[WikiEN-l] Replacing admins with a slower less efficient method for blocking vandals and deleting attack pages
I appreciate that your suggestion is not to have admins. But aside from the issue that juries will be slower and less efficient than the current system for dealing with attack pages, what is the error rate for admin deletion of attack pages and blocking of vandalism only accounts? There are areas where admin decisions are sometimes challenged or contentious, but in my experience the deletion of attack pages and the blocking of vandalism only accounts rarely if ever involves admin errors. So this proposal would replace a system that works well with one that at best would achieve comparable results but more slowly and less efficiently. As for blanking attack pages, yes patrollers can and do do this. But that doesn't stop people cyber bullying by emailing a diff of the attack page, nor does it help when as so often happens the name of the attack page is itself an attack. WereSpielChequers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it? The point is not to have admins. You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors, and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you had done that). Carcharoth -- -Ian Woollard -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 28 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Replacing admins with a slower less efficient method for blocking vandals and deleting attack pages
All those concerns are addressed by the idea I proposed where people can do temporary admin actions (obviously this ability would be swiftly taken away if abused) that are later confirmed or reversed by a full admin. I think the overhead would be worth it, along with some real metrics to judge people by when they run at RFA for the full flag. The problem is finding a developer to: (a) say whether it is feasible; and (b) to actually write the changes needed, including the code for making these temporary admin actions appear in a separate log (with the logs capable of being suppressed if needed as with any logs) and only appearing in the permanent logs if approved. If reversed, the actions would probably look like suppressed actions. Obviously, the details would need working on, but now that suppression and revdel is at a more mature stage, it shouldn't be too hard to adapt the code to this sort of purpose (though obviously with a different name and so on). Carcharoth On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that your suggestion is not to have admins. But aside from the issue that juries will be slower and less efficient than the current system for dealing with attack pages, what is the error rate for admin deletion of attack pages and blocking of vandalism only accounts? There are areas where admin decisions are sometimes challenged or contentious, but in my experience the deletion of attack pages and the blocking of vandalism only accounts rarely if ever involves admin errors. So this proposal would replace a system that works well with one that at best would achieve comparable results but more slowly and less efficiently. As for blanking attack pages, yes patrollers can and do do this. But that doesn't stop people cyber bullying by emailing a diff of the attack page, nor does it help when as so often happens the name of the attack page is itself an attack. WereSpielChequers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it? The point is not to have admins. You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors, and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you had done that). Carcharoth -- -Ian Woollard -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 28 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Replacing admins with a slower less efficient method for blocking vandals and deleting attack pages
I'm happy with the idea of provisional adminship, as I think that could be a solution to several problems. I would also welcome some sort of jury system for decisions likely to be contentious (though I don't see hou you would identify those more effectively than the current arrangements of posting things on AN/I). My comments were in response to the idea of replacing admins with juries to delete attack pages and block vandals. WereSpielChequers On 24 August 2010 15:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: All those concerns are addressed by the idea I proposed where people can do temporary admin actions (obviously this ability would be swiftly taken away if abused) that are later confirmed or reversed by a full admin. I think the overhead would be worth it, along with some real metrics to judge people by when they run at RFA for the full flag. The problem is finding a developer to: (a) say whether it is feasible; and (b) to actually write the changes needed, including the code for making these temporary admin actions appear in a separate log (with the logs capable of being suppressed if needed as with any logs) and only appearing in the permanent logs if approved. If reversed, the actions would probably look like suppressed actions. Obviously, the details would need working on, but now that suppression and revdel is at a more mature stage, it shouldn't be too hard to adapt the code to this sort of purpose (though obviously with a different name and so on). Carcharoth On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that your suggestion is not to have admins. But aside from the issue that juries will be slower and less efficient than the current system for dealing with attack pages, what is the error rate for admin deletion of attack pages and blocking of vandalism only accounts? There are areas where admin decisions are sometimes challenged or contentious, but in my experience the deletion of attack pages and the blocking of vandalism only accounts rarely if ever involves admin errors. So this proposal would replace a system that works well with one that at best would achieve comparable results but more slowly and less efficiently. As for blanking attack pages, yes patrollers can and do do this. But that doesn't stop people cyber bullying by emailing a diff of the attack page, nor does it help when as so often happens the name of the attack page is itself an attack. WereSpielChequers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] 'Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups'
Continuing media coverage from yesterday, by the New York Times: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/readers-discuss-wikipedia-editing-course-that-aims-for-balanced-and-zionist-entries/?ref=world ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] 'Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups'
The LGBT mob would be the most obvious counter example. Care to elaborate? Not 100% sure, but I believe this is a reference to ...a campaign against Wikipedia in Serbian by an irrelevant LGBT organization... It was discussed on the [Foundation-l] list back in July. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/059735.html If this is incorrect, please let me know. :) -Avicennasis ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:WikiProject Project
I've moved discussion to a meta page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_namespace , and made a tally. I wonder if its possible that someone from the technical staff to give us an unbiased breakdown of the technical requirements and server costs to implement a namespace change. -SC quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: If these pages were moved to Wikiproject:... would there be any problems with our continuing to use WP: as a shortcut prefix? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
