KNOTT, T wrote:
What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?
Billy
-----Original Message----- From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:35 To: English Wikipedia Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
Wes yes I know we'll recognise them fairly quickly. But I suspect that most users under this sort of ban will flout it very quickly. I suspect that we be spending much of our time catching them out. Also 10 edits a day is plenty enough to be rude about people. What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
I don't want to put too much of a downer on the idea. It might make some people shape up. It's certainly nice to give some sort of warning to give them a chance.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:27 To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it
was
them. IPs identify the machine not the user.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH): As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per
day.
That way, he can
- either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
- or use them more wisely,
- or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some figures.
Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or
going
anon will result in immediate banning.
Magnus (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
Fred Bauder wrote:
The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get
on
the
stick. You can keep the pressure on...
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
quickly?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
DISCLAIMER: This message has been scanned by Norton Antivirus (using the latest definitions) for all known Viruses. The information in this message is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer. No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.
RickK
"Mills, Billy" billy.mills@thomson.com wrote:
KNOTT, T wrote:
What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?
Billy
-----Original Message----- From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:35 To: English Wikipedia Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
Wes yes I know we'll recognise them fairly quickly. But I suspect that most users under this sort of ban will flout it very quickly. I suspect that we be spending much of our time catching them out. Also 10 edits a day is plenty enough to be rude about people. What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
I don't want to put too much of a downer on the idea. It might make some people shape up. It's certainly nice to give some sort of warning to give them a chance.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:27 To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it
was
them. IPs identify the machine not the user.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH): As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per
day.
That way, he can
- either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
- or use them more wisely,
- or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some figures.
Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or
going
anon will result in immediate banning.
Magnus (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
Fred Bauder wrote:
The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get
on
the
stick. You can keep the pressure on...
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
quickly?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
DISCLAIMER: This message has been scanned by Norton Antivirus (using the latest definitions) for all known Viruses. The information in this message is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
You grossly exaggerate. We'll catch em at dawn, mediate em in the morning, arbitrate em in the afternoon, hang em and be home in time for supper.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:28:56 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer. No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.
RickK
"Mills, Billy" billy.mills@thomson.com wrote: KNOTT, T wrote:
What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?
Billy
-----Original Message----- From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:35 To: English Wikipedia Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
Wes yes I know we'll recognise them fairly quickly. But I suspect that most users under this sort of ban will flout it very quickly. I suspect that we be spending much of our time catching them out. Also 10 edits a day is plenty enough to be rude about people. What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?
I don't want to put too much of a downer on the idea. It might make some people shape up. It's certainly nice to give some sort of warning to give them a chance.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net] Sent: 21 January 2004 14:27 To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck
When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it
was
them. IPs identify the machine not the user.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH): As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per
day.
That way, he can
- either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
- or use them more wisely,
- or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some figures. > Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or
going
anon will result in immediate banning.
Magnus (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
Fred Bauder wrote:
The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get
on
the
stick. You can keep the pressure on...
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
quickly?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
DISCLAIMER: This message has been scanned by Norton Antivirus (using the latest definitions) for all known Viruses. The information in this message is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/mail_footer_email/evt=2 1482/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rick wrote:
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer. No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.
RickK
I thought we were going to have somewhat unofficial mediation, which is just talking, and then we go through the old banning procedures if we felt we needed to. The goal of this is to prevent banning, not delay it, but if needed (eg. if there's lots of active vandalization, not just an edit conflict), there might be a ban instead of mediation.
LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Daniel Ehrenberg a écrit:
Rick wrote:
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer. No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.
RickK
I thought we were going to have somewhat unofficial mediation, which is just talking, and then we go through the old banning procedures if we felt we needed to. The goal of this is to prevent banning, not delay it, but if needed (eg. if there's lots of active vandalization, not just an edit conflict), there might be a ban instead of mediation.
LDan
One thing that will require to be watched with attention will be "how many people will be in effect banned in the next weeks".
Whether what we will gain in efficiency, we won't lose it in openness.
And the amount of pressure which will be applied on both committee, to ban people as soon as possible.
Yes, there is pressure, but we are dragging our feet.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:59:44 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quacks Like a Duck
Daniel Ehrenberg a écrit:
Rick wrote:
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer. No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.
RickK
I thought we were going to have somewhat unofficial mediation, which is just talking, and then we go through the old banning procedures if we felt we needed to. The goal of this is to prevent banning, not delay it, but if needed (eg. if there's lots of active vandalization, not just an edit conflict), there might be a ban instead of mediation.
LDan
One thing that will require to be watched with attention will be "how many people will be in effect banned in the next weeks".
Whether what we will gain in efficiency, we won't lose it in openness.
And the amount of pressure which will be applied on both committee, to ban people as soon as possible.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- "Mills, Billy" billy.mills@thomson.com wrote:
KNOTT, T wrote:
What's to stop them posting huge long rants where they insult a number
of users at once?
Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?
Billy
Just a rant isn't enough to ban someone. You need to do something big, like vandalizing a bunch of pages or making personal threats.
LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus