There do not seem to be any active checkusers. This is a bit of a
problem. For example, there is an outstanding request re User JB196,
a prolific sockpuppeteering vandal, who uses open proxies; checkuser
on the accounts identified and blocked will allow the quiet blocking
of some open proxies. Maybe that's not what checkuser is for (but
then, maybe it is).
Anyway, do we need to get a couple of technically savvy long-term
trusted admins to request checkuser access, and if so what's the best
process to avoid a trollfest?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
doc wrote:
> 1) *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the
> subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or
> POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their
> article everyday.
>
> OR
>
> 2) *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have
> experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems
> can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are
> future issues.
>
> OR
>
> 3) *no index ALL BLPs* - being in [[category:Living persons]] could
> automatically flag the article. This would be easiest to maintain, and
> apply consistently. The argument against it will be that it will take
> [[George W. Bush]] etc off google, but if it were combined with stable
> versions, so that all BLPs were removed from Google UNLESS they were
> stable, we might have a workable solution. The popular ones are likely
> to have stable versions very quickly. Incidentally, this would also
> reduce the attraction of vanity bios.
While I sympathize with the reasons for concern, I object to treating
parts of the encyclopedia differently in this manner. Backroom stuff
like articles for deletion, I would agree. But not the encyclopedia
proper. If we have articles that we don't want search engines to index,
we should *delete* those articles.
The real answer is the increasingly urgent need to implement stable or
reviewed versions of articles. In that context, it would certainly be
possible to consider having a "noindex" attribute for articles that do
not have any revision marked as having been reviewed.
--Michael Snow
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2007 10:13 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key and the spam blacklist
>
>On 5/2/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>> On 5/2/07, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is a different type of blacklist. The spam blacklist which can be
>> > edited by any meta admin only applies to URLs. The regex blacklist
>> > applies to any text, whether in URL format or not. On Wikimedia, I
>> > believe only people with server access could edit that, but that
>> > doesn't mean it was an official Wikimedia decision. The majority of
>> > people with server access are not Wikimedia employees.
>> >
>> So who are they accountable to, no one? Isn't obviously problematic
>> that people can unilaterally make such major decisions with neither
>> the request of the foundation nor the community?
>
>Yes.
There is a choice to make. Do you want people in positions of authority to take responsibility and do what needs to be done, or do you take the position that such actions cannot be taken until consensus is reached?
I'm for responsibility. Mistakes can be sorted out at leisure.
Fred
All,
Someone on another thread said there were 878 Members of this List. Wow!
Right now I would like to encourage those of you who haven't yet posted a
message to this list, or those of you who have posted only once or twice, to
go ahead and post a message now. Just say hello, or, even better, give your
opinions about the stuff you've read here.
Marc Riddell
--
"Come to the edge. We might fall! Come to the edge. It's too high!
COME! TO! THE! EDGE!!
So they came and he pushed -- and they flew."
Guillaume Apollinaire
In a message dated 5/5/2007 11:05:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal
troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much
the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
I would disagree here. Avoidance of activities that are illegal is something
we should avoid period. It is irrelevant whether we will face legal
troubles, or even whether the law is stupid. We have a responsibility to follow it.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
I started a survey a while ago to find out what factors people
consider important when they are giving their opinion on requests for
adminship, it's had some good responses so far and I'm announcing it
again here to involve a wider audience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Factors
The responses so far have been interesting. There are some trends developing:
* some factors are broadly considered important by most people (eg,
candidate's history of interaction with other users),
* some factors are not considered important on their own, but can be
good indicators of other important factors (eg, involvement with
collaborative efforts - not important as a factor but a useful
indicator of interaction with other users), and
* some factors are not considered important at all (eg, whether
candidate has demonstrated a "need" for the tools).
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
Surprised no other Aussie has mentioned this one. By "Aussie" I mean,
of course, Stephen Bain, who falls into the core demographic and almost
certainly watches the programme.
/The Chaser's War on Everything/ last Wednesday/Friday included a press
conference with Jimmy Wales, who quite possibly didn't even know who
they were. Pretty standard: "There are now 1.7m articles on English
Wikipedia. How did you manage to write them all?" and "How do you feel
about the fact that I changed your article this morning to [something, I
forget what]?" However, /Chaser/ is always worth watching. I thought
Jimbo reacted quite well to the /Chaser/'s lad, too. His answer to the
articles question: "A lot of coffee."
Also on Friday's episode: the ghost of Mark Latham; dressing up as a
baby to avoid paying zoo admissions; a parody of "Grease Lightning"
about petrol-guzzling SUVs; "three minute massages" (and dental work,
gynaecology, proctology, and terrorism) in pubs; taking photos of
tourists in the style of camera advertisements; the wonder of Fox News;
human statues with Parkinson's Disease (that one's a bit sick); standing
up for Snoop Dogg at DIMIA; making yourself at home in newsagents;
testing the reality of ads.
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 11:16 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>
>On Thu, 3 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
>> As I said on the blog:
>>
>> A flashmob of fight-the-power morons are still spamming an allegedly
>> illegal number into every input box on the web. The Wikipedia admins
>> collectively declared "FUCK OFF YOU SPAMMERS." (Some have gone rabid
>> "ZOMG LAWSUIT" and we were getting a pile of oversight requests as
>> well $B!= (B I didn't zap, Fred did, until Erik told us not to. Mind you, it
>> nicely short-circuited the idiotic deletion review.) Eventually it was
>> put into the spam filter, because distributed spam is spam.
>
>I entirely agree the number shouldn't be put in a zillion places in Wikipedia.
>But I get the impression that the loudest objections are about use of the
>number *at all* and that getting rid of number spamming is merely a more
>publically acceptable first step towards getting rid of it period.
>
>The proper response is to allow the number on Wikipedia, but ban its use
>as spam, not to completely ban it in any form whatsoever.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
Fred
Marc Riddell wrote
> This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub
> categories need to be entered into each Article.
I recall you saying all this some time ago, a propos your own view of what would be convenient. I'm not clear this actually convenient for most users of Wikipedia, i.e. to have large chunks of nested categories made explicit.
Can you not just accept that the system doesn't revolve about your needs?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
G'day William,
> Part of the magic of an open content license is that you don't know
> quite what people will do with this. The Wikipedia-on-DVD and the One
> Laptop Per Child projects are great examples of how your info might
> be
> used for public benefit.
I've long been fond of the idea of a selection of Wikipedia's best
FAs[0] published in a coffee table book or something. Hardly as
Beneficial For the World as Wikipedia-on-DVD, but Good For Wikipedia, at
least.
[0] Make no mistake, some of our FAs are crap. Either they got that way
through crafty application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or
they just plain sucked when they passed the FA process ...
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/