User talk:KingpinBot/Archive2010/October

removal of cat

Hi, why do you delete this category here? It is for the people who investigate spam quite convenient to have them all there, even on indef blocked spammers (to check afterwards if they have used other accounts, e.g.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Beetstra. The reason the bot removes indeffed users from the category is because otherwise it makes it very difficult for administrators to review the warnings and block if they require further action (because they keep coming upon cases which have already been dealt with). When blocking for a COI the administrator normally should add a different category, in this case Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names, and there are also the User talk pages with Uw-spamn notices categories in this case. These are more suited to keeping track of the previously blocked users to check if they then start block evasion etc. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe remove one, add another? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that, but the only problem with it is the bot can't be sure why the user was blocked, so it would have to be a very general category, e.g. Indefinitely blocked users who have received conflict of interest notices. Also, in most (nearly all as far as I can tell) cases the blocking admin will add a category anyway, in which case you wouldn't want the bot duplicating that. I also don't quite understand how a poorly organised list of 12,826 users is useful for checking through either. It might be simpler if the bot kept track of the pages it removed instead? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. I know that warnings ánd blocks-reasons are often 'wrong' (spam -> vandalism block, spam -> general block, etc.), so I see the problem. Would still be nice to have something there, now they get a bit 'lost' in the process.

I think there are tools for making category-overlaps and tools for 'which were added this week'-like things, I think A. B. and MER-C are using such things. Checking for adding a cat which is there seems trivial. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true that they get a bit lost, but then they are indefinitely blocked users. Of course there's the problem of block evasion. If you can get a system agreed on with other editors for a way to record users who have been blocked and have a possible COI, I'll be happy to try and get the bot to use that system/help with managing it. Hmm.. I still don't get how this category is that useful for tracking, I don't understand how it's useful for checking if users have "used other accounts"? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the reverse, if you find an account or IP, having categories with typical editors in it are sometimes useful to find other accounts which have done the same. Tracking down spammers is sometimes difficult, many they make money with their job, and they try to keep under the radar. Every little bit can help there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that it's important to have this category to find other users who have done similar things. But there's no point finding users who have already been blocked for it is there? Because they don't require any more attention from administrators or other editors. I think we certainly need a category which only contains pages which haven't yet been dealt with (as this one does currently). But I wouldn't be opposed to a new category listing the users who have already been dealt with, although I'm not sure I understand what purpose that category would serve - they've been dealt with, so they no longer need to be watched. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If it involves spamming, then yet another account can make the blacklist come nearer and nearer. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what's "the blacklist"? Is this a blacklist of suspicious usernames? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (or the meta variety, m:Spam blacklist). But what I mean is, that if there is block evasion, then the block on the original account may not have been enough, and the case is not completely closed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. But if there is block evasion then that will be identified by means other than the category, so then it's pointless having them in the category because they've already been identified. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving reviewer requests page

Hi, is it possible for KingpinBot to archive Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer as it does the other requests for permissions pages? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe ;). I'll look at adding this shortly. Problem is the archiving format is different from the other RFPERM pages, so that means building a whole extra set of rules, similar to what I had to do for AWB requests. This makes my code less neat, and is obviously harder to implement (if it was in the same format it could be just one extra line of code). But yeah, hopefully will be able to add this without too much bother - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be all  Done. Had to update a load of other problems with the archiving management on those pages :). Moving Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer/Declined_archive_n to Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer/Declined/Archive_n, to allow the archive box to update automatically using {{archive list}}. Also, fixed the base page parameter on the declined archive's {{archive nav}} templates. So now should all be automatic except from telling the bot when to begin a new archive page, which simply requires updating User:KingpinBot/settings.css. Making the bot do this automatically would also be a possibility (e.g. when page length > n, move onto next number at User:KingpinBot/settings.css). Oh, one other thing, the bot will not archive if the request is: Marked as both {{notdone}} and {{done}}, marked as {{done}} but user does not have right, marked as {{notdone}} but user has right. To override this simply mark the request with User:KingpinBot/override, using your discretion to tell the bot where to place the request. I generally try and keep on top of these "undefined request statuses" as I call them, but if you want to help it would be appreciated! Don't feel you have to though ;), if you do just place User:KingpinBot/report on your watch list, and then take a look if the bot says in its edit summary that it had an error. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! And I'll do my best to use the override function as necessary. Best regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)