[WikiEN-l] Review - re I just blocked someone for 9999 hours

Tue May 11 16:21:32 UTC 2004

I don't necessarily oppose the principle of giving
sysops more power to act quickly, but if this is
given, it must be with more opportunity for the
community to review those decisions. Kind of a
retroactive Votes for Deletion if you like.

For example, if you quickly delete a page, and ban a
user in a way that is not currently supported by
policy, your action should be listed for a week for
people to comment on, and reviewed if necessary.

Mark

--- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> I have just blocked Yammy Yamathorne for 9999 hours.
> I did not go through 
> Quickpolls. I have no regrets. 
> 
> This user created a page, [[The Lyceum]], based on
> the [[Akhmad Kadyrov]] 
> page, in which he claimed that the "super smart
> kids" in his school are planning 
> to bring down Wikipedia. The page itself was an act
> of vandalism, and I have 
> deleted it (without going through Speedy Deletions).
> 
> This is an increasing problem here on Wikipedia. As
> we grow, we are no longer 
> able to monitor the Recent Changes adequately. If I
> recall correctly, Horace 
> had been vandalized for two weeks recently before
> someone noticed. 
> 
> I am proposing the following radical solutions:
> 
> 1. Empower sysops to make on-the-spot decisions and
> act accordingly. If most 
> people don't trust them to act wisely, they should
> not be sysops.
> 2. Reinvigorate Seth Ilys's New Pages Patrol and
> expand it to include Recent 
> Changes in general. Lots of crap is getting through,
> as well as considerable 
> the duplication of articles. 
> 3. Stiffen penalties. If a group of people (like a
> school) are planning to 
> damage Wikipedia, it will last longer than 24 hours.
> 
> 4. Act quickly and decisively with POV pushers. I
> recently received an email 
> from a colleague at work, that was forwarded to her.
> Someone posted to a 
> professional mailing list, asking them to join
> Wikipedia en masse to ensure that 
> certain articles maintain their point of view. Their
> POV is often close to my 
> own, however, I am disturbed that a group can
> potentially band together to push 
> a particular POV, regardless of what it is. At one
> point, such a group will 
> succeed. (I have forwarded the email to Jimbo, but
> will say no more about it to 
> protect the confidence of my colleague).
> 5. Put together a SMALL group of trusted users to
> consider ways to redefine 
> Wikipedia, considering the remarkable growth spurt
> we are experiencing. This 
> can be a blessing, but it can also lead to our
> complete collapse. I propose that 
> Jimbo select the users and oversee the process,
> since he is the one person 
> who is trusted by everyone and whose authority is
> (more or less) unchallenged.
> 
> Danny
> > _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 