need a bot to block possible sockpuppets directly, but we came up with a resounding "no" for many of the same reasons: It's easy to avoid being autoblocked; our recent changes do not pass by so quickly that we miss new registered accounts, we have enough admins watching for WoWs nearly round-the-clock, and we hardly spend any time reverting or blocking so it wouldn't save us much time at all. —BazookaJoe 22:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not make it use "NSMC" insted of "ON WEELS!"? --Dacheatbot · Communicate 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Visit hrwiki.org

Uh... what happened to our logo? Instead of the usual Homestar logo, all I see is a white box that reads "Visit hrwiki.org"... but... I already am... --Jay (Talk)

And, might I add, it's extremely unsettling. It just, y'know, feels wrong to have that big mostly-blank space up there. --Jay (Talk) 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed now with a hard refresh. Thanks. -- Tom 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And, wouldja look at that, it is. Cool. --Jay (Talk) 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mister Pellican ****

FYI: Wikipedia:WP:MPS. Another infamous Wikipedia vandal has found his way here. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably just a copycat; this guy has been operating here as WoW for a long time now. — It's dot com 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting that they were the same guy, I just wanted to make sure we all knew what we may be in for. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Messages

Seeing how welcoming new users is carried out these days, I would like to propose hardcoding an automatic welcome message for when users first create accounts. Some might argue that an automatic welcome would be a tiny bit impersonal, but most of these welcomes nowadays are. No matter which way you look at it, we are as close to an automatic welcome now as you can get without it being hard-coded into the system. Unless you're personally helping a new member with a problem or something, It's just as impersonal as an automated message. Automating the messages would barely change anything, and eliminate any bizzare or unorthodox welcomes. We could still welcome new users with help if they need anything, but an automated message would convey the basic links found within most user welcomes. If this is decided to be changed, we would do so after the upgrade to MediaWiki version 1.6. Any opinions, for or against? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your statement implies a problem with "how welcoming new users is carried out these days" - and I don't think I understand where that problem lies. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply there was much of a problem. What I meant was "seeing how welcoming new users is as good as automated these days" why not make it official? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you stated, the personal touch would be lost. There's something to be said about a user taking the time to visit your page and personally welcome you. It implies a community which nurtures, and the new user now knows at least one other user on the wiki. I'd be reluctant to support automating that unless there remains a role for individual users to fill in spreading the wiki love. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the personal touch in going to someone's page, who you have no idea who they are, and typing {{subst:welcome}}? The welcome committee has become a well-oiled machine anyway, staring at the newusers log and welcoming new users as soon as they're created... an automatic system would be no different. All we'd lose is the varied and occasionally confusing individual welcome templates, which in my mind wouldn't be a bad thing. My thought is either go back to only welcoming after the newbie has made their first edit (so you have some basis for making the welcome more personal... commenting on anything the newbie seems to be having problems with) or just go automated 'cause it basically is anyways. phlip ^T_C 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There also seems to be some sort of "contest" to see who can welcome the largest number of new users, which makes it even less personal. And causes most in the committee to make extra edits to their user pages/subpages in order to keep track. --Jay (Talk) 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think automating is a good idea. It is true that the welcoming method used now has, unfortunately, become somewhat impersonal. Still, I think it's much better than the completely impersonal way of automation. To me, this seems like the wrong way to go about fixing a problem. What really needs to happen, IMO, is that people need to agree to stop having races to get the most welcomes. I frankly would like to see all the counting how many you've welcomed stop and for people to welcome in order to help people, rather than to boost their welcome count. Heimstern Läufer 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point, Thunderbird, I agree with Qermaq's "if it ain't broke don't fix it" logic. (Now if we were having a problem with zany or unwelcoming welcomes it would be another matter.) Personally, if there's a problem with it, it's that I suspect the near-instantaneous time leads many users to believe it is automated. I know that was my first thought when I saw my message from Rogue Leader—"Oh, how nice; some guy named Rogue Leader wrote up this form letter and it appears automatically when I create an account." But once I realized a real person had left it, it was more meaningful. And personally, I find the nonstandardization charming. It's dot com's got his well-organized one; I've got my wordy one; Leporello's got his funny one; Dacheatbot's got his artsy one. The less it looks like a template and the more it shows a user's individual creative touch, the clearer it is to the recipient that there's a real person behind it. (But function should come before fancy!) —AbdiViklas 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Heimi - what needs to be squelched is the "three-edit welcome" - the welcome post, the addition of the name to a list, and the upping of a number of people welcomed. It's as if there's some glory in having welcomed so many people. There could be an argument for restricting such "welcomed" lists on the basis of eliminating unnecessary items in Recent Changes.... - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Responding to edits that were made after I started the above: Yes, the "welcome count" race does bug me. It makes it seem like the newbie is there to serve their welcome rather than the other way 'round. Before making some kind of official rule about it, though, I'd be in favor of trying to talk one-on-one with the people who do it. Also, in reply to phlip: "the varied"—IMO, good—"and often confusing"—I(Iwouldhopeeverybody's)O bad. Like I just said, the primary goals should be that it includes the most helpful links, and displays them in a way that's easily and intuitively assimilated. It's dot com's is an excellent example of how it can be personalized and super-pragmatic. Again, I'd be in favor of individual interventions with users whose templates are lacking or confusing. —AbdiViklas 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The welcoming contest is getting out of hand. We even have had one user create dozens of accounts and welcome them himself—and then carry on a conversation thanking himself for the welcome. What I propose is that when you join, at the top of your talk page you see an automated hey, how are ya, here's some important links. After you've made a few edits, then someone from the committee should leave a personal message. I also think we should completely overhaul the committee. It should be restricted to people who have actually been here a while and know their way around, maybe like a minimum number of weeks and mainspace edits. And then when you welcome somebody, you put them on your watchlist and keep track of them for a while, like a mentor. I don't mean to expand the scope of this discussion, so let me just reiterate that the way we're doing it now is for all intents and purposes automated, so why not make it for real automated and elimintate some abuse in the process. — It's dot com 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well If had we done that when I came on I kind of would of felt like, "I've been on here for kind of a while, so It's a little late to welcome me" --Dacheatbot · Communicate 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this pertains to me too, as I've been extremely competitive with users in the past with welcoming. I think that Dot com's idea is a prooty good one, as I myself would love to watch a user grow and learn more and more. (Unless it's a vandal, in which case they won't learn anything and I'll totally regret welcoming them. :P) I think there could also be a sorta "rating system"—I know this sounds extremely strange, but bear with me. Sysops (FireBird comes to mind, as he did create the welcoming committee) could permit or not permit users tro create a custom welcome, based on their interacting with other users, their attitude, and their overall knowledge of how to edit things on the wiki. Igf you passed, then you would be able to follow therough with the mentor idea, and you would check up on the user every once and a while to see how things are going. Such a warm welcome for a new user would not only help with users editing, but it would help build up one of the most important part of our wiki, friendships and interaction with other users (Abdi knows about that, he wrote an entire essay on it :P). — Seriously ^(Talk) 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(Gah, too much indenting, starting over...) I dislike the idea of "rating" other users... it's basically just codifying favoritism, nothing more. Besides, it'll just create new avenues for competition... from "hah, I've welcomed more users than you" to "hah, the sysops like me more than you"... Trust and respect can't be quantified, and trying to do so usually just creates cliques and leaves new users in the dark... phlip ^T_C 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it does do that, but it would still help. If we've left users in the dark before (SYSOP NOMINATIONS), then I think users can be mature about it. Actually, I think that nearly everybody has a certain amount of maturity, just as they are expected to (quote from It's dot com on his talk page: "Even though actual age doesn't matter, I don't see anything wrong with expecting a certain level of maturity from our users, once they've had a chance to get the hang of things"). — Seriously ^(Talk) 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(responding to two posts back) LOL; thanks for the shout-out. And thanks to both you and Dacheatbot for responding so quickly to suggestions! I'm hearing a lot of ideas above that sound cool, like the mentor thing. I still want to voice an objection to having "first contact" be automated, though. The question of whether or not to automate can develop separately from some of the other ideas proposed. Personally, I still see it as important that a user's first impression come from a real person, rather than waiting until they take the next step of involvement. What if that human welcome decides whether or not they take the next step? So from my perspective, with automation being undesirable, the logic "it's already like an undesirable thing so let's go ahead and make it an undesirable thing" seems weird.

(after one edit conflict) I agree, phlip; the idea of a ratings system made me think, "But that would be subjective, so we'd want to base it on something; maybe after a given number of appropriate welcomes—wait, then we'd have people counting their welcomes!" But nonetheless, the idea of the mentors, as a status conferred after probationary experience, isn't that different from the concept of sysop. On the other hand, it sounds like a significant duty. Maybe if it was made voluntary it would be self-moderating; if the requirements of wiki-experience and significant commitment to a given newbie were made clear, there wouldn't be as much of a rush to join! (And if ill-equipped users tried to, they could be firmly discouraged.) But seriously, if this conversation goes much farther we should maybe split it into one discussion of stopping current practices and another of starting new ones. —AbdiViklas 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you partially misunderstood what I meant (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying). Someone would not be allowed to welcome another user unless they met certain requirements. Thus, the sysops would not rate you with your number of welcomes as a factor. But I definitely agree with you on the idea of waiting until a user makes an edit to welcome them. That shows a bit more acknowldegment of the user. Example of a good welcome"

"Hey, So-and-so! I've seen you making a lot of great edits lately".

This was it seems a lot less automated, and shows that the welcomer is thinking about the new user as more than just a new user, but an individual user with their own personality". — Seriously ^(Talk) 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, forget the whole mentor and user-rating thing for now. That's not what this thread is about, and I'm sorry for veering us off course. Here's the thing: the only way to avoid the appearance of an automated welcome is not to welcome people right away. But if we do that, they miss out on some very important links. It is for this reason alone that I do not object to the instantaneous welcomes that we currently practice. I think an automated list of links, not an actual welcome per se, and then later a personal welcome down the line (after some actual editing has taken place) is the way to go. — It's dot com 23:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While I see what you're saying, how might we exactly go along with the linking? Would we just put a notice at the beginning of the user's talk page, saying "Links:" and then a list of links? I think that wouldn't work so well. — Seriously ^(Talk) 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)