> Now that account banning is installed on en: I plan
to avail of it.
> User:BuddhaInside has been trolling the 'pedia for
over two weeks
> with no end in sight.
> I don't take using an account ban lightly, so this
is your chance to
> either talk me out of it or yank my admin privileges
> intend to ban this account after another day or so.
>I'm not going to comment on whether BuddhaInside
>should be banned, but I do oppose it being done in
>this way. We should only use the ban button to
>enforce hard bans (cautiously!) or cases of simple
>BuddhaInside's contributions are vandalism, then they
>can only be described
>as *complicated* vandalism)
>Please don't do this Hephaestos, I think it would set
>a dangerous precedent.
>I don't think you (or I) should make this decision.
I think this is precisely what I told Heph in the
relevant talk page. I am embarassed by the process.
Either it is Jimbo to decide as before, and the
process should be that Heph is just the hand of Jimbo
decision. In this case, we fail in the goal which was
also to remove a bottle neck, since we still rely on
Jimbo, but we are not in a hurry. I understood that
banning user name was mostly intended for Michael
multiple names management. Not for more complicated
case as this one.
Or we are big boys and girls and handle this
ourselves. In this case, it should be done by
classical discussion and consensus, just as is fit in
On the discussion page, most of what is discussed
about is the blanking of this buddha talk page. And
there are clearly no consensus that this is a reason
for hard ban.
I ask Heph to set a nice list of "wrongness" with
links to support his decision. But...
As I told him, is it the right way that people wanting
banning of something provide arguments and proofs for
banning. Or is the right way that people opposing a
banning have to provide arguments and proofs for it
not to happen ? Or both ? Or is the answer just "let's
ask Jimbo ?" (poor Jimbo :-))
I fear very much, that just because people were given
technological tools to fight against very very very
problematic users such as Michael, we will go solving
issues that are not dramatic by just quietly saying
"If no one speaks against, in 24 hours, I hit the
button". And accumulate in a short time, far more
banning than there ever was since the beginning of the
project, under the benevolent rule of Jimbo (was that
enough ? :-)).
I understand very much Heph tiredness. The best point
in his decision is that it allows us to realise a new
tool was provided, but that no discussion occurred
upon how using it (except for pure hard Michael
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Wikipedia actually forces me to take an indefinite break until the whole
thing is running properly again. A couple of days ago, I wikified a long
page and for once forgot to copy it before pressing the "save" button.
Needless to say, the whole thing was lost irrevocably before I had realized
my mistake. Yesterday I was careless again and added five titles to
Kingturtle's reading list -- lost forever. Now I just wanted to update a
page -- impossible.
I'm still amazed that this is not being discussed. Instead, I am inundated
by e-mails about bots, most of which are just copies of old e-mails with one
sentence added at the bottom. I don't understand participants' priorities
I have been used to having a look at Wikipedia first thing whenever I sit
down at my computer. I guess I'll keep doing so and occasionally try to
edit an article, but since all good features (watchlist, search function
etc.) are more or less gone and as it now usually takes one minute or so to
get from the edit history back to the article I don't think I'll be able to
contribute a lot. This is just too frustrating.
Whatever happened to the "new server madness"?
You bet I was heated up, I still am. However, after having read Tim's
response and after some discussion I realized it was best to wait until
Jimbo could get to the list and read the thread before continuing.
Sorry for not bringing that to the list earlier.
I find it interesting though that of all the objections to banning this
account I've seen here on the list and on various talk pages have been
based solely on procedure. I find nothing anywhere along the lines of
"this person doesn't deserved to be banned, this person's not a troll,
this person's a fine contributor"; what I mainly see is "we haven't
discussed it enough yet."
But we -have- discussed it, and at length, for over two weeks! And to
be perfectly honest, if the blocking mechanism had been in place on
September 7, and the caveats not established for its use, I would have
banned this account then, when it became perfectly obvious that the
person behind it was in no way interested in anything but disrupting
the Wikipedia. (Maybe some recall my "hurry-up" email to the list on
that date.) BuddhaInside's actions have changed not a bit since then,
while we have been sitting back discussing and discussing.
Our method of ridding the system of users that are clearly out for
nothing but destruction needs a serious overhaul. I understand now
that the new code was implemented more or less specifically to deal
with Michael's accounts. On the other hand, I've told Michael
flat-out, "if you'll quit acting like that, you'll be allowed in."
Realistically, there is no way to know if someone is a banned user
except by their actions. If Michael were to log in under a generic AOL
IP and begin editing articles in a responsible manner, we'd have to let
it slide, because there is no way to know whether it was him. And if I
logged in and started editing like Michael, I'd be almost immediately
(and rightfully!) blocked.
The point I'm trying to make here is that we can't ban -people-, only
-actions-. If someone is -acting- like a banned user, they should -be-
banned, regardless of who they are, because we have no way of knowing
who they are. (And of course, concessions should be made for new
contributors, which BuddhaInside clearly is not.) If they then want to
make another account and start acting responsibly, great. If they make
another account and do the same thing, ban them again.
And as I type this, BuddhaInside continues his/her silly antics, as we
continue ours. I sincerely hope it doesn't take another two weeks to
come to a conclusion on this.
Geoff Burling wrote:
> Or, to put it another way, is deleting external links that one doesn't
> like similar to deleting material in the Talk: pages one doesn't like?
No, deleting external links should be legitimate, if the linked website
contains propaganda or garbage.
Some editors of the Balkan articles have perfected a way of feignedly
sticking to NPOV, but effectively breaking it: they write a very short
article, and then add "Further information can be found here", pointing to
a biased page. There was even a page (which I currently cannot find
again), where the external links were spread all over the text; that's
about how it looked:
"When the Serbian army  entered Bosnia , resistance was high ..."
Every [x] was linking to a one-sided website. We should carefully watch,
what kind of external links is added to this sort of pages, where a
violation of NPOV is likely to come.
However, when I find time, I will have a look at all these Serbia pages
and try to rewrite them, so that we can get rid of these freesrpska.org
a user is currently adding dozens of articles about Serbian history. The
content is copied from the website http://www.freesrpska.org. The
webmaster of that site agreed to the usage under terms of the GFDL, so
there is no copyright problem. But there is a BIG problem with the site
itself. The page is full of blatant falsification of history. For
instance, the article about Ratko Mladic on the website (not in Wikipedia,
just on that site) reads: "Leader of the Serbian army in the defensive war
that gave rise to the Republic of Srpska. It was the Army of Republic of
Srpska, which heroically prevented mass slaughter of the Serbian
population in former Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Almost every article linked from the [[List of Serbs]] page includes a
link to that page. Even if the information in these articles is correct, I
feel very uncomfortable, if articles about Serbia are copies from such an
extremist source. I regard this as a potential damage to Wikipedia's
Do others agree, or am I too hysterical?
Mirko (User Cordyph)
>Basically, in my experience, it goes like so:
>A) Call is made to FBI
>B) FBI calls ISP, gets account details
>C) FBI visits suspect (or calls if they're far enough from a
>field office to make it inconvenient), says what they're doing
>is not a good idea.
>D) FBI keeps an eye on suspect's doings, if the suspect
>keeps doing these things, action is taken against them.
>Generally, the FBI showing up at your door and telling you
>to stop doing something... makes you stop doing something.
>Now, if he's done this sort of thing before, well, there might
>be an abrupt end to his edits.
The guy lives in Canada (Toronto area IIRC). Since when can the FBI harass our
friends to the north?
The vandalism of the Main Page was the last straw. I have banned
BuddhaInside. This should not require Jimbo's approval since it was a case
of simple and obvious vandalism.
I hope we can get rid of all these Deletexxxx pages he idiotically created
> Well, then that's just because of its POV. We link to
> POV sites.
There may be some instances, where it is justified to link to a propaganda
source. For example, if you have an article about Serbian history, I would
not protest against having a link to freesrpska, provided that a comment
explains the nature of that site. But we don't need to have this link on
every page about a detail of Serbian history. Take for example the article
"Skull Tower"; it is a quite short article, but it is followed by three
(!) links to the freesrpska page, among them a subpage pretending to
explain the "Islamic conflict on the Balkan" (see
http://www.freesrpska.org/en/prevare/islam.html for that blatant
propaganda). Our readers will click on these links and read all this
Nikola (the author of the articles) offered to provide a comment next to
all these links, reading "be warned that some of other articles on this
site might be propagandistic and biased" - but I consider it dangerous to
have these links at all.
> I hope we can get rid of all these Deletexxxx pages
> > Regards,
> > Erik
After trying so much for the pages precisely not being
This is spicy :-)
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 16:16, Lee Pilich wrote:
> > Erik wrote:
> > >Allan-
> > >> So, is this happening? What username is Adam editing under?
> > >
> > >Contrary to his promise to use the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]", Adam is again
> > >editing under the name Pizza Puzzle <snip>
> > I don't think any such promise was made: see Jimbo's post at
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006469.html
> > Quoth he: "I don't really care what name he uses as long as it's
>Speaking of consistency, I'm not sure if he reads this list anymore, but
>he told me that he's planning on requesting the password for "Lir" and
>using that, since it was his original username. I think he might be
>using Pizza Puzzle in the interim.
But Adam isn't PP!!! After all he swore to Jimbo that he wasn't. Maybe he
just /found/ the PP page unused and just happened to find the password and
by chance picked it to use. <G>
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online