From the famous Herostratus RfA: "There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users."
And the perpetrator of this idiotic statement is, according to his userpage, an RC patroller (although, blessedly, not apparently a member of CVU).
Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco). It's gone beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.
I'm not just extrapolating from the RfA we've been discussing, of course --- it's just that us having fallen so far that people are pompously demanding on RfA that users do the Wrong Thing is rather shocking to me. Newbies-who-think-they-aren't-new saying bloody stupid things is something I've gotten used to, thanks to the speedy deletion thing.
The other day I got reverted for removing a speedy tag from a good article (the thing was tagged as vanity, which is not a reason for deletion). That's not the good bit. The good bit is: I removed it again, and got reverted by a completely different user, and was told that nobody may remove speedy tags, but must use {{hangon}} until a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] has been concluded.
I suspect it's my own fault --- I've forgotten how to suck eggs.
What do we do about this sort of stupidity? I'm very much against, as y'all know, the biting of newbies in general, but the biting of people who still don't know how Wikipedia works but want to run around insisting that they know better than those who *do* is very tempting indeed.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The other day I got reverted for removing a speedy tag from a good article (the thing was tagged as vanity, which is not a reason for deletion). That's not the good bit. The good bit is: I removed it again, and got reverted by a completely different user, and was told that nobody may remove speedy tags, but must use {{hangon}} until a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] has been concluded.
Fwiw, in those situations, if I remove it again, I would tend to replace it with a comment like <!-- according to [[WP:FOO]] vanity is not a reason to speedy. Consider {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? -->
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The other day I got reverted for removing a speedy tag from a good article (the thing was tagged as vanity, which is not a reason for deletion). That's not the good bit. The good bit is: I removed it again, and got reverted by a completely different user, and was told that nobody may remove speedy tags, but must use {{hangon}} until a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] has been concluded.
Fwiw, in those situations, if I remove it again, I would tend to replace it with a comment like <!-- according to [[WP:FOO]] vanity is not a reason to speedy. Consider {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? -->
Oh, the issue's been resolved. That it occurred at all, and that two separate users --- neither of whom would consider themselves newbies --- argued the speedy tag should be kept for "procedural" reasons, is the worrying bit.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Oh, the issue's been resolved. That it occurred at all, and that two separate users --- neither of whom would consider themselves newbies --- argued the speedy tag should be kept for "procedural" reasons, is the worrying bit.
Hmm. Well, pointing to specific policies usually helps. Everyone is clueless in one domain or another. It's only willful cluelessness in the face of specific guidance that is unforgiveable.
Steve
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The other day I got reverted for removing a speedy tag from a good article (the thing was tagged as vanity, which is not a reason for deletion). That's not the good bit. The good bit is: I removed it again, and got reverted by a completely different user, and was told that nobody may remove speedy tags, but must use {{hangon}} until a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] has been concluded.
Fwiw, in those situations, if I remove it again, I would tend to replace it with a comment like <!-- according to [[WP:FOO]] vanity is not a reason to speedy. Consider {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? -->
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In those situations, I would prod it if it warranted being deleted in my opinion. If it is something that might be worth keeping based on my decision, I would remove the tag and discuss why on the talk page. I would suggest putting it before Articles for deletion if they still wanted to put up an argument.
It is at the discretion of the admin to decide where an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. When it doesn't, he or she has the option of prodding it, listing it at articles for deletion or keeping an article and explaining why on the talk page.
This afternoon Australian time, an article on MacRobertson's chocolates who were Australia's leading confectioners in the early part of last century was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article didn't assert notability as a group. I kept it, cleaned it up a bit and renamed it because I knew it was article and the article while it needed (and needs) work established its notabilty. Speedy deletion requires the admin to exercise thought not merely hit the delete button.
Regards
Keith Old
User: Capitalistroadster
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I suspect it's my own fault --- I've forgotten how to suck eggs.
Haven't you heard, Mark? Process Is Important.
Expect to see [[Wikipedia:Sucking eggs]] in the next day or so.
On 6/16/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Haven't you heard, Mark? Process Is Important.
When you are dealing with people you don't know yes.
Expect to see [[Wikipedia:Sucking eggs]] in the next day or so.
Not really. The admins who stay active generaly keep up. We do have problems with those who come back from a long break but it isn't a significant issue yet.
Geni,
On 6/16/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Haven't you heard, Mark? Process Is Important.
When you are dealing with people you don't know yes.
We've gotten to the stage where processes that *don't exist* are cited by wonks.
Now, process wonks who insist we follow process regardless of the sanity of doing so are irritating, but they obviously have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and, provided they receive the proper therapy, can even become quite likeable people eventually. There's no excuse for saying silly things like "nobody may remove the speedy tag; use {{hangon}} instead".
Expect to see [[Wikipedia:Sucking eggs]] in the next day or so.
Not really. The admins who stay active generaly keep up. We do have problems with those who come back from a long break but it isn't a significant issue yet.
The problem is not that old users (admins or no) aren't keeping up. The problem is that new users aren't bothering to get acculturated. I already *know* how Wikipedia works. I help keep it running practically every day. So do most of the people on the list. And I don't appreciate some newbie who *doesn't* coming along and saying "you must do it this way, and I should know, because I'm not a newbie like you".
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We've gotten to the stage where processes that *don't exist* are cited by wonks.
Don't you love it when things come full circle. Policy is meant to refect what is done. If it doesn't then policy is in error. At least that was the theory back when I was first involved. I understand things have changed a bit.
Now, process wonks who insist we follow process regardless of the sanity of doing so are irritating, but they obviously have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and, provided they receive the proper therapy, can even become quite likeable people eventually. There's no excuse for saying silly things like "nobody may remove the speedy tag; use {{hangon}} instead".
Just an extension of the "don't undo unjustified speedies use DRV instead" that people keep trying to tell me.
The problem is not that old users (admins or no) aren't keeping up. The problem is that new users aren't bothering to get acculturated.
They are not doing things the way they were done in our day. I know the feeling.
I already *know* how Wikipedia works.
That is a mistake. At best I would claim the have a rough idea how wikipedia works but any attempt at a solid theory generaly gets falsified when presented with the evidence.
I help keep it running practically every day. So do most of the people on the list. And I don't appreciate some newbie who *doesn't* coming along and saying "you must do it this way, and I should know, because I'm not a newbie like you".
Bunch of arogant know it alls who are not prepared to accept that no they don't know how things are done. Yup sounds like the next generation to me. Just wait untill they start turning up on arbcom and the like.
On 6/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you love it when things come full circle. Policy is meant to refect what is done. If it doesn't then policy is in error. At least that was the theory back when I was first involved. I understand things have changed a bit.
Purely descriptive policy is pointless. Purely prescriptive policy with no basis in common practice is hard to make effective. Policy on Wikipedia should be somewhere in the middle - prescribing behaviour that most people agree with, and that many people already follow.
Alternatively put: Descriptive policy describes what people do do. Prescriptive policy describes what people should do. Good community policy describes what most people think people should do.
Steve
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
There's no excuse for saying silly things like "nobody may remove the speedy tag; use {{hangon}} instead".
What does "hangon" do that removing a speedy tag doesn't? Is there any reason why we shouldn't just speedy the hangon tag and edit the template to stop referring to it?
G'day Tony,
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
There's no excuse for saying silly things like "nobody may remove the speedy tag; use {{hangon}} instead".
What does "hangon" do that removing a speedy tag doesn't? Is there any reason why we shouldn't just speedy the hangon tag and edit the template to stop referring to it?
We like to discourage people from removing the speedy tag from their own articles, since (for instance) 13-year-olds writing about their homosexual friends tend not to be particularly objective when appraising their own profanity-strewn contributions.
However, this meant that perfectly good articles got speedied because of the following sequence (f'r instance): a) User A creates article that could stand to be improved. b) User B tags it for speedy. c) User A removes the tag. d) User B reverts, says "you cannot remove the tag from your own article" e) User A goes to the talkpage and complains. f) Admin C doesn't even read the article, let alone the talkpage, just deletes. "It's not my job to tell users they can't speedy if they want to."
So {{hangon}} serves the dual purpose of preventing authors from removing appropriate speedies, but allowing them to contest in an obvious way inappropriate speedies even when the admin isn't doing his job properly (not that I'd mention any names).
These days, however, {{hangon}} seems largely to encourage people to beat clueful editors over the head for no apparent reason. But, like geni says, that's the world of tomorrow. I haven't forgotten how to suck eggs, it's just that the egg-sucking procedures have changed and I never bothered to stay informed.
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I still consider myself new to Wikipedia.
Hey, me too... I mean, at what point are you no longer a newbie? I mean, I just passed a year of editing, but still feel like I am new. At least you've been here since 2004. --LV
On 6/16/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I still consider myself new to Wikipedia.
Hey, me too... I mean, at what point are you no longer a newbie? I mean, I just passed a year of editing, but still feel like I am new. At least you've been here since 2004.
The END of 2004, my friend, the end. ;-)
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
The END of 2004, my friend, the end. ;-)
Still longer than me, and the rest of us wahoos. We never had to walk to our dial-up computers, uphill both ways, on Windows 3.1, from AOL, like you oldbies. ;-)
On 6/16/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
The END of 2004, my friend, the end. ;-)
Still longer than me, and the rest of us wahoos. We never had to walk to our dial-up computers, uphill both ways, on Windows 3.1, from AOL, like you oldbies. ;-)
Heh wait to you run into people who remeber the usermod days and CamelCase.
Then you have the slightly newer ones who remeber quickpolls and no subpages on AFD and haveing to use {{msg:stub}}.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
Heh wait to you run into people who remeber the usermod days and CamelCase.
Then you have the slightly newer ones who remeber quickpolls and no subpages on AFD and haveing to use {{msg:stub}}.
What do those curly brackets do? Is that some new feature?
- -- Sean Barrett | Fair? Fair's a place you win goldfish, son. sean@epoptic.com |
On 6/16/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, me too... I mean, at what point are you no longer a newbie?
When you start complaing about newbie culture. Personaly I reqard anyone who was editing regualerly before 22nd of December 2004 as definetly not a newcomer
I mean, I just passed a year of editing, but still feel like I am new. At least you've been here since 2004. --LV
Year of adminship is a measure that often seems to work well.9
On 6/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Year of adminship is a measure that often seems to work well.9
Nah... plenty of people I wouldn't consider newbies aren't admins at all.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
From the famous Herostratus RfA: "There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users."
And the perpetrator of this idiotic statement is, according to his userpage, an RC patroller (although, blessedly, not apparently a member of CVU).
Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco). It's gone beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.
So in other words the next generation is comeing through. Experence suggests that complianing that "It wasn't like that in my day" doesn't work too well.
G'day geni,
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco). It's gone beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.
So in other words the next generation is comeing through. Experence suggests that complianing that "It wasn't like that in my day" doesn't work too well.
When I felt comfortable enough to start saying "this is how Wikipedia works" rather than "um, I think this is how things go, isn't it? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm kinda new, but that seems to make sense, so ... yeah, what do you think?", there weren't any old hands who got upset with me for not merely lecturing them on how things work, but getting it Wrong. I've been criticised, quite fairly, for any number of things ... but *not once* for a tendency to, for example, tell a user who has done good work in vandalism cleanup and warning vandals and testers that his behaviour when RC patrolling is unconscionable, because he's not robotic enough.
I don't have a problem with "the next generation coming through" --- I *was* the next generation less than a year ago --- but the members of that generation telling people the Wrong Thing and acting like it's gospel (it's bad enough when *I* get lectured like this; what happens if it's a newbie getting bad advice?), well before they've matured enough to be considered to have "come through" that get my goat.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
gospel (it's bad enough when *I* get lectured like this; what happens if it's a newbie getting bad advice?),
What happens is they end up giving that same bad advice to other people...as probably happened in this case.
Steve
Being here for 3 years (and I'm pretty sure you've been here for about that long), I've never seen a 'new generation' start doing something like this.
On 6/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
From the famous Herostratus RfA: "There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users."
And the perpetrator of this idiotic statement is, according to his userpage, an RC patroller (although, blessedly, not apparently a member of CVU).
Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco). It's gone beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.
So in other words the next generation is comeing through. Experence suggests that complianing that "It wasn't like that in my day" doesn't work too well.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/22/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Being here for 3 years (and I'm pretty sure you've been here for about that long), I've never seen a 'new generation' start doing something like this.
Bit over 2. I can't be certian but my generation was the one that had the issue of people not knowing each other any more. The one that followed seemed to belive that admins were more powerful than I remeber. Then there was the CVU and the countervandalism specialists. Now there is the current generation. Things change. At best we can sing as we go.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
From the famous Herostratus RfA: "There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users."
And the perpetrator of this idiotic statement is, according to his userpage, an RC patroller (although, blessedly, not apparently a member of CVU).
Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco). It's gone beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.
Frankly, I can't believe you are getting so worked up over this. Life would probably be a lot less stressful for you if you didn't take this personally. They think they are doing the right thing, after all.
Ryan
On 6/16/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe you are getting so worked up over this. Life would probably be a lot less stressful for you if you didn't take this personally. They think they are doing the right thing, after all.
By the way, I think that admins block users way too fast and should use warning templates a lot more than they already do. I would say that at least half of the time I use them, the user stops vandalizing before a block is required.
Ryan
G'day Ryan,
On 6/16/06, *Ryan Delaney* <ryan.delaney@gmail.com mailto:ryan.delaney@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe you are getting so worked up over this. Life would probably be a lot less stressful for you if you didn't take this personally. They think they are doing the right thing, after all.By the way, I think that admins block users way too fast and should use warning templates a lot more than they already do. I would say that at least half of the time I use them, the user stops vandalizing before a block is required.
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do. The templates can be a means to that end --- a help in warning people. But they shouldn't be considered synonymous with the word "warning". Sometimes they're appropriate, often they're not. Usually speaking in your own words and addressing the situation directly will get you further than following the {{test}} series ever did.
As for why this irritates me so, consider: someone *opposed an RfA for a good user* because the opposer was insisting he do the Wrong Thing. RfA has enough problems these days ("Wikipedia doesn't scale") without people deliberately making the adminship process worse by imposing blatantly false requirements.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
As for why this irritates me so, consider: someone *opposed an RfA for a good user* because the opposer was insisting he do the Wrong Thing. RfA has enough problems these days ("Wikipedia doesn't scale") without people deliberately making the adminship process worse by imposing blatantly false requirements.
This phenomenon is remarkable to me really. Very few experienced users take vandalism personally or get upset about it. Some of us actually find it funny from time to time. But someone acting with good faith being a little misguided is threatening and we get angry and fight them and spend hours on the mailing list writing posts about it instead of writing articles and some of us end up leaving the project over these battles.
Puzzling.
Ryan
Screw that. If it shoot someone by accident once, I get a light sentence if I'm lucky.. If it "accidentally" shoot someone TWO TIMES, I get 20 YEARS.
mboverload
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Ryan,
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do. The templates can be a means to that end --- a help in warning people. But they shouldn't be considered synonymous with the word "warning". Sometimes they're appropriate, often they're not. Usually speaking in your own words and addressing the situation directly will get you further than following the {{test}} series ever did.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
mboverload stated for the record:
Screw that. If it shoot someone by accident once, I get a light sentence if I'm lucky.. If it "accidentally" shoot someone TWO TIMES, I get 20 YEARS.
mboverload
Are you having trouble understanding the difference between an inappropriate edit and murder?
- -- Sean Barrett | radiant cool, crazy nightmare, sean@epoptic.com | zen, new jersey, nowhere! | how now, brown bureaucrats?
I'm making a comment about how you don't get 4 chances of deliberate vandalism in the real world. Fine, I'll change it to shooting out windows. If a cop tells you to not shoot out another window, you DON'T get another chance. You get TASERED.
mboverload
On 6/16/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
mboverload stated for the record:
Screw that. If it shoot someone by accident once, I get a light
sentence if
I'm lucky.. If it "accidentally" shoot someone TWO TIMES, I get 20
YEARS.
mboverload
Are you having trouble understanding the difference between an inappropriate edit and murder?
Sean Barrett | radiant cool, crazy nightmare, sean@epoptic.com | zen, new jersey, nowhere! | how now, brown bureaucrats? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEk4KEMAt1wyd9d+URAhc2AJ0b8ddXaHJOCtP8O1JwRhNaOg4NIQCdEl/P bWDMTK+qbF8NQHWZaZDCzac= =P/vO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day mboverload,
[top-posting fixed]
On 6/16/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
mboverload stated for the record:
Screw that. If it shoot someone by accident once, I get a light
sentence if I'm lucky.. If it "accidentally" shoot someone TWO TIMES, I get 20 YEARS.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference between an inappropriate edit and murder?
I'm making a comment about how you don't get 4 chances of deliberate vandalism in the real world. Fine, I'll change it to shooting out windows. If a cop tells you to not shoot out another window, you DON'T get another chance. You get TASERED.
It sounds like you have very violent cops where you are.
Your analogy still doesn't work. It costs me less to revert vandalism (assuming it's a case where rollback would be appropriate) than it costs the other fellow to make his edit in the first place. Someone shooting out windows is causing potentially very expensive property damage, and he knows it; someone fiddling with a bunch of pixels which represent text in a file on the other side of the world may not even realise what he's doing is *wrong*.
I will block only after I'm sure the vandal knows (or has been told clearly): a) He's damaging other people's work, however briefly, and b) He's being dealt with by real people, not bots whose limits are fun to test, and c) He is on his last warning
Sometimes this can be done with one warning. Sometimes it requires four. Often someone who meets the above three conditions *also* decides to stop vandalising, and doesn't require a block. If so, bonza. We don't just block people out of the blue, if they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
There *are* times I'll block without warning: i) The editor knows he's not welcome, and edits not because he genuinely wants to improve Wikipedia, but because he thinks it makes us mockable (such as a certain stalker who, I understand, even Wikipedia Review now refuse to accept), or ii) The vandal clearly knows what he's doing and is using the account/IP as part of an orchestrated campaign (Willy on Wheels, for instance, or other sock attack vandals), or iii) Open proxies
As one might expect, these three occur very rarely.
Warnings Are Important, and it's quality, not quantity, that counts.
In message 4493629A.5020100@student.canberra.edu.au, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher-oe7qfRrRQfc+7vVa2Y8Ptdf8k/1jCSAM@public.gmane.org writes
On 6/16/06, *Ryan Delaney* <ryan.delaney-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org mailto:ryan.delaney-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe you are getting so worked up over this. Life would probably be a lot less stressful for you if you didn't take this personally. They think they are doing the right thing, after all.By the way, I think that admins block users way too fast and should use warning templates a lot more than they already do. I would say that at least half of the time I use them, the user stops vandalizing before a block is required.
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do. The templates can be a means to that end --- a help in warning people. But they shouldn't be considered synonymous with the word "warning". Sometimes they're appropriate, often they're not. Usually speaking in your own words and addressing the situation directly will get you further than following the {{test}} series ever did.
I have to differ. I think admins are often far *too* lenient with repetitive vandals - I long ago lost count of the number of times I've gone to a vandal's talk page to issue a warning and found up to a dozen consecutive "final" warnings; in that case I will block immediately without any hesitation, and the worse record the vandal has, the longer I will block for.
The practice of repeatedly issuing "final warnings" has to stop - you can just see the vandals laughing at you (sometimes literally) when nothing ever happens. Issue warnings, then a final warning, and if they don't improve their behaviour, block them.
On 6/17/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
The practice of repeatedly issuing "final warnings" has to stop - you can just see the vandals laughing at you (sometimes literally) when nothing ever happens. Issue warnings, then a final warning, and if they don't improve their behaviour, block them.
It would be good if we could put users on probation. Occasionally I've taken the effort to track a vandal, watching and reverting their edits. But it would be nice to be able to say "this user's next edit is 90% likely to be vandalism, hence, let's screen it *before* it goes live". All the edits of probationary users could appear on one screen, and people watching that list could pick out the occasional good ones to let through, much like moderating a mailing list.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/17/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
The practice of repeatedly issuing "final warnings" has to stop - you can just see the vandals laughing at you (sometimes literally) when nothing ever happens. Issue warnings, then a final warning, and if they don't improve their behaviour, block them.
It would be good if we could put users on probation. Occasionally I've taken the effort to track a vandal, watching and reverting their edits. But it would be nice to be able to say "this user's next edit is 90% likely to be vandalism, hence, let's screen it *before* it goes live". All the edits of probationary users could appear on one screen, and people watching that list could pick out the occasional good ones to let through, much like moderating a mailing list.
Steve
This is something of a perennial proposal. The main problem I see with it is the potential for edit conflicts - if a valid edit goes through between when the probationary edit is made, and when it is approved, there might be trouble merging the two edits together.
John
On 6/17/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
This is something of a perennial proposal. The main problem I see with it is the potential for edit conflicts - if a valid edit goes through between when the probationary edit is made, and when it is approved, there might be trouble merging the two edits together.
In such a case I suggest sending the conflicting (probationary) edit back to the original editor (as a talk page message), and letting them deal with it. Remember, people in this state have already done something annoying...the onus is now on them to do something about their reputation.
Steve
John Lee wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
It would be good if we could put users on probation. Occasionally I've taken the effort to track a vandal, watching and reverting their edits. But it would be nice to be able to say "this user's next edit is 90% likely to be vandalism, hence, let's screen it *before* it goes live". All the edits of probationary users could appear on one screen, and people watching that list could pick out the occasional good ones to let through, much like moderating a mailing list.
This is something of a perennial proposal. The main problem I see with it is the potential for edit conflicts - if a valid edit goes through between when the probationary edit is made, and when it is approved, there might be trouble merging the two edits together.
The technical side could actually be handled rather easily: all we need is a way to tag a specific revision as the visible one. If the visible version isn't the latest, and someone tries to edit it, they get the same (or similar) warning as when editing an old revision in general.
"You are editing the stable version of this page. If you save it, any unreviewed changes made since this version will be removed."
(In fact, it might be possible to use the existing page_latest column for this, though I haven't really checked.)
On 6/17/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
I have to differ. I think admins are often far *too* lenient with repetitive vandals - I long ago lost count of the number of times I've gone to a vandal's talk page to issue a warning and found up to a dozen consecutive "final" warnings; in that case I will block immediately without any hesitation, and the worse record the vandal has, the longer I will block for.
You should check to see whether the {{test4}} templates were left by an admin or a user. A lot of the time, a user will leave a final warning and then fail to report the vandal to [[WP:AIV]] for blocking. Or they will report the user too early and the entry will get removed because they haven't vandalized since last warning.
Alternatively, some IPs are shared and/or repeat sources of vandalism, so the warning templates might have been applied to a different user.
Ryan
On 6/17/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do.
I never cease to be surprised (and pleased) how many casual vandals stop editing when I give them a warning message. They're mostly just kids who've been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin (or "cookie jar", for all you septics).
I worry there may be a few too many people who've got far too cynical dealing with vandalism all day, and need to relax a bit.
On 6/19/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do.
I never cease to be surprised (and pleased) how many casual vandals stop editing when I give them a warning message. They're mostly just kids who've been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin (or "cookie jar", for all you septics).
I worry there may be a few too many people who've got far too cynical dealing with vandalism all day, and need to relax a bit.
Yes, on a few occasions when I patrol [[WP:AIV]], a lot of the vandals simply stopped vandalising after getting the test3 or test4 and do not need to be blocked.
On 6/19/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings*
more
than they do.
I never cease to be surprised (and pleased) how many casual vandals stop editing when I give them a warning message. They're mostly just kids who've been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin (or "cookie jar", for all you septics).
I worry there may be a few too many people who've got far too cynical dealing with vandalism all day, and need to relax a bit.
Yes, on a few occasions when I patrol [[WP:AIV]], a lot of the vandals simply stopped vandalising after getting the test3 or test4 and do not need to be blocked.
Well, maybe not a lot, but a fair number nonetheless.
On 6/19/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I never cease to be surprised (and pleased) how many casual vandals stop editing when I give them a warning message. They're mostly just kids who've been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin (or "cookie jar", for all you septics).
I actually suspect that for some, a good telling off makes them respect the project a bit more. The difference between "anyone can write anything so it must all be rubbish" and "anyone can write anything, but people actually check that it's not all rubbish".
I worry there may be a few too many people who've got far too cynical dealing with vandalism all day, and need to relax a bit.
It's pretty understandable. Deal with borderline misanthropes long enough and anyone becomes jaded. We just need fresh vandalism fighters.
Disclaimer: I hate vandal fighting. I help in other ways. :)
Steve