There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
AlainV Aldux Alex S A Man In Black Andrew Yong Andrwsc Arminius Awiseman BillyH Blankfaze Bluemoose Bobet Bogdangiusca Can't sleep, clown will eat me Cantthinkofagoodname Carlossuarez46 Cedar-Guardian Cgs Chadloder Chancemill Cprompt CryptoDerk Curps Cutler CyborgTosser Cyp Cyrius Daniel Quinlan DavidLevinson DavidWBrooks Davodd Deb Delirium Dgrant Dieter Simon Dmn Docu DropDeadGorgias Duncharris Dustimagic Dysprosia Edward EdwinHJ Efghij Ellsworth Extreme Unction Eyrian Filiocht Finlay McWalter FisherQueen Francs2000 Gator1 GeeJo Goatasaur Gray Porpoise Hamster Sandwich Hashar Hcheney Hermione1980 Heron Humblefool Hyacinth Inter Izehar Jay Jcw69 Jdavidb JeLuF Jeronimo Jimregan JIP JohnOwens JonMoore Josh Grosse Jtdirl Kaihsu Karada Kbdank71 Kbh3rd Khendon Khym Chanur Lachatdelarue Lacrimosus LC LittleDan Lord Emsworth Madchester Mairi Malcolm Farmer Manning Bartlett Marshman Meelar Mikegodwin Mike Selinker Mo0 Montrealais Musical Linguist Nanobug Necrothesp Nickptar Notheruser Nv8200p Olivier Ortolan88 Oscarthecat Pascal.Tesson PedanticallySpeaking Phil Bordelon PierreAbbat Qwghlm RadicalBender RedWolf Rettetast Rfl RickK Rlquall Rmhermen Roadrunner Roozbeh Royboycrashfan RoySmith Salsa Shark Samsara SchuminWeb Scimitar SD6-Agent Sean William Seglea Sesel Sfoskett Siroxo Slrubenstein Slumgum Smith03 Spencer195 Ssd Steinsky Stevenj Sugarfish Sverdrup Tannin Taw TerriersFan Texture The Anome The Singing Badger The Tom Timc Tim Ivorson TimShell Timwi Tkinias Tom- Trilobite TUF-KAT Vague Rant Vaoverland Vegaswikian Vishal-WMF Wgfinley Woggly Ww Wwoods Yelyos Yomangani Zoicon5
On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
Any chance you could filter that to only include those that have issued blocks in the last month, or so? Admins that aren't blocking people don't really need email enabled.
Generally it is a good idea for admins to have user e-mail enabled, I doubt many would dispute that. However, it should not be made to seem compulsory. We are, after all, volunteers here and if one admin does not have e-mail enabled it should be easy enough to e-mail another. I don't like the idea that admins "must" do certain things, there is nothing they must do.
GDonato
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
AlainV Aldux Alex S A Man In Black Andrew Yong Andrwsc Arminius Awiseman BillyH Blankfaze Bluemoose Bobet Bogdangiusca Can't sleep, clown will eat me Cantthinkofagoodname Carlossuarez46 Cedar-Guardian Cgs Chadloder Chancemill Cprompt CryptoDerk Curps Cutler CyborgTosser Cyp Cyrius Daniel Quinlan DavidLevinson DavidWBrooks Davodd Deb Delirium Dgrant Dieter Simon Dmn Docu DropDeadGorgias Duncharris Dustimagic Dysprosia Edward EdwinHJ Efghij Ellsworth Extreme Unction Eyrian Filiocht Finlay McWalter FisherQueen Francs2000 Gator1 GeeJo Goatasaur Gray Porpoise Hamster Sandwich Hashar Hcheney Hermione1980 Heron Humblefool Hyacinth Inter Izehar Jay Jcw69 Jdavidb JeLuF Jeronimo Jimregan JIP JohnOwens JonMoore Josh Grosse Jtdirl Kaihsu Karada Kbdank71 Kbh3rd Khendon Khym Chanur Lachatdelarue Lacrimosus LC LittleDan Lord Emsworth Madchester Mairi Malcolm Farmer Manning Bartlett Marshman Meelar Mikegodwin Mike Selinker Mo0 Montrealais Musical Linguist Nanobug Necrothesp Nickptar Notheruser Nv8200p Olivier Ortolan88 Oscarthecat Pascal.Tesson PedanticallySpeaking Phil Bordelon PierreAbbat Qwghlm RadicalBender RedWolf Rettetast Rfl RickK Rlquall Rmhermen Roadrunner Roozbeh Royboycrashfan RoySmith Salsa Shark Samsara SchuminWeb Scimitar SD6-Agent Sean William Seglea Sesel Sfoskett Siroxo Slrubenstein Slumgum Smith03 Spencer195 Ssd Steinsky Stevenj Sugarfish Sverdrup Tannin Taw TerriersFan Texture The Anome The Singing Badger The Tom Timc Tim Ivorson TimShell Timwi Tkinias Tom- Trilobite TUF-KAT Vague Rant Vaoverland Vegaswikian Vishal-WMF Wgfinley Woggly Ww Wwoods Yelyos Yomangani Zoicon5
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/09/2007, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Generally it is a good idea for admins to have user e-mail enabled, I doubt many would dispute that. However, it should not be made to seem compulsory. We are, after all, volunteers here and if one admin does not have e-mail enabled it should be easy enough to e-mail another. I don't like the idea that admins "must" do certain things, there is nothing they must do.
If they block someone, then they should be responsible for it. And since they all have the power to block people, it is better to be sure that they can be contacted by a user who has no other way of contacting them directly.
Peter
On 9/13/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Generally it is a good idea for admins to have user e-mail enabled, I doubt many would dispute that. However, it should not be made to seem compulsory. We are, after all, volunteers here and if one admin does not have e-mail enabled it should be easy enough to e-mail another. I don't like the idea that admins "must" do certain things, there is nothing they must do.
If they block someone, then they should be responsible for it. And since they all have the power to block people, it is better to be sure that they can be contacted by a user who has no other way of contacting them directly.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
On 9/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
Please note, in spite of the cavalier attitude that you can always appeal if you can't e-mail the blocking administrator the instructions seem to be saying that have to discuss the matter with the blocking administrator first, otherwise you have to ride out the block. How incredibly nasty to the peons of Wikipedia.
KP
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
Please don't misunderstand me. I pre-emptively offer to undo almost every block it's realistic for I'm involved in. I mostly get criticising for offering to unblock people, not block them. And I don't think anyone's going to fault me for not listening, even if I might not ever be won over. Roughly speaking, the attitude I'm presenting there is not my own, but I acknowledge that it may exist and then what?
My point is just that requiring admins to enable email so people they've blocked can email them is pointless. {{unblock|reason}} is by far the best way to challenge an inappropriate block. Then you'll get someone who is looking to review blocks. Not all admins *do* respond to every request of them, sometimes for good reasons, maybe sometimes for bad.
Regards WilyD
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
Please don't misunderstand me. I pre-emptively offer to undo almost every block it's realistic for I'm involved in. I mostly get criticising for offering to unblock people, not block them. And I don't think anyone's going to fault me for not listening, even if I might not ever be won over. Roughly speaking, the attitude I'm presenting there is not my own, but I acknowledge that it may exist and then what?
My point is just that requiring admins to enable email so people they've blocked can email them is pointless. {{unblock|reason}} is by far the best way to challenge an inappropriate block. Then you'll get someone who is looking to review blocks. Not all admins *do* respond to every request of them, sometimes for good reasons, maybe sometimes for bad.
Regards WilyD
But that's not what the instructions for unblock say. They say to discuss it first with the blocking admin, and IF you do that are unsuccessful you may then proceed to request a review. They don't say use {{unblock|reason}}. By not enabling email you' ve denied people you've blocked any access to requesting an unblock.
I've been blocked once, by an admin who has gone through a couple of RFCs and an ArbCom. When I emailed a request to him to be unblocked he posted nasty comments about my email, lied, to incite me on AN/I. It was a stunning display of boorish and immature behaviour, though certainly not unexpected from an admin who called an editor a douche. If I could have bipassed e-mailing the little twirp, I certainly would have, but it was clear that I was supposed to request unblock from the little shit first.
Now you tell me you can't be bothered to even get e-mails. If the policy requires you to email the blocking admin first in order to appeal the block, then all blocking admins should enable their email. Or admins should just admit that blocks are not appealable and they have the power to do whatever they want regardless.
This is grossly insulting to us worthless little shit peon editors on Wikipedia whatever the reason.
It is.
KP
The blocking message: Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The short answer is: If I block someone, it's not like I have to respond to their emails anyhow. While it'd be nice to enable an email address - if I'm not taking emails, it'd be better if that was clear, rather than dishonestly letting them sit in an "in" bin forever. Anybody's who's been blocked can request a review from a second admin anyhow {{unblock|reason}}
WilyD
That's a rather hostile attitude to take towards the community of editors, that you can block, and their response to the block doesn't matter.
"Start by finding out when your block will expire.... If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.
But it's a total lie that "you may contact the blocking administrator via e-mail to resolve the problem." Becaue you can't contact the blocking administrator via email and even if you can, they don't have to respond, and they're rather smug about telling everyone they're free to ignore you.
What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything.
So, in other words, it should say, "You may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via e-mail" but the blocking adminstrator is not required to have e-mail enabled, and might not respond to you, and damn proudly not respond, either.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
Please don't misunderstand me. I pre-emptively offer to undo almost every block it's realistic for I'm involved in. I mostly get criticising for offering to unblock people, not block them. And I don't think anyone's going to fault me for not listening, even if I might not ever be won over. Roughly speaking, the attitude I'm presenting there is not my own, but I acknowledge that it may exist and then what?
My point is just that requiring admins to enable email so people they've blocked can email them is pointless. {{unblock|reason}} is by far the best way to challenge an inappropriate block. Then you'll get someone who is looking to review blocks. Not all admins *do* respond to every request of them, sometimes for good reasons, maybe sometimes for bad.
Regards WilyD
But that's not what the instructions for unblock say. They say to discuss it first with the blocking admin, and IF you do that are unsuccessful you may then proceed to request a review. They don't say use {{unblock|reason}}. By not enabling email you' ve denied people you've blocked any access to requesting an unblock.
I've been blocked once, by an admin who has gone through a couple of RFCs and an ArbCom. When I emailed a request to him to be unblocked he posted nasty comments about my email, lied, to incite me on AN/I. It was a stunning display of boorish and immature behaviour, though certainly not unexpected from an admin who called an editor a douche. If I could have bipassed e-mailing the little twirp, I certainly would have, but it was clear that I was supposed to request unblock from the little shit first.
Now you tell me you can't be bothered to even get e-mails. If the policy requires you to email the blocking admin first in order to appeal the block, then all blocking admins should enable their email. Or admins should just admit that blocks are not appealable and they have the power to do whatever they want regardless.
This is grossly insulting to us worthless little shit peon editors on Wikipedia whatever the reason.
It is.
KP
The blocking message: Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add
{{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KP
If you'll look at the list of admins without emails enabled, you'll see my name isn't on the list. If you look through my block log, you'll see I've reduced a block in response to an unblock request, and that none of my other blocks have been undone by anyone.
Beyond that, I would agree the phrasing should be changed to suggest the "best" practice should be to discuss it with the blocking admin, who is probably far more likely to reverse or reduce the block than anyone else is anyways, and that the "alternative" practice is the unblock template.
Everything can be undone, any block can be appealed (including to the unblock mailing list). I agree that your scenario might be grossly insulting if it were true. But it's not. Blocks are easily appealable.
In any event, I've fixed the blocking message.
Cheers, WilyD
On 16/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But that's not what the instructions for unblock say. They say to discuss it first with the blocking admin, and IF you do that are unsuccessful you may then proceed to request a review. They don't say use {{unblock|reason}}. By not enabling email you' ve denied people you've blocked any access to requesting an unblock.
Someone go change the policy, then? Or, more to the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext#Appealing
Just make it say something along the lines of it is generally consider polite to try contacting the blocking admin first, but you can choose from any of a list of alternatives (emailing the blocking admin, {{unblock}}, emailing the unblock mailing list, etc.).
And of course hope no one reverts.
Disclaimer: I don't really care. I would be more interested in giving blocked or banned users instructions for getting pages courtesy blanked or deleted, except unless you have a lawyer there doesn't seem to be any real procedure for that, or at least not one that's any better than the ED procedure.
On 9/16/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't really care. I would be more interested in giving blocked or banned users instructions for getting pages courtesy blanked or deleted,
There is often the presumption that pages which a banned (or should I say "terminally alienated" for some cases) user wants blanked or deleted may contain information which would make said user's new account(s) easier to identify in the future.
except unless you have a lawyer there doesn't seem to be any real procedure for that, or at least not one that's any better than the ED procedure.
With the exception of a handful of outlandish personal attacks from an "uninvolved Quadell" I never had any difficulty getting anything blanked or deleted. In fact a couple of pages concerning me were blanked and/or deleted without any request on my part. At the end of the day, I don't care.
—C.W.
On 18/09/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't really care. I would be more interested in giving blocked or banned users instructions for getting pages courtesy blanked or deleted,
There is often the presumption that pages which a banned (or should I say "terminally alienated" for some cases) user wants blanked or deleted may contain information which would make said user's new account(s) easier to identify in the future.
Banned... terminally alienated... community exile... it's all the same.
1. That is irrelevant if the banned user does not create a new account, but simply leaves. 2. In the case of banned users who have revealed their real (legal) name, particularly ones whose username is their real name, certain things written on Wikipaedia about them may be the equivalent of shouting ATTENTION POTENTIAL FUTURE EMPLOYERS. DO NOT HIRE [Banned user]. CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AN ASSET. DO NOT HIRE. 3. In the case of banned users who are using a long-standing pseudonym, things written on Wikipaedia about said user may affect their life in other areas where he they use that pseudonym. 4. In any case, some material on Wikipaedia about the user may be libellous, BLP vio, attacking, emotionally abusive, and/or hurtful. 5. Courtesy blanking does not hide anything from anyone except robots/search engines. 6. Many of the people doing sockpuppetry investigations have adminship anyway, which means access to deletion log info.
except unless you have a lawyer there doesn't seem to be any real procedure for that, or at least not one that's any better than the ED procedure.
With the exception of a handful of outlandish personal attacks from an "uninvolved [Redacted]" I never had any difficulty getting anything blanked or deleted. In fact a couple of pages concerning me were blanked and/or deleted without any request on my part. At the end of the day, I don't care.
—C.W.
I've been attacked for asking for certain material to be blanked from WP (some of which was even removed from WR) ... it was really much like asking ED to blank or delete something... the whole hey she responded let's hurt her even more!
On 19/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I've been attacked for asking for certain material to be blanked from WP (some of which was even removed from WR) ... it was really much like asking ED to blank or delete something... the whole hey she responded let's hurt her even more!
I thought with all the fuss over ED that people would learn something...
Peter
On 19/09/2007, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I've been attacked for asking for certain material to be blanked from WP (some of which was even removed from WR) ... it was really much like asking ED to blank or delete something... the whole hey she responded let's hurt her even more!
I thought with all the fuss over ED that people would learn something...
Peter
My theory is that ED learnt it from WP. Perhaps their whole policy of considering attempts by the subject of a joke to blank the joke to be vandalism is itself a rather accurate parody of WP practise....
On 9/12/07, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Generally it is a good idea for admins to have user e-mail enabled, I doubt many would dispute that. However, it should not be made to seem compulsory.
It almost is for those wanting to become admins as they make a big issue of it over on RFA.
On 12/09/2007, GDonato gdonato@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Generally it is a good idea for admins to have user e-mail enabled, I doubt many would dispute that. However, it should not be made to seem compulsory. We are, after all, volunteers here and if one admin does not have e-mail enabled it should be easy enough to e-mail another. I don't like the idea that admins "must" do certain things, there is nothing they must do.
Most have it enabled for obvious reasons. It's not compulsory, but it's considered odd not to.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Don't suppose you could cross-reference this with a dormant admins list?
- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins who do not have email this user enabled (listinside)
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
Lists are kind of dehumanising. Have you discussed the matter with the admins personally?
On 12/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lists are kind of dehumanising. Have you discussed the matter with the admins personally?
Maybe he should have sent private emails to them. Bad Greg!
Oh, wait.
"Here's a list of known cases; if you're on this list, please fix". This is, er, not exactly Kafkaesque soulless bureaucracy; perfectly effective way of going about things, and it allows other people to give feedback (as, say, with the useful notes about how many of them are inactive, which is vaguely interesting) which would not be an option with fifty or so talkpage messages
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lists are kind of dehumanising. Have you discussed the matter with the admins personally?
Maybe he should have sent private emails to them. [snip]
Oh, wait.
"Here's a list of known cases; if you're on this list, please fix". This is, er, not exactly Kafkaesque soulless bureaucracy;
Someone might take it that way. (And apparently somoneone did.)
perfectly effective way of going about things, and it allows other people to give feedback (as, say, with the useful notes about how many of them are inactive, which is vaguely interesting) which would not be an option with fifty or so talkpage messages
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
There's templates; there's Autowikibrowser. 50 is not so many - it's just like clearing a small backlog or cleaning up a set of articles from the same Wikiproject.
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lists are kind of dehumanising. Have you discussed the matter with the admins personally?
Maybe he should have sent private emails to them. [snip]
Oh, wait.
"Here's a list of known cases; if you're on this list, please fix". This is, er, not exactly Kafkaesque soulless bureaucracy;
Someone might take it that way. (And apparently somoneone did.)
I believe this list has repeatedly explained in the past that "one person gets outraged over a non-issue" does not mean "so everyone else should bend over backwards to avoid them getting outraged". Otherwise, we'd never get anything done.
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Lists are kind of dehumanising. Have you discussed the matter with the admins personally?
Maybe he should have sent private emails to them. [snip]
Oh, wait.
"Here's a list of known cases; if you're on this list, please fix". This is, er, not exactly Kafkaesque soulless bureaucracy;
Someone might take it that way. (And apparently somoneone did.)
I believe this list has repeatedly explained in the past that "one person gets outraged over a non-issue" does not mean "so everyone else should bend over backwards to avoid them getting outraged". Otherwise, we'd never get anything done.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
True... then again, trying to contact said individuals privately isn't exactly bending over backwards... and not all of us will ever agree what a non-issue is.
*wonders if you would want to be listed on a mailing list to which you were not subscribed*
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
True... then again, trying to contact said individuals privately isn't exactly bending over backwards... and not all of us will ever agree what a non-issue is.
You have to go and find fifty user talk pages and leave them notes? That's the best bit of half an hour's work.
*wonders if you would want to be listed on a mailing list to which you were not subscribed*
I have no doubt that I occasionally am. And if it's trivial, like this is, why on earth would any reasonable person care?
(I note that the objections have not come from those people mentioned, and that the response on commons-l - where some people mentioned were subscribed - was universally good)
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
True... then again, trying to contact said individuals privately isn't exactly bending over backwards... and not all of us will ever agree what a non-issue is.
You have to go and find fifty user talk pages and leave them notes? That's the best bit of half an hour's work.
Half an hour inna so long, probably less time than we all have spent talking about it. And if it is too long, divide it up between 3 people - 10 minutes each.
*wonders if you would want to be listed on a mailing list to which you were not subscribed*
I have no doubt that I occasionally am. And if it's trivial, like this is, why on earth would any reasonable person care?
(I note that the objections have not come from those people mentioned, and that the response on commons-l - where some people mentioned were subscribed - was universally good)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Glad to know you don't care, but for many of us, there is something nerve-racking about being discussed publicly somewhere we are not involved.
On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
Note by the way that it's ridiculously easy to accidentally end up with your email not confirmed. Go into preferences and check.
I assume this list or a pointer to it has been posted to all the usual admin hangouts?
- d.
On 9/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
Note by the way that it's ridiculously easy to accidentally end up with your email not confirmed. Go into preferences and check.
Yes, way too easy IMHO.
I assume this list or a pointer to it has been posted to all the usual admin hangouts?
Ah, I see you've volunteered. ;) Or why not just have someone use a bot to leave them all talk page notes?
On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I assume this list or a pointer to it has been posted to all the usual admin hangouts?
Ah, I see you've volunteered. ;)
Just posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI.
Or why not just have someone use a bot to leave them all talk page notes?
Leave it a few days, then do that, I expect.
- d.
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them on their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
On 9/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I assume this list or a pointer to it has been posted to all the usual admin hangouts?
Ah, I see you've volunteered. ;)
Just posted to WP:AN and WP:ANI.
Or why not just have someone use a bot to leave them all talk page
notes?
Leave it a few days, then do that, I expect.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them on their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
We're sorry, but your tenuous grasp of reality seems to have failed. Unfortunately, we do not troubleshoot tenuous grasps of reality via this system at this time. Please fuck off and try your e-mail again when you're sufficiently medicated to note that, actually, all anybody had suggested in this thread was contacting those administrators.
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them on their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
on 9/12/07 5:02 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We're sorry, but your tenuous grasp of reality seems to have failed. Unfortunately, we do not troubleshoot tenuous grasps of reality via this system at this time. Please fuck off and try your e-mail again when you're sufficiently medicated to note that, actually, all anybody had suggested in this thread was contacting those administrators.
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Ain't civility grand? :-(
Marc Riddell
On 12/09/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
We're sorry, but your tenuous grasp of reality seems to have failed. Unfortunately, we do not troubleshoot tenuous grasps of reality via this system at this time. Please fuck off and try your e-mail again when you're sufficiently medicated to note that, actually, all anybody had suggested in this thread was contacting those administrators.
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
I am quite over-medicated, and I must agree with Steven here. 'twould be better to contact the admins personally (although not privately, as that would appear to be impossible) *before* making a big public deal of it.
We're sorry, but your tenuous grasp of reality seems to have failed. Unfortunately, we do not troubleshoot tenuous grasps of reality via this system at this time. Please fuck off and try your e-mail again when you're sufficiently medicated to note that, actually, all anybody had suggested in this thread was contacting those administrators.
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Not had your coffee yet?
On 9/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Not had your coffee yet?
Prozac. I think the missing substance is Prozac.
--Darkwind
t 6:58 PM, RLS wrote:
On 9/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Not had your coffee yet?
Prozac. I think the missing substance is Prozac.
The answer is, in fact, C: Copious amounts of gin.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
6:58 PM, RLS wrote:
On 9/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Not had your coffee yet?
Prozac. I think the missing substance is Prozac.
The answer is, in fact, C: Copious amounts of gin.
Those who like certainty in their lives may want to mix all three. ;-)
Ec
On 12/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
6:58 PM, RLS wrote:
Not had your coffee yet?
Prozac. I think the missing substance is Prozac.
The answer is, in fact, C: Copious amounts of gin.
Those who like certainty in their lives may want to mix all three. ;-)
Ec
I prefer propoxyphene, caffeine and zolpidem. : )
Ah, well there is a category we are one and the same in Phil.
On 9/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
t 6:58 PM, RLS wrote:
On 9/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for using wikien-l. If you have any further questions, for the love of God, go post somewhere else.
Not had your coffee yet?
Prozac. I think the missing substance is Prozac.
The answer is, in fact, C: Copious amounts of gin.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/09/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them on their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
Nah, I was just thinking most active ones will go and check, and that just leaves less to leave a note for :-)
- d.
On 12/09/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
(Gasp) Oh no! Off with their heads! Off with their heads! Those bad, bad email-less admins. Lets have ourselves a witchunt instead of doing the right (read: boring) thing and asking them on their talk pages about it! I do loves me a witchunt.
In the case of Commons, there was a significant bug which had made a lot of people lose email access who wanted it, who had enabled it and configured it. I don't think automatically assuming evil motives here is helpful.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
I'm somewhat surprised to find my name on that list, since I've gotten email through the "email this user" feature several times before, and haven't changed my email address since then. But sure enough, it seems my address is no longer "confirmed". Does this reset itself requiring me to reconfirm periodically or something?
-Mark
On 9/12/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
I'm somewhat surprised to find my name on that list, since I've gotten email through the "email this user" feature several times before, and haven't changed my email address since then. But sure enough, it seems my address is no longer "confirmed". Does this reset itself requiring me to reconfirm periodically or something?
Only if you change addresses as far as I know. Had there actually been some bug that caused this I'd expect far more non-confirmeds.
On 9/13/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did.
I'm somewhat surprised to find my name on that list, since I've gotten email through the "email this user" feature several times before, and haven't changed my email address since then. But sure enough, it seems my address is no longer "confirmed". Does this reset itself requiring me to reconfirm periodically or something?
I think the initiative to ensure that people had secure login passwords (which happened, oh, months back) reset people's email preferences - I had no idea that my preferences had changed until a good while later (not that it matters much in my case, but however...)
Cormac
I think the initiative to ensure that people had secure login passwords (which happened, oh, months back) reset people's email preferences - I had no idea that my preferences had changed until a good while later (not that it matters much in my case, but however...)
Ah. Those who got hit with guessable passwords.... ;)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think the initiative to ensure that people had secure login passwords (which happened, oh, months back) reset people's email preferences - I had no idea that my preferences had changed until a good while later (not that it matters much in my case, but however...)
Ah. Those who got hit with guessable passwords.... ;)
I haven't changed my password either, so it couldn't be that my password was guessable (or if it was, it still is...).
It looks like at some point in 2006 a bunch of email addresses got unconfirmed, without being changed. I had last confirmed mine in 2003, and "email this user" worked perfectly fine until at least February 2006 (the last time I got email through that feature). Didn't notice until now that somehow it had stopped.
-Mark