User talk:Eraserhead1/YM Forward

Possible ways forward in my view

To add to a rather long post, I think that the users who have pointed out YellowMonkey's flaws haven't done a particularly good job in explaining what "sanctions" they consider reasonable. I for one don't think even de-sysoping is sensible at this time. If you think its a good idea I'll consider posting some ideas of what I would consider to be reasonable sanctions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am listening.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but the following seems sensible.

1. I would say that semi-protections for over a week need to go to the Requests for Page Protection for a while (maybe a few months) so he can get re-aquianted with the communities consensus on the matter, and to integrate better with the admin community who will then be able to help - even after multiple complaints he's still making protections on pretty flimsy vandalism for a long period of time and he needs to follow the communities consensus on the matter.

   Partially agree. I suggest admins should have some kind dispensing power to let they protect without report if they believe their protects is reasonable. The community will later review these protects.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Appropriate block/protection templates need to be applied. There are automatic tools to do this when making protections/blocking, so its not really much of an additional workload (if any), and it makes it easy for other users to understand what is going on.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Partially agree. See my #6 point.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Users with whom he has an editing history should not be blocked without getting someone else to do it, this is standard practice and avoids unneeded drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Partially agree. See my #6 point.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Pages with whom he has an editing history should not be protected for longer than a week without getting someone else to do it, this is standard practice and avoids unneeded drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Completely agree.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Users should get at least 1 low level (level 1 and 2) and 1 high level (level 3 and 4) warning before being blocked, unless they are checkuser confirmed, this means you don't violate WP:BITE, with automatic tools they are trivial to give, and they discourage the vast majority of vandals thus reducing the number of blocks given.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Agree, but see my #6 point.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Some on-wiki evidence should be provided for suspected sock-puppets, so we can see that these things are being done properly, if it isn't worth writing a few sentences on why they are blocked for sock-puppetting they should be blocked for vandalism.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Sometime we should use DUCKTEST and block apparent sockpuppetters and trolls immediately and give. For example, I can become a superb sockpuppeters since I have two internet connection lines and I could fool checkusers easily with three set of dynamic IPs and many user agents. Finding evidence for these kind of sock will be a tremendous work. On-wiki evidence should be encouraged not mandatory. And if admins want, they should be free to use the technique block-and-see (I don't know what is called, but this is technique I used in the past, I often block apparent sockpuppetters and trolls and wait for their responses, real sockpuppetters and trolls would not reply anything at all and if the blocked users replied with reasonable point I will unblock them with apology).--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Around a year after returning I'd like him to do an WP:Administrator review, too early and issues from before will be raised which isn't fair, but sorting problems out early is far better than sorting them out later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   You might directly ask him to do so. This would be both fair and suitable. And I think you should summit your suggestion into pump village to get the community's feedbacks--115.75.150.184 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

@ 1. If YellowMonkey doesn't think his protections are reasonable, why is he making them? Especially after being explicitly called out on it. Allowing him to make protections up to a week means he can protect a page and then get another admin to look at it afterwards for longer term protection. In general admins can and often do make semi-protections without taking them to RfPP. @6, while the WP:DUCKTEST is widely used, I don't think block and see is acceptable - people may not reply just because they don't have the confidence to stand up to authority and therefore it is very WP:BITEy. It shouldn't be time consuming to at the very least provide the username of the user who their are a sock of, and really to provide some diffs. Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry and WP:NOASSUMESOCK seem good essays to follow on the matter. However if I take number 6 forward I'm going to change that the user who they are a sock of needs to be mentioned and further information should be provided as appropriate. @ 7. I think you're right, I don't think it would be fair to make it a compulsory sanction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Would I understand your #6 point that all admins are free to make blocks which they think reasonable and grounded as long as they notify the affected editors with appropriate templates and they are willing to explain their blocks' reasons? About telling the blocked account about the user who their are a sock of, I don't think this is an easy work because some socks just do disruptive edits in random articles and make many obstructions for checkusers, especially the sock is from an experienced editor. In this situation, a quick and hard block should be acceptable. I suggest some exceptions for this point.--115.75.152.13 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If at the very least you can't say who you think they are, then they should just be blocked for vandalism. <shrug> that's life - and to do otherwise would be a blatant violation of WP:SOCK#Handling_suspected_sock_puppets as you can't possibly have presented any evidence that would stand up to scrutiny. I'm perfectly happy to allow YellowMonkey to keep red tape to a minimum but Wikipedia policies do have to be followed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And if you block them for vandalism then they have to be warned, you don't really know whether they are the same user or not after only 1-2 edits - its perfectly possible that they are someone new. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. YM should be asked to be careful monitor all suspected editors before giving any block. Please let him see this page when he is back.--115.75.152.13 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this page to the attention of a few people and then possibly post it to the RFC, if that doesn't happen I will bring it to YellowMonkey's attention on his return. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw one of your messages on my watchlist and thought I'd comment. I would very much like to see a resolution to this with the minimum loss of face to YM and, most importantly, a minimal level of drama. It's sensible to draw up a document like this laying out the way forward and I agree entirely with almost all the suggestions above. I would say, though, that YM's conduct as a functionary (including blocks made based on CU evidence) is better left to AUSC, who have the formal role of overseeing the use of CU and OS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)