Jimbo Wales wrote:
>Still, your point is absolutely valid in the broader sense. What
>changes could be make that might allow us to mitigate the problems of
>anonymous proxies in a gentler way than wholesale blocking?
Looking at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550 , the
problem isn't having the code to hand - we have code patches on hand
for lots of possible options. The problem is deciding what is actually
a good idea socially. What's an obviously elegant solution to the
problem? If there isn't one, what compromise would make things better
rather than worse?
- d.
In a message dated 10/26/2005 6:11:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Koltwills wrote:
>You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page"
>tab or by following a red link.
>Your user name or IP address has been _blocked_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy) by _David
Gerard_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard) .
>The reason given is:
>Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
>"_Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!&acti
on=edit)
". >The reason given for Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!'s
>block is: "massive sockpuppetry (A1sdf sockpuppet)".
Yeah. I blocked a sokpuppeteering vandal. Unfortunately, they were
using a pile of AOL IPs, so I spent yesterday answering email (and
trying to get some people to just cut'n'paste the error message so I
know which username to look for!) and undoing blocks on the IPs.
>This hasn't happened for a couple of weeks, but it happens frequently
enough
>-- often three and four times a week: I get blocked as the result of
>someone else's conduct. When I try to edit, I get the "User is
blocked" message --
>but the I.P. address is never my own.
>How does this happen?
AOL runs what is effectively a massive internal anonymising proxy. Any
individual *page view* might come from a different IP.
A page explaining it technically is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_AOL_vandals
Someone's called it "super-dynamic proxying", which is a pretty good
way to put it.
>How does this happen? Is there something I or someone else can do to
>prevent it from occurring again?
Excluding AOL ranges from the autoblocker might be an idea, or setting
the duration to be very short for those IPs.
In the meantime, I apologise profusely for the trouble, even though it
will probably happen again and again and again and ...
- d.
Hi, David. *waving*
Thanks.
I've asked the question of "how" repeatedly in the past, but this is the
first time I've gotten a real explanation.
Now, what about the selective blocking. How does THAT happen -- being able
to edit one page and not another, when the article I can't edit is open for
editing?
I've been told that such a thing is "impossible," but it's happened to me
many times.
Does anyone have an explanation?
dcv
Koltwills wrote:
>You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page"
>tab or by following a red link.
>Your user name or IP address has been _blocked_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy) by _David Gerard_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard) .
>The reason given is:
>Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
>"_Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!_
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!&act…)
". >The reason given for Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!'s
>block is: "massive sockpuppetry (A1sdf sockpuppet)".
Yeah. I blocked a sokpuppeteering vandal. Unfortunately, they were
using a pile of AOL IPs, so I spent yesterday answering email (and
trying to get some people to just cut'n'paste the error message so I
know which username to look for!) and undoing blocks on the IPs.
>This hasn't happened for a couple of weeks, but it happens frequently enough
>-- often three and four times a week: I get blocked as the result of
>someone else's conduct. When I try to edit, I get the "User is
blocked" message --
>but the I.P. address is never my own.
>How does this happen?
AOL runs what is effectively a massive internal anonymising proxy. Any
individual *page view* might come from a different IP.
A page explaining it technically is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_AOL_vandals
Someone's called it "super-dynamic proxying", which is a pretty good
way to put it.
>How does this happen? Is there something I or someone else can do to
>prevent it from occurring again?
Excluding AOL ranges from the autoblocker might be an idea, or setting
the duration to be very short for those IPs.
In the meantime, I apologise profusely for the trouble, even though it
will probably happen again and again and again and ...
- d.
Delirium wrote:
>Stefan Sittler wrote:
>>I have been wondering about this, actually. (I'm newish to WP). Could
>>somebody show me how exactly categories are helpful? A link would be
>>fine. It's hard for me to see the usefulness. A link or three would be
>>fine, maybe an old pertinent discussion. Thanks.
>I see them as fulfilling a lot of the functions that would otherwise
>have to be fulfilled with lists, but in a more maintainable way, since
>they're maintained incrementally on the article side, not centrally on
>the list side (the "list" is then automatically generated). They don't
>completely replace lists, but they automate a lot of the more tedious
>sorts of lists that would otherwise have to be constructed and maintained.
[[WP:CSL]] is a guideline discussing the use of categories, article
series templates and list articles. The three are complementary.
WP:CSL mentions some advantages and disadvantages of each.
(Originally written by Snowspinner, heavily revised by me, now merrily
instruction-creeping at the hands of the community. I didn't manage to
get my passionate contempt and loathing for article series boxes in
general made into a guideline, but have managed to point out the sort
of problems that will get a series box sent to WP:TFD in short order
;-)
- d.
I wish to raise an issue on this list about offensive images on an
article about sexual bondage, [[Hogtie bondage]], to be specific. I
don't feel I can justify spending any more time debating this sort of
thing on the article discussion page (I want to do more productive
things on Wikipedia, like write about cryptography), so I thought I
would flag it here in this forum, and trust the outcome to normal
Wikipedia processes (even if it's not the outcome I would like). I do
think it needs wider attention, as editors who have such a page on
their watchlists are likely to be of a certain opinion. Forgive me,
though, if I start a discussion that might prove controversial and
then quietly sneak off. I'm not a troll, honest!
First, I'd like to state that, in general, I support Wikipedia being
explicit in its illustration where necessary. I have never had a
problem with potentially-offensive photos on pages like [[penis]],
[[clitoris]] and the like. If I cared enough (or if I had kids) I
could filter Wikipedia myself on the client side without too much
hassle.
However, to balance that, I think that content which is likely to be
offensive, such as nudity, should be used only when there is a
compelling case that the offensiveness is unavoidable if the article
is to be illustrated properly. I would oppose photographs of nude
people kissing in [[kiss]], or two nude people hugging in [[physical
intimacy]], because I believe these concepts can be quite adequately
illustrated without nudity. I don't suppose this is a particulary
controversial line to take.
Recently, a proprietor of a bondage pornography site uploaded a number
of his images to Wikipedia depicting a woman in various positions of
sexual bondage, and added them as illustration to several pages,
including (what has now been split off to become) [[Hogtie
bondage]]. Two of these photographs used on [[Hogtie bondage]] feature
a nude woman. However, I don't believe that nudity is necessary to
illustrate this topic -- a hogtie is a way of tying someone up, and
the subject can be nude or clothed. Therefore, I would argue that the
nude images should not be used within this article.
Others disagree (see [[Talk:Hogtie bondage]] and [[Talk:Hogtie]]), and
there has been a few reverts over this question (far more than a
member of the Harmonious Editing Club would like to own up to --
another reason why I'll probably drop my involvement). I'd like to see
what others think.
In general, I think we should be very careful when dealing with
erotica within Wikipedia. The original purpose of such images is not
illustration, so we need to be sure that they do indeed make for good
illustration when used as such. In the hogtie case, the owner of the
adult website likely had the partial motive of promoting his website
(a link was included in the image description pages). And many people
readily enjoy seeing titillating images in web pages, regardless of
their illustrative value. So I think it's worth making sure there is a
robust case for their use, given the potential for offense, because we
decrease the value of Wikipedia if we are offensive without good
editorial reasons.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:34:33 -0400
>From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In The News - new name needed
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <98dd099a0510251434k75868cc2o8bdca051716cb814(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I think this is right. Insisting people not call a page name by its
>obvious acronym won't work and won't be intuitive. A new page name
>will be better, and people won't continue calling something by an
>acronym that no longer makes sense for long (VfD is still
>comprehensible but becoming less so. And the news section is nowhere
>as trafficked or used as VfD ever is/was).
>
>So... suggestions?
>
>*Current Events (WP:CE)
>*News Desk (WP:ND)
>*Current News (WP:CN --> used currently for Clueless Newbie)
>*...your suggestion here?
>
>FF
>
>On 10/25/05, Ilya N. <ilyanep(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless we rename it to something like "Current Events" People will
>continue
> > to abbreviate it ITN out of habit.
> >
> > ~Ilya N. (User:Ilyanep)
> >
> > On 10/25/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I like that idea. But how would we deal with old links? We can't
>just
> > > > deprecate a link and not replace it. If they call it ITN, it will
> > > > still be called ITN if it points to [[WP:NEWS]].
> > >
> > > I pretty much meant what Flcello suggests below: ask people to call it
> > > News (or something) rather than ITN. Not perfect - but most people say
> > > AfD not VfD now.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Andrew Gray
> > > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Hmm... I like Current Events better than News Desk or Current News.
[[WP:CN]] should stay for clueless newbies.
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
In a message dated 10/25/2005 9:18:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ilyanep(a)gmail.com writes:
Does NPOV or NOR allow analysis at all? Not in the slightest.
While it is meant to discourage pushing a viewpoint and putting uncited
research up on Wikipedia, what would happen if someone were to analyze a
point in an article?
In some cases it would seem to be pushing a point of view (even if the
opposite POV is expressed) and sometimes would cause an edit war
In other cases it would be seen as original research (oh no! You can't say
that without citing it!)
Maybe I'm just not understanding correctly what you mean by analyzing.
On 10/25/05, Koltwills(a)aol.com <Koltwills(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/25/2005 5:28:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> ilyanep(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Agreed...and it could be argued that some of our policies prohibit such an
> article from being created.
>
> ~Ilya N. (User:Ilyanep)
>
>
> *applauding Daniel Smith's analysis of the comments in the Guardian
> article"
>
> Policies such as?
>
> dcv
>
Yes, POV pushing is a concern, but I agree that reasoned, fair and balanced
analysis is important. Unfortunately, those with a more limited
interpretation of Wikipedia policy often tend to see any analysis as POV. I've
encountered this problem with "Afrocentrism" -- with, of course, the objections coming
from mostly whiners who lodge vague complaints because the article advances
information about which they've already formed opinions without, IMO, an
adequate (or erroneous) "knowledge" base. In short, some of their misconceptions
and biases are being challenged not only about certain aspects of history,
but about the fundamental nature of Afrocentrism itself.
And with "Melanin," there were those who simply flat-out objected to
substantive mention of race/color bias in the article, claiming the piece should
treat only the obvious scientific aspects of the subject matter -- sparking an
edit war. How much of that was due to stalking and whining about my
"fixation" on such issues or a desire to avoid mention of such matters altogether, or
due to people who honestly believed such a "connect the dots" treatment of
the subject inappropriate (addressing the Guardian complaint that pieces are
sometimes superficial/shallow in their treatment of subject matter) is hard to
gauge.
I could say the same thing about "Cool (African aesthetic)," because I
suspect some of the same issues are at play there. However, the piece itself is
far too sketchy at this point to be a clear example.
This is where admins come in. Some are crappy/biased themselves, but others
are fair/open-minded. I think it's important that administrators make it a
point to intervene in such disputes and uphold the validity of analyzing
facts in a straightforward, principled, adequately referenced fashion -- even
when the line of thinking/issues analyzed may be unfamiliar to them or at odds
with previously held assumptions/take them out of their intellectual comfort
zone.
Of course, the more off the beaten path certain notions/subject matter is,
the more contentious the debate tends to be, and this can be problematic when
dealing with immature contributors who are either incapable of being, or
unwilling to be, rational and analytical and simply are determined to be
obtuse/obstructionist/antagonistic. Again, that's when savvy administrators can be
helpful, reminding others that Wikipedia should be more than a glorified
message board where articles should be more than series of facts strung together
under a handful of subheads.
In "Blackface," NPOV/POV issues (and others) were less of a problem than
some anticipated -- perhaps because, while dealing with a somewhat sensitive
issue, the subject matter was not really fundamentally controversial. At any
rate, at least from my own personal vantage point, it's an instance where
analysis (connecting blackface to darky iconography and also discussing the
far-reaching cultural implications of the phenomenon) works. And I'm not tooting
my own horn here; there were lots of contributors to the piece. It's just
simply something I'm familiar with and an instance where, I think, Wikipedia's
collaborative give-and-take produced something of quality.
Didn't someone, somewhere say: "Be bold!"?
dcv
In a message dated 10/25/2005 8:48:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
chris(a)starglade.org writes:
Koltwills(a)aol.com wrote:
> Well, I suppose I have another reason to go to Mozilla!
>
> AOL just sux.
I believe Geni means AOL the ISP, rather than AOL the browser.
Chris
Yeah, I got that -- after I hit "send." (Long night.)
dcv
>who owns this IPs?
>~Ilya N. (User:Ilyanep)
The IPs are owned by Telstra and Otpus, the two
largest telecommunications companies in Australia.
Since the ArbCom case he has gone to the effort of
using a second ISP (Optus) which uses some kind of
nasty relatively open proxy that seems to just assign
new IPs when one is blocked. I seriously doubt that
either company would do anything.
--Peta
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>I can't convince the people on afd at least in part because I'm not allowed
>to make comments on afd.
and he also wrote;
>It looks perfectly notable to me, and Snowspinner would have had my vote had
>he not fought so hard to get me banned from voting.
What Anthony is referring to is the Arbitration finding banning him
from editing the Wikipedia: space at all, owing to his long, long
history of being a grossly disruptive net negative there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
"Anthony is subject to a one revert limitation, prohibited from
creating deleted content that fails to pass a vote for undeletion,
subject to ad hoc blocks for disruption, and banned from editing the
Wikipedia namespace."
Anthony, it wasn't Snowspinner who got you blocked from the Wikipedia
namespace for a year. It wasn't anyone else either. It was you and
no-one else. You wuzn't robbed, you did it to yourself. This is
unlikely to change until you understand that life is not a breaching
experiment.
- d.