In the Speak () (block) page, it doesn't say anything about the 128 character limit the block has, nor anything about the bad word filter (which to my knowledge is the same one as the one at the bottom of this page).

ametz807 wrote:

In the Speak () (block) page, it doesn't say anything about the 128 character limit the block has, nor anything about the bad word filter (which to my knowledge is the same one as the one at the bottom of this page).

Added, thanks for letting us know.

I can’t access the Scratch Wiki - anyone having the same problem?

starhero5697 wrote:

I can’t access the Scratch Wiki - anyone having the same problem?

I’m having the same problem. This is longer than most downtimes. It’s been over an hour.

Edit: The Wiki is still down as of 8:30 AM ET, meaning it's been down for over three hours.

starhero5697 wrote:

I can’t access the Scratch Wiki - anyone having the same problem?

Yes, looks like a server downtime. It should be back up soon enough

I'm here for the Scratch wiki FR and it's not just a problem of the wiki in English. The wikis are all still unavailable at the moment, all the Scratch wikis, whose link is given on this page. I hope that everything will return to normal soon so that everyone can access the content. Thanks a lot!

Arqwa wrote:

I'm here for the Scratch wiki FR and it's not just a problem of the wiki in English. The wikis are all still unavailable at the moment, all the Scratch wikis, whose link is given on this page. I hope that everything will return to normal soon so that everyone can access the content. Thanks a lot!

Yes, all of the Wikis are hosted on Martin's servers which appear to be down.

I also can't access the admin panel, so the problem is with the host. Unfortunately there isn't much I can do about this other than wait for it to be fixed.

Update to everyone: Martin reports a ticket has been opened with the host and they expect it to be back soon.

jvvg wrote:

Update to everyone: Martin reports a ticket has been opened with the host and they expect it to be back soon.

Great! It must have been a stressful morning.

jvvg wrote:

Update to everyone: Martin reports a ticket has been opened with the host and they expect it to be back soon.

Ok

It looks like the web server is running again but the database server is still down. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly.

jvvg wrote:

It looks like the web server is running again but the database server is still down. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly.

I was getting database errors mixed in with web server errors earlier… Now it's just showing database errors

This is definitely a interesting evening.

It looks like the Wiki is back up. Thank you everyone for your patience!

We are back!

Edit: Ninja'd by 10 seconds (jvvg)

Wow, this was certainly an eventful day for the wiki! Glad it's back up.

|U| :: #c300ff // My siggy protector

< ''  .. '' :: sensing> :: motion // This is my pet blue block who is very cute!

#purple is perfect! ::sound

filmlover12 wrote:

Wow, this was certainly an eventful day for the wiki!

Yep

jvvg wrote:

ametz807 wrote:

In the Speak () (block) page, it doesn't say anything about the 128 character limit the block has, nor anything about the bad word filter (which to my knowledge is the same one as the one at the bottom of this page).

Added, thanks for letting us know.

so another thing you can add to raids is studio raids. they are when a person promotes someone and overuses their power they delete curators. and delete projects all for fun.

(0_0)

(0_0)

(0_0)

Hi! I'm following up on my recent post about the “Ban” page of the Scratch Wiki. I mentioned that there may be some incorrect information on that page, and I wanted to let you know about what would be a good idea to change. Since bans are a sensitive subject in the Scratch community, I want to ensure that this information is in apple pie order to prevent misinformation from being spread.

Thanks in advance for working with this; let me know if I can clarify anything.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

In some cases (such as users creating multiple accounts to get around bans), the Scratch Team may decide to ban them based on their IP address instead.

Revision wrote:

In some cases (such as users creating multiple accounts to get around bans), the Scratch Team may decide to ban them based on their IP address.

I believe that when IP addresses are blocked due to a bad account, the IP address would be blocked in addition to any new accounts that user makes. Hence why “instead” should be removed — I'm not sure why the Scratch Team would see a bad account and block their IP address without banning the account.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

Users normally receive alerts before getting banned, but they may not receive alerts if their IP address has been used for what is called sockpuppetry, or in the case of severe violation of the Community Guidelines.

Revision wrote:

Users normally receive alerts before getting banned, but they may not receive alerts in the case of severe violation of the Community Guidelines.

“Sockpuppetry” means different things (ban evasion, gaming the community, manipulation, etc. — all of which mean different things), and to me, it's not clear about how it's being used here. There are some instances of “sockpuppetry” where I think alerts could be sent instead of an immediate ban. It's not clear to me what the purpose of this part is, so I would remove this part about sockpuppetry.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

Account Creation Warnings

Personally I have never heard of the message listed in this “Account Creation Warnings” section, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. It's possible I have just never heard of it. It may be worth checking sources just to ensure that such a warning really does exist.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

On the Scratch Website, when a user is permanently banned, they must contact the Scratch Team to explain what they did and promise that they will behave properly in the future. Upon receiving the message, the Scratch Team may decide either to set the ban to expire or take no action. If the ban is set to expire, it is usually set to 3.5 days the first time the user is banned, and double that time for each subsequent ban. If the Scratch Team decides to take no action, then they will respond with a message saying why the user will not be unbanned, forcing the user to write a different appeal.

Revision wrote:

On the Scratch Website, when a user is permanently banned, they must contact the Scratch Team to explain what they did and promise that they will behave properly in the future. Upon receiving the message, the Scratch Team may decide either to set the ban to expire (thus unbanning the user) or take no action. If the Scratch Team decides to take no action, then they will respond with a message saying why the user will not be unbanned.

This entire paragraph cites a forum topic which is now deleted, and from what I have heard from Scratch Team members, it contained outdated information. I revised it to be slightly more accurate (I think), as well as changing it so that it clearly discusses permanent bans — the original paragraph seemed to mix the two in a confusing way. The previous paragraph (not listed here) describes temporary bans sufficiently, so I don't think there is a need to describe temporary bans further.

Also, if someone submits an appeal and the Scratch Team decides not to unban them, there are instances in which the Scratcher may submit another appeal (e.g. perhaps their first appeal did not seem apologetic), and there are instances in which the Scratcher should not submit another appeal (e.g. the Scratch Team explicitly tells them that they are not a good fit for Scratch). This is why I removed the last part, “forcing the user to write a different appeal,” because it's not always true that the user can just submit another appeal.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

In some cases, usually in a ban after another ban, the Scratch Team may suggest the user to take a break from Scratch and respond later. If the user is a minor and has been banned multiple times in the past, the Scratch Team will request the user's parent, guardian, or teacher to submit an appeal instead.

Revision wrote:

In some cases, usually in a ban after another ban, the Scratch Team may suggest the user to take a break from Scratch and respond later. If the user is a minor and has been banned multiple times in the past, the Scratch Team may request the user's parent, guardian, or teacher to submit an appeal instead.

The only change here is the word “will” to “may.” Also, this paragraph has a “citation needed.” I can confirm that the information in this paragraph is true. I don't know if my post can be taken as an appropriate citation, but if it is helpful, well, here you go.

To elaborate: Yes, there are cases in which the Scratch Team will request that a banned user take a break from Scratch. In this case, they will ask the Scratcher not to use Scratch and not to submit an appeal until a certain date (which they specify), at which point the user may submit an appeal. There are also cases where the Scratch Team may ask the Scratcher's parent/guardian/teacher to submit an appeal on their behalf; I believe this is mainly done to let an adult know of their child's/student's situation, so that they can help them understand how to improve their behavior.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

IP bans are normally used when a user creates alternate accounts in order to get around an account ban, sometimes known as sockpuppetry. The IP ban prevents access on the network that has the banned IP, preventing the Scratcher from using a different account to continue their rule-breaking activity. But this can be evaded by using proxies, virtual private networks (VPNs), or changing the IP address. Bugs have been reported that the IP ban can make users that are innocent to become unexpectedly banned.

Revision wrote:

IP bans are normally used when a user creates alternate accounts in order to get around an account ban. The IP ban prevents access on the network that has the banned IP, preventing the Scratcher from using a different account to continue their rule-breaking activity. If an innocent user shares a network with someone who caused an IP ban, they may unexpectedly be restricted from using the Scratch website, although their Scratch account would not necessarily be blocked in this case.

I removed the word “sockpuppetry” here to avoid potential confusion, as I stated before. I also removed the bit on how IP bans could be evaded — maybe if you really want this information present for the sake of knowledge, it could be fine, but I just don't see the benefit of potentially telling IP-banned users how they could get around their ban.

The part about innocent users unexpectedly getting the effects of an IP ban is true, but it is framed as a “bug,” when it's not really a “bug” — it's just a byproduct of blocking an IP address. I hope the revision makes this clear. I also wanted to make it clear that an innocent user would not necessarily have their account banned as a result of this — just the IP address. There's probably a better way to word this whole sentence, maybe — I'm open to suggestions — just as long as it's not phrased as a “bug.”

Also, citation 5 (topic:145924) is now deleted.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

Some users complain about the Scratch Team unfairly banning people. Although there are occasionally misunderstandings, as mistakes can be made by the Scratch Team, this is usually not the case. Sometimes, if a popular Scratcher is banned, Scratchers may create studios and projects asking for the Scratch Team to unban them; these are usually deleted by the Scratch Team because this can be considered gossiping, since the Scratchers do not know the full story. The Scratch Team has also been accused of deleting and ignoring some emails appealing bans, though this has not been confirmed. There are also several reports of Scratchers getting banned for showing or spreading their religion without being hurtful.

Other times, the Scratcher will do sockpuppetry, which is against the community guidelines and is not encouraged.

Revision wrote:

Some users complain about the Scratch Team unfairly banning people. Although there are occasionally misunderstandings, as mistakes can be made by the Scratch Team, this is usually not the case. Sometimes, if a popular Scratcher is banned, Scratchers may create studios and projects asking for the Scratch Team to unban them; these are usually deleted by the Scratch Team because this can be considered gossiping, since the Scratchers do not know the full story.

Still removing the “sockpuppetry” part, not really sure that it's needed. Also I'm not sure of the benefit of saying it is “not encouraged,” because I think some users could read that and think that means it's “technically allowed.” Ban evasion is most definitely not allowed.

I don't see a benefit to the last two sentences regarding deleting appeals and religion, so I removed those. The Scratch Team, to my knowledge, does not delete nor ignore appeals. Sometimes they take a while to respond, and sometimes their response goes into the “spam folder” of the user's email, but I don't really know of any reason why the Scratch Team would delete/ignore appeals. If “this has not been confirmed,” then I don't think it's worth putting in the Scratch Wiki.

The bit on religion is similar, and I don't really see why it needs to be on the Scratch Wiki. It seems like a more specific case that is not relevant here. The more general statement that would probably be used here is something like “There are also several reports of Scratchers getting banned without being hurtful” (not mentioning religion at all), but mistakes are already discussed earlier in the paragraph, so I don't think it needs to be stated again.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

A user might be banned if they:

• Do not follow the Community Guidelines
  
  
• Receive multiple alerts for the same action
  
  
• Reshare projects unshared by the Scratch Team without removing inappropriate content
  
  
• Make one project containing a excessive amount of inappropriate content, known as a “shock project” (usually warrants a temporary ban without any alerts at all)
  
  
• Are signed in to an alternate account of an already banned one, referred to as ban evasion or sockpuppetry (if the ban for the account first banned is temporary, this could either extend the user's ban or warrant a permanent ban for the accounts used to evade the bans)
  
  
• Abuse the Discussion Forums or the comments section upon their arrival on Scratch (e.g. bypassing censors, using topics incorrectly, posting obscene, NSFW, racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, and/or xenophobic comments or jokes, excessively loopholing the Community Guidelines, etc.). This usually warrants an unappealable IP ban only if the user has recently joined Scratch.

Revision wrote:

A user might be banned if they:

• Do not follow the Community Guidelines
  
  
• Receive multiple alerts for the same action
  
  
• Reshare projects unshared by the Scratch Team without removing inappropriate content
  
  
• Make one project containing a excessive amount of inappropriate content
  
  
• Are signed in to an alternate account of an already banned one, referred to as ban evasion (if the ban for the account first banned is temporary, this could either extend the user's ban or warrant a permanent ban for the accounts used to evade the bans)
  
  
• Abuse the Discussion Forums or the comments section upon their arrival on Scratch (e.g. bypassing censors, posting obscene, NSFW, racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, and/or xenophobic comments or jokes, excessively breaking the Community Guidelines, etc.).

I don't know if “shock project” is a universal term on Scratch, so I removed it — there was also a “citation needed” there, so I'm not sure if users refer to it as that. I also removed “usually warrants a temporary ban without any alerts at all,” since doing this could result in a temporary ban, permanent ban, or just an alert, depending on the context.

Removed “sockpuppetry” again… I do think “ban evasion” is more clear and understandable.

I removed “using topics incorrectly” since it's not really clear what that means. For example, “necroposts” are unlikely to lead to an account ban from what I know. I also changed “loopholing” to “breaking” because I'm pretty sure any instance of “loopholing” the Community Guidelines would really just be “breaking” them instead. I also removed “This usually warrants an unappealable IP ban only if the user has recently joined Scratch” because I don't think that's necessarily true.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

A user's accounts might be deleted if:

• The user acts like they have disregarded the Scratch Team's alerts by continually misbehaving
  
  
• The user mass appeals, meaning that they have sent a large number of appeals within a short range of time. Mass appeals are not allowed and can sometimes result in all accounts registered under the banned user's email being deleted (with the exception of those permanently banned)
  
  
• The banned user retorts at the Scratch Team, attempting to fish out “errors” that the Scratch Team made with the ban
  
  
• The case was a one-time severe offense
  
  
• The deletion was requested after a long-term ban

Revision wrote:

A user's accounts might be deleted if:

• The user acts like they have disregarded the Scratch Team's alerts by continually misbehaving
  
  
• The case was a one-time severe offense
  
  
• The deletion was requested after a long-term ban

I removed the part on mass appeals. While it is true that one should not mass appeal, I don't know the repercussions of doing that. In particular, I'm not certain this leads to account deletion. Since this part had “citation needed,” I think it could be removed, as it's not necessarily true.

I also removed the part on complaining about a ban being an error. I also don't know if this really leads to account deletion, and it similarly has a “citation needed,” so it could probably be removed. This actually seems more of a reason why an appeal would not go through, rather than why an account would be deleted.

Scratch Wiki wrote:

Possible Reasons for Mistaken Bans

I don't think this section is needed. It is already stated in the article that most bans by the Scratch Team are not mistaken, so I don't know what the benefit is to have a significant section talking about ban mistakes. In fact, some entries on that list don't even seem like “mistaken bans” that would actually happen, in particular:

• “Another account starts misbehaving around the user in question” — I can't really think of any way in which the Scratch Team would accidentally ban someone just because someone else is misbehaving around them. While it “could” happen, I don't think it really does happen.
  
  
• “One of their projects was falsely reported by multiple Scratchers” — I don't think I would consider this to be a “mistaken ban” because, based on the automatic censoring system, the project creator is “supposed” to be banned. While not all bans are warranted (i.e. if the project if appropriate), I wouldn't consider them “mistakes.”
  

====================

Alright, I think that's it. Thanks again for reading, and let me know if you have further questions.