Wikipedia:Administrators - As of September 2003, it is
now possible for sysops to block usernames. It is
important to note that sysops are not authorised to
decide whether a particular case of vandalism warrants
banning by username. The ability to ban by username
has been made available for the purposes of enforcing
a ban already approved by Jimbo. It may be used to
block obvious reincarnations of hard-banned users.
Special:Ipblocklist - 05:10, 26 Jan 2004, Angela
blocked UnbannableOne (contribs) (Unacceptable user
name. Please log in with something different.
Unacceptable behaviour. Please quit it.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
A good example of why it is a bad idea to use the CE as a starting-point for a
wikipedia entry: (found on [[Witchhunt]] and quickly removed)
"The question of the reality of witchcraft is one upon which it is not easy to
pass a confident judgment. In the face of Holy Scripture and the teaching of
the Fathers and theologians the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil
and of a diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied"
;-)
Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc
> > http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db040126.gif
>
> What are you trying to say, Ed? That if we eliminate
> personal attacks, we won't be able to have presidential
> election campaigns?
LOL, what I'm trying to say is lighten up and have a laugh -- all this
talk of trials and trolls was getting dark and dreary...
Eddie
RickK wrote:
>I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
Well if you can arbitrarily request the removal of Sean, I guess I can
arbitrarily deny your request. Request denied. ;)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>Whether we deal with article-based disputes is a close issue. While I see
>the need and advocate it, I recall great reluctance on the part of the
>mailing list to allow arbitration of article content. I'm also posting this
>to wikien-l for further comment by the mailing list.
>
>Fred
I feel very strongly that article disputes be settled by arbitration, or
some other time consuming process where the issue is well thought over and
researched, rather than decided by poll. To be honest, I have a rather
contentious issue that I would like to have arbitrated, assuming it is still
a concern by the time the arbitrators are ready to start taking cases (and
also assuming it is decided that they will handle article disputes :)
JackLynch
_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com
> From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Web servers shuffled
> CC: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:30:47 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
> en.wikipedia.org is now running on a much faster
> machine. Between that
> and the database tweaks we've done in the last
> couple days, I hope this
> should keep things more or less smooth for the next
> few weeks until the
> new server farm is set up in Florida (thanks to all
> those who
> donated!).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Then why is it in its uneditible phase?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
I have agreed to discuss my position on arbitration of simple rudeness
with Sascha as well as anyone else who wants to have a conversation
instead of a diatribe. Please see [[User talk:The Epopt/Arbitration]].
For those of you who prefer condemnation to discussion, my offer
stands: convince a simple majority of the committee to ask me to step
down and I will, or, of course, Jimbo can remove me.
--
Sean Barrett | Five parts ammonium nitrate,
sean(a)epoptic.com | two parts hydrazine.
> From: Sascha Noyes <sascha(a)pantropy.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] admin abuse
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:19:30 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
> On Monday 26 January 2004 12:41 am, UB 1 wrote:
> > Wikipedia:Administrators - As of September 2003,
> it is
> > now possible for sysops to block usernames. It is
> > important to note that sysops are not authorised
> to
> > decide whether a particular case of vandalism
> warrants
> > banning by username. The ability to ban by
> username
> > has been made available for the purposes of
> enforcing
> > a ban already approved by Jimbo. It may be used to
> > block obvious reincarnations of hard-banned users.
> >
> > Special:Ipblocklist - 05:10, 26 Jan 2004, Angela
> > blocked UnbannableOne (contribs) (Unacceptable
> user
> > name. Please log in with something different.
> > Unacceptable behaviour. Please quit it.)
>
> I'm behind Angela on this one.
> [[user:UnbannableOne]] is an obvious
> "boundary-experiment" by an old troll taking
> advantage of there not existing
> any officially sanctioned policy enforcing body in
> order to troll wikipedia,
> while making themselves "unbannable" by adding
> legitimate content.
>
> Best,
> Sascha Noyes
Although I disagree with this, it has been set by
precedent when I was banned (temporarily) under the
username "Non-Liberals are stupid" when I was seeing
if I would get banned. (BTW, I don't believe that)
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Robert wrote:
> I am requesting mediation.
I'm delighted to accept mediation, as and when the mediation committee is in a
position to handle the matter. Accordingly, I have left a very brief comment on
"requests for mediation".
If anyone is paying any attention to Robert's posts and wants me to respond to
his accusations publically or privately, then I will be delighted to do so.
Otherwise I shall not bother.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
