Hephaestos wrote:
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 now,
with no end in sight.
<snip>
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
beforehand. I
intend to ban this account after another day or so.
Sanne said
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 vandalism (If 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.
Regards,
sannse
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 this wiki. 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 vandalism).
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: "Anthere" anthere6@yahoo.com
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 ? :-)).
24 hours is a very short time in the world of entitlement decision-making. While there may be some merit to the argument that swift action is needed, such a drastic action should entail some kind of discussion process allowing for some "reasonable period" of input from various volunteers, including the opportunity for those providing input to revise their vote (since it is a transparent process people should be allowed to change their minds if the discussion demonstrates the alternate decision, that shows that there is merit to this kind of wiki based decisionmaking process and it validates an fundamental advantage of using the wiki as social software in the development of the Association of Wikipedians (not to be confused with the Wikimedia Foundation).
Alex756
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
From: "Anthere" anthere6@yahoo.com
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 ? :-)).
24 hours is a very short time in the world of entitlement decision-making. While there may be some merit to the argument that swift action is needed, such a drastic action should entail some kind of discussion process allowing for some "reasonable period" of input from various volunteers, including the opportunity for those providing input to revise their vote (since it is a transparent process people should be allowed to change their minds if the discussion demonstrates the alternate decision, that shows that there is merit to this kind of wiki based decisionmaking process and it validates an fundamental advantage of using the wiki as social software in the development of the Association of Wikipedians (not to be confused with the Wikimedia Foundation).
Alex756
What are you talking about? I think that the process is too bureaucratic. It usually takes 2 weeks to a month to ban someone. EntmootOfTrolls was discussed atleast 2 weeks ago, maybe before that. Same with BudhaInside. And those people haven't even been banned yet.
I am, however, worried about the trigger-finger banning of anonymous users. These vandalizations (unless they're trolls) are almost always a one-time thing. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I think that the process is too bureaucratic. It usually takes 2 weeks to a month to ban someone. EntmootOfTrolls was discussed atleast 2 weeks ago, maybe before that. Same with BudhaInside. And those people haven't even been banned yet.
Well, in case anyone else missed the announcement, EofT is banned. Except, oh, I didn't actually do anything, I just proclaimed. Perhaps someone kind will do the sql commands for me?
I am, however, worried about the trigger-finger banning of anonymous users. These vandalizations (unless they're trolls) are almost always a one-time thing.
Yes, it's a tough problem -- I've generally deliberately tried to be "too slow" on the banning process, which has it's costs of course.
Basically, if we're too slow, we risk alienating good users who have to put up with too much. And if we're too fast, we run the very real risk of creating more trouble than we're solving.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Yes, it's a tough problem -- I've generally deliberately tried to be "too slow" on the banning process, which has it's costs of course.
Basically, if we're too slow, we risk alienating good users who have to put up with too much. And if we're too fast, we run the very real risk of creating more trouble than we're solving.
I agree with the go slow process. If you give these guys the time to dig their graves, there will be no doubt about what hole they belong in.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Yes, it's a tough problem -- I've generally deliberately tried to be "too slow" on the banning process, which has it's costs of course.
Basically, if we're too slow, we risk alienating good users who have to put up with too much. And if we're too fast, we run the very real risk of creating more trouble than we're solving.
I agree with the go slow process. If you give these guys the time to dig their graves, there will be no doubt about what hole they belong in.
Right, I agree. I know it's frustrating to old-timers that I'm so slow about it, but I think it's really important for _credibility_, because that's really the only way to make these things stick.
By going slow, I ensure that by the time the ban comes, people can say "Oh, yeah, well, you know, what else could be done? Geez."
--Jimbo
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
What are you talking about? I think that the process is too bureaucratic. It usually takes 2 weeks to a month to ban someone. EntmootOfTrolls was discussed atleast 2 weeks ago, maybe before that. Same with BudhaInside. And those people haven't even been banned yet.
Hephaestos stated (and Anthere replied) that he was going to ban Mr/Ms.. Inside in 24 hours from a notice he posted here and on the corresponding problem user page and that unless anyone objected he would do so.
Any time periods for making such a decision should be taken from some point. I was stating that Heph.'s 24 hour consulation period is way too short and thus I am agreeing with you and the process. Indeed it is Jimbo that must do the banning not Hephaestos and maybe his statement to that effect gets the ball rolling, but I do not think it is a good idea for someone to give a 24 hour deadline as a time frame to create a consensus. That is not a sufficient period of time to give the whole community notice for any kind of decison making.
I should point out, however, that I find the activity of the person in question to be very frustrating and time consuming and understand Heph's frustration and his need to make such a demand to the community. But up to this point many have seen Mr/Ms.. Inside as being a problem user, not someone who necessarily needed to be banned. I think that creates a difference in the minds of some people. It certain seemed to me that s/ he is a problem user, but maybe s/he was just just a newbie with a very unique idea of Wikipedia. I too think the user in question should be banned as a recidivist troublemaker (at least temporarily until s/he gets some perspective on what Wikipedia is all about).
Alex756
Alex R. wrote:
Indeed it is Jimbo that must do the banning not Hephaestos
This has always been our rule, and it likely will be for some time to come, but I want to be on record as a critic of this method who only grudgingly accepts that it's the best way that we have right now.
1. It's a bit dangerous to have a custom where a single person makes the final decision, in case that person acts capriciously.
2. I can make decisions, but in order for them to really mean anything given the state of the software and our intense desire for openness, those decisions have to have _credibility_, i.e. people have to be prepared to say "Well, I didn't agree in every detail with that decision, but the decision had to be made and Jimbo does a very good job of it."
3. The combination of (1) and (2) mean that I have to act deliberately, fairly, cautiously, and too slowly for many people's tastes. Doing so is the only way for me to avoid the dangers of (1) and to maintain the personal credibility that I need in order to make these bans "stick" in (2).
4. I find it all fairly unpleasant. Part of it is that each ban is a cause for sadness, sadness that someone is so incredibly anti-social that there's just no way for us to continue working with them. We can be cheered by the fact that they are 1 in 10,000 or rarer. I would have guessed before Wikipedia that we'd see many more jerks. But even so, the weight of the responsibility of balancing competing interests is not fun. (It'd be more fun to be a tyrant and ban everyone who doesn't agree with me. But then my vision of a free encyclopedia would not be possible!)
------------
The bottom line is that I think that in the future, not right away, but after we've slowly taken some cautious steps towards organically creating some more 'collective' decision making methods (voting, that sort of thing), we will move towards a system of banning that's very different from what we have now.
There's actually a great irony here. Most people who get banned likely feel that I've been unilateral and unfair, and that if only we had true democracy (or true X, whatever that person prefers), they would have succeeded in the Wikipedia community. But the truth is, if we voted on these things, I suspect we'd have a lot more banning overall, and a lot faster than my tedious and timid way of doing it! :-)
--Jimbo
Regarding Hephaestos's statement of his intention to ban BuddhaInside:
There's really no need for everyone to jump on Hephaestos for going against policy. Hephaestos emailed me shortly after my original response, saying that he had no problem with waiting for Jimbo's approval. He clearly made an honest mistake and misunderstood the banning policy, although perhaps it would have been nice to see an acknowledgment of that to this list.
-- Tim Starling.
I agree. He was all heated up and probably frustrated with me for not doing anything.
How about this? Could someone let BuddhaInside know that I'm asking him to chat with me privately about this, and/or come to the mailing list to discuss these issues? And that if he doesn't take some action to modify his behavior, I'm asking him to move along to another website?
(And of course, there's always the possibility of banning if he really wants to keep it up.)
I'm *swamped*.
Tim Starling wrote:
Regarding Hephaestos's statement of his intention to ban BuddhaInside:
There's really no need for everyone to jump on Hephaestos for going against policy. Hephaestos emailed me shortly after my original response, saying that he had no problem with waiting for Jimbo's approval. He clearly made an honest mistake and misunderstood the banning policy, although perhaps it would have been nice to see an acknowledgment of that to this list.
-- Tim Starling.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He just redirected his Talk page to the Main Page.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Angela has corrected me. What he did was to MOVE the Main Page to his Talk page.
RickK
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote: He just redirected his Talk page to the Main Page.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Delirium wrote:
Rick wrote:
Angela has corrected me. What he did was to MOVE the Main Page to his Talk page.
Are protected pages movable by non-sysops then, despite not being editable by them? If so, perhaps that should be changed.
-Mark
Yes, this is true, and has just been brought up by others in the Wikitech-l mailing list.
-Flockmeal
Anthere wrote in part:
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 vandalism).
There was /some/ discussion, and Jimbo said this: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006242.html
----- Begin complete quotation -----
Toby Bartels wrote:
AFAICT, it's so far authorised only for Michael. But it will probably be expanded as soon as Jimbo pronounces something.
Yes, that's right. I suppose it's for Michael or what we have traditionally called blatant vandalism (goatse.cx, etc.). Certainly it would be a *grave* abuse to use it in any case other than that.
We'll also want to take reasonable care that we not ban logged-in users who aren't really Michael. Mistaken identity is worse than a few random idiot edits on his part.
I would advise that it be used just as for IPs, which means that new usernames doing only vandalism can be blocked. But established user names can't be blocked for new errors, just as IPs that have done more than vandalism can't be.
That's right.
--Jimbo
----- End complete quotation -----
My citation here should not be interpreted as an opinion one way or another as to whether the user BuddhaInside should be hard-banned or not; it is only about "processus". ^_^
-- Toby, Who has not had very much time at all lately but happened to notice this post that I had just the citation to answer!