please describe in your own words how you think the current process of page deletion, page protection and IP banning works. If you name the right pages and describe the process correctly, I have no objections to making you a sysop.
Y'know, this isn't that good a test because I could have just looked it up. Anyway, IP banning keeps vandals out of wikipedia. When one person from a consistant IP address keeps vandalizing pages, his IP address is banned by a sysop. After that, his computer can't go to wikipedia anymore, which he can get around by using a different computer, but more importantly, he is detered. In page protection, a sysop decides to protect a page from vandals by making it a protected page. After that, only another sysop can edit that page. An example of this is the home page, which, before it was protected, was frequently vandalized. In page deletion, a sysop decides that a page is worthless and that they don't want it there. The sysop deletes the page permenantly and then all records of the page are deleted from the server. An example of this is the contravercial [[Fuck you]] page.
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:55:03 -0500, Daniel Ehrenberg name12323@hotmail.com wrote:
please describe in your own words how you think the current process of page deletion, page protection and IP banning works. If you name the right pages and describe the process correctly, I have no objections to making you a sysop.
Y'know, this isn't that good a test because I could have just looked it up. Anyway, IP banning keeps vandals out of wikipedia. When one person from a consistant IP address keeps vandalizing pages, his IP address is banned by a sysop.
Daniel, I have posted this a couple of times previously, and not yet been challenged on it: I.P. blocking is ineffective against dial up users and, to a lesser extent, broadband users. Dial up users are assigned a new IP No. from their I SP's pool each time they reconnect, and seldom receive the same number twice. As a broadband user, I can change my IP number simply by cycling up the power on my router.
An IP block should only be used if there is a pattern of abuse from the same IP No. over a couple of days or longer. Otherwise there is the risk of blocking innocent users dialing up from the same Internet provider.
Of course, it is possible that Wikipedia has a higher than usual proportion of users who have a fixed IP numbers because they are connecting from universities or similar institutions.
Richard Grevers wrote:
Daniel, I have posted this a couple of times previously, and not yet been challenged on it: I.P. blocking is ineffective against dial up users and, to a lesser extent, broadband users. Dial up users are assigned a new IP No. from their I SP's pool each time they reconnect, and seldom receive the same number twice. As a broadband user, I can change my IP number simply by cycling up the power on my router.
Well, you're right to an extent, but we have found that in most cases of simple drive-by vandalism, it works just fine. Most people aren't so motivated as to disconnect/reconnect just to keep being jerks, esp. knowing that someone will just block them again quickly.
An IP block should only be used if there is a pattern of abuse from the same IP No. over a couple of days or longer. Otherwise there is the risk of blocking innocent users dialing up from the same Internet provider.
Only editing is affected, not reading, and the chances of some innocent person unluckily getting a banned *single ip* just when they happen to want to edit wikipedia is pretty low. It *is* a concern, mind you, but considering the odds -- how many dynamic ips are there, versus how many people edit wikipedia in a way -- it's less of a concern than letting vandals waste too much of our time.
We could end all vandalism by requiring everyone to sign in, and requiring everyone to apply for permission to edit. We could be Nupedia, with onerous-sounding participation requirements. And we could have 12 articles. :-( That's the tradeoff that we face: either deal with vandals, or get rid of vandals and lose the incredible value of openness.
Of course, it is possible that Wikipedia has a higher than usual proportion of users who have a fixed IP numbers because they are connecting from universities or similar institutions.
That's probably true.
--Jimbo
Worst case scenario:
two sysops go on an edit war. against each other. They lock the page, to no avail because the other can still edit it. Then one bans the other other's IP. The other retaliates by blocking the account. The last then goes to Jimbo (hard to stop email) and both get permantently banned?
hummm....
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Worst case scenario:
two sysops go on an edit war. against each other. They lock the page, to no avail because the other can still edit it. Then one bans the other other's IP. The other retaliates by blocking the account.
This is only possible in the case of a very few people who have login access to the server for development and maintenance. In general, sysops cannot identify the IP address of a logged-in user, nor block a user account.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
This is only possible in the case of a very few people who have login access to the server for development and maintenance. In general, sysops cannot identify the IP address of a logged-in user, nor block a user account.
And woe be unto us if people who have the root password get locked into this kind of battle of the gods. :-)
Well, when Brion and Lee get into a flamewar, I'll be impressed.
--Jimbo
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Worst case scenario:
two sysops go on an edit war. against each other. They lock the page, to no avail because the other can still edit it. Then one bans the other other's IP. The other retaliates by blocking the account. The last then goes to Jimbo (hard to stop email) and both get permantently banned?
hummm....
It sounds like you've been reading the "Spy vs. Spy" feature from Mad Magazine. :-D Ec
Christopher Mahan wrote:
two sysops go on an edit war. against each other. They lock the page, to no avail because the other can still edit it. Then one bans the other other's IP. The other retaliates by blocking the account. The last then goes to Jimbo (hard to stop email) and both get permantently banned?
Fun to contemplate but pretty unlikely. I would certainly pull sysop privileges because one of the fundamental rules of the sysop priesthood is "never in a fight". Another is "don't ban signed in users without yet another agonizing and incredibly annoying discussion on the mailing list in which Jimbo waits too long to decide".
I try hard to send out a vibe of: co-operation, not competition. A vibe of production, not destruction. A vibe of relaxation and fun, not argumentation. Most of the sysops are in full agreemet with that.
--Jimbo
Daniel-
In page deletion, a sysop decides that a page is worthless and that they don't want it there. The sysop deletes the page permenantly and then all records of the page are deleted from the server. An example of this is the contravercial [[Fuck you]] page.
Wrong.
1) Deletion is *not* permanent. When a page is deleted, it can still be restored using the undelete function.
2) Sysops only delete pages on their own determination in cases of *obvious* nonsense (AKA "crapflooding"). Whenever there is even a hint of doubt, the page "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" must be used instead, where pages to be deleted are listed and picked by sysops (you should not delete a page you have added yourself).
A sysop really does not have much room to decide "that a page is worthless and that they don't want it there". Rather, he is more or less a servant of non-sysop users who want certain actions which are a bit harder to revert than simple editing to be taken. Sysops are *not* editors.
Understanding this is really essential to being a sysop. Do you see how a quiz can be useful now?
Regards,
Erik