The general consensus appears to be the quickpolls do not appear to work in the case of violations of the three revert rule. Fair enough. So what do we do now? I would like admins to have the power to 24hour block someone who violates this rule, once they have received a warning. I personally can't see any situation where someone would have a legitimate reason to revert more than three times in a day.
Vandalism - protect the page.
Um what else? I can't think of anything. What does everyone else think?
Theresa
On 05/06/04 13:40, KNOTT, T wrote:
The general consensus appears to be the quickpolls do not appear to work in the case of violations of the three revert rule. Fair enough. So what do we do now? I would like admins to have the power to 24hour block someone who violates this rule, once they have received a warning. I personally can't see any situation where someone would have a legitimate reason to revert more than three times in a day. Vandalism - protect the page. Um what else? I can't think of anything. What does everyone else think?
That's a sweet thought, but 24.45.99.191 has been going hogwild with (a) spamming large slabs of text across the place (b) altering archives of talk pages yesterday and today. I put it on the Vandalism page, but it doesn't seem to warrant any action. Just what does it take for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
- d.
This is Paul Vogel who is a hairbreath short of a 1 year ban. He has only hours, perhaps minutes to go. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel]].
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 20:39:45 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] three revert rule and quickpolls
On 05/06/04 13:40, KNOTT, T wrote:
The general consensus appears to be the quickpolls do not appear to work in the case of violations of the three revert rule. Fair enough. So what do we do now? I would like admins to have the power to 24hour block someone who violates this rule, once they have received a warning. I personally can't see any situation where someone would have a legitimate reason to revert more than three times in a day. Vandalism - protect the page. Um what else? I can't think of anything. What does everyone else think?
That's a sweet thought, but 24.45.99.191 has been going hogwild with (a) spamming large slabs of text across the place (b) altering archives of talk pages yesterday and today. I put it on the Vandalism page, but it doesn't seem to warrant any action. Just what does it take for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/06/04 19:49, Fred Bauder wrote:
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
On 05/06/04 13:40, KNOTT, T wrote:
The general consensus appears to be the quickpolls do not appear to work in the case of violations of the three revert rule. Fair enough. So what do we do now? I would like admins to have the power to 24hour block someone who violates this rule, once they have received a warning. I personally can't see any situation where someone would have a legitimate reason to revert more than three times in a day. Vandalism - protect the page. Um what else? I can't think of anything. What does everyone else think?
That's a sweet thought, but 24.45.99.191 has been going hogwild with (a) spamming large slabs of text across the place (b) altering archives of talk pages yesterday and today. I put it on the Vandalism page, but it doesn't seem to warrant any action. Just what does it take for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
This is Paul Vogel who is a hairbreath short of a 1 year ban. He has only hours, perhaps minutes to go. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel]].
Yes, I know it is. So you're saying it takes four months for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
- d.
Most of the time he was just an insulting POV poster. Now that he is in trouble he's striking out more.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:34:13 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] three revert rule and quickpolls
On 05/06/04 19:49, Fred Bauder wrote:
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
On 05/06/04 13:40, KNOTT, T wrote:
The general consensus appears to be the quickpolls do not appear to work in the case of violations of the three revert rule. Fair enough. So what do we do now? I would like admins to have the power to 24hour block someone who violates this rule, once they have received a warning. I personally can't see any situation where someone would have a legitimate reason to revert more than three times in a day. Vandalism - protect the page. Um what else? I can't think of anything. What does everyone else think?
That's a sweet thought, but 24.45.99.191 has been going hogwild with (a) spamming large slabs of text across the place (b) altering archives of talk pages yesterday and today. I put it on the Vandalism page, but it doesn't seem to warrant any action. Just what does it take for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
This is Paul Vogel who is a hairbreath short of a 1 year ban. He has only hours, perhaps minutes to go. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel]].
Yes, I know it is. So you're saying it takes four months for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
That's a sweet thought, but 24.45.99.191 has been going hogwild with (a) spamming large slabs of text across the place (b) altering archives of talk pages yesterday and today. I put it on the Vandalism page, but it doesn't seem to warrant any action. Just what does it take for an anon IP vandal to get blocked?
Whether or not it is Paul Vogel, posting from an anon IP relieves him of most due-process protections generally afforded to logged-in users. "Sysops may, at their judgment, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia."
--Jimbo