Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User:Huldra/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 38: Line 38:
===500 edit limit for new users?===
===500 edit limit for new users?===
*Or; should your 1RR a day ''not count'' when you undo "newbies" with <500 edits?
*Or; should your 1RR a day ''not count'' when you undo "newbies" with <500 edits?
:*FWIW, I would tend to not count such as within 1RR, as they would qualify as test/vandalism, at least potentially, and very possibly as sockpuppetry. I cannot think that there is any valid reason to allow sockpuppeteers to, potentially, create a whole slew of new accounts, which might well revert to that one individual's previous edit under another name, and prevent other editors, not violating policies or guidelines in that way, from acting responsibly simply because they, unlike the socker, are adhering to policies and guidelines. I would myself favor this, if possible, allowing for immediate reversion outside of the 1RR if the edit is considered to be problematic in any way by any editor who doesn't have 500 or more other edits. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


===Automatic CU of all editors blocked as socks?===
===Automatic CU of all editors blocked as socks?===

Revision as of 22:58, 31 August 2015

Recruitment

AfD

Socks

Other

  • Interiew
    • Mehdi Hasan: There’s also the issue, of course, of really, really contentious issues that people feel strongly about on lots of different sides. A few years ago, I believe, an Israeli lobbying group was accused of encouraging its members to become Wikipedia editors so that they could control the narrative on the Israeli conflict. How, then, can I take any pages on Wikipedia seriously about Israel-Palestine?
    • Jimmy Wales: There's one model people have of how Wikipedia should work, which is a battleground. So the battleground is: Wikipedia will get to neutrality because people from different sides will fight it out until they somehow have to come to a compromise. We reject that approach. That approach is not healthy. That approach just leads to endless conflict. Instead what we like to say is, “Look, Wikipedia - every Wikipedia editor has a responsibility to try to be neutral. To try to take into account different perspectives on an issue, and if there is no one…” (source: [1])

Remedies?

Semi-protect all ARBPIA ?

  • minimum requirement?

500 edit limit for new users?

  • Or; should your 1RR a day not count when you undo "newbies" with <500 edits?
  • FWIW, I would tend to not count such as within 1RR, as they would qualify as test/vandalism, at least potentially, and very possibly as sockpuppetry. I cannot think that there is any valid reason to allow sockpuppeteers to, potentially, create a whole slew of new accounts, which might well revert to that one individual's previous edit under another name, and prevent other editors, not violating policies or guidelines in that way, from acting responsibly simply because they, unlike the socker, are adhering to policies and guidelines. I would myself favor this, if possible, allowing for immediate reversion outside of the 1RR if the edit is considered to be problematic in any way by any editor who doesn't have 500 or more other edits. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Automatic CU of all editors blocked as socks?

Indeed, this should be automatic. It would also be great to have a second check a week or two later. Zerotalk 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Presently, there is a total no-no-policy an "fishing" expeditions w.r.t. CU; should we rather make it compulsory-for up to 3 months? Huldra (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Automatic CU of all "new" editors on ARBPIA?

I don't think this is workable; the CUsers would go on strike due to the workload. However, I propose a weaker version: it should be that a valid reason for requesting CU that a new user appears already familiar with Wikipedia editing. The CUser can decide whether the evidence provided for "already familiar with Wikipedia editing" is adequate. Zerotalk 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On wp:fr, familiarity with wikipedia editing is a valid reason for a RCU on contentious topics. If positive, this leads to an immediate block.
More, even if not positivie, new contributors, with single-purpose accounts and familiar with wikipedia may are blocked if engaged in controversial discussions or editrs war on controversial topics. The reason given is "not there to contribute constructively". Block is one week or undefinite according to the nature of the edits and comments.
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NPoV enforcement

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F678838011