I'm not saying we have blocks with sysop privs going around blocking users, just compiling a list of the non-IP editors with these blocks. I'm sure we could come up with a whitelist to reduce the load, and they could work from a database dump so that the server isnt affected. However, if a bot came up with a decent list, a respected user(s) could go through the list and point out problematic users to sysops for attention.
-- Akash/Draicone
On 9/13/06, Redvers @ the Wikipedia wikiredvers@yahoo.ie wrote:
From: Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for such warnings and come up with a record of those with 20+? I know AmiDaniel's vandalproof can look for warnings, and I'm sure there could be a similar function implemented.
I'm pretty sure it would mostly find IPs, which would be meaningless for most pre-planned blocking, as we would be unable to assess which were static and which were dynamic in the same way we generally are now.
I personally like the idea of blocking the lot of them and separating the sheep from the goats at our leisure, but this is a *wiki* and we don't and can't have this luxury. The benefits of having it outweigh the problems we would have, except in one vital way: we don't have enough excellent editors. If we prevent en masse the the chaff, we will always catch some wheat. And I speak as someone who has never, not even once, not even by accident, edited without logging in.
There may be a couple, or a dozen, or even a thousand account-holding editors who have had a set of repeated warnings for various disruptions and could therefore be streamed out by a bot. But then any sensible blocking admin would check the talk page before blocking anyway (and shame on both those that don't, and those editors who complain if they do: which someone did to me recently!) and see them and act accordingly.
If the talk page has been blanked, a human editor would check the history (one hopes). A bot could not be expected to do so without making mistakes.
Certainly, a bot can't spot idiotic warnings from trolls, which a qualified eye can, and generally does
- again I speak as someone who has suffered from mad
complaints from trolling users. And a bot can't spot an idiot user who suddenly has touched the clue stick and wised up, something a human /can/ do.
No. Bots have their place on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't want to be without them. But no bot can substitute for human intuition and judgment. Where such talents are required, humans must be the ones to act.
-> REDVERS
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l