My suggestion does not, I think, violate any of the openness of Wiki.
Clicking a button that says "I agree not to be an asshole" before Wiki
will let you create a username does one thing only - it gives Wiki a
little moral clout if someone is doing low-class stuff like blanking
admin pages. Certainly a real asshole would go ahead and click the
[agree] button anyway. It does not stop anyone from doing anything.
Analogising this to a Brittanica editorial board is not unlike
analogising a paper cut to a limb severed by a chainsaw.
Denni
--
"The difference between extra-marital sex and extra marital sex is not
to be sneezed at." --George Will, on hyphen use
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Visit my Wikipedia user page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ADwindrim
Do you ICQ? I do - 276534369 Magpie
A few links to working pages don't seem to show that the pages are there.
For example, I just moved the page [[Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova
Scotia]] to [[Halifax, Nova Scotia]]. There were a plethora of links
existing to [[Halifax, Nova Scotia]]. However, they don't seem to have
"taken"; they show the question mark indicating that the page hasn't been
created. Should I click there, however, the Edit screen pops up -- with the
text of [[Halifax, Nova Scotia]] in it.
Likewise, the What Links Here page of [[Halifax, Nova Scotia]] indicates
barely any links at all -- which I know isn't true. (For example, [[Nova
Scotia]] links there, but isn't listed.)
What to do?
Matt
>Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to check
>those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is.
>
>-- mav
Seconded, definitely. I've bugged Tim Starling quite enough already
about these, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
-Hephaestos
> Have, in the past, complaints to ISPs (about stuff like this, not death
> threats, copyvios, or kiddieporn) been effective?
I'm not aware of them being used in the past. However, I'm told that most of the IPs
being used at the moment are actually open proxies.
> I figure what the vandalbot is doing is perfectly legal, isn't spam,
> and probably doesn't rise to the level of DOS
(IANAL) It isn't legal, because it's unauthorised use of a computer system, which is
typically against anti-hacking legislation in most countries, including the USA. Anti-
hacking legislation has been successfully used against people who have "hacked" by
guessing URLs, so defacing a wiki should be cut and dry. It also falls into the category
of a DOS, I reckon, though of course that's subjective.
No doubt JamesDay or Alex756 wll be able to explain why I'm wrong on the legal issue.
-Martin
Let's not lose sight of the purpose of "banning". It's not to get
revenge, and it's not punishment for punishment's sake. It's only a
means to an end.
We want to make an accurate, comprehensive and open encyclopedia. We
require civility, so it's a nice congenial place to work. We enforce
Jimbo & Larry!s NPOV policy, so that we keep bias from creeping in under
the guise of "objective fact".
The only reason to pressure or suspend a contributor, is because they
sidestep, subvert or openly declare war on our values. If they show
willingness to mend their ways, all is (usually) forgiven.
My feelings toward Plautus, Lir, Wik, and Abe (172) are precisely the
same: if they will follow our guidelines their help is welcome; if not,
we're better off without them. Often after a self-imposed or "mandated"
period of time off a user thinks better of rocking the boat and can come
on board again.
Don't mistake this is hostility toward people. Think of it as dedication
to the mission. We sail the boundless seas together. :-)
Ed Poor
Curmudgeonly but softhearted Bureaucrat
>No he is not hard banned for life. He will, however, probably get a
month >ban
>the moment he comes back due to the fact that he broke the terms of his
>week-long ban a few times. That is in the enforcement section of our
(the >AC's)
>ruling on the issue.
Violating a week long ban is one thing. Running a script to vandalize
wikipedia repeatedly until we cave in for to his demands is something
else. Assuming Jimbo posts the full header to confirm it wasn't faked,
then I don't see we even need an AC ruling. This is simple vandalism. We
block vandals all the time.
Theresa
> I don't see we even need an AC ruling. This is simple vandalism.
> We block vandals all the time.
I think this is precisely correct. Vandalism of Wikipedia is unauthorised and forbidden;
blocks and reverts can be used freely; ISPs can be complained to, etc. An AC ban
would serve no additional purpose, beyond making us feel good about our collective
selves. In the unlikely event that Wik attempts to return and contribute in a bona fide
manner, the AC can issue a year's ban, but otherwise there are other cases we should
be looking at.
It would be nice if IPs of logged in edits were made public, as with logged out, as then
individuals could take the initiative in contacting ISPs about abuse.
I've unprotected Wik's user and user talk pages, so we can have/link this discussion on
Wikipedia proper, which will be good for keeping people informed. As and when the
problem stops, they can be reverted and reprotected.
-Martin
When we were little, we offered to tell our moms on the kids we didn't
like. Usually, that was the end of it, and even if we did tell our moms,
what ever happened? We're just dealing with bigger kids here. "Talk to
the hand..." Denni