YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Wrh2

4,219 bytes added, 04:36, 22 August 2012
Notice from IBlegal
: I'm going to stay out of it. I'm personally uncomfortable with using Wikitravel as a platform for discussing a fork (I think it's impolite towards IB), but at the same time the discussion is relevant to everyone who has volunteered thousands upon thousands of hours creating the site's content. Additionally, there isn't any precedent for censoring discussions that are relevant to travel/Wikitravel - the [[Wikitravel:External links]] policy is meant to discourage promotion but not discussion, so (for example) while a link to Tripadvisor is inappropriate in an article, it would not be inappropriate if discussing whether or not a description of that hotel was fair or not. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 14:55, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
::What about links to a user's personal blog?--[[User:IBobi|IBobi]] [[User talk:IBobi|talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/IBobi|email]] 15:13, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
::: I'd really prefer to stay out of this argument, as it seems like a conflict of corporate interest vs. community interest. If a fork is a bad idea then it should be simple to refute any suggestion that one be considered, but instead the focus seems to be more on killing any discussion of the matter, something I'm not at all comfortable with. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 16:20, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
::::The area we're getting into is Wikitravel project vs Wikitravel site. They are distinct, but with massive overlap. The administrators of the project may see benefit in a discussion about moving elsewhere, but the site is under no obligation to host a discussion about harming itself. Until now, WT policy has been sufficient in most regards to govern both situations. It appears this may no longer be the case. I am not certain that project policy even applies in this case, as it has not been broached since WV, and then it was clearly not sufficiently investigated.--[[User:IBobi|IBobi]] [[User talk:IBobi|talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/IBobi|email]] 17:29, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
==Spambot blocking==
I noticed that you [[special:log/block|changed]] my block settings for User:Jt3b6q5v4v. It's hard for me to figure out how, though. Did I do something wrong? The form is different post-upgrade, and I'm less sure that I understand the ramifications of the different check boxes as well as I did before. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:43, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
: I opened the block page in one of many tabs while reviewing edits and apparently finally got to the tab and "blocked" the user after you had already done so. I think it was just an overlap - sorry. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 18:46, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
::Ah, gotcha. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:49, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
I see you unvlocked a couple of my blocked users, which I think I understand. We should be blocking any account that is created by another user (because there's no legit reason for a member to create another member), but not necessarily the user who created the spambot, because that may be an example of the exploit that's allowing spambots to hijack accounts... right?--[[User:IBobi|IBobi]] [[User talk:IBobi|talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/IBobi|email]] 14:58, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
: At this point I haven't been blocking any user unless they create a spam page that follows the same patterns as what we've been seeing from other spambots. The user creation log has shown "legitimate" users as having created other accounts, so I don't know that that information can be relied upon to be accurate. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 15:06, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::I get that, yes. BUT, can we not say with certainty that any user *created by another user* is a spambot, since there's no legit reason for a real user to do this?--[[User:IBobi|IBobi]] [[User talk:IBobi|talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/IBobi|email]] 15:08, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Probably, but at this point everyone is erring on the side of caution and not blocking accounts unless they are 100% sure that the account is a bot. Since you guys have access to the logs and database you're probably in a better position to analyze the "created by" accounts to see if any of them have made non-spam contributions - if they haven't then I'd say blocking them is fine. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 15:36, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
== Notice from IBlegal ==
Please be advised your recent actions communicating directly with members of Wikitravel could put you in violation of numerous federal and state laws. We strongly urge you to cease and desist all action detrimental to If you persist in this course of conduct, you will potentially be a named defendant, and therefore liable for any and all resulting damages.--[[User:IBlegal|IBlegal]] 14:54, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
: I have tried to start a discussion of this message at [[User talk:IBlegal]]. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 00:32, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Navigation menu