We have many times discussed the idea of self-expiring (or temporary bans). That is the plan I have always favored. I think a 3-day or one-month ban on a problematic user has the potential to persuade them to "join us" rather than trying to "beat us".
Banning policy is 100% in the hands of Jimbo, the site owner. He apparently favors permanent bans. Since he has the ultimate responsibility for the project I hate to second-guess him; but I've made my views known.
I spend the bulk of my Wiki-time working on NPOV issues and trying to get my fellow contributors to work together in a spirit of harmony. I'm not sure how well I'm doing, but I occasionally get a thank-you on my talk page. ^_^
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ehrenberg [mailto:littledanehren@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:04 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking vandals
Maybe, when blocking someone, we should put a cookie on their computer that doesn't let them edit under any username or IP adress. I know this could be a breach of privacy, so maybe it could expire in a week. It would be easy to get around, just a deterent. (just as it is easy to get around blocking usernames)
Well, sure, but until you've been party to an NPOV dispute, it may be hard for you to comprehend how easy it is to lose track of the difference between (a) really being neutral and (b) things like "getting to the bottom of the issue", "merely stating facts", etc.
We all need a little nudge now and then.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ehrenberg [mailto:littledanehren@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:40 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Problem with Dietary Fiber on idolatry article
>Please DESCRIBE opinions...
Hasn't that been the policy all along?
-- LittleDan
I am having some problems with User:Dietary Fiber, on the
Idolatry article. He started off by repeatedly criticising
the article for pushing a religious point of view (which it
clearly did not do). He then went off-topic in the TALK
page for this article, so I moved the off-topic part of
this discussion over to his own home page so we could
discuss things there; that is Wikipedia protocol. In
response, he deleted the discussion and labelled it as
SPAM, and went back to attacking me! This is a classic
behavior of a troll, if not the very definition of one.
He all of my attempts to dialogue, and fabricated a quote
from me, and then attacked the position in this quote.
Despite how angry I was at this, I tried again to clarify
the issues that he seemed to be confused on. In the end,
he responded by creating another fake position, and
criticised me for things I never said, and beliefs that I
never have had.
His most recent slander is this:
> Is it appropriate to refer to all idol "worshipers" as
> idolators, as RK suggests elsewhere?
> [[User:Dietary Fiber|Dietary Fiber]]
I never wrote any such thing. In fact, I was the one who
contributed material to this article, and to the article on
Religious pluralism, on why so many liberal Christians and
liberal Jews now have the OPPOSITE beliefs. But Dietary
Fiber just doesn't care. He is attacking positions I do not
have, claiming that I am pushing these positions in the
article, and then criticising me for those beliefs!
I don't know what he is up to, but I smell a troll. I would
keep a close watch on him.
In frustration,
Robert (RK)
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Robert,
I want to thank you publicly for the moderate tone of
your post regarding your interaction with user Dietary
Fiber. I, being much less patient, would simply have
told him, "Eat me!" (Or as Wormwood said to the junior
tempter in The Screwtape Letters, "Bring us back food
or be food yourself." ;-)
I have stayed out of the discussion on "idol worship"
and "idolatry" for a long time, but from the little I
can gather, the issue seems to boil down to this:
1. Some people believe that it is wrong to worship idols,
i.e., that it is an evil practice forbidden by divine
decree.
2. Some people (perhaps not exactly the same bunch
mentioned in #1 above) use the word *idolatry* to
mean "the evil practice of worshipping idols".
It would be unfortunate if we entitled a Wikipedia
article as [[Idolatry]], as that would connote that our
official position condemns idol worship. Although I
personally oppose idol worship, I agreed when I first
signed in that I would leave my beliefs out of the
articles. Rather, I promised to help write neutral
articles.
Whatever the various advocates in the scholarly or
religious world, or even in the general public, believe
about idols and their worship -- please allow me to
suggest that we simply DESCRIBE and REPORT those
beliefs.
* "Some Jews, Catholics or Unificationists believe X."
* "Some believe Y."
* "Mr. Z, author of The ABC of Idol Worship, believes
PDQ."
As to the specifics, if Dietary Fiber actually *forged*
a comment from you, I'll have to have a talk with him.
But if he simply misunderstood you, that's different.
Humbly beseeching your continued restraint, I wish to
remain,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Poor
I banned User:George Washington because I'm pretty sure
it's the same guy, based on jtd's comment to mav.
See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=81272…
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:05 PM
To: 'wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org'
Subject: Weezer and Michael banned (was: Michael's threats)
Okay, it took me a day and a half to get around to it, but I
locked both of Weezer's user accounts.
Ed Poor
P.S. I hate doing this. I guess no one else likes doing it,
either, which is why I generally wind up being the one who runs
the "update queries" to enforce the bans.
P.P.S. Does a hangman walk home whistling, afterward? (Right now, I have a headache...)
Two points, now that I've followed up with a bit more research
on that [[Laurent]] article. The <pre> tag around the whole thing
(apparently because every paragraph is started with spaces or a tab) is
the only thing that sets it apart from other articles that work just fine.
And the cur_id of 207611 was correct.
--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
Tu'Pari: Are you Ambassador G'Kar?
G'Kar: This is Ambassador G'Kar's quarters, this is Ambassador
G'Kar's table, this is Ambassador G'Kar's dinner. Which part of
this progression escapes you?
Something really strange is happening when I try to look at the
article [[Laurent]] which was recently created. It crashes my browser
(Galeon 1.2.9/Mozilla 1.3) whenever I try to look at it. I did a database
query on it before the last crash, it's number 207611 I think (from
memory), and the text in it looks normal. But when I try to get it, both
Galeon and raw Mozilla crash, in different ways -- Galeon freezes up, not
using clock cycles meanwhile; Mozilla dies instantly. On the other hand,
it seems to work just fine in Lynx (I tried to wget it, but that didn't
work, but neither does anything else; I'm guessing Wikipedia filters on
HTTP-client to prevent excessive slurping?) Looking at the source now that
I've got it, the only thing that seem at all irregular about the contents
(the HTML, not the Wikicode) is that it's all in <pre> tags. (Disclaimer:
I haven't looked at HTML source of Wikipages before, so I'm not entirely
certain what would be irregular.)
So, anybody have any idea why this would be, whether it's an issue
with Wikipedia or my browser (well, obviously it's at least in part my
browser, since Lynx works fine, but it's not doing everything Galeon tries
to do), and what we can do about it either way?
If you want to see the source I'm looking at, send me an email at
my own address and I'll attach a copy to you; don't want to clog up the
list with that.
P.S. to list moderator(s): Ignore first submission of this, I forgot to
set my From: email address appropriately.
--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
It's easy to find something worth dying for. Do you have anything worth
living for?
--Lorien
Something really strange is happening when I try to look at the
article [[Laurent]] which was recently created. It crashes my browser
(Galeon 1.2.9/Mozilla 1.3) whenever I try to look at it. I did a database
query on it before the last crash, it's number 207611 I think (from
memory), and the text in it looks normal. But when I try to get it, both
Galeon and raw Mozilla crash, in different ways -- Galeon freezes up, not
using clock cycles meanwhile; Mozilla dies instantly. On the other hand,
it seems to work just fine in Lynx (I tried to wget it, but that didn't
work, but neither does anything else; I'm guessing Wikipedia filters on
HTTP-client to prevent excessive slurping?) Looking at the source now that
I've got it, the only thing that seem at all irregular about the contents
(the HTML, not the Wikicode) is that it's all in <pre> tags. (Disclaimer:
I haven't looked at HTML source of Wikipages before, so I'm not entirely
certain what would be irregular.)
So, anybody have any idea why this would be, whether it's an issue
with Wikipedia or my browser (well, obviously it's at least in part my
browser, since Lynx works fine, but it's not doing everything Galeon tries
to do), and what we can do about it either way?
If you want to see the source I'm looking at, send me an email at
my own address and I'll attach a copy to you; don't want to clog up the
list with that.
--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
It's easy to find something worth dying for. Do you have anything worth
living for?
--Lorien
I think your worries are just as sensible as mine ;-)
I worry about making too much of a hierarchy. We already have...
An Elite:
* Dictator-for-life: Jimbo Wales (controls URLs, bandwidth, machines; sets policy)
* Developers: can delete or alter any page, any time, without a trace! same for blocking, promoting, renaming users)
* Sysops: can delete pages or protect them from the lower classes; can block IP's.
A Lower-class:
* Signed-in users - cannot be blocked, except by a developer
* Anonymous (IP) users - can be blocked by any sysop
This looks to me like 5 levels of power. Some people don't like us having that many levels. Some people profess to trust those in the top 2 levels (the Gang of Five); some make no such profession of trust.
Although I worry about the long-term future of Wikipedia, so far it has weathered all storms. (Ah, that's easy for you to say, "Uncle Ed", sitting in your ivory tower... Yeah, you have a point...)
Ed Poor
Wikipedia Developer and Sysop
sannse wrote:
> I think Notheruser and Ams80 might have been missed?
> They have requested and been backed for sysops.
I didn't miss those two, but:
* I didn't want to do anything hasty toward the end of a week.
* I'm getting lazy ;-)
How about creating a Button that sysops can use to promote
other sysops? I'm getting tired of writing and checking SQL queries. Also, I don't want to become a gatekeeper :-(
We could (maybe?) hash out some rules, like:
1. Must be nominated and seconded (i.e., takes N votes where N >= 2? or N >= 3?).
2. Can't nominate or second anyone till you've been a sysop
for N days (N > 30 days? N > 90 days? N > 12 months?)
Note: I don't particularly care one way or another, and I'm
not trying to start a debate. I'm just trying to find a way
to avoid work! ^_^
Ed Poor
One of that tiny group of "developers"