There has to be a way for people to redeem themselves. For Lir, leaving aside the multiple incarnation issue, the multiple small edit issue, may be an editing style that annoys some people, but looked at alone I would not consider it a banning offence. What are his other '''recent''' offences?
Ec
He knows he is banned yet is trying to be here with another phony user name. He was not patient enough to wait til ban was legitimately lifted. (Assuming it is Lir).
Fred
Fred is quite correct. Remember this is a user who has been hard banned numerous times. They approached Jimbo and PROMISED that they would not come on under an assumed identity again. They gave their word. In the circumstances, they could have got Jimbo's agreement to come on again as themselves. They could have waited for the specified period then come back. But they instead went back on their word (yet again) and came on as an assumed identity, in the process giving the two fingers to Jimbo and the wiki rules on banning. As to Adam not committing offences - it isn't for the want of trying. One of Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Shino Baku etc's standard 'games' has been to provoke rows. One particular stunt they used to pull was to enter a page where an edit war had been taking place and just as peace was breaking out say or do something that would re-ignite it. I have seen 'Pizza Puzzle' try that once so far. (Luckily the people in question from past experience knew the 'game' and wouldn't play!)
PP placed bizarre messages on talk pages (I got one that said ''Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll'), in a attempt to provoke a reaction. Knowing Adam's 'game' I ignored it.) When that failed a provocative message was left on PP's user page by PP, proclaiming how they were a troll, again to see could they start a row. By then people had pretty much worked out PP's identity and after some emails and AIM messages (used so that Adam could not read them, which he would do if they were on talk pages) decided to ignore his latest bit of 'look at me. I'm a troll. Wanna fight?' antics.
So he tried another tried and trusted method. He voted then 'unvoted' on the dates vote page, in the hope that (as happened when he was 'Susan Mason') someone would react with a 'what the fuck do you think you are doing' response; he could then assume victim mode and get a few newbies to rush to his defence and turn the page into a nasty fight. But only one person challenged him on that, so that fizzled out.
Next try - remove someone's vote. So far that hasn't resulted in a major row of the sort that Adam as Lir, Vera and Susan seemed to love starting.
All of which poses the question: so what is next? What stunt with Adam try next to stir up a row? Going by past experience he will keep trying. Rows are the one thing Adam in all his identities has contributed to wiki. He seems to get a kick out of starting them off.
If wiki is to thrive as an encyclopædia, it needs to be able to deal with the likes of Adam (now back on when he shouldn't be), Michael (though banned numerous times still coming on daily to vandalise pages) and Ron (aka DW, Black Widow, Elliot, Jacques Delson, 64.228.30.125, Joe Canuck and now ChuckM). Ron has been on almost continually, not withstanding constant hardbans since August 2002. Indeed Ron's contempt for wiki can be seen in the fact that he often has two 'identities' in use at once, an IP for editing and a named page for insulting. The fact that ChuckM, which he created on the 10th of June could suddenly be brought back on the 22nd, after his previous identity Joe Canuck was banned on the 20th shows his contempt for wiki - one of his first acts was to remove the ban notice from Canuck's page, then insult MyRedDice and accuse Wapcaplet, then remove a note from me on the VfD page urging a quick deletion of Canuck's dodgy images.
Our 'softly softly . . . maybe they might change' nonsense is not working. Michael still defaces articles. Ron still downloads dodgy images and Adam swans back giving Jimbo two fingers again and again and again. As a hardbanned user, there should be no need for a debate. The rules said explicitly that Adam should be banned immediately. Whether he writes good articles is irrelevant. He has no right to be here and as someone who can't even be bothered to keep his promises to Jimbo, we owe it to ourselves, Jimbo and Wiki to ban him as soon as possible, as often as needs be. So that Adam, Ron, Michael and everyone else gets the clear unambiguous message 'wiki is a troll-free zone. All trolls will be barred on sight.', rather than our current message ' em . . . we'll talk about it and talk about it, and then talk about it a bit more. And when you are finally banned and come back, we'll do a lot more talking, not acting. So you have nothing to worry about.'
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
James-
one problem in enforcing bans is that we have to be *sure* that the person is the same one as the previously banned one. In Adam's case this is quite obvious, but people have been defending each of his incaranations, so it doesn't surprise me that the current one is defended as well. I'm not sure ChuckM is really DW, though. The long rant he put on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] did not sound like something DW would write. Which doesn't mean that you aren't right, of course, just that I wouldn't ban ChuckM on the basis of the evidence.
Because we have literally no identity requirement before signing up as a new user, it will always be easy for people to come back under new names. Previously we at least had an email field that many people believed was required for signing up. So many banned users added their old email address, nice! Then someone complained, and now it explicitly states that you don't need an email address.
There are several technical solutions that have been discussed for making bans work better. I think the following ones are pretty good:
1) Log the IP address the user signed up with and allow sysops to view it. That makes comparisons possible and narrows down the identity. It also allows banning in case of emergencies.
2) Place a "bad cookie" on their machine that allows us to identify them, if they do not notice and remove it. (Most users just accept all cookies without checking.)
3) Require a valid email address before signup, e.g. by sending a new user the password by email. No valid address -- no password. Some say email addresses are just as easy to create as user accounts here. I do not agree. Setting up a Hotmail account is quite a PITA, for example, and most people don't know many freemail account providers. It has certainly worked for Kuro5hin.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
James-
one problem in enforcing bans is that we have to be *sure* that the person is the same one as the previously banned one. In Adam's case this is quite obvious, but people have been defending each of his incaranations, so it doesn't surprise me that the current one is defended as well. I'm not sure ChuckM is really DW, though. The long rant he put on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] did not sound like something DW would write. Which doesn't mean that you aren't right, of course, just that I wouldn't ban ChuckM on the basis of the evidence.
Because we have literally no identity requirement before signing up as a new user, it will always be easy for people to come back under new names. Previously we at least had an email field that many people believed was required for signing up. So many banned users added their old email address, nice! Then someone complained, and now it explicitly states that you don't need an email address.
There are several technical solutions that have been discussed for making bans work better. I think the following ones are pretty good:
- Log the IP address the user signed up with and
allow sysops to view it. That makes comparisons possible and narrows down the identity. It also allows banning in case of emergencies.
- Place a "bad cookie" on their machine that allows
us to identify them, if they do not notice and remove it. (Most users just accept all cookies without checking.)
- Require a valid email address before signup, e.g.
by sending a new user the password by email. No valid address -- no password. Some say email addresses are just as easy to create as user accounts here. I do not agree. Setting up a Hotmail account is quite a PITA, for example, and most people don't know many freemail account providers. It has certainly worked for Kuro5hin.
Regards,
Erik
I guess I agree with the first two, but I hate the third. Sure, it would probably work on the stupider vandals, but I really hate getting a password like dk2SF84gsf5K in my email and then can't figure out how to change the password. That's why I don't use Kuro5hin. But maybe account activation by email would be good. The only problem with all of these ideas is that a tech-smart user can work around them.
Plus, I like having multiple accounts for some purposes. For example, I sign some things as LDan, but my real username is LittleDan. So I created an LDan account and made it a redirect to LittleDan. I don't really want to have to do a workaround for that. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On 6/24/03 1:44 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I guess I agree with the first two, but I hate the third. Sure, it would probably work on the stupider vandals, but I really hate getting a password like dk2SF84gsf5K in my email and then can't figure out how to change the password. That's why I don't use Kuro5hin. But maybe account activation by email would be good. The only problem with all of these ideas is that a tech-smart user can work around them.
Plus, I like having multiple accounts for some purposes. For example, I sign some things as LDan, but my real username is LittleDan. So I created an LDan account and made it a redirect to LittleDan. I don't really want to have to do a workaround for that. -LDan
Um...that's why we have the nickname field.
Daniel-
I guess I agree with the first two, but I hate the third. Sure, it would probably work on the stupider vandals, but I really hate getting a password like dk2SF84gsf5K in my email and then can't figure out how to change the password. That's why I don't use Kuro5hin.
I recently rewrote that part of Kuro5hin's codebase. The first time you log in, you are automatically put on the preferences page and can, among other things, set your password. Easy as pie.
Regards,
Erik
--- james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
There has to be a way for people to redeem
themselves. For Lir, leaving
aside the multiple incarnation issue, the
multiple small edit issue, may
be an editing style that annoys some people, but
looked at alone I would
not consider it a banning offence. What are his
other '''recent'''
offences?
Ec
He knows he is banned yet is trying to be here with
another phony user
name. He was not patient enough to wait til ban was
legitimately lifted.
(Assuming it is Lir).
Fred
Fred is quite correct. Remember this is a user who has been hard banned numerous times. They approached Jimbo and PROMISED that they would not come on under an assumed identity again. They gave their word. In the circumstances, they could have got Jimbo's agreement to come on again as themselves. They could have waited for the specified period then come back. But they instead went back on their word (yet again) and came on as an assumed identity, in the process giving the two fingers to Jimbo and the wiki rules on banning. As to Adam not committing offences - it isn't for the want of trying. One of Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Shino Baku etc's standard 'games' has been to provoke rows. One particular stunt they used to pull was to enter a page where an edit war had been taking place and just as peace was breaking out say or do something that would re-ignite it. I have seen 'Pizza Puzzle' try that once so far. (Luckily the people in question from past experience knew the 'game' and wouldn't play!)
PP placed bizarre messages on talk pages (I got one that said ''Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll'), in a attempt to provoke a reaction. Knowing Adam's 'game' I ignored it.) When that failed a provocative message was left on PP's user page by PP, proclaiming how they were a troll, again to see could they start a row. By then people had pretty much worked out PP's identity and after some emails and AIM messages (used so that Adam could not read them, which he would do if they were on talk pages) decided to ignore his latest bit of 'look at me. I'm a troll. Wanna fight?' antics.
So he tried another tried and trusted method. He voted then 'unvoted' on the dates vote page, in the hope that (as happened when he was 'Susan Mason') someone would react with a 'what the fuck do you think you are doing' response; he could then assume victim mode and get a few newbies to rush to his defence and turn the page into a nasty fight. But only one person challenged him on that, so that fizzled out.
Next try - remove someone's vote. So far that hasn't resulted in a major row of the sort that Adam as Lir, Vera and Susan seemed to love starting.
All of which poses the question: so what is next? What stunt with Adam try next to stir up a row? Going by past experience he will keep trying. Rows are the one thing Adam in all his identities has contributed to wiki. He seems to get a kick out of starting them off.
If wiki is to thrive as an encyclop�dia, it needs to be able to deal with the likes of Adam (now back on when he shouldn't be), Michael (though banned numerous times still coming on daily to vandalise pages) and Ron (aka DW, Black Widow, Elliot, Jacques Delson, 64.228.30.125, Joe Canuck and now ChuckM). Ron has been on almost continually, not withstanding constant hardbans since August 2002. Indeed Ron's contempt for wiki can be seen in the fact that he often has two 'identities' in use at once, an IP for editing and a named page for insulting. The fact that ChuckM, which he created on the 10th of June could suddenly be brought back on the 22nd, after his previous identity Joe Canuck was banned on the 20th shows his contempt for wiki - one of his first acts was to remove the ban notice from Canuck's page, then insult MyRedDice and accuse Wapcaplet, then remove a note from me on the VfD page urging a quick deletion of Canuck's dodgy images.
Our 'softly softly . . . maybe they might change' nonsense is not working. Michael still defaces articles. Ron still downloads dodgy images and Adam swans back giving Jimbo two fingers again and again and again. As a hardbanned user, there should be no need for a debate. The rules said explicitly that Adam should be banned immediately. Whether he writes good articles is irrelevant. He has no right to be here and as someone who can't even be bothered to keep his promises to Jimbo, we owe it to ourselves, Jimbo and Wiki to ban him as soon as possible, as often as needs be. So that Adam, Ron, Michael and everyone else gets the clear unambiguous message 'wiki is a troll-free zone. All trolls will be barred on sight.', rather than our current message ' em . . . we'll talk about it and talk about it, and then talk about it a bit more. And when you are finally banned and come back, we'll do a lot more talking, not acting. So you have nothing to worry about.'
JT
I don't think banning will work in any of these cases, since the users keep comming back, as you said. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com