Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to
protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a
wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin
who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities.
There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come
back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements
on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative
trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If
someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped -
they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to
leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
A wrote
> I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
> article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
> to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have a
> clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.
It will all fall under [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], though. At the level of generalities, if posted links are serving purposes that do not chime with Wikipedia's, one can deduce a likely COI.
That doesn't do more than give some sort of framework, of course.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute
To: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
> have 10 people asking "please moderate him"
> 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and
> "bullshit" simply don't help your cause.
> michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been
heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person
it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil
onto fire doesn't help.
Parker
I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have a
clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.
For instance, [[User:Hoodia]] was especially egregious today, spamming the
[[Hoodia]] article, but also setting up a User talk page that consisted
entirely of spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoodia&oldid=94315565
This case is obvious and common sense, but I have seen more subtle issues
recently, such as this editor listing her site
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ after her signature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStephen_Barrett&diff=93819…
to bottom)
Does this count as linkspam? It struck me and other editors as
inappropriate.
SEO spammers are going to want a working link from Wikipedia to improve
results, so I suppose <nowiki> is an option in many of these cases. As
another example, a longtime detractor of mine who was eventually blocked for
linkspamming still managed to spam links removed from various articles to
her bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com website via another editor's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alphachimp/Archive_7#PLEASE_REPLY_AN…
This is now archived and indexed on Google, effectively achieving the
desired result of a direct link from Wikipedia.
These phenomena seem like something we should address before it gets much
worse. I guess the most contentious one would be links to one's own sites on
one's User and User:Talk pages. I'm not sure how that line should be drawn.
A blanket ban would probably drive some editors away, and any policy would
probably have a lot of gray area regarding what's acceptable.
Jokestress
On 14 Dec 2006 at 12:10, "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> And more to the point, they could have done this without asking,
> except for the use of the logo. Instead they were willing to negotiate
> use of the logo, and have made an effort to be compliant like other
> mirrors, following our own instructions for mirrors.
And as far as I can tell, there is no exclusive license involved in
this project, so it's not a "sellout"; nothing in this deal blocks
the future use of Wikipedia data as part of other geographical
projects of other companies and organizations, including ones of a
less proprietary nature, or the negotiation of such groups to get
similar rights to use the logo.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> Let each case be judged on its merits, in accordance with the
> Clue-based principles on which the whole edifice is after all founded.
The principles of Wikipedia are based upon Clue? Well, then, I say
it was Colonel Mustard in the ballroom with a candlestick.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I think the {{contradicting}} template is problematic because it doesn't
require the user to specify what the supposed contradiction is. Some
people seem to add it as if it was an intrinsic property of the subject,
rather than a request to fix something. When I removed it with the
comment "Please don't add the contradiction tag without giving your
reasons on the Talk page, otherwise I won't know what to fix in the
article", it was simply added back in with the edit summary "who keeps
removing that template?".
Timwi
I just came across the following userpage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14
which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently,
depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a
personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure
about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense
against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of
Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the
Great Userboxes War.
Michael