You Wrote:
So, is "CG" going to continue its unsalubrious existence?
Hm, and I wonder about the new user Cockgoblin. Completely unrelated, I'd imagine.
kq
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
You Wrote:
So, is "CG" going to continue its unsalubrious existence?
Hm, and I wonder about the new user Cockgoblin. Completely unrelated, I'd imagine.
Are the developers going to do somehting about this?
This matter is a http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CommunityExpectation
We have a very simple means on our hands to enforce it: revert every single edit Cumguzzler makes.
we've tried asking on CG's talk page for the last few days, with no result. Time for some http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PeerPressure
We have a very simple means on our hands to enforce it: revert every single edit Cumguzzler makes.
To remove information from the Wikipedia because of who contributed it, rather than because of the nature of the information itself, would be to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. I haven't been paying much attention to this person's edits, but other people have stated on the person's User talk page that they have made useful contributions. If I recall the earlier case of Throbbing Monster Cock correctly, a developer just changed his name to "TMC", and there were no further problems. Couldn't the same thing be done again?
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
Oliver Pereira wrote:
If I recall the earlier case of Throbbing Monster Cock correctly, a developer just changed his name to "TMC", and there were no further problems. Couldn't the same thing be done again?
If by "no further problems" you mean to say "the person made several attempts to use similar usernames, such as the same thing with different capitalization, ended up with their ip banned for a while, and never came back under the officially sanctioned or any other recognizable sanitized nick", then your recollection is correct.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:
If by "no further problems" you mean to say "the person made several attempts to use similar usernames, such as the same thing with different capitalization, ended up with their ip banned for a while, and never came back under the officially sanctioned or any other recognizable sanitized nick", then your recollection is correct.
Oh yes, that's what I meant to say! ;)
Sorry, I can't have been paying enough attention to what was going on. Since the name that was offending people disappeared (and I didn't see any of the variants you mention), I just assumed everything was sorted out.
However, I still think that reverting someone's edits for any reason other than the quality of the edits themselves is counter-productive. Couldn't there be a list of offensive user names in the system somewhere, and a mechanism to prevent people from signing in under these names? That way, any user who makes valuable contributions can still do so anonymously, or they can get a new name that isn't on the disallowed list, and everyone's happy(ish)!
I know nothing of the mechanics of these things, but could the aforementioned list be the page [[Wikipedia:List of offensive usernames]] itself? That way, whenever someone is offended by a name, they can just add it to that page, and no banning or further intervention by the developers would be needed. The page would probably need to be protected, to prevent people from removing their own usernames, and the rule would be that people's usernames would only be added when there was a consensus to do so. Could that be done?
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
I know nothing of the mechanics of these things, but could the aforementioned list be the page [[Wikipedia:List of offensive usernames]] itself? That way, whenever someone is offended by a name, they can just add it to that page, and no banning or further intervention by the developers would be needed. The page would probably need to be protected, to prevent people from removing their own usernames, and the rule would be that people's usernames would only be added when there was a consensus to do so. Could that be done?
Bad idea. Don't challenge people with technology that is inherently flawed, they will only try to overcome it (and succeed). We just need a quick nickname change policy where we fix these problems without having to get Jimbo's approval first. (My understanding is that we already have established that we can do this, but Brion thinks we need to wait.)
Don't exaggerate this problem. I do not want it to become a breeding ground for general hysteria about "foul" language.
Regards,
Erik
take a look at this page:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%E9gion_d%27honneur
In what way is the article name different from the redirect? All I can see is that one has a "smart quote"-style apostrophe.
but the URL of the redirect page seems the same:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=L%E9gion_d%27honneur&redirec...
have I missed something obvious?
L%E9gion_d%27honneur -- article L%E9gion_d%27honneur -- redirect
At 23:21 16/01/2003 +0000, tarquin wrote:
take a look at this page:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%E9gion_d%27honneur
In what way is the article name different from the redirect? All I can see is that one has a "smart quote"-style apostrophe.
but the URL of the redirect page seems the same:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=L%E9gion_d%27honneur&redirec...
have I missed something obvious?
L%E9gion_d%27honneur -- article L%E9gion_d%27honneur -- redirect
Actually, it's:
L%E9gion_d%92honneur - article L%E9gion_d%27honneur - redirect
Don't forget that when you are redirected to a page, the URL of the redirect page remains in the location bar, even though that's not actually the page you're viewing (see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven for a more obvious example).
Now, pretend I just said that using impressive technical words.
LP (camembert)
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-16 at 16:02, Lee Pilich wrote:
Actually, it's:
L%E9gion_d%92honneur - article L%E9gion_d%27honneur - redirect
Ugh. I've renamed it to use the regular apostrophe instead of a high control character which happens to be in the same place as a curly single quote in Microsoft's almost, but not quite, standard character set.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Lee Pilich wrote:
Actually, it's:
L%E9gion_d%92honneur - article L%E9gion_d%27honneur - redirect
Don't forget that when you are redirected to a page, the URL of the redirect page remains in the location bar, even though that's not actually the page you're viewing (see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven for a more obvious example).
Now, pretend I just said that using impressive technical words.
/me points to the "Probably being stupid" bit :-D
Erik Moeller wrote:
We just need a quick nickname change policy where we fix these problems without having to get Jimbo's approval first. (My understanding is that we already have established that we can do this, but Brion thinks we need to wait.)
Brion did think that, and he was right. But yesterday I said that there's no need to ask me first. Let me know when something like this is done, so I don't miss it, and let me know *before* if there's some question about it being borderline.
Don't exaggerate this problem. I do not want it to become a breeding ground for general hysteria about "foul" language.
Yes. I curse like a sailor myself in appropriate contexts. Foul language doesn't bother me. But wikipedia is not an appropriate context.
There's a danger of a person or group of people deciding to get their jollies by fighting us about this. Yes, that would be stupid. But some people have too much time on their hands.
--Jimbo
Oliver Pereira wrote:
However, I still think that reverting someone's edits for any reason other than the quality of the edits themselves is counter-productive.
Usually, yes, I think you're right.
Couldn't there be a list of offensive user names in the system somewhere, and a mechanism to prevent people from signing in under these names? That way, any user who makes valuable contributions can still do so anonymously, or they can get a new name that isn't on the disallowed list, and everyone's happy(ish)!
Well, such a list will always be incomplete. And pattern matching will lead to funny results. So automating the determination of what's offensive is not likely to be very effective.
"ThrobbingMonsterCock" -- hmm, we might ban 'Cock'. But what about someone named "Cockburn"?
I've basically declared open season on these things, so there's not going to need to be a lot of mailing list discussion about them, except when something odd happens, as is bound to be the case sooner or later.
--Jimbo
Brion Vibber wrote:
Oliver Pereira wrote:
If I recall the earlier case of Throbbing Monster Cock correctly, a developer just changed his name to "TMC", and there were no further problems. Couldn't the same thing be done again?
If by "no further problems" you mean to say "the person made several attempts to use similar usernames, such as the same thing with different capitalization, ended up with their ip banned for a while, and never came back under the officially sanctioned or any other recognizable sanitized nick", then your recollection is correct.
As much of a pain in the neck as this was, I think that the outcome is perfectly acceptable. We don't need contributions from every jackass in the world.
The idea that there might be a perfectly reasonable person with great values to contribute to Wikipedia, but who will refuse to participate unless allowed to use a juvenile and offensive username is farfetched.
The idea, on the other hand, that there might be a perfectly reasonable person with great values to contribute to Wikipedia, but who shows up and *initially chooses a juvenile and offensive username*, for a joke, for the hell of it, whatever, is not so farfetched.
So it's no big deal to reach out (as we already do, to an absurd extent) and say "Hey, be our friend, stop being a jerk with this annoying name." But it's also no big deal to lose someone if they refuse to co-operate.
There's a billion nice people on the Internet; we can afford to lose the jerks.
--Jimbo
There's a billion nice people on the Internet; we can afford to lose the jerks.
The total number of users is probably in the area of 600-700 million (http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/), and many of them just do e-mail. I don't know how many of these are nice people.
SCNR
On topic: The more we make a big deal out of our nickname policy, the more people will try to make a point out of disagreeing with us. We don't really need long winded explanations, we just need to apply it swiftly. It would help if you would give Brion the endorsement to act on his own best judgment in these cases (unless you have already done so and I missed it), until we have a more convenient interface to make these changes.
Of course, voting would be even better :-) :-) :-)
Regards
Erik