Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say that I find Jimbo's "All you need is love" response most disappointing.
I must say that he's a busy little beaver. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hidemin... shows that he has made over 500 edits over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar, but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk pages.
For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is now arguing that the Flight 93 passengers did not charge the hijackers, and is veering that page off in a direction there that may see this site crashing into a lawsuit or two. (He does seem to be saying that the families who reported the phone calls are all liars) The size of the talk page is also growing.
People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear, and there's a list of complaints growing on Jimbo's talk page. Let's also not forget what might happen if his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use wikipedia material as all or part of their content.
My own feeling is that Plautus should be given the "Get back to where you once belonged" treatment. He is completely fouling thiongs up here.
____________________________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp...
We need software that will allow throttling down the number of edits problem users can make. Please code something so that we could restrict, should we decide to, someone like this to a set number of edits per day.
The advantage of this is that it then leaves up to that user whether he wants to get down to article writing or fool around.
Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee
From: "Arno M" redgum46@lycos.com Organization: Lycos Mail (http://www.mail.lycos.com:80) Reply-To: redgum46@lycos.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:38:49 +0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus - the last three days
Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say that I find Jimbo's "All you need is love" response most disappointing.
I must say that he's a busy little beaver. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hidemin... arget=Plautus_satire&limit=500&offset=0 shows that he has made over 500 edits over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar, but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk pages.
For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is now arguing that the Flight 93 passengers did not charge the hijackers, and is veering that page off in a direction there that may see this site crashing into a lawsuit or two. (He does seem to be saying that the families who reported the phone calls are all liars) The size of the talk page is also growing.
People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear, and there's a list of complaints growing on Jimbo's talk page. Let's also not forget what might happen if his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use wikipedia material as all or part of their content.
My own feeling is that Plautus should be given the "Get back to where you once belonged" treatment. He is completely fouling thiongs up here.
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp... RC=lycos10 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred-
We need software that will allow throttling down the number of edits problem users can make. Please code something so that we could restrict, should we decide to, someone like this to a set number of edits per day.
This is a good idea, I think, as long as it is not overused. This, per- article bans and a strictly enforced edit war policy should give us some peace.
Regards,
Erik
I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are "softer" options than what we have now.
1. per-article bans 2. edit throttles for problem users
these would enable us to comfortably do
3. a strictly enforced edit war policy
Erik wrote:
This is a good idea, I think, as long as it is not overused. This, per- article bans and a strictly enforced edit war policy should give us some peace.
Yes. Right now we have only some very blunt tools. Not many people think it's a good idea to give sysops the ability to do bans, even temp bans, because of the side effects of such a policy.
But having the ability to do smaller, short term things, can help a lot. Page protection is one that's worked out reasonably well for us. These additional tools would be good, too.
The softer the touch, the better, I think.
But it is emerging that we need some intermediate steps to try to avert the kind of crisis that leads to vigilantism and a general brouhaha.
In this case, a temp-ban of Plautus Satire from [[Tornado]] and a few other pages might have worked wonders.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are "softer" options than what we have now.
- per-article bans
- edit throttles for problem users
Definitely. Some people are only problematic on a very few articles, and even more commonly some people are problematic only primarily because of their vast amounts of free time. We can handle non-neutral content from non-belligerent participants, but it's difficult to handle a veritable flood of it across hundreds of pages and thousands of edits, which is what leads to exasperated people just reverting anything from that person rather than tediously salvaging and rewording it.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Some people are only problematic on a very few articles,
I think that's right, but that also those same people are not necessarily _unproblematic_ on other topics. At least for me, I sometimes wonder if I'm being excessively benevolent when I think "Oh, well, this person is just really heated up about thus and such a topic, but they would be good elsewhere."
Sometimes we assume that, out of benevolence, but it probably isn't true a lot of the time.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are "softer" options than what we have now.
Yes, right way to go I think. Would create some kind of 'funnel' procedurally, and create the correct impression that 'unacceptable' means just that.
Charles