Lord Voldemort wrote: I should point out that, in general, blocks on en.wikipedia do not extend to other projects, and the English Wikipedia ArbCom has specifically declined to get involved in other places. At the same time, we are still thank goodness not so hyperlegal about cross-project matters that we can't exercise good judgment in individual cases. Blocking Zephram Stark from Wikibooks *before* he causes trouble is more or less a no-brainer. In other cases, of course, a block on en.wikipedia need not also extend to wikibooks, depending on the judgment of the community. --Jimbo -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

On 6/14/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: Are you now just playing coy? --LV

I agree. Unless this user was blocked from all Wikimedia projects by the board, a block on one project shouldn't mean a block on all. After all, we have very few enforced policies, and one of them is "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia". John (Gentgeen) --- Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Brianna Laugher wrote: Not for wikibooks. They have a huge user base and edit wars and wheel wars are common. A common tactic built into the site unfortunately from the start was "label and lynch". If someone wants to bail out of that environment in the middle of a conflict it is beneficial to everyone to allow them to behave civilly relative to the new environment. The controversy goes away. If we allow following between sites which are inevitably starting to drift slightly in cultural matters and operational methods then we have to deal with all of these other projects hassles. Some of which for us would not be hassles if people were simply left alone to start over in a new community with a different purpose. Consider a troll who insists on inserting too much information for an encyclopedia but when shows up here is creating useful content and working well with others the enhance the collective output. We do not want to take this resolved situation and relaunch into a multisite troll war. Let sleeping dogs lie, maybe they will stay asleep. If you do this at a site where I am a regular I would probably conclude you are the problem. So now you and I have a problem. You and the "troll" relative to the other site have a problem. We, you and me, are sucked into the original "troll" and the other person from the other site who followed or stalked (see wiki stalking at Wikipedia, it is frowned on to follow people between topics or group clusters at Wikipedia, they would rather have the problem go away if it will than waste time escalating it and involving a bunch of new people) the alleged troll who is undoubtedly presenting themselves as the persecuted to our new site here. See how it can escalate? It is my conclusion that it would be more work sorting out conflicting claims on the other site where I may be a complete stranger to their ways and certainly do not have the historical data to figure what the real problems might be. Take a look at the Arbcom proceedings sometime. You might be amazed at the level of effort that goes into attempting to treat people in controversal conflicts fairly. I was amazed and impressed at the level of effort that was going into being fair and effective and resolving controversy somehow and taking responsibily for mandate resolution methods to the parties. As Wikibooks continues to grow in content and size of community and volume of casual users and vandals or trolls it may or may not need to emulate the Arbcom. Keep your fingers crossed. regards, lazyquasar

There is a difference between a vandal and a troll. A vandal is a childish user who makes himself happy by destroying the work of others. A toll is someone who doesn't work well with others, or is prone to attitude problems. Wikibooks has a very different culture than Wikipedia. Part of that is based on how the projects see themselves. Wikibooks "feels" like a community of somewhat independant projects, fairly loosly connected. Therefore, what happens in a single book has little effect on the majority of writers and users who will never see it as it doesn't touch what they're working on or reading. Wikipedia sees itself as a unified whole. Every article in the encyclopedia is a part of a closely connected "one", so each article impacts all the others. Contributors who may have a tendancy to personality conflicts will have less triggers at Wikibooks. Hopefully, by the time they get into a potentially troll-creating situation, they are more likely to appriciate the wiki culture and collaborative content creation, and be less likely to become a troll. John (Gentgeen) --- Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primet… http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Brianna Laugher wrote: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primet… Great! The difference between Primetime and Zephram Stark is that someone came to en.wikibooks and explained what the trouble was with Primetime. Jimmy Wales wrote: This is like saying "the ocean exists" to someone who does not live near the coast. Except that unlike the ocean, [[User:Zephram Stark]] is not famous. I knew this user only as a Wikibooks user with a blocked account on Wikimedia Commons (knowing not much about the trouble on Commons). I do not go visit Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wiktionary and learn the names of all the users who are having infinite blocks. This is good, because that means that all those annoying users who need infinite blocks are not distracting me, nor are they successful in stealing my attention. So for those who say that it is obvious to block this user, I respond, "Why?" -- [[User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh