can anyone help me figure out ho to get a guy who blocked me for no reason
to unblock me? the thing said subscribe to this list and stuff i'm still new to
Wikipedia
By mistake, I seem to have logged in as another user. I was typing my
username, when my finger slipped and I logged in before I had either
finished typing my complete username, or any password whatsoever.
It seems that the user I accidently logged in as has an empty password.
* is this really possible, or have I made a mistake?
* if this really is so, this is a moderate-sized security hole, because
this has the same dangers as accounts with publicly accessible
passwords, which are generally held to be a case for block-on-sight.
It would probably make sense to check for zero-length passwords at
account creation time,
and to scan for zero length and other trivial passwords on existing
accounts, if possible, and issue a warning that they will be locked if
the user does not change their password after (say) a month.
It would also make sense to try to enforce a simple password-checking
routine, to make sure that users from now on can only set passwords that
are at least slightly stronger than a single dictionary word (two short
words are a surprisingly effective measure in terms of bang-per-character).
-- Neil
On 12/8/05, Garion1000 <garion1000(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/05, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/8/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
> > > > creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
> > > > month.
> > >
> > > Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for a
> > > month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really
> > wants
> > > to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid of
> > the
> > > refuse.
> >
> > Turn off AfD, let all editors delete articles.
>
>
> I don't want to know how many times [[George Bush]] would be deleted. :)
>
Of course, the rules against vandalism and the 3RR would apply. People
who arbitrarily or abusively delete articles would be treated just
like any other abusive editor.
On 12/15/05, Brian <brian0918(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for picking out one single sentence to attack.
Are you unused to rational argument. I addressed that claim because
it's so obviously, blitheringly false.
You also falsely claim that your actions are universally supported. I
am here to tell you, as a longtime editor of that article, that your
claim is absolutely false.
Look at the opener of the article. It's an absolute mess.
"George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is the 43rd and current
President of the United States since 2001.
"From 1995 to 2000, Bush served as Governor of the State of Texas. A
lifelong member of the Republican Party, Bush was a businessman before
entering politics. He helped found the failed Arbusto Energy and later
became a managing partner in the Texas Rangers baseball team. Bush was
elected the 46th Governor of Texas in 1994 and was re-elected in 1998.
He won the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election and
was elected President amid much controversy. He was reelected to a
second term in the 2004 presidential election, which began January 20,
2005."
Six months ago, the opener read as follows:
"George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is an American politician and
the 43rd (current) president of the United States. Bush, a member of
the Republican Party, is part of the prominent Bush family, which
includes his grandfather (former U.S. Senator Prescott Bush), his
father (former President George H. W. Bush), and his brother (Jeb
Bush, the current Florida governor)."
"Before becoming president, he was a businessman, involved in the oil
industry and professional sports. He was elected the 46th Governor of
Texas, and won the nomination of the Republican Party in the 2000
presidential election. Bush became President, defeating Vice President
Al Gore of the Democratic Party in a particularly controversial and
close election. Bush was re-elected in 2004, defeating Senator John
Kerry of Massachusetts."
The article badly needs sorting out. It's grown approximately 50% in
the past six months, but at the same time it's been hemorrhaging
useful information and good writing.
So now this is being made much, much harder by your action in
preventing the article's sections being edited.
I do think this deliberate act of making editing more difficult should
be classed as vandalism. You are unapologetic in admitting that you
intend to make it more difficult for this article to be edited.
Steve Bennett wrote:
>t would be good to have some kind of understood process for how claims
>are first described as verifiable/unverifiable, then become
>verified/unverified. This process is extremely haphasard at the moment.
>
>
>Steve
I agree. Do you have any concrete suggestions? You and a number of other
people have made some fine points; perhaps we can move this discussion to
the Verifiability talk page and start discussing how to put these ideas
into practice?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
I propose that the task of ensuring that people do not use the ability to
edit biographies in particular to launch attempts at character assassination
should be coordinated. A taskforce of people interested could be created
which would focus on this particular aspect.
This is how we handle any problems on Wikipedia, don't we?
Hemanshu
My complaint about being blocked.
Friday, 16 December 05
Messieurs,
I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
The reason given is:
revert sockpuppet"
Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line :
"You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of.
Jay. "
Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been auto-generated.
I'm writing here to argue my case:
By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" any behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of his own guessings on invented trends.
More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.
Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I acknowledge here challengeable Ancient Régîme ways, péroraisons, and short-lived privilege abuses.
However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help, to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they are:
Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually, early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki guidelines. My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised, do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points. Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a dryer comment for these.
Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here. But humans always appreciate !
Please 'unblock' me at once.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet