I rejected a message from Selina last night, but it appeared to be gibberish, not content. (As in nonsense characters not words - not as in "an incoherent rant")
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu AIM: Snowspinner
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Personally I would have let this one through, but it does not really advance the discussion since it is premised on a factual error. Developers *do* have access, nothing is destroyed, and we are asking Brion to create an interface whereby oversights can oversight each other by checking the stuff that has been deleted.
Hello, I didn't reject this message, and I don't know who did. Selina probably assumed I did as I have rejected messages from her in the past, always providing an explanation and signing it with my name.
I think I would have let it through too, not sure what happened here?
Steve
On 6/11/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I rejected a message from Selina last night, but it appeared to be gibberish, not content. (As in nonsense characters not words - not as in "an incoherent rant")
Not to single Selina out here, but could we have a bit more pro-active rejection of incoherent rants, obvious trolls and the like? We've seen a lot of useful discussion here, but on the other hand there has been a lot of stuff from banned users who simply won't accept that the problem lies with their behavior and not a fundamental problem with the entire edifice of Wikipedia's administration and dispute resolution.
While we should address problems seriously, I don't think those users are quite the ones to raise the need for change.
On 6/11/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I rejected a message from Selina last night, but it appeared to be gibberish, not content. (As in nonsense characters not words - not as in "an incoherent rant")
Not to single Selina out here, but could we have a bit more pro-active rejection of incoherent rants, obvious trolls and the like? We've seen a lot of useful discussion here, but on the other hand there has been a lot of stuff from banned users who simply won't accept that the problem lies with their behavior and not a fundamental problem with the entire edifice of Wikipedia's administration and dispute resolution.
1. Goto your gmail page gmail.google.com 2. Click the link "Create a filter" 3. In the "From:" field enter e-mail address of $annoying_user 4. Press "Next Step" button. 5. Cross the "Delete it" checkbox. 6. Press "Create Filter" button. 7. PROFIT!!!
On 6/11/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I rejected a message from Selina last night, but it appeared to be gibberish, not content. (As in nonsense characters not words - not as in "an incoherent rant")
Not to single Selina out here, but could we have a bit more pro- active rejection of incoherent rants, obvious trolls and the like? We've seen a lot of useful discussion here, but on the other hand there has been a lot of stuff from banned users who simply won't accept that the problem lies with their behavior and not a fundamental problem with the entire edifice of Wikipedia's administration and dispute resolution.
For what it's worth, I generally have not been letting through the posts of banned users who seem to be reiterating debates we've been having with trolls since 2004.
But there's no hard rule, and it basically depends on whichever list admin happens to see the post.
-Phil
On 6/11/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Not to single Selina out here, but could we have a bit more pro-active rejection of incoherent rants, obvious trolls and the like? We've seen a lot of useful discussion here, but on the other hand there has been a lot of stuff from banned users who simply won't accept that the problem lies with their behavior and not a fundamental problem with the entire edifice of Wikipedia's administration and dispute resolution.
I don't (currently) see my role as moderator as chairman of a debate, but simply enforcement of standards decided by members of the list. When enough complaints reach the wikien-l-owner list, that's when moderators should act. In general, I would rather err on the side of a few trollish posts getting through, than being accused of censorship and excessive selectiveness.
That said, I have occasionally rejected messages which perpetuated inflammatory, off-topic threads.
I'm happy for there to be a discussion about what the mods should be doing exactly - the directions we received from David Gerard were basically to be fairly lenient and only step in when things get out of hand.
Steve