[pydotorg-www] Please add me in edit group.

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Thu Apr 14 13:23:35 EDT 2016

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:07 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> On 14.04.2016 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:10 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> 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 <rosuav at gmail.com> 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.


More information about the pydotorg-www mailing list