Message: 5 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 01:08:17 +1000 From: "Tim Starling" ts4294967296@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Michael again *sigh* To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: bit2vv$l1u$1@sea.gmane.org
I've just made a change to the software which allows sysops to ban logged-in users. See my post in wikitech-l for the technical details. It is currently in CVS. Once it's live, it should be a great help for dealing with Michael.
-- Tim Starling.
Apart from the specific issue of Michael, what are the rules to follow in terms of banning of a loggued in user on the en wiki ? Is it still supposed to be "sanctified" (I can't find the exact proper word), or may sysop ban loggued-in user just as they can ban ips ?
I suppose it was discussed somewhere, but I dunno exactly
Will this be working on any wikipedia as well ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I've just made a change to the software which allows sysops to ban logged-in users. See my post in wikitech-l for the technical details. It is currently in CVS. Once it's live, it should be a great help for dealing with Michael.
Apart from the specific issue of Michael, what are the rules to follow in terms of banning of a loggued in user on the en wiki ? Is it still supposed to be "sanctified" (I can't find the exact proper word), or may sysop ban loggued-in user just as they can ban ips ?
AFAICT, it's so far authorised only for Michael. But it will probably be expanded as soon as Jimbo pronounces something.
I suppose it was discussed somewhere, but I dunno exactly
I would advise that it be used just as for IPs, which means that new usernames doing only vandalism can be blocked. But established user names can't be blocked for new errors, just as IPs that have done more than vandalism can't be.
Will this be working on any wikipedia as well ?
I don't know. Would you want it on [[fr:]]?
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
AFAICT, it's so far authorised only for Michael. But it will probably be expanded as soon as Jimbo pronounces something.
Yes, that's right. I suppose it's for Michael or what we have traditionally called blatant vandalism (goatse.cx, etc.). Certainly it would be a *grave* abuse to use it in any case other than that.
We'll also want to take reasonable care that we not ban logged-in users who aren't really Michael. Mistaken identity is worse than a few random idiot edits on his part.
I would advise that it be used just as for IPs, which means that new usernames doing only vandalism can be blocked. But established user names can't be blocked for new errors, just as IPs that have done more than vandalism can't be.
That's right.
--Jimbo