I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
At 04:03 PM 5/31/03 -0700, Dan wrote:
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking. --LittleDan
There are two reasons for the blanket reversion. One is to save a lot of effort on all our parts. That includes you. It seems clear that fact-checking any of this person's claims takes an enormous amount of work. If something he posts prompts you to do research and write about it, great, but actually fact-checking all that nonsense is not a good use of your time.
The second is that automatic reversion discourages his destructive behavior. For this reason, I *strongly* urge you not to un-revert. (I haven't checked the list archive to see how strongly the auto-reversion is agreed policy, so I am urging, not demanding.)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 04:03 PM 5/31/03 -0700, Dan wrote:
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts
directed
at Michael are good. I went through the
contrabutions
of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who
I'm
talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be
un-reverting
all of his useful edits, but only after fact
checking.
--LittleDan
PLEASE don't unrevert. If you want to make the changes, please do them under your own name.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
"Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote in message news:20030531230332.77432.qmail@web41809.mail.yahoo.com...
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking. --LittleDan
Do not un-revert. Jimmy Wales made it quite clear what he expects us to do about Michael, in a message to this list only yesterday (in my time zone). Here's what he said:
"Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com wrote in message news:20030530183331.C27690@joey.bomis.com...
Dante Alighieri wrote:
This is an open request, but it is specifically aimed at Jimbo. Can we
have
a clear and definitive answer on Michael and his pseudonyms and
his/their
ban status?
Michael and all his derivatives are banned from Wikipedia. Sysops and developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this technologically effective.
Also, can this be posted on the Wikipedia so that it can be easily linked to?
I assume this email message, via the archvies, will be sufficient.
The current situation requires that we direct people to Michael's ban talk page and that they then link to the No-Fx page and
the
Weezer pages. I am, as are others, spending too much time defending our actions when we delete Michael's garbage. Thanks.
He's banned, and if he wants to be unbanned, he can email me for a friendly chat, or join the mailing list to state his case.
--Jimbo
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com wrote:
"Daniel Ehrenberg"
wrote in message news:20030531230332.77432.qmail@web41809.mail.yahoo.com...
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking. --LittleDan
Do not un-revert. Jimmy Wales made it quite clear what he expects us to do about Michael, in a message to this list only yesterday (in my time zone). Here's what he said:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote in message news:20030530183331.C27690@joey.bomis.com...
Dante Alighieri wrote:
This is an open request, but it is specifically aimed at Jimbo. Can we
have
a clear and definitive answer on Michael and his pseudonyms and
his/their
ban status?
Michael and all his derivatives are banned from Wikipedia. Sysops and developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this technologically effective.
Also, can this be posted on the Wikipedia so that it can be easily linked to?
I assume this email message, via the archvies, will be sufficient.
The current situation requires that we direct people to Michael's ban talk page and that they then link to the No-Fx page and
the
Weezer pages. I am, as are others, spending too much time defending our actions when we delete Michael's garbage. Thanks.
He's banned, and if he wants to be unbanned, he can email me for a friendly chat, or join the mailing list to state his case.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
LittleDan wrote (about Jimmy's comment on Michael):
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it?
It doesn't prohibit your checking all of the facts in his edits and placing back what is correct under your own name, that is taking responsibility for the facts yourself. But if you do this, then I strongly suggest that you *not* simply revert to a previous version with rollback, or else nobody will know that you're taking responsibility. Instead, write a summary along the lines of "I stand behind these facts.", so that we know that you're not simply undoing a deletion.
IOW, there's good evidence that Michael can't be trusted, so other editors will trust you only if you make it clear that you're not just writing something because you trust Michael!
For added safety, never edit a previous version that Michael wrote, but instead make all of the changes in the reversion by hand. This will remind you if you ever write down a fact that you haven't checked. (But now I'm getting into advice on the details of your editing process, so you could probably ignore this paragraph.)
-- Toby
I wrote in part:
LittleDan wrote (about Jimmy's comment on Michael):
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it?
It doesn't prohibit your checking all of the facts in his edits and placing back what is correct under your own name, that is taking responsibility for the facts yourself.
Actually, I suppose that somebody could argue that it does prohibit using Michael's writing directly, rather than rewriting it all in your own words. I won't commit to such a claim; it still might be a good thing to do, however.
-- Toby
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of verifying that every single thing he wrote was correct, don't even try to think that there is a good Michael edit. And besides, Jimbo has said he is banned until he sends him an email saying that he wants to be reinstated. He is specifically contraverting Jimbo's stand on the subject until such a time, and because of that, and because of the time-consuming problem of verifying each and every thing he writes, blanket reversion is the only recourse.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Zoe wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of verifying that every single thing he wrote was correct, don't even try to think that there is a good Michael edit.
Yeah, but they're gradually improving, at least in the examples I've seen. His attitude, unfortunately, isn't though.
Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
Zoe wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of verifying that every single thing he wrote was correct, don't even try to think that there is a good Michael edit.
Yeah, but they're gradually improving, at least in the examples I've seen. His attitude, unfortunately, isn't though.
Spoke too soon. Sorry 'bout that.
At 01:28 PM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it? --LittleDan
Yes, it does. There is no such thing as a good Michael edit. Unless you want to to go the trouble of verifying that every single thing he wrote was correct, don't even try to think that there is a good Michael edit. And besides, Jimbo has said he is banned until he sends him an email saying that he wants to be reinstated. He is specifically contraverting Jimbo's stand on the subject until such a time, and because of that, and because of the time-consuming problem of verifying each and every thing he writes, blanket reversion is the only recourse.
Zoe
I agree with Zoe. Let me put it this way. I don't care if Michael's only edit to a given article is to correct the spelling of a single word, I'm reverting it. I may then choose to edit the page myself and correct the spelling myself, but I will not knowingly let Michael edit the Wikipedia, under any circumstances. Well, I might make an allowance on a talk page, but probably not.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his good edits, does it?
The owner of the site has declared that Michael is not allowed to make edits on Wikipedia, good or bad. Lacking the technical means to enforce this ban, we have decided to try a soft ban. It would be nice if you didn't subvert those efforts.
A little analogy: suppose you had a child who keeps screaming for sweets. You have three options: 1) always give in 2) sometimes give in 3) never give in. Option 2 is by far the worst.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his
good edits, does it?
The owner of the site has declared that Michael is not allowed to make edits on Wikipedia, good or bad. Lacking the technical means to enforce this ban, we have decided to try a soft ban. It would be nice if you didn't subvert those efforts.
A little analogy: suppose you had a child who keeps screaming for sweets. You have three options: 1) always give in 2) sometimes give in 3) never give in. Option 2 is by far the worst.
Axel
I ***strongly*** disagree. I think a kid who keeps screaming for sweets is asking for more than sweets. The solution is certainly not either to never give or to always give. A sensible way is to understand why he is screaming, to make him understand that things are not received always when one scream for them. But *never* indulging someone for craving for attention or sweets is *really* bad imho. Option 1 and 3 are by the worst option. Mother point of view. My kids are perfectly equilibrated kids, with good teeths, and very few tantrums. Indulgement from time to time does not spoil. Strict behavior ruin spirit.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
At 12:08 PM 6/2/2003, you wrote:
I ***strongly*** disagree. I think a kid who keeps screaming for sweets is asking for more than sweets. The solution is certainly not either to never give or to always give. A sensible way is to understand why he is screaming, to make him understand that things are not received always when one scream for them. But *never* indulging someone for craving for attention or sweets is *really* bad imho. Option 1 and 3 are by the worst option. Mother point of view. My kids are perfectly equilibrated kids, with good teeths, and very few tantrums. Indulgement from time to time does not spoil. Strict behavior ruin spirit.
Anthere, you take the analogy too far. Of course you are correct that it is about more than just sweets with the children, and that the two absolutes would be bad... but only because you care about the children, and your goal is the long term welfare of the children.
In the analogy though, the child is Michael, and our goal is not his long-term well-being, but getting him to stop vandalizing the Wikipedia. Therefore, I hold that option 3 (never giving him sweets -> always reverting everything) is the best way to handle the situation.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante-
In the analogy though, the child is Michael, and our goal is not his long-term well-being, but getting him to stop vandalizing the Wikipedia. Therefore, I hold that option 3 (never giving him sweets -> always reverting everything) is the best way to handle the situation.
Actually, if Michael *responded* to positive feedback and would allow us to try to get him on the right path, that would be a neat strategy. But as has been noted already, Michael is very probably a mentally ill person who is not fully aware of his actions.
The problems we have to address are technical; mainly, we cannot deal well with vandals who use changing IP addresses. I have proposed a solution previously: to have automatic expiry on IP blocks. This would allow us to comfortably ban all the AOL addresses he uses without major harm done. A ban can last just a few minutes, the vandal will not not know that and switch the IP address regardless.
The feature freeze has delayed this, and right now I'm a bit busy. It would be fairly simple to implement, though.
Regards,
Erik
I agree with Anthere and Axel on this, and I think they are talking past each other. The issue here is rewarding bad behavior sporadically -- that's a good way -- the best way I can think of -- to get lots and lots more bad behavior out of someone.
So, it isn't really similar to decisions about candy.
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
well that doesn't prohibit unrevereting of his
good edits, does it?
The owner of the site has declared that Michael is not allowed to make edits on Wikipedia, good or bad. Lacking the technical means to enforce this ban, we have decided to try a soft ban. It would be nice if you didn't subvert those efforts.
A little analogy: suppose you had a child who keeps screaming for sweets. You have three options: 1) always give in 2) sometimes give in 3) never give in. Option 2 is by far the worst.
Axel
I ***strongly*** disagree. I think a kid who keeps screaming for sweets is asking for more than sweets. The solution is certainly not either to never give or to always give. A sensible way is to understand why he is screaming, to make him understand that things are not received always when one scream for them. But *never* indulging someone for craving for attention or sweets is *really* bad imho. Option 1 and 3 are by the worst option. Mother point of view. My kids are perfectly equilibrated kids, with good teeths, and very few tantrums. Indulgement from time to time does not spoil. Strict behavior ruin spirit.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it. -kingturtle
Hi All,
I guess that as the person doing most of the reverting I should say something about my actions. I put this on KF's talk page after he/she asked why I was reverting changes made by 24.130.213.242;
------------------- Hi KF, I'm certain that User:24.130.213.242 is User:Michael. It's an IP address he's used before (look at the contributions), they edited 1991 in music and then 2 minutes later User:Michael/Crass did the same and the edits are on Michael's pet subjects. The IP has just been banned, see Vandalism in progress. The issue of what to do with Michael's contributions has been debated at length and I'm sure will continue to be, I'm in the revert on sight camp. Not wanting to sound too self-important, with my finals fast approaching, I can't afford to spend time cross-checking everything Michael adds with other sites on the internet before deciding whether or not it is accurate. He has a history of adding incorrect information and I hate the thought of leaving incorrect information on here. So, for me, reversion is the only choice. Please feel free to go and revert me if you wish but please check the information against something. Anyway, I must sleep now, have fun -- Ams80 22:57 31 May 2003 (UTC)
--------------------
While I was writing the above someone (I think The Anome) blocked the IP address and things quietened down. As an example of why I feel reverting was the right thing to do, [[The Rescuers]] was added to [[1978 in film]] which looks completely innocuous. However, [[1977 in film]] lists The Rescuers as being made then, The Rescuers article says 1977, IMDb says 1977, a Google search for 'The Rescuers movie' brings up lots of 1977 and no 1978 that I can see. So now the page history has the slightly comedic;
a.. (cur) (last) . . M 00:17 1 Jun 2003 . . JohnOwens (Reverted to last edit by Ams80) a.. (cur) (last) . . 00:07 1 Jun 2003 . . LittleDan (Reverted to last edit by 24.130.213.242) a.. (cur) (last) . . 23:20 31 May 2003 . . Ams80 (Reverted to last edit by 67.80.218.119) a.. (cur) (last) . . 23:19 31 May 2003 . . 24.130.213.242
I've watched the Michael situation develop ever since he's been here, right back to the days of Graham (Quercus Robur) (an infinitely more authorative source) attempting to keep the Crass page free of Michael's rubbish, the Crass talk page and the Crass page history are both perfect examples of Michael's behaviour, insisting he's correct and abusing others about things which he is demonstrably wrong about. Add to this vandalism of user pages and many page's histories filled with filth (look at the contributions from Michael/Crass for examples) and you have the Michael picture.
The argument against reversion on sight seems to me to be mainly that there's no point in removing valid information and for the vast, vast majority of users I would agree with that. I personally feel that it is more important for the project that the information we have is factual, I would much rather lower the amount of information we have by removing Michael's additions than leave the site growing in the knowledge that a proportion of what Michael adds is incorrect. The suggestion to me that "If you don't have any time to check the accuracy of Michael's edits, perhaps you shouldn't revert his edits at all." I completely reject, if Quercus and Zoe and Camembert and John Owens and Dante and countless others had done just this then there would be a lot of pages in worse states than they are now.
For a while there was a concerted effort to be nice to Michael and to check everything he did, leave the good and remove the bad. In my opinion this just said to Michael that he could crash around writing whatever the hell he liked, swearing at others, abusing others, vandalising user pages, insisting he was right about everything and people would go around tidying up after him and being nice to him. I really do not think that that is an effective way to do things. Why, if I want to keep this place accurate, should I trawl the internet looking for obscure information about bands and films that I have no interest in?
Perhaps I should be a little more explicit. I would like Michael to leave the project, I think he has outstayed his welcome and I trust nothing that he writes. Unless a definite policy is made regarding what to do with Michael's edits is made, or unless Jimmy Wales tells me not to, I am going to continue reverting Michael's contributions without discussion with him. In the hour I spent with Michael last night I also did an hour of revision, spending a few minutes in total pressing refresh on his contibutions page and reverting anything new. Following him around checking all his additions would have meant not revising and wasting hours of my time. If someone would like to assure me that they will check each and every fact that Michael adds then I will happily just leave a note on that person's talk page every time Michael shows up and let them deal with it. And I don't mean just looking at the addition and checking the spelling and that there's no swearing in it, each and every fact about bands and films from the 70s and 80s need checking and I think few of us are expert enough to be able to do this without spending time checking with another reference.
Michael spent between two and two and a half hours editing yesterday and apart from a few reversions un-reverted by other users Michael's contributions sum to nothing (apart from having got to swear a lot at others and telling them he would rape them if they reverted his additions). Personally I hope that he will get bored, if I was putting in hours of effort every day, all of which got removed I would eventually stop. His latest additions form User:Administrator only lasted 10 minutes before he stopped (with everything being reverted), perhaps he is getting bored, on the ohter hand this is Michael who appears almost impossible to psychoanalyze.
Sorry that this has turned into a bit of a rant, I just don't have much sympathy for Michael right now. I also haven't really responded to Kingturtle yet, I admit that while I was reverting Mchael's anonymous additions it wouldn't have been clear to some why or what I was doing. I'm not really sure of what the best thing to do would have been regarding informing others. A note on my own talk page perhaps? I guess it's easier when he's signed in as then we can link the user name to Michael/ban or something. If someone has a good idea for what to do I will happily do that in the future.
Anyway, have good days,
Andrew (Ams80)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Oliver Brown" oliver@kingturtle.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blanket reverts
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it. -kingturtle
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 02:21 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
Perhaps I should be a little more explicit. I would like Michael to leave the project, I think he has outstayed his welcome and I trust nothing that he writes. Unless a definite policy is made regarding what to do with Michael's edits is made, or unless Jimmy Wales tells me not to, I am going to continue reverting Michael's contributions without discussion with him.
There IS a definite policy. Here is the link to the WikiEN-l message where Jimbo confirms (again) that Michael and all of his derivatives are HARD-banned. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890.html
Check here for Wikipedia policy on users who are hard-banned. http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks
I interpret this, especially given Jimmy's language: "Sysops and developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this technologically effective", to mean that Michael is not meant to be allowed to make ANY edits to the Wikipedia. Thus, if anyone reverts another sysops reversion of Michael's edits, I would take this to be in violation of Wikipedia policy. As someone else suggested (I believe it was Zoe), if the material that Michael adds inspires you do to your own research on a topic and add in information on your own, under your own name, so be it. Nevertheless I believe that this would have the unfortunate result of further encouraging Michael.
In order to resolve this issue, I am asking someone with developer access to explore ways to permanently ban Michael (and his IP-hopping alter-egos) from the Wikipedia. As, I believe, this will be extremely problematic, I suggest we follow Anome's suggestion from the Vandalism in Progress page and contact AOL's abuse division. I am not comfortable doing this as a representative of the Administration at Wikipedia unless I receive general support for it. I would much prefer Jimmy or someone with developer access to make that call, but I also don't wish to burden them.
Furthermore, I believe that it may be possible to pursue legal action against Michael (which could potentially force AOL to turn over his user information, which would probably stop Michael even if we didn't follow through with the lawsuit) either under the DMCA (unauthorized access of computer networks) or civilly under libel laws (he has made MANY libelous statements in my opinion). This, while admittedly extreme, could help us put an end, finally, to Michael's reign of irritation, and save many of us valuable time and energy... not to mention frustration.
Thoughts?
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Kingturtle wrote:
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it.
This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature -- doesn't have a space for comments. And ideas for aiding that?
-- Toby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Je Dimanĉo 01 Junio 2003 08:59, Toby Bartels skribis:
Kingturtle wrote:
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it.
This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature -- doesn't have a space for comments. And ideas for aiding that?
Hmm... that would defeat the purpose of it being a one-click mass timesaver. If you need to add comments, probably best to follow the usual procedure via page history.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Kingturtle wrote:
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it.
This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature -- doesn't have a space for comments. And ideas for aiding that?
Hmm... that would defeat the purpose of it being a one-click mass timesaver. If you need to add comments, probably best to follow the usual procedure via page history.
So do you think that reverting Michael's edits require comments? If so, then it'll be a lot slower for Zoe et al to do so. Or, do you think that Kingturtle (and newer users) don't need to be reminded in every reversion about Michael? If so, then there'll continue to be mistaken re-reversions.
-- Toby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Je Dimanĉo 01 Junio 2003 12:31, Toby Bartels skribis:
This is a quite reasonable request, but the technical system that we have to make reversion easy -- the rollback feature -- doesn't have a space for comments. And ideas for aiding that?
Hmm... that would defeat the purpose of it being a one-click mass timesaver. If you need to add comments, probably best to follow the usual procedure via page history.
So do you think that reverting Michael's edits require comments?
I have no opinion on that.
But if people *want* to put comments on "rollback" reversions, it needs to be very streamlined. Perhaps some kind of JavaScript could be rigged up to have a comment field directly on the contribs page and modify the links to include it... or some kind of form/button thing... ugh.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote in large part:
But if people *want* to put comments on "rollback" reversions, it needs to be very streamlined. Perhaps some kind of JavaScript could be rigged up to have a comment field directly on the contribs page and modify the links to include it... or some kind of form/button thing... ugh.
Yeah, that's about what I could think of. That's why I asked if anybody had any ideas. ^_^
-- Toby
--- Oliver Brown oliver@kingturtle.com wrote:
pages that are blanked for reasons regarding banned users should be marked as such. please make it very clear to the other users why you are doing it. -kingturtle
If blanked, yes, but we're supposed to be deleting them, not blanking them. I do put comments as to why I'm deleting his entries as I delete them, but I don't have the capability of doing anything about it when I do a revert.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
i have come across blanked articles. articles should be deleted, or marked for deletion. they should never be blanked. -kingturtle
Oliver Brown wrote:
i have come across blanked articles. articles should be deleted, or marked for deletion. they should never be blanked.
I disagree. At the heart of Wikipedia is 'you can edit this page right now'.
Sometimes a page has no useful content at all. The best thing to use would be history-preserving delete, which should be available to all users (including anonymous ones). Until that comes, blanking is the right thing to do.
-M-