Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2013

Konig and Santax

Konig Des Todes (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and Santax (talk • contribs • logs • block log) have been involved in loads of disputes over the past few months. Both of them mean well, but their opinions frequently disagree, leading to edit wars and inflammatory walls of text, sometimes with semi-personal attacks or incivility. Malyck (and its talk page) is the latest battleground.

They've both been wikiing long enough to know standard wiki procedure. They've been warned about edit warring and incivility; Santax has been blocked before for the former. They know about [[GW2W:RFC|RFC]] and the community portal. Despite all that, they continue warring against each other.

The reactionary side of me says block them both for about a month. The diplomatic side of me says babysit them, e.g. intervene early in discussions to keep things civil and on track, and convince them to simply drop it and ignore the other person if they get heated up about something. The realistic side of me says that long-term blocks would make the wiki suffer, as they're both still prominently constructive editors, and that the convincing stuff has been tried before and yet here we are again.

What should we do? pling 23:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask them both take a week off. Ask them both, during that time, to reflect on what their goals are for the wiki, how they have and will contribute to that. And ask them to decide whether they think the other person has also been a positive contributor. Then, when they return, ask whether each is convinced that the wiki isn't big enough for the two of them. In other words, give them the opportunity to time themselves out and to use that time to figure out how to work things out together. If they can't manage that, well, the wiki can do without them for a month or six. The game isn't going anywhere and it's still too big for any 100 people to fully document in their spare time. 75.37.16.51 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

they're been at each other for months. 1, 2, 3... basically any page one of them edits, the other will attempt to revert it >_> If they were going to cool off, they would have done by now. -Chieftain Alex 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose a month-long block. As you say, they're both high volume contributors, but their inability to cooperate creates more talk page clutter than it does actual content. It's hard to tell whether a long-term block would solve anything- oftentimes people come back from long absences with a vengeance. One possible outcome is that one comes back and the other doesn't, which would not be the ideal solution but it would be better than having to block them both forever. Of course that's not to say that the two conflict exclusively with each other (Bernardus comes to mind), but it is at least the primary source of their rage. 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In my defense, Alex, I don't revert outright. I try to build upon Santax's edits, which often subsequently get reverted with the proclamation of "discuss before starting a revert war" (I find it ironic that most of these revert wars begin by him reverting my attempts to improve or consistencize his edits). Half of the reverts deal more with the format of articles than the actual content (and those time which do focus on content, I'm removing speculation that he argues is not speculation (e.g., the entire situation behind putting stuff about Zone Green on Elder Dragon which happened months back), and I'm only changing to what I see to be the most consistent of cases (what I find odd is that he outright claims he doesn't edit much yet says what I'm changing to is not the more consistent - and true, it might not be, but from what I see, which given the amount of time editing between the two of us, I think I see more). Konig/talk 18:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See, what I get from that is "he started it, I'm right, he's wrong". Your repeated threats of quitting and attempts at provoking guilt-trips aren't helping your case, either. Nor is the fact that you continued to revert, even after I started this discussion and notified you on your talk page. So I'm blocking you for three days (the same as Santax's previous block).

We get it, and I've said it myself: you're a useful, constructive editor. It's the disruption I want to stop - your useful edits are still welcome once the block is over. It's temporary, to give you a break and hopefully think it over.

In the meantime, we should continue the discussion; this isn't a satisfactory end to it. pling 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I generally keep myself out of arbitration issues like this, but in this case I don't agree completely with how most people are viewing the situation. Since I don't come from GWW, I only know Konig and Santax based on what they've done here on GW2W. (Konig was somewhat active on GuildWiki in my early days there, but that was years ago and I don't remember much of what he did then (other than being a lore hound, like he still is).) From what I've seen, the conflicts usually go like this:

1. Santax edits a lore-related article, adding or changing a lot of information.
2. Konig edits the article to clean it up, apply consistent/per-guideline formatting, and remove or dampen any speculation.
3. Santax blindly reverts Konig's edit.
4. Cue revert war and walls of text.

The problem in this process is most often step 3, Santax's blind reversion of whatever it was that Konig did simply because it was Konig. This doesn't forgive Konig's subsequent reaction, but in my opinion it does shift some of the blame away from him. —Dr Ishmael 23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ishmael: I wouldn't agree with that assessment of how the conflicts go. I did, as you said, "blindly revert" many of Konig's edits shortly prior to my block in November, after which I took a short wikibreak. I don't agree that blocking me was the right thing to do, as I reverted Konig due to the fact that I felt he was trying to keep nearly all my contributions off the wiki and that his reverts were therefore vandalism. I think that most other editors, having tried everything else (including a request for arbitration, which received little attention) would have done the same in my situation. Since I have been back, I have been very careful not to outright revert Konig, with two exceptions: removing speculation (relevant discussion) and reverting a flagrant violation of GW2W:NPC. I would say that the conflicts usually go more like this:

1. I edit a lore-related article, adding or changing a lot of information (these are usually, if not always, articles that have become outdated or are otherwise in need of some love) and applying per-guideline formatting.
2. Hours or sometimes minutes later, Konig rewrites the entire article with edit summaries like "removing fluff", "removing irrelevancies", "rewording some sections to be more concise", "removing speculation", often clumsily adding his own speculation or removing relevant information (the example that springs to mind was removing references to the bloodstones on the page on Seers because they were "irrelevant", despite the important revelation at the end of Arah explorable Seer path that they created the bloodstones). Not all of these changes are necessarily bad, and I don't oppose them in principle, but it's very tiring to have it happen to every edit that I make, often rewording very carefully phrased sentences into a lot more prosaic (and unintentionally less accurate) form.
3. I will leave a note on his talk page - without reverting his edit, or only minimally editing the article thereafter.
4. Cue walls of text - once again, Konig's revision becomes the permanent one, this time purely because he has more energy to argue than me.

The only two exceptions to this are Malyck and the Tyria page, and I would challenge you to show me any other examples. One more thing: in light of the above misinformation, I would encourage admins to read the edit summaries and talk page discussions on articles that have been disputed since my block ended. Hopefully they will show me to have reacted in the appropriate way, and if not, then I will accept any arbitration decision. The following is a list of recent expansions made by me to pages, Konig's "improvements", and relevant talk page discussions:

• Forgotten: expansion, rewrite, discussion
• Glint: expansion, rewrite
• Mursaat: expansion, rewrite, discussion
• Jotun: expansion, rewrite
• Seer: expansion, rewrite, discussion
• Mordremoth: created by me, improved by Konig with not one but two rewrite templates for "speculation", when only two sentences ("Mordremoth is a likely candidate for the name" and "it is assumed that "Teeth of Mordremoth" follows suit") could be remotely construed as speculation. The rest is simple statement of facts.
• Malyck: created by me, and you know the rest
• Elder Dragons: minor edit, still not getting away with it
• Sylvari: added a note, removed a note. Choosing to include this one because it was so minor, but the ridiculous wall of text that followed best exemplifies the pettiness of this dispute.

As you can see, it is difficult not to construe this as harassment, however well-intentioned, and it is difficult not to get the view that Konig views me as his personal (if argumentative) drafts folder. I firmly believe that overall, Konig's rewrites have left the articles in a worse state than before, which is demoralising to me, having spent the time to expand the articles. Rather than stay out of each other's way, as others have recommended, Konig continues to hound me, both on this wiki and GWW (I recently revamped the god articles there - Konig was not pleased), which is a shame because if he took half the energy he spends on arguing with me and used it to expand important articles then the wiki would probably be in a lot better shape - because he is not a bad editor, just one with poor people skills (most of these walls of text are not me), and he has caused at least one other editor to leave the wiki). --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I withdraw my previous suggestion. The two of them are not talking to each other, they are prosecuting each other and defending themselves in the court of public opinion. Here's what I see:

• Both are heavy contributors, both contribute to building standards, both contribute to better writing, both contribute to better readability and more accurate information
• Both have special ideas about how things should look or work, different from the the established consensus. Often that's a good thing, but often each insists on their view and will continue to argue until everyone else gives up.
• Both will heavily revert other people's efforts without more than a note in the edit summary. Santax does this by using "undo" and Konig does it by rewriting the article outright, with the same result: it looks like his intended version, not a collaboration.

They aren't the only editors with strong ideas about what is best for the wiki, but at the moment, they are the only two who cannot compromise enough to get along together and that is disruptive. Until they figure out how to collaborate with each other, this wiki is being poorly served by both. Since several people have stated this same message in several different ways and neither Konig nor Santax acknowledges the fundamental issue for the wiki, I think the admins have little choice but to temporarily block both until they figure out how to be part of the same community. 75.37.16.51 17:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned about the revert wars and walls of text, they make it impossible to follow the conversation. Santax's enormous wall of text on this page is a prime example. This locks out other users from mediating or even contributing to discussion because it gets incomprehensible. I wouldn't mind providing input if I could understand the issue. Konig and Santax are both at fault for this.--Relyk ~ talk > 19:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point on the walls o' text, Rylek; I'll try to be brief.

It seems to me that Santax's idea of a "good article" seems to be one written in prose or style - akin to how ArenaNet writes their articles. When I began wiki'ing over on GWW, I would have agreed. However, I was informed by many others (I shalt not name names) that the wiki should remain documentative and not entertative. And in time, I came to agree. Writing with flavor to make things more entertaining than documentating leads to tangents, going off topic (e.g., writing what the Six Gods do to the Bloodstones on seer - it's irrelevant to the race as it stands, they held no action or viewpoint to our knowledge), as well as making elongating words. I tend to call these "Fluff" and "irrelevancies" in my edit summary - simply to keep the summaries short and refrain from posting a long-winded wall-of-text on the article's talk page explaining my edits (something Santax often does, no less - and this is not a fault).

Now, Santax mentions that I fully rewrite his articles - this is wrong. I consize a lot, I separate long paragraphs, and sometimes I re-order things. This results in a lot of red in the revision comparison (prime examples are Malyck and Mursaat). But I keep the context the same, none the less (except in those rare re-ordering occasions).

One more thing: This may be a skewed observation of mine, but Santax seems to prefer *his* version of the article up when he calls for discussion. Thus resulting in him always reverting (I do, too, revert. I will not deny this. Sometimes rightfully (attempting a new version, which gets reverted and sometimes I doubt even looked at), sometimes wrongfully - and obviously, same goes for him). But he even goes to the point of ignoring discussions completely and just revert anyways.

(off-topic)Regarding Bernadus: I rarely edited after him. Just go take a look and see how often of his final edits I edited right after. Of his final 13 edits that had someone other than himself editing after (which amount to his final 34 main space edits), I followed in editing 4 or 5 times. Go back 10 or so more edits, back into October (2 months before he left) and I followed after him *once* in those – a total of 5 or 6 times in two months.

I hope that wasn’t too long. Konig/talk 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not so much the events that caused Bernardus to complain as your reaction to it (User talk:Konig Des Todes#Thanks but goodbye) that concerns me. Now I don't expect every contributor to be friends. I don't expect you or any other editor to spend much time apologizing to people who misunderstand their efforts, or to write essays explaining why we can all just get along. You could have said "I'm sorry you feel that way" or you could have not responded at all. That would have been fine. But instead you belittled and insulted him. I mean, "You remind me of my father, who hates when I fuck up because it means he has nothing to brag about?" What in God's name brought that on? It's interactions like that which make me think you take wiki editing way too personally. And ultimately, that kind of attitude does nothing but harm to the project as a whole. Wikis love power users, but we have no place for prima donnas. And just so we're clear, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I don't ever want to see anything like that from you again. 22:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Potentially off-topic, but I will admit that Santax is right about at least one thing: I have "poor people skills" (though I would say that I don't want to spend most of my time and energy arguing, it's just that said poor skills lead to quarrels). And overall, I'm just a nihilistic person - people think I care too much about wanting my views to be the views or what-have-you. But the reality is: I don't care enough about anything, let alone how people view me or how I react to such things (though I will admit I do overreact when I'm accused of things).

But back on topic to briefly explain the source of the strife, at least how I see it, it can be boiled down to what Santax just wrote on my talk page here. "It doesn't pack as much of a punch as "The last known True Giant, corrupted by Zhaitan.", but it's a lot better than what we currently have." - in other words, what Santax wants is articles that are entertaining. On the other hand, I want articles that provide just the facts. His means often lead into implications, unclarity, or off-topic-ness, which I then remove. To him, this removal makes the article "sound bad" (probably because it doesn't flow as well - mainly due to being an edit of something rather than a complete overhaul so the style goes back and forth between the two).

So here's my suggestion to bring a solution to this: Which style would be preferred on the wiki: documentative (just the facts, no/little more) or entertaining (gives style and prose to the facts)? Konig/talk 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer objective, concise documentation to more subjective, story-esque wording. The latter can leave things unclear or "fluffy", as you say... Take Jotun#History: "They were great spellcasters once, but sacrificed that knowlege in blood." - what exactly does that mean? Also, it'd be harder to achieve a consistent style, as that kind of wording won't come easily to many editors. pling 15:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'm blocking Konig and Santax for a month.

One of the most important aspects of wikiing is cooperation, but because they both see their own vision as the correct one, this is completely lost while they engage in revert wars and write walls of text until one backs down. As Relyk says, this prevents other users from joining in. We've seen emotive outbursts going one step further and pushing people away. Trying a mediation approach hasn't helped much, as the two were still continuing their disruptive behaviour even while this discussion was going on. They create a hostile environment that's off-putting to new editors, as well as to regular oldies familiar with drama.

I don't think that can be solved by discussing styles, even if that does contribute to their disagreements; the larger problems are attitude, lack of compromise, amount of time and effort spent on walls of text for relatively minor issues. A long-term block will hopefully help them refocus on how to make the wiki function cohesively and effectively. That seems to be the only option left. pling 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

/face palm not even a week after getting unbanned they are at it again...- Zesbeer 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly--Relyk ~ talk > 02:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum

I'm fairly certain Konig evaded his the majority of his block using the IP address 67.176.148.189 (talk • contribs • logs • block log). On 5/2, Konig came to an unspecified decision, and thereafter began filling out the pages of points of interest and generic mobs. Shortly after, he was blocked, and four days later, the linked IP started editing, and over the month of February, filled out the pages on Risen and Icebrood mobs, among others, and a bunch of points of interest and objects. Just compare the last edits Konig made in February with the first edits made by the IP - some of the pages are even the same, looks like he was filling out Lornar's Pass-related stuff or something.

I first noticed this when I saw the IP create the Quiz Terminal page - not often you see anonymous users so interested in lore, and then Konig mentioned the Terminals the day after. Could have been a coincidence, but the type of pages that the IP edited (for example the much-disputed jotun page, the edit summaries (see this for example), and even the edits themselves (compare this and this) are eerily similar to Konig's. This is clearly Konig, although conceivably it could be someone pretending to be Konig, except that in this edit the IP argued on the timeline page in an edit summary that we don't know whether GW2 takes place in 1325 AE because The Great Hunt takes place during winter - an argument identical to the one that Konig later made here.

Finally, the IP's last contribution to date was on the 10th of March, hours before Konig's block expired. Prior to that, the IP had not stopped editing for more than 3 days since it made its first edit, and now we are on 5 days and counting. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Um... so? The IP (whether it was Konig or not) made constructive edits without causing trouble. Circumventing a block is only a problem if it creates problems. And the only one creating problems right now is you, with these accusations. —Dr Ishmael 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree; seriously get over with this personal war already. You are not really showing that you have learned anything during your timeout here. poke | talk 23:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the conflicts that have arisen since the blocks ended have been because of my edits - rather, because of Konig modifying my edits, often trawling through my edits to "correct" changes to obscure pages (contrary to his statement that I often edit pages on his watchlist, and that's why it always seems to be mine that he modifies), and reverting me wholesale. I have tried as much as possible to avoid areas of conflict with my edits since I came back, so Konig uses that as an opportunity to start new ones. Konig didn't learn anything during his timeout because he didn't have one. If both Konig and I had circumvented our blocks, what would have changed? The answer is nothing - the same conflicts would have sprung up, we'd just both be pretending to be different people. And if it wasn't a problem, why was account creation disabled? It doesn't seem fair that Konig was able to continue to edit throughout whereas I was not. Everyone's attitude to this sems to be "oh, they're just as bad as each other", but I think that's just because that's the easiest way to deal with it. Very few people are actually willing to get involved in the disputes themselves, and when they do, I tend to back off (and a big thanks to the people who do). I just want to edit the wiki, and I try not to modify any of Konig's edits or start any conflicts with him, but he doesn't seem to share the same spirit. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell based on Checkuser, Konig made 261 edits during the block between 14 February and 10 March. Also, Santax made 6 edits between 15 February and 27 February. For reference, the block was between 10 February and 10 March.

After discussing with Tanetris, I'm blocking you both, again, for six months. I don't take circumvention of blocks lightly - I have to disagree with Ish and Poke here, but the point of these blocks was to give you a break from editing. To refocus, to reexamine, and to apply changes when you came back. To paraphrase Santax, neither of you learnt anything during your breaks, because neither of you had one.

If you circumvent this block, or if you return in six months with the same behaviour, I'm perfectly ok with permabans. pling 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

permabans REALLY? yes they argue with each other and have had revert wars ect BUT they are good contributors to the wiki and the wiki would be a worse place with out them. imho - Zesbeer 05:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they haven't been unqualified good contributors. They have let their personal disputes interfere with the editing of the wiki -- the wiki is already a worse place because of that. Will it suffer because we don't have someone of their quality contributing massively on lore? Yes. Unfortunately, each of them individually decided that the rules don't apply to them. Unless someone wants to argue that "good" contributors get to follow a different set of guidelines than everyone else, I think the sysops have little choice but to extend the previous block. 75.37.20.143 06:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's observable IRL that if you have rules and you don't enforce them then you may just as well do without them. Konig is a stickler for the "rules" and so… If some "get away with it" then where to you draw the line. They both are excellent contributors but, as mentioned, couldn't just back off from each others work. Konig "I don't like conflicts either" but he sure as .... found them and, having found them, wouldn't let go. Despite that, they will be missed. Claret 06:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Lore Wars will continue over on Guildwarswiki and forums for those 6 months. I doubt the animosity between them will change when this has gone on for months already.--Relyk ~ talk > 07:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Let them try it. They'll find year long blocks issued pretty quickly on gww. Chieftain Alex 12:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)::::::::::It's so obvious that they're the same person. 174.35.247.117 19:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please keep speculation off the wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please keep drama off the wiki. 174.35.247.117 23:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Touché. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin emails

Sometimes it can be necessary for email communication between admins. EmailUser isn't friendly for sending to more than one user, for example, or for forwarding. If the admins can email me their email addresses, I'll collate them and send a list of addresses to all admins, including to those not on the list. I've got some of your emails already, but even if I have them, please send again so I have them all at hand (and know you don't mind them being shared with other admins). Of course, if you don't want to do this, you don't have to (this isn't a requirement for adminship, just a handy communication tool... that won't be used often, anyway).

If you (users and/or admins) object to this, please say. I know GWW had issues with a "mailing list" in like 2007, but the problems were different and I don't think today's (GW2W) community objects to occasional private communication among admins. pling 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll own up, this was really my idea that I posed to Pling during a semi-related email conversation. Where I saw this being useful would be when a conflict arose on the wiki, and I observed it (or was involved in it, even) but did not feel like I could adequately resolve the situation on my own, and no one else was bothering to join in, either. With an email list on hand, I could easily send a message to the other admins, "Hey guys, got some trouble here, could use some 3rd-party input," without having to pick one or two that I think are most likely to be paying attention and post on their talk pages. I envisioned it more as a "poke" feature than a "WE WILL RULE THE WIKI FROM THE SHADOWS" feature.

Heh, a "poke" feature. Heh-heh. —Dr Ishmael 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

honestly any and all communication should be on the wiki even if you have to use a protected talk page.- Zesbeer 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it or leave it (too lazy to send an email Pling). Also, I blame the need on the lack of activity in the IRCabal… Oh, where did the time go… poke | talk 06:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

expiry time of 3ndefinite

Why are abusefilter blocks saying that (example)? pling 12:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Same as GWW:BUG#Abusefilter block reason (indefinite).. -Chieftain Alex 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to be "3 days" but it's getting mangled somehow. —Dr Ishmael 13:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

They changed GWW's to actually be infinite - we've been manually shortening the IP bans for a few days now. Hoping they revert that :/ -Auron 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"They"? -- pling 16:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Heard of some folks called ArenaNet? -Chieftain Alex 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aren't we the ones who define abusefilter rules and block lengths? (i.e. can't we just change it back even if, for some reason, ArenaNet changed it?) -- pling 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the block duration is only configurable from LocalSettings.php. I've contacted Stephane, and he said he'd already asked Justin to fix this a few days ago (probably when Alex mentioned it on GWW), but he'll poke Justin again. —Dr Ishmael 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Justin says it should be fixed now. We'll have to wait for the next AF block and make sure it's not "3ndefinite" anymore. —Dr Ishmael 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The description now says 3 days. -Chieftain Alex 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

New capture

The new capture is much harder to read than the old one. What's worse is that it still forces you to type something even when using {{youtube search}}. If you are using a valid internal template, shouldn't the capture be bypassed? 75.36.182.245 19:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the CAPTCHA? That's not something we have direct control over, but we can discuss it with the ArenaNet technical team if it's becoming a problem. 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The youtube search template may be a valid internal template, but it still adds an external link to the page, thus anons have to pass a CAPTCHA to use it. —Dr Ishmael 19:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I’ve added an exact exception for URLs generated by the template, so if you use the template now, you should not get a CAPTCHA. poke | talk 16:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter for Japanese

Recently we've been hit with a volley of Japanese spam, and I'm considering writing an AbuseFilter rule to prevent it. I'd like to make sure there are no objections from other admins before doing so. —Dr Ishmael 21:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

十分に公正なようだ --Claret (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. -Auron 22:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have modified rule 21, which previously only triggered on the specific phrase "50％オフの". It now triggers on the Japanese character "は" (functionally, this is equivalent to matching "the" in English) and is limited to non-autoconfirmed users creating new pages outside mainspace. I have not set it to block the user, since this is such a generic trigger, and I wouldn't want to block a real user who simply wanted to include random Japanese phrases on their new userpage.

In the two days this modified rule has been active, it has stymied 9 spambots already. —Dr Ishmael 13:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty sugoi. 16:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

“triggers on the Japanese character "は"” – That actually seems a bit extreme to me; I’d like it to be a bit more specific to the actual case (I’ll look at it later myself). poke | talk 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The spam seems completely random prose, that's why I made it so generic. —Dr Ishmael 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, over the last 10 weeks, only 0.07% of the visits to the GW2 wiki have used a japanese language code (en-jp or ja-jp), so it's really not a lot. Providing this info in case it supports any executive action. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 17:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the filter and the hits again, it might be okay after all. If it’s just for page creations it will unlikely trigger any useful edits. poke | talk 18:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter for Cyrillic

Could we do something similar for the cyrillic script (russian presumably) spam? (e.g. [1] ) -Chieftain Alex 16:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different, this spam is mostly edits to existing pages (where the Japanese spam was new pages), so we can't just add it to the same filter. I don't know much about Russian, though, so I don't know which character would be the best to trigger on. Maybe 'и'? —Dr Ishmael 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We-ell... not sure if that was spam, that looked like a sensible question, just in the wrong place. Very wrong.

As for the filter, the most common cyrillic letters are "о", "а", "е", "и", "н" descending by frequency of usage. MalGalad 17:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what the question was? 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How to promote your community in russian analogue of facebook. MalGalad 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In the context of this wiki, that's definitely spam. 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)