[WikiEN-l] Example of a user who should have been banned a long time ago

Wed Sep 13 06:47:14 UTC 2006

I'm not saying we have blocks with sysop privs going around blocking
users, just compiling a list of the non-IP editors with these blocks.
I'm sure we could come up with a whitelist to reduce the load, and
they could work from a database dump so that the server isnt affected.
However, if a bot came up with a decent list, a respected user(s)
could go through the list and point out problematic users to sysops
for attention.

-- Akash/Draicone

On 9/13/06, Redvers @ the Wikipedia <wikiredvers at yahoo.ie> wrote:
> From: Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do we have a way where we can scan talk pages for
> > such warnings and
> > come up with a record of those with 20+? I know
> > AmiDaniel's
> > vandalproof can look for warnings, and I'm sure
> > there could be a
> > similar function implemented.
>
> I'm pretty sure it would mostly find IPs, which would
> be meaningless for most pre-planned blocking, as we
> would be unable to assess which were static and which
> were dynamic in the same way we generally are now.
>
> I personally like the idea of blocking the lot of them
> and separating the sheep from the goats at our
> leisure, but this is a *wiki* and we don't and can't
> have this luxury. The benefits of having it outweigh
> the problems we would have, except in one vital way:
> we don't have enough excellent editors. If we prevent
> en masse the the chaff, we will always catch some
> wheat. And I speak as someone who has never, not even
> once, not even by accident, edited without logging in.
>
> There may be a couple, or a dozen, or even a thousand
> account-holding editors who have had a set of repeated
> warnings for various disruptions and could therefore
> be streamed out by a bot. But then any sensible
> blocking admin would check the talk page before
> blocking anyway (and shame on both those that don't,
> and those editors who complain if they do: which
> someone did to me recently!) and see them and act
> accordingly.
>
> If the talk page has been blanked, a human editor
> would check the history (one hopes). A bot could not
> be expected to do so without making mistakes.
>
> Certainly, a bot can't spot idiotic warnings from
> trolls, which a qualified eye can, and generally does
> - again I speak as someone who has suffered from mad
> complaints from trolling users. And a bot can't spot
> an idiot user who suddenly has touched the clue stick
> and wised up, something a human /can/ do.
>
> No. Bots have their place on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't
> want to be without them. But no bot can substitute for
> human intuition and judgment. Where such talents are
> required, humans must be the ones to act.
>
> -> REDVERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>