Difference between revisions of "User talk:David R"

Revision as of 11:12, February 26, 2007

Please comment!

Willy's edits

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the Bill Clinton edit which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --David R 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. JoshuaZ 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --David R 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The rules say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--Aschlafly 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. MountainDew 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--David R 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--Aschlafly 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems very provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." Dwight D. Eisenhower would become Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels, Molybdenum would become Molybdenum on wheels, and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. Dpbsmith 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. JoshuaZ, you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). Dpbsmith 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on regular editors, who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I like my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be me. This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much. Dpbsmith 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)