I see that wik has come back and has already started reverting. Something needs to be done.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Edward-
I see that wik has come back and has already started reverting. Something needs to be done.
The easiest and most effective thing to do is for Jimbo to officially authorize the "three revert rule". More than three reverts on the same page per day and you're out for at least one day -- no need for either mediation or arbitration.
If we make an exemption for vandalism, people will claim that non-vandal edits are vandalism and that they are allowed to revert them. So maybe we should not do this, and instead recommend that in cases of vandalism, the user contact a sysop to a) protect the page, or b) ban the vandal.
Regards,
Erik
On 02/14/04 17:41, Erik Moeller wrote:
Edward-
I see that wik has come back and has already started reverting. Something needs to be done.
The easiest and most effective thing to do is for Jimbo to officially authorize the "three revert rule". More than three reverts on the same page per day and you're out for at least one day -- no need for either mediation or arbitration.
If I were a persistent troll, I would create three sockpuppet accounts and use them through three anonymising proxies. That's what springs to mind instantly; I'm sure there are more creative ways.
When writing rules of this sort, one must always consider how the sociopathic will game them.
- d.
David Gerard wrote
If I were a persistent troll, I would create three sockpuppet accounts and use them through three anonymising proxies. That's what springs to mind instantly; I'm sure there are more creative ways.
But one should always take the 80 for 20 on these things. So, it's not even going to challenge a serious wrongdoer. Not the point, if the idea is to progress where things are, in general terms.
Charles