The Block Log makes fascinating reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
Here are some highlights:
* Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked * Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot * Raul really wants to block Plautus * Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The Block Log makes fascinating reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
Here are some highlights:
- Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
- Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
- Raul really wants to block Plautus
- Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
Secretlondon
Caroline Ford wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The Block Log makes fascinating reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
Here are some highlights:
- Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
- Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
- Raul really wants to block Plautus
- Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
Secretlondon
My worry is that if Khranus, Mr Natural Health etc had been around this week - they would have just been permanently blocked with no discussion. This _is_ what is happening at the moment - and for lesser cases as well.
I'm wondering whether we should go as far as to have a temporary time out on blocking usernames. Of course, the minute we do that we'll have Michael.
We need to put the genie back in the box.
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Fred
From: Caroline Ford caroline@secretlondon.me.uk Reply-To: caroline@secretlondon.me.uk, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:18:03 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
Caroline Ford wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The Block Log makes fascinating reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
Here are some highlights:
- Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
- Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
- Raul really wants to block Plautus
- Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
Secretlondon
My worry is that if Khranus, Mr Natural Health etc had been around this week - they would have just been permanently blocked with no discussion. This _is_ what is happening at the moment - and for lesser cases as well.
I'm wondering whether we should go as far as to have a temporary time out on blocking usernames. Of course, the minute we do that we'll have Michael.
We need to put the genie back in the box.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/17/04 at 01:29 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
And how many months will this take???
V.
Viajero wrote:
On 02/17/04 at 01:29 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
And how many months will this take???
As long as is needed.
Ec
This is frontier justice; not long.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:52:59 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
On 02/17/04 at 01:29 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
And how many months will this take???
V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Viajero wrote:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
And how many months will this take???
It doesn't matter. It's the law.
But, the real answer is that it will take about 2 weeks per case, I think.
--Jimbo
Fred Bauder wrote:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Here's a thought- have the blocking code require two sysops to both do it to take effect, at least in the case of logged-in users. Might solve some of these issues.
-- Jake
No, it just means you have two in the wrong.
Fred
From: "Jake Nelson" jnelson@soncom.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:58:29 -0600 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
Fred Bauder wrote:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Here's a thought- have the blocking code require two sysops to both do it to take effect, at least in the case of logged-in users. Might solve some of these issues.
-- Jake
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, it just means you have two in the wrong.
I said some. Not all. And if the number were three? Or four? I didn't suggest those before, because I think being able to block someone who starts going nuts immediately is important, but the RC patrol tends to number more than two at any given time...
-- Jake
In a real emergency like User:Zap only one is needed.
Fred
From: "Jake Nelson" jnelson@soncom.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:31:24 -0600 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, it just means you have two in the wrong.
I said some. Not all. And if the number were three? Or four? I didn't suggest those before, because I think being able to block someone who starts going nuts immediately is important, but the RC patrol tends to number more than two at any given time...
-- Jake
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Requiring two blocks from different sysops before a logged-in user is blocked?
This is not a bad idea. I'm personally not so concerned with sysops acting in bad faith. We're good people, and I don't think that's the issue. I'm more concerned with the perceived and real legitimacy of our processes.
Jake Nelson wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, it just means you have two in the wrong.
I said some. Not all. And if the number were three? Or four? I didn't suggest those before, because I think being able to block someone who starts going nuts immediately is important, but the RC patrol tends to number more than two at any given time...
-- Jake
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have no problem with this, as long as it's for logged in users and not for anons.
RickK
Jake Nelson jnelson@soncom.com wrote: Fred Bauder wrote:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Here's a thought- have the blocking code require two sysops to both do it to take effect, at least in the case of logged-in users. Might solve some of these issues.
-- Jake
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
What procedure? Where is it? Has it produced one result?
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Fred
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
On Tuesday 17 February 2004 08:45 pm, Rick wrote:
What procedure?
Arbitration
Where is it?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
Has it produced one result?
Yes, Mister Natural Health was blocked from editing articles for 30 days.
Best, Sascha Noyes
One
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:45:41 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
What procedure? Where is it? Has it produced one result?
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
Fred
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Caroline Ford wrote:
Caroline Ford wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The Block Log makes fascinating reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
Here are some highlights:
- Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
- Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
- Raul really wants to block Plautus
- Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
Secretlondon
My worry is that if Khranus, Mr Natural Health etc had been around this week - they would have just been permanently blocked with no discussion. This _is_ what is happening at the moment - and for lesser cases as well.
I'm wondering whether we should go as far as to have a temporary time out on blocking usernames. Of course, the minute we do that we'll have Michael.
We need to put the genie back in the box.
Perhaps excessive blocking could become a blockable offense!
Ec
On 02/17/04 at 02:56 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said: > Here are some highlights:
- Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
- Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
- Raul really wants to block Plautus
- Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
Ok, these blocks haven't been strictly by the book, but there isn't one I think that was truly uncalled for and calls into question the judgement of the concerned admin. Let's keep in mind the *spirit* not just the *letter* of the law for a moment. As for Wik, it is not like a variety of people haven't put substantial effort into encouraging him to change his ways. In vain of course; he is incorrigible.
V.