Hi, all-
Firstly, many thanks to everyone who is, or who has been, involved in the success of Wikipedia. It is undoubtedly one of the most impressive academic and democratic endeavours to have ever developed on the Internet. I use the site frequently as an intellectual resource and I greatly appreciate the efforts of all who are involved. Wikipedia's standards of quality, ease of use, and vast wealth of information make it the single best catch-all reference source of which I know.
Sadly, these quality standards may have recently been misapplied, I believe, in Paul Bauder's blocking of my abilities to edit a Wikipedia entry. As I have never edited informational content in an entry (though I have occasionally corrected a few grammatical errors), I am not certain that I could have committed "repeated acts of vandalism." As I do not make it a habit to edit articles frequently, being blocked is more offensive as a matter of principle than as an accurate accusation. I would like to have the situation reviewed so that I may contribute to the Wikipedia project if possible.
My info is as follows: IP: *68.180.65.172* Name: Griffin Watkins
Thanks Again, Griffin
Hi, Silly question perhaps, but why don't you use a user account rather than editing anonymously? Your chances of being mistaken for a vandal would be a lot less...
On 2/14/06, Griffin Watkins agriffinw@gmail.com wrote:
My info is as follows: IP: *68.180.65.172* Name: Griffin Watkins
Steve
Steve, he wasn't blocked for his own actions, but because Fred Bauder placed a range block on a whole /16. From Special:Ipblocklist:
15:56, February 12, 2006, Fred Bauder (Talk) blocked 68.180.0.0/16 (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Persistant vandalism by a user. Please contact me regarding assistance in arranging for access)
I believe there is something on [[WP:RFCU]] about this. Fred claimed at the time that there were no legitimate edits from this range, which may be now shown to be not so.
-Matt
On 2/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Silly question perhaps, but why don't you use a user account rather than editing anonymously? Your chances of being mistaken for a vandal would be a lot less...
On 2/14/06, Griffin Watkins agriffinw@gmail.com wrote:
My info is as follows: IP: *68.180.65.172* Name: Griffin Watkins
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I believe there is something on [[WP:RFCU]] about this. Fred claimed at the time that there were no legitimate edits from this range, which may be now shown to be not so.
Clarification: the section 'Suspected Mcfly85 sockpuppets'.
-Matt
On 2/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Steve, he wasn't blocked for his own actions, but because Fred Bauder placed a range block on a whole /16. From Special:Ipblocklist:
I've never been quite sure about how blocks affect registered users. I gather consensus is that it should work like this [1]:
1. User A in IP range x has an account 2. User B in IP range x does not have an account 3. User B vandalises 4. IP range x is blocked 5. User A can still edit, user B can't. 6. User B cannot create an account.
In other words, registered users should only be blocked by the user name itself being banned. Preventing blocked IP addresses creating accounts stops the obvious loophole.
I also gather that it doesn't quite work like this. Anyone know how it actually works, and why it doesn't work as described?
[1] consensus = I think it should work like that, and I recall seeing one post somewhere once that agreed with me :D
Steve