On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:09 am, kq wrote
anonymos wrote
Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven
that is was a big
mistake to unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a
anti-social pest who is on the verge of driving at least one other
contributor away and drove Andre away for some time. I also haven't
seen Lee around much since you so publically reverted his IMO perfectly
valid ban on Lir. I guess he is a bit discusted about the whole matter - I
sure would be (and am).
Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
about alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
their ilk and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
--.sig
PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
it that way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
contributions. I just think that your idealism has been a bit on
unrealistic side in this particular matter.
FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also. Lir does not
contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
butting heads with. I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
to do it now I think I would. I had high hopes that Lir would turn
around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.
kq
"Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick
out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)
Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in
the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and
being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is
reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games.
Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
each edit window. It could state something like the following;
"By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
rules and conditions of using this website"
'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
Wikipetiquette.
Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract