--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=P...
Has it been a year already?
--mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11, 2005
If there were no extensions.
Fred
On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire
Has it been a year already?
--mav
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597
I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we need to do.
I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.
Fred
On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire
-Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050728 22:16]:
He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597 I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we need to do. I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.
I was going to say "we should maybe wait for a case to be brought", but then I read the quoted edit. At this stage I'll declare YUO AR A ROUGE ARB and probably agree with you entirely.
- d.
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out of order? As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's banning duration is self-imposed.
Sam
On 7/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050728 22:16]:
He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597 I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we need to do. I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.
I was going to say "we should maybe wait for a case to be brought", but then I read the quoted edit. At this stage I'll declare YUO AR A ROUGE ARB and probably agree with you entirely.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out of order? As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's banning duration is self-imposed.
I would oppose such a move. Most people who get banned are probably young and immature. Give them a year to grow up. And if they need another year when they come back then give them that too :)
Regards, Haukur
Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10 year olds plenty of chances to get it right.
Fred
On Jul 28, 2005, at 7:36 AM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out of order? As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's banning duration is self-imposed.
I would oppose such a move. Most people who get banned are probably young and immature. Give them a year to grow up. And if they need another year when they come back then give them that too :)
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Fred Bauder wrote:
Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10 year olds plenty of chances to get it right.
Proposal for a new policy:
1. User does something stupid -> User is warned. 2. User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant policy pages. 3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are required. Namely:
* Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of their user_talk page) * Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an &action=edit page will still reset the block
Possibly (or otherwise), I think something more drastic (but potentially more beneficial) might be required if this doesn't/won't work:
Per-user, per-namespace, per-category blocking. Which means:
* User can be prevented from editing any pages in a particular namespace (eg. articles); * User can be prevented from editing any articles in a particular category
Now, tell me where and how to do these things in PHP (I'm fairly certain I could do them in pseudocode), and they'll be implemented by Mediawiki 1.8 :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
On 7/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Fred Bauder wrote:
Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10 year olds plenty of chances to get it right.
Proposal for a new policy:
- User does something stupid -> User is warned.
- User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
policy pages. 3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are required. Namely:
- Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
their user_talk page)
- Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
&action=edit page will still reset the block
Possibly (or otherwise), I think something more drastic (but potentially more beneficial) might be required if this doesn't/won't work:
Per-user, per-namespace, per-category blocking. Which means:
- User can be prevented from editing any pages in a particular namespace
(eg. articles);
- User can be prevented from editing any articles in a particular category
Now, tell me where and how to do these things in PHP (I'm fairly certain I could do them in pseudocode), and they'll be implemented by Mediawiki 1.8 :)
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC6OcE/RxM5Ph0xhMRA0QpAJ9QRZMOSwYXQlNzV6mTYwrOlCVR6wCeLQGv TVOyTFpI38+/HgVK2NUla30= =9CJs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
At the moment, if a blocked user clicks on edit, their block timer would be reset. This is just to avoid that happening, something probably even more confusing.
Cheers, Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Sam Korn wrote:
On 7/28/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
At the moment, if a blocked user clicks on edit, their block timer would be reset. This is just to avoid that happening, something probably even more confusing.
Which is the second problem I alluded to ;)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
On 7/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal for a new policy:
- User does something stupid -> User is warned.
- User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
policy pages. 3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are required. Namely:
- Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
their user_talk page)
- Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
&action=edit page will still reset the block
<snip>
There are two problems I see at present. The first one is ignorance - the "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to do that?" defence. Yes, the user should probably be pointed to policy pages on the first warning.
My present way of dealing with the clueless is:
if(!user.welcomed) { assumeGoodFaith(); welcomeUser(); } else if(!user.warned) { assumeGoodFaith(); warnUser(); } else { warnUser(); }
The second problem has been outlined in a message just in...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
Seconded. Actually I think the whole idea of automatically resetting the ban if the user "attempts" to edit is silly. "Ooh! You thought you were going to be clever and edit even though we've told you you can't? Let's see who has the last laugh, sucker!"
It reminds me of the time I got accused of having a sockpuppet on a mailing list because I changed the name in the "From" field but used the same e-mail address. ("You clever hacker! You thought you'd fool us by changing your name but I can see that the e-mail address is the same!")
Regards, Haukur
On 7/29/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
Seconded. Actually I think the whole idea of automatically resetting the ban if the user "attempts" to edit is silly. "Ooh! You thought you were going to be clever and edit even though we've told you you can't? Let's see who has the last laugh, sucker!"
Resetting a block shouldn't happen automatically. If the editor is logged in, then he knows he can't edit. If not logged in, then yeah, it might be an attempt to edit anonymously, but it might be an IP address shared with others. This needs a human eye cast over it.
Secondly, it is far too easy to "attempt to edit". Sometimes the hand clicks the mouse before the brain thinks "Shoot, that's something I shouldn't do now". Clicking on a red link is also seen as "an attempt to edit". And sometimes you hit the "edit" tab when aiming for the "history" tab.
This is poor design, if it isn't an outright bug. It's like withdrawing money from an autoteller. Get the PIN wrong once and it swallows your card without giving you a second chance. Enter $1000 when you meant to take out $100, and it cancels your card if there's only $500 in the account.
Both can be seen as obvious attempts at fraud. Punish the bastards!
Sam Korn wrote:
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out of order? As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's banning duration is self-imposed.
And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
--Jimbo
I have to agree with Jimmy, but, I've only been a wikipedian for around a month, so I haven't been here the last time it happened.
On 7/28/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out of order? As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's banning duration is self-imposed.
And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
--Jimbo
If it comes down to being neccessary yes, though I prefer to assume good faith even though assume good faith may apply slightly less if at all in this now since Plautus has shown that assuming good faith just gives him a free pass to misbehave.
-Jtkiefer
He didn't get a free pass. He got a second chance and blew it. I would have never have got after him if he just went back to editing.
Fred
On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Jtkiefer wrote:
And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
--Jimbo
If it comes down to being neccessary yes, though I prefer to assume good faith even though assume good faith may apply slightly less if at all in this now since Plautus has shown that assuming good faith just gives him a free pass to misbehave.
-Jtkiefer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l