I /really/ have to take some time off. I can't even read the funnies
without something reminding me of Wikipedia.
Ban the ban! Push the button! Down with hierarchy!
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/luann/archive/images/luann200404880131
2.gif
Is it starting to get to me? No, it /got/ to me...
Why can't we just sit back quietly and write articles?
(signed)
Loston Lerrom, aka Ann Angram
I disagree. If someone logs in with an offensive user name, then there is no reason to discuss the blocking. What is there to discuss? Ed didn't block the person, only the username. They can always log in again with a different user name. ~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Optim [mailto:optim81@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 06 March 2004 08:49
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst
Summary: EdPoor blocked a user "Jesus Chirst".
My reply:
His/her username was the only reason for the
block?
There was no discussion before the block?
If these two statements are true, then this user
should get unblocked.
--Optim
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I renamed [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] to
[[Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions]].
I hope that this will lessen the general tension between "old hands" who
have sysop rights and "newbies" who don't.
The idea is to focus on the action itself, not the actor. And the remedy
if any would be to reconsider the decision, which is very easy and
non-threatening.
Thanks to Caroline (MySecretLondon) for sparking this idea.
Kindly ol' Uncle Ed
The 72-hour block on user:Bird and his flock of sock puppets expires
today.
Has the Arbitration Committee come to any decision? (I'm not planning to
extend the block; I'd rather write articles than do this kind of stuff.)
Ed Poor
Bird-brained bureaucrat
User 66.185.84.208 (who is blocked) contacted me again, claiming that he
is User:kchishol1970 (who seems to be productive and not a vandal at
all), and that he uses a static IP, not sharing his computer with
others. The IP block prevents him from editing wikipedia under his user
name. Indeed, this user stopped editing on March 9, a few hours befor
the IP ban.
The Anome has blocked the IP for 14 days. I will unblock it and tell
User:kchishol1970 to watch his computer more carefully ;-)
I will try to watch out for that IP. In case I miss more vandalism, just
block it again, please.
Magnus
Many have stated their concern about the inability of scanning the
Recent Changes page for vandalism, and dealing with it. On the other
hand, there was concern about cutting the freedom on wikipedia in the
wake of terror^H^H^H^H^H^Hvandalism.
I believe that we can improve security without restricting users by
focusing our attention through technical means, namely a "Recent
Vandalisms" page. (We can argue about that title, though).
This page would list
* edits from users that have been marked as "problematic" (was: vandals)
* edits on problematic (was: "edit war") pages
* edits that appear to be "suspect" utilizing some kind of filter (e.g.,
removal of larger text protions, certain keywords, etc.)
On Recent Changes, IPs and users can be marked as "problematic", but:
* anons can't mark anyone
* users can only mark IPs and user accounts that exist for less than a
week / have less than 20 edits (a potential "sock puppet" filter)
* sysops can mark anyone
A page can be marked as "problematic" by logged-in users.
This would help those who want to stop vandals to get a report on the
latest "problematic" issues at a glance. The restrictions above are to
prevent ill-minded users from flooding the page in order to render it
useless.
Magnus
This is a bit different than the 3-revert/article/day rule. This is a
6-revert/day set-up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earl…
The vote is not going well, but some people have proposed a neat alternative
enforcement of the new 3-revert policy: If you revert the same article more
than three times in one day, the page gets protected as the version you were
reverting. Thus your version gets pushed into the article's history.
Not sure what would happen if more than one person breaks the 3-revert rule on
the same page or what would happen for repeat offenders on the same article.
But the above mentioned alternative has the advantage that it is a refinement
of current practice instead of something really new. More refinements can and
should improve the system in the future.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
Just for the record: my inclusion of top-posters in the anathema list was
ironic. The suggestion that RickK or anyone else should pay $30/year simply
in order to avoid top-posting strikes me as absurd. Top-posting is like
infinitive-splitting: it's an imaginary, artificial rule made up recently for
the sole purpose of creating an artificial distinction between an out-group
and an in-group. It was originally loose recommendation _in the service of
making postings compact and comprehensible._ It wasn't until 1999 or
thereabouts that people regularly began getting flamed for it. Try a Google
"Advanced Groups" search on "top-posting" as exact phrase and limit the date
range from 1981 to 1997 and you'll see what I mean.
I generally don't top-post, just as I generally don't split
infinitives, for the same reason: because I don't like being yelled at by
people.
As for Yahoo mail... when we got our high-speed connection, the first thing I
did was, of course, was set up my email client to connect to (then)
bellatlantic.net's pop server. My wife was new to the Internet, wanted to do
everything herself. Her PC was preconfigured with the browser pointed at a
Gateway-flavored Yahoo, and she discovered and signed up for Yahoo browser-
based mail. I kept offering to get her up with "real" email, but she kept
saying no thanks. It pained me to see her clicking her way through the clumsy
web-based UI. But ultimately the joke was on me. Using Yahoo web mail, she
has enjoyed a high level of virus protection and spam filtering; has been
able to keep the same email address; has had reliable email while I've
experienced three or four multi-day outages on the part of Verizon's servers;
and has been able to check her email conveniently when away from home.
Delirium wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6 [68]
> >Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users
> >for 24 hours for breaking this rule.
> >
> I'd like to lobby for this to happy ASAP. The rule has a massive
> majority (nearly 90%), and we need some way of enforcing it. It should,
> hopefully very quickly, become simply unacceptable to revert any one
> article more than 3 times in a day. Once you've wrangled back and forth
> a few times, you stop. There is really no justification at *all* for a
> revert-war going on for longer than that---it accomplishes absolutely
> nothing.
What a minute!
When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
times or not.
Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
is about and not just a guideline.
BL
Peter Jaros wrote:<br><br>> On Monday, March 8, 2004, at 03:44 PM, Lee Pilich wrote:<br>> <br>>> "Completed" in quotes because while everything that needs to be <br>>> covered for us to function probably is covered in one way or another, <br>>> everything is still subject to change, and everything will likely be <br>>> tweaked as we deal with more cases, gain experience and whatnot.<br>> <br>> Is there a good word for this?
---
If you must use another word, I'd suggest ''Intact'' or ''Integral''. We used to use integral in developing a product element. It means that this element, as reviewed, is a whole, self-contained, unit of work. It may need revision in future to tie correctly with other elements, and adjustments may occur during final testing. This is somewhat similar to Wiki, where nothing is ever final oe ''Complete''.
Actually, thre's nothing wrong with complete, even without the quotes. The Wiki philosophy inplies that anything can be changed if we collectively find a better way.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!