I blocked the following usernames:
User:Bird
User:Raptor
User:Accuracy dispute
User:B.ird
User:SoCal
User:Bad faith
User:Reality check
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat
Mark (Delirium) wrote:
> Given that there've been at least a few dozen posts
> about it spanning the past three months, I find that
> somewhat odd...
The part I'm quite familiar with is the idea of defining an
edit war in terms of the number of reversions, i.e., three
per person per day.
The part I never heard about was the idea of authorizing admins
to block users who violate the rule.
A long time ago, I originally proposed that some users other than Jimbo
be given the delegated authority to give "time-outs" to users who
violate Wikipedia policy. I still favor the idea, but think that it
should not be Proclaimed as Policy by our PhilosopherKing and founder.
Rather, it should be discussed fully, voted on freely and fairly by the
user community -- and adopted as policy only if there is widespread
support.
In other words, I'm for it -- but let's vote first.
Ed Poor
Somewhere in Vacationland, USA
This is growing into a bigger problem.
I think it would be good if a people could pitch in and help Maximus Rex
and others stay on top of this.
This user has at least 7 accounts and now seems to searching for articles
to argue about -- and is adding NPOV headers and removing "incorrect" or
"contested" information. E.g.,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Microsoft_antitrust_case&action=…>
Here's the section at Vandalism in progress:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#User:Bird,User…>
Rick wrote:
>A User who went by the name of Bird has gone on a vandalism rampage,
>blanking several articles he/she worked on, claiming that everything he
>included in Wikipedia was either made up or plaigarized. I'm wondering if
>someone got ahold of the user's account and is causing problems, or if
>this person has had this in mind from the time he/she first logged
>in. Regardless, it seems that the user claims that he will be issuing a
>"press release" pointing out how flawed Wikipedia is.
>
>See [[User:David Newton/Bird Dispute]] for more detail.
>
>RickK
The Anome blocked this IP for repeated policy violations for apparent
copyright violations, and for vandalism -- see the talk page
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.185.84.208>
Thanks,
Brian
Magnus wrote:
>I found this in my inbox today:
>
>I'm a user who has the number 66.185.84.208.
>I've found myself blocked on the accusation of vandalism and
>plagarism. Can you please unblock me?
>Please note that this is the 4th time in 5 months and I hope this is the
>last time.
>
>I quickly scanned through his contributions, and there are quite a few.
>Some of his new articles had a leftist bias, and he seems to be
>pro-Palestine, but I didn't see real vandalism. Some of his edits might be
>a little weird, though.
>
>But, if he was really banned 4 times already, I probably missed something.
>
>Magnus
If we are going to give admins the power to enforce a NEW RULE on
signed-in users, there should be:
(a) A very clear vote about this major policy change.
(b) Sufficient notice about when the vote ends, and when the policy
takes effect.
I thought I was paying pretty close attention to Wikipedia -- But this
is the FIRST I EVER HEARD ABOUT THIS!!!!
So I propose that we announce this vote in the mailing list and re-start
the deadline. I don't want to have people boycotting the election or
refusing to abide by its results, and then starting a rebellion (as
recently happened in Haiti).
I hope there is at least 30 days, from today when I first heard of this
proposed policy change, to the "closing of polls". Anything less seems
like a trick, and will not gain sufficient support.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Developer & Bureaucrat
Wikien-l Admin
Is it feasible/reasonable to ask for the mediawiki software, not to enforce, but to _notify_ the editor when the 3-revert rule is being broken?
I'm thinking of something along the lines of what the old newsreader software used to do when you posted something for world distribution and it gave you that warning message about your action "costing hundreds, if not thousands of dollars" to the Net.
No action, no enforcement, no locking out... just a little notice saying "this is the sixth revert you've made on this article today. Usually we try not to do more than three."
(Similarly, I've often wished that the express lines in supermarkets had a nice big electric sign that would display the item count. If the person buying sixteen items in the "twelve items or fewer" lane saw that the count was sixteen and knew that the checker and the people behind him could see that the count was sixteen, nothing would need to be said).
Agreeing with Timwi, that would be a copyright violation, but older
public domain lyrics could be posted over at:
http://sources.wikipedia.org
The wikisources project is a great idea and could use some more
contributers/articles in general if anyone's interested.
Hi,
it seems that nobody is willing to take care of [[Wikipedia:Changing
attribution for an edit]].
Would it be feasible for me to get developer access temporarily to take
care of it?
Timwi
I found this in my inbox today:
I'm a user who has the number 66.185.84.208.
I've found myself blocked on the accusation of vandalism and plagarism. Can you please unblock me?
Please note that this is the 4th time in 5 months and I hope this is the last time.
I quickly scanned through his contributions, and there are quite a few. Some of his new articles had a leftist bias, and he seems to be pro-Palestine, but I didn't see real vandalism. Some of his edits might be a little weird, though.
But, if he was really banned 4 times already, I probably missed something.
Magnus
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/08/2014231.shtml
The original article cited doesn't mention us, although they should.
I think that anyone interested in why industry-wide sales for
encyclopedia software fell 7.3 percent in 2003 from 2002 should look
at graphs of our growth trajectory. We're giving away for free a
better product than people can buy, and that's that.
One thing that's interesting to me is how many people said some
variant on "Well, traditional encyclopedias are important because you
can't trust what you find on the web, except for Wikipedia of course,
which you can trust".
--Jimbo