--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity?
(I don't pay attention to
this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if
Lir is banned, rehabilitated,
or quietly making useful & valued contributions.)
And if this is isn't one
of Lir's identities, why would this user bother
behaving in a manner that
is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively
disfunctional?
Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting noticed and resetting the ban.
I've never understood why somebody would keep committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get rebanned. If Lir was ever interested in editing, he could just come in as an anon and make valid edits, but he seems more interested in disruption than in contribution.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:08:56 -0800 (PST), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
I've never understood why somebody would keep committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get rebanned. If Lir was ever interested in editing, he could just come in as an anon and make valid edits, but he seems more interested in disruption than in contribution.
I have the strong suspicion that editing itself was not high on the list of Lir's reason to be on Wikipedia, by the sheer fact of the above. Other banned users have come back and edited quietly for quite a while before anyone realised, and I'm sure there are others who are editing to this day.
-Matt
Rick wrote:
I've never understood why somebody would keep committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get rebanned. If Lir was ever interested in editing, he could just come in as an anon and make valid edits, but he seems more interested in disruption than in contribution.
I'm currently trying to flesh out my 'addiction' model of pathological behaviour on Wikipedia. You can see this in editors who are hardworking, but seem to love Wikipedia *just a little too much* and possibly in ways nature didn't really intend. And when they get banned, they go fucking batshit with junkie rage at being cut off from their fix, c.f. Wik and the vandalbot. I'll probably write it up as a "ha ha only serious" page on meta, to go with [[m:MPOV]] and [[m:Don't be a dick]]. In the meantime, it gives the ArbCom considerable flexibility for more creative remedies for bad behaviour than a mere ban, which the real addicts tend to sockpuppet anyway. "You *really* want your fix? Write two 500-word essays on why NPOV and No Personal Attacks are good ideas. If we score each 9/10 or better, you can edit again." I think there's a lot of scope there for really *fixing* behaviour.
- d.