> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:06:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?
> On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/6/06, Joanne <joannebennaoj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In my opinion, CVU activities and people could benefit from another name and
> > > structure (and there are people working on that), but regarding CVU as the
> > > source of all evil, like the Cunctator appears to do, is not likely the way
> > > to accomplish anything...
> >
> > I don't regard it as the source of all evil, nor have I said that I do.
> >
> > I do think declaring war on vandals is the wrong approach.
>
> It has it's uses.
>
> > I do think that the name should be changed.
>
> How about you start your own anti vandle project with a different name
> and see how that does?
>
>
> --
> geni
Which is what I tried to achieve with [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up
vandalism]] provide an alternate venue for those who don't want to be
associated with fighting imagery. Notice however that removing or
changing its name ***will NOT change the way users approach wiki***
Let me explain (and I stress this is my personal opinion) we don't all
approach wiki in the same way, there are plenty of different mindsets,
and they are all helping on one way or another. So, one person
believes other mindsets are wrong. That person is entitled to his
opinion, but it's an opinion after all.
Think about this. If after a long fight, hurted feelings, alienated
contributors, etc etc etc CVU name gets finally changed, those with a
combat approach will keeping do so!!!
Thus providing an alternate venue I believe is going to be more
helpful in the long run.
There should be an acronym sweep done of wikipedia. E.g, right at the
start of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSCM we are hit with ELINT,
SIGINT and ECM. More acronyms that an offline reader has no way of
figuring out. Don't depend that we can click, or even mouseover, e.g.,
on our PDA offline.
Sweep for any (perl regexp) m@http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[A-Z]+@
links that don't have an "(Explanation ...)" following in the text. Or
better yet make sure they are all spelled out right in the file name.
P.S., in your articles that are "(Redirected from bla bla)", use real
HTTP redirects or something, anything to not have the same hundreds of
kilobytes end up on the user's disk but just in a different filename.
Indeed, he now has to remember that he has already read the article
and cannot depend on link colors alone etc.
P.S., Looking at e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability in e.g.,
lynx or plucker, there seems to be ads for political parties festooned
across the top. Only in firefox does one see they are inoffensively at
the side. Perhaps move them to the bottom.
P.S., the "personal appeal for donations" line looks small in firefox,
but big in text browsers... also it is in the critical search engine
indexing top of page area... I bet it might be all one sees in some
search engines page preview snippet... Perhaps move to bottom.
Sending to wikien-l, the only place I ever got a reply.
Carnildo wrote:
>Not surprisingly, the average coverage of subjects is fairly poor. 64% of
>articles were rated "low" or "stub", indicating they did not have even a
>basic chronology of the subject's life, and 29% were rated "medium",
>indicating a basic chronology but nothing more. 6% were rated "good", with
>a relatively complete chronology, and one article was approaching "featured"
>quality. While doing the survey, one of the biographies was deleted for
>lack of notability, one as being unverifiable, and two were listed as
>copyvios.
Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of people don't get a good bio in
Wikipedia until they die and there are nicely-researched obituaries to
use as sources.
- d.
Ambi has given me a two week block with the comment:
"Continues to make disputed edits under main account at bot-speed (120/hour) despite being asked to stop by multiple people.".
Previous blocks have been made by Ambi and Talrias.
Ambi said: the edits are "disruptive and not being supported by consensus or policy"; the Manual of style "is a very obscure page"; "Bobblewik's campaign is a personal one".
The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.
Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.
I hope I am not misattributing the following quotes from the various talk pages:
"I think a block at present would be utterly wrong." Thincat
"Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me." DES
"It is certainly not justifiable to block someone for making edits for the manual's current advice." Neonumbers
"I completely fail to understand how anyone can object to what Bobblewik is doing." Dpbsmith
"Has he served enough time now? This is a good, experienced, civil, productive editor. I'm not sure a two week sentence is really the most beneficial way ahead." Haukur
Please can people look into this and comment. Thanks
Bobblewik
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
David Schor wrote:
>User:Dschor was improperly blocked for a violation of WP:Point.
>There was no such violation. The administrator who placed the block
>failed to WP:AGF.
and:
>User Dschor has been unjustly blocked by Fred Bauder. Please remove
>the block. Thanks.
Interested parties may care to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…
- and also at Doc glasgow's rebuttal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…:
This led to a temporary injunction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…
Dschor banned from editing outside RfAr
1) As Dschor has continued to make edits relating to the pedophilia
template which he was blocked for recreating and was unblocked only to
respond to this case, pending resolution of this matter he is banned
from editing any pages other than these Arbitration pages and his own
user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other
page.
Enacted on 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Support:
1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Raul654 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC), this needs to stop
5. Fred Bauder 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
- d.
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:36:50 -0500
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Alternative names for the Counter Vandalism Unit
> On 2/7/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> > > > expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> > > > an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> > > > "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> > > > cabal").
> > >
> > > Vandalism Cleaning Brigade?
> > > Grafitti Purging Workforce?
> Okay in that they're simply descriptive.
>
> > > Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
> Good.
>
> > > The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?
>
> That's both us/them and not ironicly ugly.
>
> > > Vandalism Posse?
>
> Us/them.
>
> Other ideas--positive:
>
> The Fencepainting Project (Shades of Tom Sawyer, with other
> neighborhood-building connotations.)
> Welcome Mat Project (the vast amount of vandalism is
> newbie-ish--enfolding handling vandalism into the concept of welcoming
> new users makes sense to me. I.e. there are no strangers, just friends
> we haven't met (and indoctrinated).)
>
> Ironically positive:
> Care Bear Brigade (I know this was discussed and negged earlier, but
> it's hilarious.)
>
> Ugly:
> Users for Mindless Conformity.
>
Again, [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]]. Simple. descriptive. Non
us/them. And it's already on the works
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> > > expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> > > an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> > > "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> > > cabal").
> >
> > Vandalism Cleaning Brigade?
> > Grafitti Purging Workforce?
Okay in that they're simply descriptive.
> > Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
Good.
> > The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?
That's both us/them and not ironicly ugly.
> > Vandalism Posse?
Us/them.
Other ideas--positive:
The Fencepainting Project (Shades of Tom Sawyer, with other
neighborhood-building connotations.)
Welcome Mat Project (the vast amount of vandalism is
newbie-ish--enfolding handling vandalism into the concept of welcoming
new users makes sense to me. I.e. there are no strangers, just friends
we haven't met (and indoctrinated).)
Ironically positive:
Care Bear Brigade (I know this was discussed and negged earlier, but
it's hilarious.)
Ugly:
Users for Mindless Conformity.
Please cool it in general. (I've had emails from more than one person
dismayed at the recent standard of discourse, even though it's all
on-topic.) Even I will be attempting to grit my teeth and be somewhat
less blunt, hurt as it may.
- d.