Would it be possible to limit the watchlist for everyone. It would be fair, we could have it capped at say 1000 (or higher if you like). ~~~~
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net] Sent: 05 May 2004 16:25 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
I first noticed this long watchlist. I take it to be evidence of a certain over-involvement. Certainly keeping 10,000 articles, "straight" doesn't leave much time for conversation with other users about changes and reversions.
Fred
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:07:37 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for
constitutional change
Fennec Foxen wrote
Has anyone suggested Wik simply be denied watchlist rights? With
the
servers groaning, a watchlist of 10000+ pages is surely greedy for resources. Charles
Is there software in place to allow denials such as this?
I have no idea. It is surely technically possible to clear the list.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Theresa Knott wrote
Would it be possible to limit the watchlist for everyone. It would be
fair, we could have it capped at say 1000 (or higher if you like). ~~~~
Oh, I knew I shouldn't have brought this up (I watch about 1200).
Can I argue that 1000 would be low? If 200 sysops each watch 1000 pages, that's at most 80% of WP under observation?
Charles
On 05/05/04 16:28, Charles Matthews wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote
fair, we could have it capped at say 1000 (or higher if you like). ~~~~
Oh, I knew I shouldn't have brought this up (I watch about 1200). Can I argue that 1000 would be low? If 200 sysops each watch 1000 pages, that's at most 80% of WP under observation?
I'm not even a sysop and I have approaching 1200 pages on my watchlist. Most of them are pretty low in edit traffic, though. I expect that list could and will usefully reach 10,000 easily with time.
I certainly hope having a large watchlist isn't going to become something to be taken as prima facie evidence of ill intention.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I certainly hope having a large watchlist isn't going to become something to be taken as prima facie evidence of ill intention.
I should hope not, since Patrick still has more watchlist entries than Wik: 13,762 compared to 13,030. Here is the current hall of shame:
13763 Patrick 13030 Wik 8345 Stan Shebs 8250 Docu 6963 Morwen 5344 Mic 4414 Unyounyo 3801 Camembert 3743 Oliver Pereira 3491 The Anome 3420 TakuyaMurata 3302 Maveric149 3277 John Kenney 3068 Egil 3057 Radiojon 2734 Mintguy 2705 KF 2624 Zigger 2504 Menchi 2358 TUF-KAT 2318 Anthony DiPierro 2268 Infrogmation 2207 Texture 2083 Zanimum 2002 Fuzheado 2001 BRG
Ban them all!!!!! ;)
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I certainly hope having a large watchlist isn't going to become something to be taken as prima facie evidence of ill intention.
I should hope not, since Patrick still has more watchlist entries than Wik: 13,762 compared to 13,030. Here is the current hall of shame:
8345 Stan Shebs
Hey! :-) I touch an article, I watch it, plus I add new articles that I find interesting; RC gets too long to be worth looking at anymore. But it does go to show that long watchlists don't mean combativeness.
I'd be interested to know which articles aren't being watched by any active editors; it would be easy for anons' vandalism to be overlooked in the flood that RC has become, and going by what I clean up every day in the articles I'm watching, the anon vandals are pretty random about what they choose to, uh, "tag".
Stan