http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thegingerone
Massive copyvios stretching back for months, 20 or so notices on his talk page (by bots doing good botwork).
Why was this user not banned months ago?
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thegingerone
Massive copyvios stretching back for months, 20 or so notices on his talk page (by bots doing good botwork).
Why was this user not banned months ago?
I don't know. It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number. That's how the Vandalbots work; normally they just revert the vandalism and leave a warning message, but if the account/IP exceeds a certain amount of vandalism in a certain time period then the bot starts throwing red flags, including a notice on the "Vandalism in progress" page and messages in the IRC vandalism channels.
- -- Cyde Weys
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
Anthony
Friday, September 8, 2006, 2:01:13 PM, you wrote:
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 *requires* attribution. In fact, all the Creative Commons licenses require attribution.
On 9/8/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 *requires* attribution. In fact, all the Creative Commons licenses require attribution.
Not so:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/
On 9/8/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Friday, September 8, 2006, 2:01:13 PM, you wrote:
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 *requires* attribution. In fact, all the Creative Commons licenses require attribution.
I didn't say Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, I said Sharealike 1.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/
Anthony
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
The Creative Commons Sharealike license might not require attribution of the author, but Wikipedia requires that the source of the images be provided so that we can verify the license. I can add you to OrphanBot's do-not-notify list, but that will just mean that the images are deleted without you ever knowing about it.
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia. That's as much a moral issue as a legal one.
Kelly
On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia. That's as much a moral issue as a legal one.
It's not a legal issue at all. It's a moral issue in that it forces people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the encyclopedia.
I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not to be identified.
Anthony
But its also a legal issue, because those who own the copyright on copyvio images can take legal action, and have certainly tried in the past ([[WP:OFFICE]] is here for a reason!).
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then
start
raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0 which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia. That's as much a moral issue as a legal one.
It's not a legal issue at all. It's a moral issue in that it forces people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the encyclopedia.
I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not to be identified.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I suppose if the uploader's grandmother (as the author) doesn't want to be identified, but the user is in good stead and, while not being able to prove it isnt a copyvio, there is no evidence to the contrary, we need to rethink it. The problem is we can't assume there's no scope for legal action from the real copyright owner. Any comments on this?
On 9/9/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
But its also a legal issue, because those who own the copyright on copyvio images can take legal action, and have certainly tried in the past ([[WP:OFFICE]] is here for a reason!).
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then
start
raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive
uploaded
that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike
1.0
which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia. That's as much a moral issue as a legal one.
It's not a legal issue at all. It's a moral issue in that it forces people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the encyclopedia.
I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not to be identified.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for such warnings and come up with a record of those with 20+? I know AmiDaniel's vandalproof can look for warnings, and I'm sure there could be a similar function implemented. Unfortunately, VP is closed source and AmiDaniel is particularly busy with VP2, so unless he's willing to release that portion of his source (I can hard code it into an MWT port to check for warnings) we don't have a suitable system available.
On 9/8/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/8/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for such warnings and come up with a record of those with 20+?
OrphanBot's top-50 list. The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
54 orphanbot.log:Warning user Phatcat68 42 orphanbot.log:Warning user Giantcn 41 tagbot.log:Warning user MaindrianPace 37 tagbot.log:Warning user Johnnyfog 35 orphanbot.log:Warning user Pazuzu413 35 orphanbot.log:Warning user JJstroker 31 tagbot.log:Warning user Attilios 30 tagbot.log:Warning user Twodos 30 orphanbot.log:Warning user Earl Andrew 28 tagbot.log:Warning user Dudeman74 28 orphanbot.log:Warning user Trampikey 28 orphanbot.log:Warning user PM Poon 26 orphanbot.log:Warning user Rick lay95 25 tagbot.log:Warning user Princeofpersia1 25 orphanbot.log:Warning user Cadursun 24 orphanbot.log:Warning user JillandJack 23 tagbot.log:Warning user VG Cats Tipe 2 23 tagbot.log:Warning user Quorbin10 23 orphanbot.log:Warning user Take Me Higher 23 orphanbot.log:Warning user Gerald Farinas 23 orphanbot.log:Warning user CanbekEsen 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user Witkacy 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user Muppeteer 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user Mtabraiz 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user KenL 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user Jonny2x4 22 orphanbot.log:Warning user GeorgeC 21 tagbot.log:Warning user Rialbbe 21 orphanbot.log:Warning user SkaTroma 21 orphanbot.log:Warning user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21 orphanbot.log:Warning user Joeystuff 21 orphanbot.log:Warning user Fitz 20 tagbot.log:Warning user Ades3 20 orphanbot.log:Warning user Prin 20 orphanbot.log:Warning user Larsinio 20 orphanbot.log:Warning user King of the Dancehall 19 tagbot.log:Warning user Tonyfuchs1019 19 tagbot.log:Warning user Scorpion prinz 19 tagbot.log:Warning user Mannyjr95 19 tagbot.log:Warning user Candyo32 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Wlkernan 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Microphon200 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Harishmukundan 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Gorgeousp 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Fuzzyworcester 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Dtowng 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Dprevot 19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Bcsurvivor 18 tagbot.log:Warning user Kulasman 18 tagbot.log:Warning user Fluence
Thats certainly a very useful list. Should we get a sysop to run through them? I'm sure Phatcat68 has some explaining to do. A few unsourced images can be accidents, as new users may not be familiar with policy, but i'm sure there's a reasonable limit we can use above which we begin to give out blocks. Copyvio images are a serious issue from a legal point of view for the foundation.
On 9/9/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for such warnings and come up with a record of those with 20+?
OrphanBot's top-50 list. The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
54 orphanbot.log:Warning user Phatcat68 42 orphanbot.log:Warning user Giantcn
[snip]
19 orphanbot.log:Warning user Bcsurvivor 18 tagbot.log:Warning user Kulasman 18 tagbot.log:Warning user Fluence
[snip]
Aksaha,
OrphanBot's top-50 list. The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
Quoting Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com:
Thats certainly a very useful list. Should we get a sysop to run through them?
I note that there are sysops on that list of worst image offenders, so being a sysop is probably not a good way to judge who should take action on the issue.
Jkelly
On 9/15/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Aksaha,
OrphanBot's top-50 list. The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
Quoting Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com:
Thats certainly a very useful list. Should we get a sysop to run through them?
I note that there are sysops on that list of worst image offenders, so being a sysop is probably not a good way to judge who should take action on the issue.
Jkelly
As long as we don't pick a sysop on the list, I think we'll be find. I've found that most of you sysop-people are very reasonable and moderate, and also don't go around violating copyright. I'm sure we could dig someone up.
Hell, much of this isn't sysop work, much of it is simply going around and warning users and helping them with adding templates. Then if they need to be smacked, you could call in one of the big guns, and let them handle the actual deleting/blocking. Hell, I could do that....
--Oskar
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Upload Education]] anyone? (or does that break naming conventions?)
On 9/16/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Aksaha,
OrphanBot's top-50 list. The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
Quoting Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com:
Thats certainly a very useful list. Should we get a sysop to run through them?
I note that there are sysops on that list of worst image offenders, so being a sysop is probably not a good way to judge who should take action on the issue.
JkellyAs long as we don't pick a sysop on the list, I think we'll be find. I've found that most of you sysop-people are very reasonable and moderate, and also don't go around violating copyright. I'm sure we could dig someone up.
Hell, much of this isn't sysop work, much of it is simply going around and warning users and helping them with adding templates. Then if they need to be smacked, you could call in one of the big guns, and let them handle the actual deleting/blocking. Hell, I could do that....
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/16/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Upload Education]] anyone? (or does that break naming conventions?)
Everything you need to know is at [[Special:Upload]]
On 9/8/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for such warnings and come up with a record of those with 20+? I know AmiDaniel's vandalproof can look for warnings, and I'm sure there could be a similar function implemented. Unfortunately, VP is closed source and AmiDaniel is particularly busy with VP2, so unless he's willing to release that portion of his source (I can hard code it into an MWT port to check for warnings) we don't have a suitable system available.
On 9/8/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not a particularly religious reader of the mailing list but saw my name come up and thought I might as well respond. Anyway, VP just uses a rather simple system of string matches to data pulled from Yurik's query.phpinterface. I'll gladly release the source code if anyone would like it (VP's not closed source, just not *publicly* open source for some rather complicated reasons I'd rather not get in to); however, I'm not sure what good it will be. At the best a bot could probably scan 50-100 talk pages a minute for common templated messages, and with over a million talk pages to scan, it would take some time. I'll be glad to develop something that may work, but it certainly would not be a perfect process. Btw, as an aside, I'm not really particularly busy with VP2 at the moment, but rather with school and work and have had pretty much no time for Wikipedia as of late, which I hope will change sometime in the near future.
-- AmiDaniel
On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
I'm assuming Jimbo knows about the one month block, since he made that block himself. Can we construe his post as being a formal request to have him permabanned?
DP
I think he's asking why it took so long for someone to get around to blocking the user, as I suppose he could issue a permaban himself if he wanted.
Carl
On 9/8/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
I'm assuming Jimbo knows about the one month block, since he made that block himself. Can we construe his post as being a formal request to have him permabanned?
DP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Death Phoenix wrote:
On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
I'm assuming Jimbo knows about the one month block, since he made that block himself. Can we construe his post as being a formal request to have him permabanned?
No, I was actually just trying to raise the more general issue. It looks like what is happening is that bots are warning people repeatedly but it is not being called to the attention of humans. I would say, gee, if a person gets that many warnings, and doesn't respond, and keeps up the bad behavior, then an indef ban is certainly justified.
The only reason I did not indef ban this user myself is that when I do that, people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo" which is a sort of special status that I don't like to invoke for the most part.
--Jimbo
On 9/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
I'm assuming Jimbo knows about the one month block, since he made that block himself. Can we construe his post as being a formal request to have him permabanned?
No, I was actually just trying to raise the more general issue. It looks like what is happening is that bots are warning people repeatedly but it is not being called to the attention of humans. I would say, gee, if a person gets that many warnings, and doesn't respond, and keeps up the bad behavior, then an indef ban is certainly justified.
The problem is that normaly they do a load of uploads then go away so there is little point in blocking them.
On 9/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
The problem is that normaly they do a load of uploads then go away so there is little point in blocking them.
And, equally, little point in *not* blocking them.
Wasting server resources and clogging up the block list is a pretty big point.
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
gee, if a person gets that many warnings, and doesn't respond, and keeps up the bad behavior, then an indef ban is certainly justified.
The problem is that normaly they do a load of uploads then go away so there is little point in blocking them.
If we're getting a string of these hit and upload burst people, some checkusering *may* be in order (I don't *know*, but it might be) to see if they're repeat offenders. Remembering that the recentchanges table only goes back a limited time (one to four weeks on dev whim and system resources). So if you have a string of recent hit-and-run anon uploaders, please leave a list of usernames on WP:RFCU with a note that I suggested checking for persistent offenders might be in order - insisting on dropping us in the copyright poo is not nice or suitable behaviour.
- d.
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
gee, if a person gets that many warnings, and doesn't respond, and keeps up the bad behavior, then an indef ban is certainly justified.
The problem is that normaly they do a load of uploads then go away so there is little point in blocking them.
If we're getting a string of these hit and upload burst people, some checkusering *may* be in order (I don't *know*, but it might be) to see if they're repeat offenders. Remembering that the recentchanges table only goes back a limited time (one to four weeks on dev whim and system resources). So if you have a string of recent hit-and-run anon uploaders, please leave a list of usernames on WP:RFCU with a note that I suggested checking for persistent offenders might be in order - insisting on dropping us in the copyright poo is not nice or suitable behaviour.
- d.
No it appears to mostly be companies advertiseing themselves or people creating a small number of articles with lots of pics.
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If we're getting a string of these hit and upload burst people, some checkusering *may* be in order (I don't *know*, but it might be) to see if they're repeat offenders. Remembering that the recentchanges
No it appears to mostly be companies advertiseing themselves or people creating a small number of articles with lots of pics.
Ah, good. Less work ;-)
- d.
There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo, although I can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides other sysops not noticing.
[snip]
people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"
[snip]
G'day Akash,
[top-posting, context fixed]
Jimbo Wales wrote: [snip]
people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"
There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo,
although I
can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides other sysops not noticing.
No, there isn't a category/list for that (well, there might be, but that's not what Jimmy meant). The essential problem with J Wales blocking someone, as Jimmy himself pointed out in the bit you snipped, is that it's not treated as a standard block, and can invite hysteria from other admins and in extreme cases, the press.
People look at it and say, "Wikipedia's founder himself blocked someone! That's an unusual situation. What sort of message should we take from this? How may we better serve him?"
This would be distressing for any number of reasons, not least that having people latch onto you like that can be very embarrassing if you're not the sort of person who likes being latched onto.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. In that case, what if Jimbo just asks another sysop to block? There are always sysops on IRC when I'm on...
On 9/9/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Akash,
[top-posting, context fixed]
Jimbo Wales wrote: [snip]
people end up on the "list of people banned by Jimbo"
There's a category/list for that? That should be AfD'd/prodded :) It practically encourages activity leading to indef block by Jimbo,
although I
can't think of anything that would warrant such attention besides other sysops not noticing.
No, there isn't a category/list for that (well, there might be, but that's not what Jimmy meant). The essential problem with J Wales blocking someone, as Jimmy himself pointed out in the bit you snipped, is that it's not treated as a standard block, and can invite hysteria from other admins and in extreme cases, the press.
People look at it and say, "Wikipedia's founder himself blocked someone! That's an unusual situation. What sort of message should we take from this? How may we better serve him?"
This would be distressing for any number of reasons, not least that having people latch onto you like that can be very embarrassing if you're not the sort of person who likes being latched onto.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why was this user not banned months ago?
It is blocked for 1 month now, and copyvio images being deleted.
Just a recommondation: If I block a user for repeatedly uploading copyvios, I usually issue an infinite block together with a message to email an apology and an assurance that this won't happen again. If I get a believable assurance, I think about lifting the block.
With just a month block and no communication you have no guarantee that the user won't start uploading copyvios again after the block has run out automatically.
greetings, elian
On 9/8/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thegingerone
Massive copyvios stretching back for months, 20 or so notices on his talk page (by bots doing good botwork).
Why was this user not banned months ago?
--Jimbo
Because we have rather a lot of users like that and it is easy to miss some of them.~~~~
[snip]
some of them.~~~~
Someone should rewrite the code behind squirrelmail or another email client so that, when emailing wikipedia.org emails, four tildes is automagically converted to your Wikipedia username and the appropriate timestamp :) *starts hacking away at a str_replace("~~~~",$CONF['wpusr'].date("Y-m-d"),$_POST['message']) - sorry, just had to add a line of pointless and irrelevant php in here*