On 3/8/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote: The proposal was to simply hide the anon edits from the outside world. It would have no impact on edit conflicts, as the changes go live internally straight away. I have always liked this proposal, but the consensus seemed to be more in favour of the "designated stable version" proposal. Steve

On 3/8/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote: I may not have explained it well. Would this help: 7.55: World sees "Mary is smart." Editors see "Mary is smart." 8:00: World sees "Mary is smart." Editors see "Mary is a poopoo." 8:05: World sees "Mary has an IQ of 130." Editors see "Mary has an IQ of 130." 8:15: World sees "Mary has an IQ of 130." Editors see "Mary has an IQ of 130." So you see, at 8:05, a registered editor sees the anon change, and fixes it. Since the editor is registered, their change goes live straight away. Steve

On 3/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: This sounds like a good idea in theory, but I rather think the implementation will be problematic. From what I understand of what you said, registered users will be able to see all edits immediately, and have all their edits applied immediately, while anons can not see the edits made by any other anon for fifteen minutes. If this is the case, it could be pretty jarring for an anon to go to the edit screen only to find out that three people have edited it but haven't had their edits made live yet, and will only make anonymous editing (which from what I understand constitutes the majority of the editing that takes place) of any highly trafficked article more annoying and stressful and could reduce the amount of editing that takes place altogether. It would (considering the speed at which any blatant vandalism is reverted) only moderately improve how the encyclopedia looks for the majority of readers at the expense of a rather large amount of inconvenience for the majority of editors, and from my point of view it is simply not worth the negative effects. --Dycedarg

On 08/03/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote: The second user doesn't edit the original text; he edits the 0800 modified text, and *those* edits go live. No edit conflicts. (The intent of that proposal is to do exactly this - it allows vandalism to be caught in that 15 minute lag time) In effect, it's like what you have now when you edit a heavily trafficed page - the version you work on may be very different from the one you were reading two minutes ago, because you edit the version on the server not the version you're reading. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Aude wrote: This is interesting data. I should add that I have observed that activity on this mailing list also drops dramatically on Saturdays. Not at all. That's a simplistic solution. Such blocks would have an effect of blocking all users from the school, including the good ones who do not condone vandalism. Developping some kind of working arrangement with the school involved would make more sense. Work with them to identify and deal with the offenders at a local level. Find out if they have local policies requiring students to log on that would lead to a possible identification of which users were on line at the time that the vandalism took place. Ec

William Pietri wrote: Absolutely. Talking to people is always a good way to solve problems. It will take a while to build contact lists, but it's always good to srive for long-term solutions. Ec

On 3/10/07, stvrtg <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnhanceHistory-ShowerJuggling.png Steve

On 3/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Totally. But until then Ive added a suggestion for easy install at User talk:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js I should be added to Wikipedia:Tools too. -Stevertigo

One thing useful for schools might be to ask for an abuse contact to list on the IP page. Although we've had some such contacts say "look, just block us, please!" ;-) - d.

Aude wrote: As long as there is no attempt to deal with the school administrations the problem will never be solved. All we'll have is short term paper-overs. If these schools had been dealt with correctly from the beginning the problem now would not seem so overwhelming. Ec

Aude wrote: There was a pretty strong consensus against stable versions when it was first pushed last fall. I'm not sure if that consensus still exists (I'm strongly opposed to the concept myself), but it's worth noting. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

Jeff Raymond wrote: I don't remember any such consensus against it. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: I recall it rather strongly, actually. It was around the same time we were preoccupied with the Elephant vandalism, and Cyde was the main guy saying let's do it anyway. -Jeff

On 3/9/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Depends what issue you're talking about. I strongly prefer a time-lag model to a stable version model. If you're conflating the two, yes I'm in favour of doing *something*. If you're separating them, I'm against the stable version model. The stable version model is along the lines of certain users designating a particular revision as being "stable" and that being the one displayed to the outside world, permanently, until another "stable version" is chosen. It seems to have such obvious drawbacks: - choosing users to do the designation - stable versions being horribly out of date - killing the wiki model completely (now almost no one can edit and get the instant feedback) Steve

I'm aware of this page, marked as "currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:STABLE But, this isn't the same thing as the idea to be tried someday on dewiki and maybe enwiki, to delay anon. edits from going live. I found some pages that describe such ideas on meta wiki, but not sure which ideas actually are or might be pursued. Or if dewiki decided there was no consensus for it? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2006_proposed_approval_for_anonymous_edits http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/2006/09/02_DE_a… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Timed_article_change_stabilisation_m… http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_validation - some other ideas -Aude On 3/8/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: -- Aude

I know there are issues with comparing one day's worth of activity against monthly averages. But out of curiosity I've tabulated how much blocking has happened in the past day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aude/adminactivity This is to compare with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durin/Admin_activity#Top_twenty_for_time_… It seems the amount of blocks has gone up quite a bit since January. Compare Can't sleep clown will eat me's blocks for the two time periods. Or it could be higher, because today was a school day.