On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:07 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14.04.2016 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:10 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I removed the remaining pages, put the user on the block list >>> and added quickbooks to the bad content page. >>> >>> I guess we've learned a lesson here. >>> >> >> Yep. If in doubt, do what the banks do, and pretend that the >> bureaucracy is so important that we absolutely HAVE to have more proof >> of ID before you can open a depositing account. (No, I'm not jaded or >> anything. Banks are fine. Nothing wrong with their policies.) > > I'm not sure I parse your email correctly. > > The lesson here is that even with this much less anonymous > approach to getting editing rights compared to textchas, > we do run into people who openly betray our trust in them.
I mean this: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote: > We normally like to hear of a proposed edit that you intend to make > (it's a good way to distinguish genuine contributors from bots that > just want to spam the site), but I've gone ahead and made you an > editor. I was in two minds - do I ask for more proof that there'll be legit edits, or keep the turnaround time low to encourage edits? And clearly I made the wrong choice this time. Stuff happens. > Don't let this get you down, though, Chris. > You're doing an excellent job ! > Please keep up the good work. > > It's easy enough to fix such vandalism and so far, I think > the approach is working out much better than anything we've > had before. Thanks. I know of just one other time an editor has been de-authorized since the change to this system; even if there are as many again that I'm not aware of, that's still an excellent ratio. ChrisA _______________________________________________ pydotorg-www mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
