Mailing List Archive

Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages)
Sadly, it appears that there are some hurtful vandals out there
who are attacking the people trying to counter them. For example,
User:Zoe has just posted that she's abandoning her efforts to counter
vandals; see: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AZoe
which begins: "I'm tired of fighting, I'm tired of arguing,
I'm tired of being called names."
The last straw seems to have been an edit by No-Fx to Zoe's
user page, in which No-Fx made it appear that Zoe was "into oral sex".
I don't know enough about this situation to know for sure if this
is an example, but I am concerned about the long-term dangers
if this starts a trend.

Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones -
are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
simple attacks on a few pages. If these kinds of attacks cause
people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
fear of retribution, the project is doomed.

Is there any way the software could be modified to make it harder
for vandals to counter-attack the people who are trying to
remove vandalism?

At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users
should be hidden from non-sysops. For example,
since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell
non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?
By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be
only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion
area to discuss banning someone. Perhaps there could be a way
where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone be banned,
without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
Since real deletes and banning can only be done by sysops anyway,
and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this information
MUST be public.

A related idea might be to modify the "talk" system so that it's
more like a bulletin board, with threaded messages and
a clear identification of who made it (click on "reply" to reply
to that item, maybe in a threaded way). That way, any message is
clearly
identified with its REAL author. A side-effect would be that
the attribution would happen automatically (no more
forgetting ~~~~). That way, when people discuss things, they
can't make it appear that someone else made an outrageous/nasty
statement.

The goal here would be to prevent people from attacking each other,
or at least limit its effectiveness.

Thoughts?
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
> Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones -
> are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
> simple attacks on a few pages. If these kinds of attacks cause
> people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
> fear of retribution, the project is doomed.
> ...
> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
> by NAME?

As with many features, removing the possibility of abuse would
also hamper our ability to detect it. If the software were as you
suggest above, for example, Mr. No-Fx would not have been able to
to demonstrate to us that he is so clearly outside the realm of
rational adult behavior that we can summarily block him with clear
conscience and no further ado.

The net has a long and glorious tradition that anyone who does
anything useful will be attacked unmercifully. Most of us get used
to it and get on with the job. Was Zoe frustrated because she couldn't
block the idiot, or for some other reason? I can't imagine that she
would be so dismayed merely by the opinion of someone whose opinions
clearly aren't worthy of any respect or notice.

> Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
> information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users
> should be hidden from non-sysops. For example,
> since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell
> non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?

I much prefer the combination of freedom and accountability: let
lots of people take appropriate action, but track what they do so
it can be fixed or discussed after the fact if necessary. That's
usually a powerful system with good, stable, negative feedback.

> By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be
> only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion
> area to discuss banning someone. Perhaps there could be a way
> where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone be banned,
> without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
> Since real deletes and banning can only be done by sysops anyway,
> and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this information
> MUST be public.

But I really don't see any reason to hide it either. Sysops are
trusted. If a Sysop blocks someone, we have a public record that
someone we trust has made a specific judgment about an action he
or she felt necessary, and unless extraordinary cirsumstances
come to light that it may have been a particularly bad judgment,
that really should end the matter. Sure, people may complain,
but let them. Just because an action is unpopular that doesn't
mean we can't stand up for it and take responsibility.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Anthere wrote:

>--- Brion Vibber <vibber@aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>Another suggestion : why not making the whole
>>>wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?
>>>
>>Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously
>>bad at recognizing
>>sarcasm. :)
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>
>I trust canadians to remind americans if necessary :-)
>
What makes you think they listen to us any better than to anybody else?
:-P
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
--- "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com> wrote:
> Sadly, it appears that there are some hurtful
> vandals out there
> who are attacking the people trying to counter them.
> For example,
> User:Zoe has just posted that she's abandoning her
> efforts to counter
> vandals; see:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AZoe
> which begins: "I'm tired of fighting, I'm tired of
> arguing,
> I'm tired of being called names."
> The last straw seems to have been an edit by No-Fx
> to Zoe's
> user page, in which No-Fx made it appear that Zoe
> was "into oral sex".
> I don't know enough about this situation to know for
> sure if this
> is an example, but I am concerned about the
> long-term dangers
> if this starts a trend.
>
> Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly
> dedicated ones -
> are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
> simple attacks on a few pages. If these kinds of
> attacks cause
> people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
> fear of retribution, the project is doomed.
>
> Is there any way the software could be modified to
> make it harder
> for vandals to counter-attack the people who are
> trying to
> remove vandalism?
>
> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be
> ONLY editable
> by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be
> editable in some way,
> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User:
> space of someone;
> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and
> there's advantanges
> to having some areas that are "precious" to each
> user.
>
> Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
> information relating to deletion of pages and
> banning of users
> should be hidden from non-sysops. For example,
> since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not
> just tell
> non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH
> sysop did it?
> By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas
> should be
> only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a
> discussion
> area to discuss banning someone. Perhaps there
> could be a way
> where anyone (non-sysop) could suggest that someone
> be banned,
> without having their name revealed to non-sysops.
> Since real deletes and banning can only be done by
> sysops anyway,
> and sysops are trusted, there's no reason this
> information
> MUST be public.
>
> A related idea might be to modify the "talk" system
> so that it's
> more like a bulletin board, with threaded messages
> and
> a clear identification of who made it (click on
> "reply" to reply
> to that item, maybe in a threaded way). That way,
> any message is
> clearly
> identified with its REAL author. A side-effect
> would be that
> the attribution would happen automatically (no more
> forgetting ~~~~). That way, when people discuss
> things, they
> can't make it appear that someone else made an
> outrageous/nasty
> statement.
>
> The goal here would be to prevent people from
> attacking each other,
> or at least limit its effectiveness.
>
> Thoughts?

Yes.

I have three other suggestions.

Why not also just hiding deletion log to non-sysops
people?

After all, all they can do is look at the log. Not
look at the deleted pages, not even really get a sysop
to tell them what is in them. So does it have any
interest that they can see which pages were deleted at
all ? Perhaps, they don't need to know about it ?

Similarly, what about hiding the list of blocked users
from non-sysops users ? After all, since they can do
nothing to unban them, and since you suggest making it
impossible for them to participate in banning
discussion, perhaps does it have no sense for them
knowing about banning at all ?

Another suggestion : why not making the whole
wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
> Another suggestion : why not making the whole
> wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?

Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously bad at recognizing
sarcasm. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
--- Brion Vibber <vibber@aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
> > Another suggestion : why not making the whole
> > wikipedia read only for non-sysop users ?
>
> Careful there. Remember we Americans are notoriously
> bad at recognizing
> sarcasm. :)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I trust canadians to remind americans if necessary :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
David-
> Sadly, it appears that there are some hurtful vandals out there
> who are attacking the people trying to counter them. For example,
> User:Zoe has just posted that she's abandoning her efforts to counter
> vandals; see: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AZoe
> which begins: "I'm tired of fighting, I'm tired of arguing,
> I'm tired of being called names."

First, Zoe made this decision about a month ago:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Zoe&oldid=869255

And it had to do with more than just vandals editing her page. If that was
the problem, she could have just protected it, as some sysops have done.

> Here's a more controversial idea: perhaps some
> information relating to deletion of pages and banning of users
> should be hidden from non-sysops. For example,
> since "delete" can only be done by sysops, why not just tell
> non-sysops that a deletion occurred, but not WHICH sysop did it?
> By the same token, perhaps some discussion areas should be
> only readable/writeable by sysops, in particular a discussion
> area to discuss banning someone.

This is not going to happen. At Wikipedia we strongly value openness and
transparency, and the lack of different "user classes". Sysops should
merely be the "executive organs" of the users at large. If you want to see
a system that works the opposite way, take a look at Everything2, where
new users are told that they should expect half of their first articles to
be deleted. Users are only notified of deletions by an anonymous bot
called "Klaproth" and have no way of questioning them. The party line is
that "abuses may happen, but they will probably be rare". The whole E2
system is built up so that users have to work their way to the top,
gaining new privileges as they write. It has 13 different levels, many of
which come with new "powers". Suffice it to say that as a level 1 user,
your opinions are not worth much. Oh, as for censored conversations, the
only real forum they have is the "chatterbox", and if you say something
they don't like, any editor or "god" (they are really called gods) can
unleash the "Everything Death Borg" on you and silence you.

Are you scared yet? I hope you're scared. I'm not making this up. This is
what happens when you let a bunch of insecure geeks run a collaborative
writing community :-). Any power that is not kept in check by those who do
not have it is likely to be abused.

We are always looking for new solutions that allow us to maintain two
ideals:

1) We want to productively create an accurate, high quality encyclopedia.
2) We want our system to be as free of restrictions and power structures
and as open and transparent as reasonably possible.

Regards,

Erik
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
David A. Wheeler wrote in part:

>At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
>by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
>but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
>it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
>to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
would be a useful idea. There have been other problems before.


-- Toby
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
> David A. Wheeler wrote in part:

>> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
>> by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
>> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
>> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
>> to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

> Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
> and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
> But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
> would be a useful idea. There have been other problems before.

It is an option. Leave a message on a sysop's talk page and ask them to
protect your user page.

Regards,

Erik
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 21:59, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > David A. Wheeler wrote in part:
>
> >> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
> >> by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
> >> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
> >> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
> >> to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.
>
> > Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
> > and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
> > But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
> > would be a useful idea. There have been other problems before.
>
> It is an option. Leave a message on a sysop's talk page and ask them to
> protect your user page.
>
Then the user himself would be unable to edit it.
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Cunc-
>>> David A. Wheeler wrote in part:
>>
>>>> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
>>>> by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
>>>> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
>>>> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
>>>> to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.
>>
>>> Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
>>> and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
>>> But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
>>> would be a useful idea. There have been other problems before.
>>
>> It is an option. Leave a message on a sysop's talk page and ask them to
>> protect your user page.
>>
> Then the user himself would be unable to edit it.

You don't say? Well, these are the problems of read-only pages. ;-)

Regards,

Erik
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Attacks on users and sysops - particularly highly dedicated ones -
> are much more dangerous to the Wikipedia than
> simple attacks on a few pages. If these kinds of attacks cause
> people to stop weeding out bad pages or vandals for
> fear of retribution, the project is doomed.

I agree, but in large part this is a social phenomenon, and the best
defense that we can have against it is a strong culture of mutual
support and caring. Regular users should know that they are in the
family, so to speak, and that the malicious actions of a few newcomers
or passerby are not worthy of a lot of emotional energy.

> Is there any way the software could be modified to make it harder
> for vandals to counter-attack the people who are trying to
> remove vandalism?

Quite possibly -- subtle changes to software can make for big changes
to social environments. But, the changes aren't always what are hoped
for. It's a tricky business.

> At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
> by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
> but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
> it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
> to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

But there are disadvantages as well. We aren't a free homepage
provider, so although custom has it that the User: space is relatively
wide open, a big part of what makes wiki work so well is mutual
vulnerability. That mutual vulnerability carries risks, of course,
but it also encourages individual responsibility, thoughtfulness
towards others, etc.

I don't agree at all with your ideas of hiding some information from
users... one of our great strengths is transparency and openness.
We've tried really hard -- and with some success -- to avoid
cliquishness in terms of sysops, banning, policy discussions, etc.

One of the things that keeps the "in crowd" honest is a commitment to
transparency and personal accountability. Moves away from that may
help sysops avoid being yelled at by trolls, but it also risks bad
behavior on *our* part.

--Jimbo
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
> I don't agree at all with your ideas of hiding some
> information from
> users... one of our great strengths is transparency
> and openness.
> We've tried really hard -- and with some success --
> to avoid
> cliquishness in terms of sysops, banning, policy
> discussions, etc.
>
> One of the things that keeps the "in crowd" honest
> is a commitment to
> transparency and personal accountability. Moves
> away from that may
> help sysops avoid being yelled at by trolls, but it
> also risks bad
> behavior on *our* part.
>
> --Jimbo

I agree with all this.

There is one area though where transparency of
information is not offered to regular users, it is in
the deleted pages.
Once a page is deleted, no one except sysops can look
at it. I think it right only sysops can delete and
undeleted pages.
But I think it wrong regular users can not from time
to time check whether pages were not unproperly
deleted (not along community defined rules).

That is a feedback control not offered in Wikipedia. I
think providing a feedback tool would help
strengthening the trust regular users have in sysops.
And be a real commitment to transparency and accountability.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Anthere wrote:
> But I think it wrong regular users can not from time
> to time check whether pages were not unproperly
> deleted (not along community defined rules).

I'm sympathetic, but we do need a way to delete some things
*permanently* and *completely*. Examples would include copyright
infringement, goatse.cx picture, etc.

Since almost anyone can be a sysop, and since we're trying to
eliminate the "prestige" of being a sysop, there does exist a way for
anyone who is really interested to gain access to the deleted
material.

--Jimbo
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Anthere-
> But I think it wrong regular users can not from time
> to time check whether pages were not unproperly
> deleted (not along community defined rules).

On en:, someone created [[Wikipedia:Censorship]] a while ago to complain
about such incidents. I don't think it's the best title (who would want to
be labeled a censor?), but such a page would certainly allow for the kind
of feedback you envision.

Regards,

Erik
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Ah well, I knew many of these ideas would be controversial!
Thanks for the many replies.

However, I haven't heard anyone comment about changing the
"talk" pages into a threaded discussion group:

> A related idea might be to modify the "talk" system so that it's
> more like a bulletin board, with threaded messages and
> a clear identification of who made it (click on "reply" to reply
> to that item, maybe in a threaded way). That way, any message is
> clearly
> identified with its REAL author. A side-effect would be that
> the attribution would happen automatically (no more
> forgetting ~~~~). That way, when people discuss things, they
> can't make it appear that someone else made an outrageous/nasty
> statement.
(Yes, a "diff" will show reality, but it's hard to go through
every diff to see what really happened.)

Presumably there's some acceptance of mailing lists, since
we're talking on one...! :-). Are there fewer objections to
this idea?
Re: Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
David-
> However, I haven't heard anyone comment about changing the
> "talk" pages into a threaded discussion group:

Yes, this is a good idea, and has come up before. See:
"How to improve talk pages", by me, Dec 2002
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2002-December/001758.html

"Talk pages redesign proposal", by Tomasz, Jan 2003
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-January/002022.html

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_media
and threads linked from there.

The bottom line:
1) We want to keep our mailing lists, although a WWW posting interface may
be desirable.
2) Having talk pages handle comments thread-style automatically while
retaining wiki-form would be desirable.

For 2), I would suggest an implementation approach whereby any defined
segment of a wiki-page can be retrieved and edited separately without
editing the wiki-page as a whole. This would also be useful in editing
sections of long aricles, instead of the whole articles. Edit conflict
handling should also be improved.

I have this in my to do list and will probably start working on it at some
point, but you could also make yourself a lot more popular by sending us a
patch ;-). We could surely use an experienced software designer like
yourself as an active developer.

Regards,

Erik
Re: Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2) Having talk pages handle comments thread-style automatically while
> retaining wiki-form would be desirable.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean by "retaining
wiki-form"?

One thing that I like about the current talk pages is that they are
wiki pages, so that they can be refactored from time to time. It is
true that we don't really do much refactoring, and that it's a huge
social taboo to edit other people's comments during a discussion, but
there's something important, I think, about the mutual trust that's
built up when we *can* screw with each other's remarks, but *don't*.

--Jimbo
Re: Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Jimbo-
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 2) Having talk pages handle comments thread-style automatically while
>> retaining wiki-form would be desirable.

> Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean by "retaining
> wiki-form"?

> One thing that I like about the current talk pages is that they are
> wiki pages, so that they can be refactored from time to time. It is
> true that we don't really do much refactoring, and that it's a huge
> social taboo to edit other people's comments during a discussion, but
> there's something important, I think, about the mutual trust that's
> built up when we *can* screw with each other's remarks, but *don't*.

See the referenced URLs; basically, having an auto-inserted "reply to
this" link after each comment that takes you to a blank editing window
whose contents are inserted in indented form after the comment you reply
to. You could still choose to use "Edit this page" instead, but "reply to
this" would be a convenience, because you would not have to scroll to the
proper place in the wikitext and would not have to sign your comment.
Similarly, a "post a comment" link should be on each talk page, which
takes you to a blank editing form that allows you to write wikitext that
is also auto-signed and appended to the bottom of the page (starting a new
thread). In this case, there should also be a "subject" field, which would
automatically be translated to a "== foo ==" heading on the page. And for
extra fun, we could have an automatic "archive this thread" link after
each heading :-).

Optimally, in both cases, edit conflicts would be handled in the
background, but this is a more general problem that could be solved with
some smart merging. To do this, we would need some kind of tagging,
visible in the wikisource or not, for comments for the software to
identify them individually. This could perhaps be combined with the
signature marker. If the markers are visible in the wikitext, it would be
possible to break them through malicious editing, but then again, we deal
with this in other situations, so it's probably no big deal.

Regards,

Erik
Re: Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller wrote:
> You could still choose to use "Edit this page" instead, but "reply
> to this" would be a convenience, because you would not have to
> scroll to the proper place in the wikitext and would not have to
> sign your comment.

Sweet, then count me as being fully on board with this. That's
pretty neat.
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
_______________________________________________

I thank you for that comment Erik. I know about that page. Parts of it were moved on meta. Others comments dealing about what could be only bare mistakes or a little too quick decisions made by our sysops in very stressful moments, are the reasons for the birth of [[Wikipedia:votes for undeletion]]. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes from time to time.

However, for a proper feedback, are needed both tools and information. If noone give regular users the information they kindly ask, there are only questions unanswered, and no feedback.

Ant



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Anthere-
> However, for a proper feedback, are needed both tools and information. If
> noone give regular users the information they kindly ask, there are only
> questions unanswered, and no feedback.

I agree. I am sure sysops will be more willing to paste the content of
deleted pages once the deletion feature is improved (currently
Special:Undelete is almost unusable because of the page size; flushing the
archive might be a tempfix). The changes I just made, with the text of
short pages auto-pasted into the comment field by default, should also
help. Patience :-)

Regards,

Erik
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller <erik_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:
Anthere-
> However, for a proper feedback, are needed both tools and information. If
> noone give regular users the information they kindly ask, there are only
> questions unanswered, and no feedback.

I agree. I am sure sysops will be more willing to paste the content of
deleted pages once the deletion feature is improved (currently
Special:Undelete is almost unusable because of the page size; flushing the
archive might be a tempfix). The changes I just made, with the text of
short pages auto-pasted into the comment field by default, should also
help. Patience :-)

Regards,

Erik
_______________________________________________


If I know a developer is really thinking in improving the process, I am more than willing to be patient Erik

Thanks



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Re: Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 23 May 2003 07:31:45 -0700, Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com> gave
utterance to the following:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 2) Having talk pages handle comments thread-style automatically while
>> retaining wiki-form would be desirable.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean by "retaining
> wiki-form"?
>
> One thing that I like about the current talk pages is that they are
> wiki pages, so that they can be refactored from time to time. It is
> true that we don't really do much refactoring, and that it's a huge
> social taboo to edit other people's comments during a discussion, but
> there's something important, I think, about the mutual trust that's
> built up when we *can* screw with each other's remarks, but *don't*.
>
In my case I leave all longer talk pages alone because I can never follow
who said what adequately.
--
Richard Grevers
If teenagers dress to express individuality why do they all look alike?
Re: Countering the vandals who attack users (not just pages) [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller wrote:

>The Cunctator wrote:

>>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>>>David A. Wheeler wrote:

>>>>>At the least, why not let the User:NAME pages be ONLY editable
>>>>>by NAME? The "User_talk:" spaces need to be editable in some way,
>>>>>but I don't see a need for others to "fix" the User: space of someone;
>>>>>it's not critical that that content be fixed, and there's advantanges
>>>>>to having some areas that are "precious" to each user.

>>>>Your other suggestions were against Wikipedia's openness,
>>>>and I'm happy to be confident that they will never happen.
>>>>But I do think that read-only user pages *as*an*option*
>>>>would be a useful idea. There have been other problems before.

>>>It is an option. Leave a message on a sysop's talk page and ask them to
>>>protect your user page.

>>Then the user himself would be unable to edit it.

>You don't say? Well, these are the problems of read-only pages. ;-)

Ah, I see. Making a joke at the expense of my poor phrasing. Very well.

Luckily I included David's original text, so does anybody have a comment
on what we were actually talking about?


-- Toby

1 2  View All