breaching experiment造句

• Seems the user is currently on an edit spree to demonstrate either a parody or some form of breaching experiment ( see WP : POINT ).
• :: * Just noting that Uncle G's reference above to " breaching experiments ( reported by SlimVirgin in 2010 ) " isn't quite correct.
• Similar usernames ( Xarry Jefferson, where X = B, L, A, M ), group attack to insert nonsense into Hyposmocoma mediocris possibly as a breaching experiment.
• On the other hand, " breaching experiment " is also commonly used on Wikipedia to describe ( and usually disparage ) any violation of community norms, regardless of purpose.
• *Deucalionite has a checkered past with several disruption blocks; he is known to use Wikipedia for what he calls " social experiments " ( i . e . breaching experiments ).
• Although CharlotteWebb could reasonably be expected to know that a significant portion of the community distrusts Tor users, there is no evidence that CharlotteWebb's request for adminship was a breaching experiment.
• At the worst, it's a very very minor and insignificant breaching experiment; more likely it was nothing more than a bit of juvenile silliness that's not going to happen again.
• Since the breaching experiment Andrew has shown himself to be willing to work within our community rules and to advance the interests of Wikipedia, not putting his own research priorities above those of our project.
• *It's blatantly clear the OP for that question ( Reference Desk Fan ) is one of our regular trolls trying to get someone to close down his breaching experiment and generate maximum drama.
• Many felt betrayed by the deception involved, and some characterised it as assuming bad faith, being POINTy or as a breaching experiment; when the magnitude of people's objections became clear the project was discontinued.
• If, on the one hand, journalists were trying a breaching experiment to understand and report on how Wikipedia deals with vandalism, and they repaired everything when they were done, I wouldn't really be bothered by it.
• Andrew has been with us since 2008, but he came onto my radar in 2010 when he conducted a rigorous but ill-conceived breaching experiment which involved using multiple accounts to test Wikipedia's security and response to spam.
• When you accuse someone of conducting a breaching experiment, you're saying they're doing whatever they're doing to provoke reactions, and not to accomplish any project-relevant goal, not even a purely political goal.
• Actions have consequences; breaching experiments often have the appropriate consequence of rendering the experimenters unwelcome in the society in which they performed the experiments .--  "  "  "  " 16 : 22, 23 January 2006 ( UTC)
• The page belongs to one Dr . Scott Sorin Matei at Purdue ( ), perhaps an admin ought to contact the good professor and let him know that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate breaching experiments; and will treat them as vandalism in no short order .-- EngineerScotty 20 : 15, 26 September 2006 ( UTC)
• This is removing a fair proportion of these articles from appearing in Special : NewPages, so that the time taken to delete a nasty attack page increases from a few minutes to, sometimes, days ( although the length of time taken to remove these attacks has increased due to the breaching experiment at WP : NEWT anyway ).
• He has been warned and advised to stop by several users and a warning regarding this violation has been posted to his user page by a third party . ( Note that Hillman edited this user's comments to change the heading " Violations of WP : STALK " to " Possible violations . . . " ) It has been suggested that his behavior may constitute a breaching experiment.
• I'm not going to support any block ( as I think Guido's post is effectively a " departure essay " ), but if he returns then the " breaching experiment " considerations would come into play and I wouldn't be able to defend Guido in any shape or form simply because there is no way of knowing whether or not he is starting another " experiment ".
• He agrees to the following : ( 1 ) no more sockpuppetry or alternate accounts; he says he was socking to show that admins were willing to revert good edits rather than see a blocked editor make them; ( 2 ) no more breaching experiments; ( 3 ) any complaints he might have in future about editors will go through the proper channels; and ( 4 ) he'll avoid interacting with FT2.
• Deucalionite seems to conceive of his activities on Wikipedia as some kind of breaching experiment, as stated now on his userpage : " " any questionable / dubious statements or actions on my part are solely for social experimentation purposes ( i . e . studying various user-to-user behavior dynamics, facets of the inhibition effect, HCI dynamics, etc . ) " " ( He has made similar claims before :.