HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 5

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Current | Archive 1 (1-10) | Archive 2 (11-20)
Archive 3 (21-30) | Archive 4 (31-40) | Archive 5 (41-50)
Archive 6 (51-60) | Archive 7 (Logo discussion) | Archive 8 (61-82)
Archive 9 (83-102)

Contents

[edit] 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:

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 Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 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)

[edit] 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 Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — wikisig.gif 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. --TheThin 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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?

[edit] Yes

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

[edit] No

  1.  -- Tom 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --It's Jay Times! (tines) 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. small_logo.pngUsername-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)

[edit] 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):

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? — wikisig.gif 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)

[edit] 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. teeeffoh! 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. --It's Jay Times! (tines) 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. teeeffoh! 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!) — wikisig.gif 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)
Personal tools