I'm still having several of my important messages being dropped to this mailing list with no explanation. One was a refutation of Ambi's silly argument that the auto-reblock bug was an intentional feature (it's definitely not--even bishonen thought it didn't function that way) and the other was a response to someone saying admins have no real power.
So I guess new rules are:
1) No pointing out that an admin (especially an arbitrator) is dead wrong about an administrative function. Administrators are allowed to spread misinformation at will.
2) No suggesting that the current system is less than perfect and that admins aren't actually harmless.
I guess they just don't like valid criticism. They'll let idiots go on asinine, insulting tirades soley because they want the idiots to make themselves look bad, but when a dissenter presents valid criticism, they just can't take it.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050703 00:58]:
I guess they just don't like valid criticism. They'll let idiots go on asinine, insulting tirades soley because they want the idiots to make themselves look bad, but when a dissenter presents valid criticism, they just can't take it.
Yes. We're probably hopeless cases that you should give up on.
- d.
It would be nice if any admins reading this could update the In the news box:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/...
Dan
I think that the inthenews box in general is in a state of, well, problems. In the past week or two theres been a couple of copyvios on there - One blatant copyvio, Ahmedinezhad.jpg, was on there for three days and added back again after being taken off. Theres also possibly a bit of bias to US events there, too - Often news only relevant to the US is on there, which isn't 'big news' to the rest of the world at all.
On top of that, its occasionally slow to be updated. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Grey" dangrey@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Live 8 and the In the news box
It would be nice if any admins reading this could update the In the news box:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/...
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/07/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I think that the inthenews box in general is in a state of, well, problems. In the past week or two theres been a couple of copyvios on there - One blatant copyvio, Ahmedinezhad.jpg, was on there for three days and added back again after being taken off. Theres also possibly a bit of bias to US events there, too - Often news only relevant to the US is on there, which isn't 'big news' to the rest of the world at all.
On top of that, its occasionally slow to be updated.
Well, it's been a bit rubbish ever since it was protected - a necessary evil, of course. The US bias is noticeable, and reflects poorly on Wikipedia.
A pity there can't be some sort of template transclusion from Wikinews - that site's much more on the ball.
I suppose the only solution is more admins giving it TLC. So c'mon guys :-)
Dan
But it DOES function that way and it IS an intentional feature. It is to stop people block-evading.
How is logging into your normal account (the one that the block was placed for the in the first place) and hitting edit a block evasion? That's like saying you're evading an arrest warrant by presenting your real id to the police when they ask for one.
That's exactly what it did, I hit edit a couple times while logged in as User:Njyoder to reread the block page and to see if it still showed the source and it auto-renewed. That's NOT intentional as it serves no purpose whatsoever.
The purpose is to prevent them from using sock puppets and to prevent them from logging off and doing it, not to renew it when they log in with their main account.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Just read, don't edit.
Fred
On Jul 2, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
But it DOES function that way and it IS an intentional feature. It is to stop people block-evading.
How is logging into your normal account (the one that the block was placed for the in the first place) and hitting edit a block evasion? That's like saying you're evading an arrest warrant by presenting your real id to the police when they ask for one.
That's exactly what it did, I hit edit a couple times while logged in as User:Njyoder to reread the block page and to see if it still showed the source and it auto-renewed. That's NOT intentional as it serves no purpose whatsoever.
The purpose is to prevent them from using sock puppets and to prevent them from logging off and doing it, not to renew it when they log in with their main account.
Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just read, don't edit.
That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been doing that in the first place as it's a bug. Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
I think that bug has been fixed to prevent this from happening again, though I understand your frustration that it happened in the first place.
-Jtkiefer
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Just read, don't edit.
That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been doing that in the first place as it's a bug.
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is intended to do.
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
Jay.
On 7/3/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Just read, don't edit.
That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been doing that in the first place as it's a bug.
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is intended to do.
And what, precisely, is it intended to do?
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
Habit. Try blocking yourself for a week and see what happens, mate.
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is intended to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing that in this case? What purpose does it serve exactly? Do you realize that if someone doesn't realize that they're blocked and they hit edit it automatically resets it?
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
I already explained this a million times now, I was doing it to check the information on the block page again and to see if I could still get the source for a certain page (read only). It'd also be helpful to see when it expires.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is
intended
to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing that in this case?
Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
What purpose does it serve exactly?
Protects against block evasion.
Do you realize that if someone doesn't realize that they're blocked and they hit edit it automatically resets it?
Yes.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when
you
were banned from editing?
I already explained this a million times now, I was doing it to check the information on the block page again and to see if I could still get the source for a certain page (read only). It'd also be helpful to see when it expires.
When you're blocked, the best idea is to take a break instead. The whole point is for you too cool off and consider your actions.
Jay.
On 7/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is
intended
to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing that in this case?
Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
That doesn't make sense. A blocked user CANNOT edit. It is like removing the engine from the car of a driver whose license has been suspended and saying that turning the key in the ignition is an attempt to drive. It isn't - the car's not going anywhere. The driver KNOWS this.
What it is, is poor interface design. The edit button shouldn't even show up if the user is blocked.
Again, I suggest that you get blocked for a week, and see if you still automatically hit that "edit" button before the week is out if you see something that needs editing.
What purpose does it serve exactly?
Protects against block evasion.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit. If you already have absolute protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common sense.
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is
intended
to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing that in this case?
Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
That doesn't make sense. A blocked user CANNOT edit.
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer us a different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks the IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case before the IP blocker was added.
What purpose does it serve exactly?
Protects against block evasion.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the time; this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
Jay.
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer us a different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks the IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case before the IP blocker was added.
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the time; this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
1. Admin blocks User:foo. 2. User:foo logs in as User:foo. 3. User:foo hits 'edit page.' 4. User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
Right. This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP addresses).
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the
time;
this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
- Admin blocks User:foo.
- User:foo logs in as User:foo.
- User:foo hits 'edit page.'
- User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing when you hit the "edit" button. What, again, was the net effect of this? Your valid block was extended for a few more hours?
Jay.
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
Right. This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP addresses).
No it doesn't. The IP is already blocked. The IP address CANNOT edit.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the
time;
this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
- Admin blocks User:foo.
- User:foo logs in as User:foo.
- User:foo hits 'edit page.'
- User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing when you hit the "edit" button. What, again, was the net effect of this? Your valid block was extended for a few more hours?
That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was "simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or whatever.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no
longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia
blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
Right. This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP addresses).
No it doesn't. The IP is already blocked. The IP address CANNOT edit.
No, as far as I know IPs are not immediately blocked, only userids.
Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing
when
you hit the "edit" button. What, again, was the net effect of this?
Your
valid block was extended for a few more hours?
That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was "simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or whatever.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think the likelihood of a true positive is vastly greated than that of a false positive, regardless of the many protestations of innocence on the part of those who get blocked by this. I also think it's easy enough to get an admin to reverse the block if you have a reasonable story as to how it happened.
Jay.
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no
longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia
blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
Right. This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP addresses).
No it doesn't. The IP is already blocked. The IP address CANNOT edit.
No, as far as I know IPs are not immediately blocked, only userids.
On checking, I see that this is so. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, as NYJ noted:
"1. Admin blocks User:foo. 2. User:foo logs in as User:foo. 3. User:foo hits 'edit page.' 4. User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours."
You don't seem to be addressing this point.
Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing
when
you hit the "edit" button. What, again, was the net effect of this?
Your
valid block was extended for a few more hours?
That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was "simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or whatever.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think the likelihood of a true positive is vastly greated than that of a false positive, regardless of the many protestations of innocence on the part of those who get blocked by this. I also think it's easy enough to get an admin to reverse the block if you have a reasonable story as to how it happened.
So this bug doesn't stop users from editing, because they are already blocked, and it doesn't work anyway because all the editor has to say is "my cat ran over the keyboard", regardless of whether he intended to attempt to edit or not.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
No, as far as I know IPs are not immediately blocked, only userids.
On checking, I see that this is so. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, as NYJ noted:
"1. Admin blocks User:foo. 2. User:foo logs in as User:foo. 3. User:foo hits 'edit page.' 4. User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours."
You don't seem to be addressing this point.
Actually, I have. It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity. The solution is simple; go cool off for a day. And if you simply must hang around, then don't hit edit.
That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was "simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or whatever.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think the likelihood of a true positive is vastly greated than that of
a
false positive, regardless of the many protestations of innocence on the part of those who get blocked by this. I also think it's easy enough to
get
an admin to reverse the block if you have a reasonable story as to how
it
happened.
So this bug doesn't stop users from editing, because they are already blocked,
Actually, it generally does stop them from editing, because up until now their IPs weren't blocked. When they try to use a sockuppet (whenever it was created), or edit via IP, they are now stopped from doing so.
and it doesn't work anyway because all the editor has to say is "my cat ran over the keyboard", regardless of whether he intended to attempt to edit or not.
No, he has to give an admin a convincing story. Unsurprisingly, most of those blocked simply rant of rave. The more creative use stories of the "it was a different person using my exact same fixed IP address, they were doing digging in the neighbourhood" kind. Amazing I know, but some people actually use that kind of excuse, and then stick to it, even re-using it for several different sockpuppets. Even more amazingly, other people actually defend them as plausible when they use it. However, the strong vetting process for creating admins typically ensures that none are dumb enough to fall for it.
I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
I think it's a feature that's working quite well, and that might *in very rare circumstances* provide a minor inconvenience to a banned user who is, at the very least, doing something odd and unnecessary.
Jay.
On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:52 PM, JAY JG wrote:
Actually, I have. It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity. The solution is simple; go cool off for a day. And if you simply must hang around, then don't hit edit.
For what it's worth, he's right - you're not addressing the point, which is that it's not until you hit edit this page and get the "you have been blocked message" (which also renews your block) that you'd find out you've been blocked in the first place. Since being blocked doesn't send a "You have a message" link or e-mail you or anything.
Concientious admins tend to either leave a message about the block or remove the second autoblock when it happens, in practice.
-Snowspinner
On 5 jul 2005, at 04.53, Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:52 PM, JAY JG wrote:
Actually, I have. It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity. The solution is simple; go cool off for a day. And if you simply must hang around, then don't hit edit.
For what it's worth, he's right - you're not addressing the point, which is that it's not until you hit edit this page and get the "you have been blocked message" (which also renews your block) that you'd find out you've been blocked in the first place. Since being blocked doesn't send a "You have a message" link or e-mail you or anything.
Concientious admins tend to either leave a message about the block or remove the second autoblock when it happens, in practice.
-Snowspinner
I did both. (I'm the one who blocked Nathan originally.)
Bishonen
Actually, I have. It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity. The solution is simple; go cool off for a day. And if you simply must hang around, then don't hit edit.
It's not an alleged phenomenon any admin can create a test account and reproduce the behavior. I've already presented perfectly valid reasons why someone would hit 'edit page' which you haven't addressed (even snowspinner acknowledged you haven't)
And no, saying you "should go cool off for a day" doesn't actually address them if you read them and it's also imposing a requirement on the person to counter a BUG. You REALLY keep avoiding this and absolutely insist on using examples (e.g. sock puppets) that aren't applicable to this. Ther is no "disguise" and logs can easily prove that.
I think it's a feature that's working quite well, and that might *in very rare circumstances* provide a minor inconvenience to a banned user who is, at the very least, doing something odd and unnecessary.
You don't seem to understand something, regardless of how rare it is, this is something that can be fixed in the software. All it takes is a few lines of code added in the right place(s) and it wouldn't renew it if they were logged into their regular account. I'm not sure if you just don't understand VERY basic programming concepts or if you're being deliberately obtuse, since this is something that can be fixed whilst causing 0% false negatives. The is literally no drawback to fixing the code, other than however much time it takes to make the fix itself.
His *claim* is that he got innocently caught; I've pointed out that for every *claim* of innocence, there are hundreds who are validly blocked, that there was no need for him to do what he did to get caught in the first place, and that if he was indeed innocently caught the "punishment" is minor and the fix easy.
Yeah, the fix is easy--by correcting the code, that's something which you keep overlooking. You seem to be using this mistaken philosophy that if a bug occurs in code, that the users of the software should be forced to work around it and the bug itself should never be fixed in the code.
Concientious admins tend to either leave a message about the block or remove the second autoblock when it happens, in practice.
Even if that's true, it really doesn't mean you should continually be forced to do a human-based work around rather than fixing the code. The code can easily distinguish between an account that was originally blocked and a new account, some time this week I'll just submit a patch for it so this can stop.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050705 23:24]:
And no, saying you "should go cool off for a day" doesn't actually address them if you read them and it's also imposing a requirement on the person to counter a BUG. You REALLY keep avoiding this and absolutely insist on using examples (e.g. sock puppets) that aren't applicable to this. Ther is no "disguise" and logs can easily prove that.
As I pointed out to you before, this isn't the dev list, and people here don't determine whether this documented behaviour is a bug or a feature. So making your case here, however eloquently, isn't going to do one dot of good in achieving the change you want.
I note you haven't tried asking on the dev list, mediawiki-l. Perhaps if you do, someone will explain why the feature works the way it does.
- d.
On 7/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050705 23:24]:
And no, saying you "should go cool off for a day" doesn't actually address them if you read them and it's also imposing a requirement on the person to counter a BUG. You REALLY keep avoiding this and absolutely insist on using examples (e.g. sock puppets) that aren't applicable to this. Ther is no "disguise" and logs can easily prove that.
As I pointed out to you before, this isn't the dev list, and people here don't determine whether this documented behaviour is a bug or a feature. So making your case here, however eloquently, isn't going to do one dot of good in achieving the change you want.
I note you haven't tried asking on the dev list, mediawiki-l. Perhaps if you do, someone will explain why the feature works the way it does.
Hang on. This is a matter of policy. Developers shouldn't determine policy, just implement it. As a developer myself, I can predict that developers wouldn't tell you WHY a software process works, but rather HOW it works. A discussion would contain all sorts of interesting material, but what it wouldn't contain is some sort of ultimate authority as to why something works the way it does.
Developers would just shrug and say, that's the way we were told to do it - go ask management.
As I see it, extending the block of a logged-in editor is indefensible. And pointless, as they can always ask for the block to be removed at the correct time, citing whatever excuse they want.
Extending the block of an anonymous or sockpuppet editor has more merit, as it can be argued that this is an attempt to evade the block, though I think that there should be some sort of supervision to make sure that it is really the same editor, and not just someone accidentally sharing an IP address.
On 7/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
As I pointed out to you before, this isn't the dev list, and people here don't determine whether this documented behaviour is a bug or a feature.
What a strange attitude to take toward software development! Developers don't determine whether or not a behavior is a bug. Developers fix bugs reported by users. It's the users that determine which behaviors are bugs.
No wonder relations between MediaWiki developers and MediaWiki users are so bad: the users are letting the developers walk all over them. (Not that this is an uncommon problem with open source software; there often isn't anyone who makes any real effort on the development side to ensure that development is responsive to user requirements, and products often wander off in whatever direction the developers think is interesting whether or not anybody else wants it.)
Kelly
On 7/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
As I pointed out to you before, this isn't the dev list, and people here don't determine whether this documented behaviour is a bug or a feature.
What a strange attitude to take toward software development! Developers don't determine whether or not a behavior is a bug. Developers fix bugs reported by users. It's the users that determine which behaviors are bugs.
Not exactly. There are two questions here: firstly, what is the intended design and does the MediaWiki software perform as designed (this, a developer can answer); and secondly, does that design correspond with user desires (this, they cannot, except in that they can point to what has been asked of them before).
-Matt
<snip> Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You're not listening at all. I was editing only with my User:Njyoder account, not a sock puppet nor logged out. If you block a username, it has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
Right. This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP addresses).
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit
all the time;
this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing
with
sockpuppets.
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
- Admin blocks User:foo.
- User:foo logs in as User:foo.
- User:foo hits 'edit page.'
- User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing when you hit the "edit" button. What, again, was the net effect of this? Your valid block was extended for a few more hours?
Jay.
No, the block wasn't extended beyond the original 24 hours. Whether editing from your own account is supposed to extend the block, or is doing it as the result of a bug, I didn't think it was reasonable for it to work like that. Therefore I unblocked Nathan after about 23 1/2 hours.
Bishonen
From: Bishonen bishonen@ungoodthinkful.com
What, again, was the net effect of this? Your valid block was extended for a few more hours?
Jay.
No, the block wasn't extended beyond the original 24 hours. Whether editing from your own account is supposed to extend the block, or is doing it as the result of a bug, I didn't think it was reasonable for it to work like that. Therefore I unblocked Nathan after about 23 1/2 hours.
Bishonen
And 200 e-mails later, here we all are. Wikipedia is obviously a terribly flawed system filled with software that causes terrible hardships to validly blocked users, and admins abusing their power and just itching to "dominate" other editors.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia is obviously a terribly flawed system filled with software that causes terrible hardships to validly blocked users, and admins abusing their power and just itching to "dominate" other editors.
Bishonen was doing absolutely the opposite of "dominating" other editors. Sticking her tongue out at Nathan and keeping the block would have been an example of "dominating"; instead, she lifted the ban after its intended expiry time.
A temporary block is only valid for its allocated timeframe. A 24-hour block is no longer valid after 24 hours.
You seem to have an attitude that sees Nathan as the wrong-doer, and you seem to think that Nathan is complaining about being blocked. But he never did. I think he understands the reasons for his block, and he is genuinely trying to change his ways to prevent the same from happening again. This is laudable behaviour, especially for someone who was indeed validly blocked. When the 24 hours are up, these people *must* be given a fair chance to show that they are changing their ways and that they will edit in even better faith than before.
What you are saying essentially amounts to saying that once you have been validly blocked, you are considered a "bad user" and do not have any grounds to complain if your block is unfairly extended beyond the original 24 hours.
Timwi
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
It's a bug and should be fixed.
The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits another five.
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
It's a bug and should be fixed.
The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits another five.
No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing, but whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go in and look around to see if the owner is back. Then when you're tossed out again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.
Jay.
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that was already blocked to begin with?
It's a bug and should be fixed.
The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits another five.
No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing, but whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go in and look around to see if the owner is back. Then when you're tossed out again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.
If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you rattle the knob.
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account
that
was already blocked to begin with?
It's a bug and should be fixed.
The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits another five.
No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing,
but
whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go
in
and look around to see if the owner is back. Then when you're tossed
out
again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.
If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you rattle the knob.
Turns out that people keep getting kicked out of the shop for a day for disruptive behaviour, and the doors are automatically locked and their 24 hour ban is automatically renewed when the alarm system sees them trying to get back in wearing different disguises. Now some new guy kicked out for a day for disruption gets caught by the alarm system, and he says "but I wasn't trying to sneak in in disguise and disrupt like those other people, I was coming in openly and making note of your inventory so I could buy it legally when I'm allowed back in". So, he writes 500 abusive e-mails to the owners of the shop, insisting that he has been unjustly locked out, and demanding that the employee on duty at the time should be punished, claming that the alarm system is broken, and insisting that the shop is a disgrace. Another guy who has been kicked out for disrupting the shop has also been regularly writing the owners, generally whining and complaining about how terrible the shop is, how rude their employees are, how they practice favoritism to their regular customers, and how much better are the shops that he frequents. He takes up the cause of the first complainant, making erroneous claims, and insisting that the alarm systems are faulty, and need to be fixed right away so no-one is ever locked out like this again.
What a tragedy. Maybe they should both take their business elsewhere.
Jay.
On 7/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Turns out that people keep getting kicked out of the shop for a day for disruptive behaviour, and the doors are automatically locked and their 24 hour ban is automatically renewed when the alarm system sees them trying to
This is silly. In addition to not being paper, wikipedia is not a china shop.
I'd agree with extending blocks if there were actual evidence of an evasion, but hitting edit to see if you are still blocked or to see the instructions related to being blocked is not an attempt at evasion.
If we were instead to have an infectious block, where when a user is blocked every IP they used while blocked is blocked in addition to the IP they first used while blocked... and when an IP is blocked it blocks every user that touches that IP.... At least then you could claim the system was preventing evasion... although what a mess that would make.
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you rattle the knob.
Turns out that people keep getting kicked out of the shop for a day for disruptive behaviour, and the doors are automatically locked and their 24 hour ban is automatically renewed when the alarm system sees them trying to get back in wearing different disguises. Now some new guy kicked out for a day for disruption gets caught by the alarm system, and he says "but I wasn't trying to sneak in in disguise and disrupt like those other people, I was coming in openly and making note of your inventory so I could buy it legally when I'm allowed back in". So, he writes 500 abusive e-mails to the owners of the shop, insisting that he has been unjustly locked out, and demanding that the employee on duty at the time should be punished, claming that the alarm system is broken, and insisting that the shop is a disgrace. Another guy who has been kicked out for disrupting the shop has also been regularly writing the owners, generally whining and complaining about how terrible the shop is, how rude their employees are, how they practice favoritism to their regular customers, and how much better are the shops that he frequents. He takes up the cause of the first complainant, making erroneous claims, and insisting that the alarm systems are faulty, and need to be fixed right away so no-one is ever locked out like this again.
What a tragedy. Maybe they should both take their business elsewhere.
Do you have nothing better to do, Jay? Go help your mother with the laundry.
I think this is a great chance to point out that Jay JG, rather than operating in good faith, is working very hard to construct a strawman argument.
Look below. What does his rant and rave have to do with the case? NOTHING. But it doesn't stop him from ranting and raving.
How's the Inquisition going Jay?
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:42:47 -0400
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account
that
was already blocked to begin with?
It's a bug and should be fixed.
The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits another five.
No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing,
but
whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go
in
and look around to see if the owner is back. Then when you're tossed
out
again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.
If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you rattle the knob.
Turns out that people keep getting kicked out of the shop for a day for disruptive behaviour, and the doors are automatically locked and their 24 hour ban is automatically renewed when the alarm system sees them trying to get back in wearing different disguises. Now some new guy kicked out for a day for disruption gets caught by the alarm system, and he says "but I wasn't trying to sneak in in disguise and disrupt like those other people, I was coming in openly and making note of your inventory so I could buy it legally when I'm allowed back in". So, he writes 500 abusive e-mails to the owners of the shop, insisting that he has been unjustly locked out, and demanding that the employee on duty at the time should be punished, claming that the alarm system is broken, and insisting that the shop is a disgrace. Another guy who has been kicked out for disrupting the shop has also been regularly writing the owners, generally whining and complaining about how terrible the shop is, how rude their employees are, how they practice favoritism to their regular customers, and how much better are the shops that he frequents. He takes up the cause of the first complainant, making erroneous claims, and insisting that the alarm systems are faulty, and need to be fixed right away so no-one is ever locked out like this again.
What a tragedy. Maybe they should both take their business elsewhere.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
JAY JG wrote:
No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing, but whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go in and look around to see if the owner is back. Then when you're tossed out again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.
In your example, the customer performs the forbidden act ("trespassing") twice. It therefore bears no relation to the situation at hand.
The more I read from you, Jay, the more I notice that it is full of strawmen. Which is kind of ironic, because you were usually the one who most vocally told other people they were setting up strawmen, especially without explaining why you think they are strawmen.
Timwi
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net
The more I read from you, Jay, the more I notice that it is full of strawmen. Which is kind of ironic, because you were usually the one who most vocally told other people they were setting up strawmen, especially without explaining why you think they are strawmen.
An analogy is not a strawman argument. And the more I read from you, Tim, the less I respond to. ;-)
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net
The more I read from you, Jay, the more I notice that it is full of strawmen. Which is kind of ironic, because you were usually the one who most vocally told other people they were setting up strawmen, especially without explaining why you think they are strawmen.
An analogy is not a strawman argument.
I didn't say it was; your posting nevertheless had a strawman argument in it, and this is another one.
And the more I read from you, Tim, the less I respond to. ;-)
Who? "Tim"? Oh, you're referring to me? My name isn't Tim.
Timwi
On Jul 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
- Admin blocks User:foo.
- User:foo logs in as User:foo.
- User:foo hits 'edit page.'
- User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
It should probably be noted that in general, the user:foo block is renewed very quickly. In your case, last time it was renewed within the first minute of the block, meaning your block didn't get extended by more than a few seconds.
-Snowspinner
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jul 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets. This is how it currently works:
- Admin blocks User:foo.
- User:foo logs in as User:foo.
- User:foo hits 'edit page.'
- User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
It should probably be noted that in general, the user:foo block is renewed very quickly. In your case, last time it was renewed within the first minute of the block, meaning your block didn't get extended by more than a few seconds.
Huh? For that to be true in general, you would have to assert that every blocked user attempts to hit "edit" at least once every minute.
Timwi
Phil Sandifer wrote:
It should probably be noted that in general, the
user:foo block is
renewed very quickly. In your case, last time it
was renewed within the
first minute of the block, meaning your block
didn't get extended by
more than a few seconds.
Timwi wrote:
Huh? For that to be true in general, you would have to assert that every blocked user attempts to hit "edit" at least once every minute.
The "few seconds" applied to one specific case. Since this block was renewed within the first minute, it's true that it was only extended by a few seconds.
The assertion was that the general case is that blocks are renewed "very quickly". This does seem to be true, since most blocks are placed due to ongoing edits. Thus, the blocked user will usually hit edit soon after the block is in effect.
Carbonite
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/10/05, Pat Carr carrp_x@yahoo.com wrote:
The assertion was that the general case is that blocks are renewed "very quickly". This does seem to be true, since most blocks are placed due to ongoing edits. Thus, the blocked user will usually hit edit soon after the block is in effect.
Or, if exercising an iron determination not to hit the edit button to right a wrong, then it can be a red link that renews the block. I quote from a page laughably titled "User is blocked - edit this page": "You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. If you were only intending to read a page and are seeing this message, you probably followed a red link. These are links to pages that do not exist, so they take users to an editing screen. You should have no problem if you follow only blue links."
Pat Carr wrote:
The assertion was that the general case is that blocks are renewed "very quickly". This does seem to be true, since most blocks are placed due to ongoing edits. Thus, the blocked user will usually hit edit soon after the block is in effect.
OK, this might apply to the majority cases, but it is still a wrong thing to do precisely because of the minority cases such as the following example:
Imagine you're such an editor who got caught up in an edit war. You then make a decision to stop, close your browser and cool off at pretty much the same time that an admin decides to block you for some policy (personal attacks, say).
The next day -- 20 hours later -- you have cooled off and you vow to approach the issue with a clearer mind now. You discover you're banned for the next 24 hours. Your cooling off is instantaneously undone.
Timwi
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
OK, this might apply to the majority cases, but it is still a wrong thing to do precisely because of the minority cases such as the following example:
Imagine you're such an editor who got caught up in an edit war. You then make a decision to stop, close your browser and cool off at pretty much the same time that an admin decides to block you for some policy (personal attacks, say).
The next day -- 20 hours later -- you have cooled off and you vow to approach the issue with a clearer mind now. You discover you're banned for the next 24 hours. Your cooling off is instantaneously undone.
Timwi
I agree completely - this is an example close to my heart right now - reasonable people, when treated unreasonably and denied any right of appeal, start to act in ways which seem unreasonable to others, but are reasonable to them.
Norrath
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Imagine you're such an editor who got caught up in an edit war. You then make a decision to stop, close your browser and
cool
off at pretty much the same time that an admin decides to block you
for
some policy (personal attacks, say).
The next day -- 20 hours later -- you have cooled off and you vow to approach the issue with a clearer mind now. You discover you're banned for the next 24 hours. Your cooling off is instantaneously undone.
Timwi
I agree completely - this is an example close to my heart right now - reasonable people, when treated unreasonably and denied any right of appeal, start to act in ways which seem unreasonable to others, but are reasonable to them.
Norrath
Admins should post a message on the blocked user's talk page informing them why the block was placed. The user will then receive a "New Message" notification. I'm not saying I'm in complete agreement with the current system, but I also don't believe it's as problematic as some are making it out to be.
Carbonite
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
On 7/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is
intended
to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing that in this case?
Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
That doesn't make sense. A blocked user CANNOT edit. It is like
removing the engine from the car of a driver whose license has been suspended and saying that turning the key in the ignition is an attempt to drive. It isn't - the car's not going anywhere. The driver KNOWS this.
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer us a different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks the IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case before the IP blocker was added.
I'm talking about the same logged-in user. The system has removed the engine and they are merely turning the ignition key. Obviously if they use a different IP address and don't log in, then they can edit, but in such a case the system doesn't know who they are, it doesn't stop them editing and it doesn't reset the block.
Please focus on the point of this discussion.
What purpose does it serve exactly?
Protects against block evasion.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit. If you already have absolute
protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common sense.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the time; this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
No it doesn't. In such a case they CANNOT edit. The system stops them.
The fact that the block is reset doesn't stop them editing. They can't edit anyway.
Please address the point. I notice that you removed the sections of text that I included to make the point clear (which I've now reinserted), so I'm assuming that you have grasped the point I am making and now you are trying to erect a strawman. This doesn't really help.
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
I'm talking about the same logged-in user.
I'm talking about the same user, using a different login, or no login. That's what the system was designed to prevent.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit. If you already have absolute
protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common sense.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the
time;
this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
No it doesn't. In such a case they CANNOT edit. The system stops them.
Um, that's right, they can't edit. Why say "No it doesn't" when you mean "Yes it does."?
The fact that the block is reset doesn't stop them editing. They can't edit anyway.
The block is reset because attempts to avoid blocks (e.g. by creating new userids and attempting to edit with them, or attempting to edit without logging in) are violations of the block, and the general rule is that attempts to violate blocks reset the timer.
Please address the point.
I have. You asked what it was for, and what it prevents. I've explained both. It works effectively to prevent a certain kind of sockpuppetry. It is not completely effective, and may have other side effects.
Jay.
On 7/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
us a
different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
the
IP address when attempts are made to do this. That wasn't the case
before
the IP blocker was added.
I'm talking about the same logged-in user.
I'm talking about the same user, using a different login, or no login.
Yes, I've pointed this out. Why did you move away from addressing NYJ's valid point?
That's what the system was designed to prevent.
Is it? Seems like a bug to me, as it does more than what you claim.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit. If you already have absolute
protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common sense.
If only that were the case. In practice, blocked editors edit all the
time;
this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with sockpuppets.
No it doesn't. In such a case they CANNOT edit. The system stops them.
Um, that's right, they can't edit. Why say "No it doesn't" when you mean "Yes it does."?
It doesn't STOP people from editing. The car has no engine, remember? It's not going anywhere.
The fact that the block is reset doesn't stop them editing. They can't edit anyway.
The block is reset because attempts to avoid blocks (e.g. by creating new userids and attempting to edit with them, or attempting to edit without logging in) are violations of the block, and the general rule is that attempts to violate blocks reset the timer.
Yes, but as you've pointed out, it doesn't work, and as NJY noted, it affects the original, logged in user.
Please address the point.
I have. You asked what it was for, and what it prevents. I've explained both. It works effectively to prevent a certain kind of sockpuppetry.
That's NOT the point. See my first contribution in this thread. Why do you keep on trying to evade the point? NJY, despite what other failings he might have, raised a valid point, and you've just spent three hours waffling about other things.
It is not completely effective, and may have other side effects.
Thanks. It's a bug, wouldn't you say?
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com
I'm talking about the same user, using a different login, or no login.
Yes, I've pointed this out. Why did you move away from addressing NYJ's valid point?
I've addressed all valid points.
It doesn't STOP people from editing. The car has no engine, remember? It's not going anywhere.
It only has "no engine" because the automatic block exists in the first place That's what STOPs them.
The block is reset because attempts to avoid blocks (e.g. by creating
new
userids and attempting to edit with them, or attempting to edit without logging in) are violations of the block, and the general rule is that attempts to violate blocks reset the timer.
Yes, but as you've pointed out, it doesn't work, and as NJY noted, it affects the original, logged in user.
I haven't pointed out any such thing. It works just fine at stopping what it is intended to stop.
NJY, despite what other failings he might have, raised a valid point, and you've just spent three hours waffling about other things.
His *claim* is that he got innocently caught; I've pointed out that for every *claim* of innocence, there are hundreds who are validly blocked, that there was no need for him to do what he did to get caught in the first place, and that if he was indeed innocently caught the "punishment" is minor and the fix easy. That pretty much covers every possible angle, so it's hard to see why you keep insisting that I haven't dealt with the point.
It is not completely effective, and may have other side effects.
Thanks. It's a bug, wouldn't you say?
No, I'd say it's a good tool that generally works well. The fact that it can't stop all sockpuppets etc. is not a bug, but merely a limitation. As for the fact that it *may* once have caused some minor discomfort to a blocked user who *claims* he was trying to do something legitimate, see previous e-mails or above.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a block.
I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking troll, but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see through" the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.
Timwi
On 7/3/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a block.
I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking troll, but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see through" the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.
Timwi
Well said.
As I've been reading the posts on this topic, I've become increasingly concerned about the nearly complete lack of empathy some people have for those on the wrong side of a block. Others on this mailing list are excellent in their patience and tolerance, but at least a few are making all admins look very bad indeed by their dismissive attitudes.
I've just blocked myself to check on how this process works. Among other things, the page includes the following line:
"If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature." Export pages is a live link.
So the GFDL problems are nil.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 3, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Timwi wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a block.
I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking troll, but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see through" the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I've just blocked myself to check on how this process works. Among other things, the page includes the following line:
"If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature." Export pages is a live link.
So the GFDL problems are nil.
That may, strictly speaking, fulfill the requirements of the GFDL (indeed you could also use &action=raw&ctyle=text/css if you're techy), but it is the completely wrong approach by all principles of UI design and user expectation. (Notice especially that you admitted that, in order to see that link, you have to have your block renewed again...)
Timwi
That may, strictly speaking, fulfill the requirements of the GFDL (indeed you could also use &action=raw&ctyle=text/css if you're techy), but it is the completely wrong approach by all principles of UI design and user expectation. (Notice especially that you admitted that, in order to see that link, you have to have your block renewed again...)
You're right about the UI thing, it's expected that things work a certain way--so expecting users to know abot that XML export feature isn't a safe bet (especially when that feature is only mentioned AFTER your block gets renewed). Plus there's the assumption that hitting 'edit page' wouldn't actually renew anything, so since that's the easiest method of getting the source, that's why I did.
He didn't even address the fact that someone may want to read the block page or again and that the person may not even know about the block yet when they hit edit.
I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which this is not a case of).
I don't think he's willing to acknowledge that it's a bug no matter what as he appears to be acting in bad faith. I think it's pretty clear that he's being disengenuous along with the other admins defending the same idea without valid justification (just childish retorts), so really it's insane to reblock me for calling an admin disingenuous when it's not only true, but is a description of their behavior as it pertains directly to the current circumtsance (read:not a personal attack).
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050704 06:10]:
I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which this is not a case of).
wikien-l isn't a development list. Have you tried reporting it as a bug yet? Or perhaps discussing it on mediawiki-l (the list for the software) would be appropriate first.
- d.
On 7/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050704 06:10]:
I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which this is not a case of).
wikien-l isn't a development list. Have you tried reporting it as a bug yet? Or perhaps discussing it on mediawiki-l (the list for the software) would be appropriate first.
With all due respect, David, but you seem to be evading the point. You must know whether this is a bug or a feature. If you don't know, then say so, otherwise NJY is going to think you are just winding him up.
Even though I know this isn't a dev list, the first solution that I coudl think of for this would be to have a view source button that wouldn't be an edit window, that way you'd run no risk of renewing the block, it would also make it easier for general users who just want to look at the source and not have to worry about accidentally hitting the save page button. I think the whole block issue may be a psychological issue as well, I forget who brought it up before but there does seem to be a certain lack of empathy for people on the wrong side of the block which is something that should be rectified or we risk the chance of alienating potentially useful editors to wikipedia.
-Jtkiefer
Skyring (skyring@gmail.com) [050704 06:21]:
On 7/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder@energon.org) [050704 06:10]:
I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which this is not a case of).
wikien-l isn't a development list. Have you tried reporting it as a bug yet? Or perhaps discussing it on mediawiki-l (the list for the software) would be appropriate first.
With all due respect, David, but you seem to be evading the point. You must know whether this is a bug or a feature. If you don't know, then say so, otherwise NJY is going to think you are just winding him up.
The answer is "I don't know" and "there may well be something to what Nathan says" :-) Most users of course won't ever see the blocked user interface. If the user interface defies expectations - which is a bad thing, after all - ask the developers why it works the way it does, in a calm and polite manner, and Brion or Tim or Magnus or whoever wrote that bit will almost certainly explain why it works as it does, or suggest raising a bug.
- d.
On 7/4/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which this is not a case of).
You're right, Nathan. It does (at least in my estimation) seem to be either a bug or a serious design flaw. I had a look through Bugzilla (where the bugs with the software are reported) with a view to making a report, and it appears to already be reported, at the following URL: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856
Perhaps a solution would be to only autoblock the IP address if the user clicks edit while not logged in as the blocked username. That way, if they try to edit with a brand new username the autoblock would kick in (and thus avoid the problems you mentioned). It would also be handy if the period for the autoblock were reduced to match the time remaining on the main block, which is another bug/design flaw entirely I think.
~Mark Ryan
Timwi wrote:
He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page.
I have no comment about the rest of this thread, but I wanted to point out that this is not true. What is required by the GFDL is *not* that people be able to retrieve the source, but that they are able to get a "Transparent" copy.
The actual readable text presented in your browser *is* the transparent version. You can cut and paste it into a generic text editor.
So whether or not this is a bug or a feature, there are zero license implications at stake here.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Timwi wrote:
He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page.
I have no comment about the rest of this thread, but I wanted to point out that this is not true. What is required by the GFDL is *not* that people be able to retrieve the source, but that they are able to get a "Transparent" copy.
Fine, but that clearly doesn't make it an illegitimate thing to want access to the source text, especially as it's available to tech-savvy people (via Special:Export or ?action=raw).
Timwi
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 05:54:40 -0400
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org
Just read, don't edit.
That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been doing that in the first place as it's a bug.
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's doing exactly what it is intended to do.
Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
Why is that "obvious"? Why on earth would you hit the edit button when you were banned from editing?
Jay.
I did, once. Why? To test if the 24 hours had expired.
When I brought this to the attention of the list, I was informed that it was a feature, not a bug.
-Me
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
"Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org wrote in message news:787052431.20050702212907@energon.org...
Just read, don't edit.
That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been doing that in the first place as it's a bug. Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
So how come you keep posting to say "hey it did it again"?