Fred Bauder points out that what I suggest amounts to a permanent ban. Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I understand that many people might disagree with me, but this is the effect of what I proposed. If Jimbo rejects it, so be it. But to reiterate, what I am suggesting should only be used in the most extreme cases, and after some sort of due process.
David Gerard points out that this is, in effect, the current situation concerning Cheese Dreams. Yes, I understand that too. But it is an informal and ad hoc response. I am suggesting giving the ArbCom one more, formal, ultimate sanction. I think making the sanction official will make it easier to enforce; having the ArbCom in charge guarantees that the accused will benefit from due process.
By the way, although I do think CheeseDreams would be a perfect candidate for this sanction, my main point was not to orchestrate some consensus that she is an "outlaw" -- that would make this just another ad hoc response. My main interest is in creating an ultimate sanction the ArbCom can apply in the most extreme cases, where banning and blocking are ineffective and scoffed at by the person blocked. Put another way, I am suggesting a new protocol for enforcing permanent bans; the protocol amounts to asking all editors to be on the lookout for activity by the person banned and known (it has to be official) sock puppets, and to reverse edits without any fear of violating the three revert rule.
Nicholas Knight suggests another strategy for handling this, and Rhobite has some concerns. I am neutral, but do hope that there will be vigorous discussion about Nicholas's proposal. It may be more effective than mine -- or less effective; perhaps both proposals have merit and can work in concert.
But the main point that I share with Nicholas Knight: "It's just going to get worse, and as legitimate users get fed up and leave, people like CD will turn Wikipedia into a laughing stock."
Forget about my personal gripe with CD -- forget about CD altogether. The point is, we can count on situations in the future where a person given the most reasonable temporary ban will flout the ruling of the ArbCom, and, by using many sock puppets, effectively neutralize our current means of blocking users. This calls for some new policy. People now have my proposal and Nicholas's proposal to consider. I really urge all committed Wikipedians to participate in this discussion, and perhaps develop other proposals worthy of consideration.
Should such a discussion occur primarily on this list-serve, for now? Or should we create some page on Wikipedia where people can discuss proposals (if so, what page? Where?)?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
Due to extensions this results in a permanent ban.
Fred
From: "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:15:08 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy
where banning and blocking are ineffective and scoffed at by the person blocked.
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
From: "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:15:08 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy
Or should we create some page on Wikipedia where people can discuss proposals (if so, what page? Where?)
Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution might work out a little better.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:40:29 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
From: "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:15:08 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy
Or should we create some page on Wikipedia where people can discuss proposals (if so, what page? Where?)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050206 07:25]:
Fred Bauder points out that what I suggest amounts to a permanent ban. Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I understand that many people might disagree with me, but this is the effect of what I proposed. If Jimbo rejects it, so be it. But to reiterate, what I am suggesting should only be used in the most extreme cases, and after some sort of due process.
We only give up to a year's ban, because a year is forever in Internet time.
Also - and this is important - all banned users are theoretically redeemable. Michael was turned form a swearword into a good editor. If that particular miracle can happen, anything is possible.
David Gerard points out that this is, in effect, the current situation concerning Cheese Dreams. Yes, I understand that too. But it is an informal and ad hoc response. I am suggesting giving the ArbCom one more, formal, ultimate sanction. I think making the sanction official will make it easier to enforce; having the ArbCom in charge guarantees that the accused will benefit from due process.
We can hand out up to a year already. Note some recent cases like Alberuni, who got more than a year's ban total but ony a year was enactable.
But the main point that I share with Nicholas Knight: "It's just going to get worse, and as legitimate users get fed up and leave, people like CD will turn Wikipedia into a laughing stock."
CD is the merest flea on Wikipedia. And we're already a laughing stock, ask Larry Sanger.
Forget about my personal gripe with CD -- forget about CD altogether. The point is, we can count on situations in the future where a person given the most reasonable temporary ban will flout the ruling of the ArbCom, and, by using many sock puppets, effectively neutralize our current means of blocking users. This calls for some new policy. People now have my proposal and Nicholas's proposal to consider. I really urge all committed Wikipedians to participate in this discussion, and perhaps develop other proposals worthy of consideration.
Look, the essential point is that harder and harder bans can't actually be enforced more than the present sanctions against CD are being enforced. It's just about impossible to keep someone off Wikipedia if they really want to edit on it except by continuous admin vigilance. Making bans we're comically unable to enforce is the way to make us a laughing stock amongst those interested in trashing the place.
There is absolutely no reason to presume contacting the ISP will work in any meaningful way. We're not paying the user's monthly fees, they are. We have the website "anyone" can edit. To get an ISP to act, you have to have a Terms Of Service violation. Not only that, you have to find a TOS violation they will actually act upon, not just one that's written in the TOS - those are two entirely different things. Spam, they act upon, 'cos otherwise everyone blocks their mail. Illegal threats, they act on those. Editing an editable website really doesn't register on that scale.
The reason Wikipedia goes in for soft security is not just because we're so nice and full of the wikilove, it's because the degree of hard security being asked for in this thread, though emotionally satisfying in a simplistic Daily Mail manner, is not actually *possible*.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050206 07:25]:
Fred Bauder points out that what I suggest amounts to a permanent ban. Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I understand that many people might disagree with me, but this is the effect of what I proposed. If Jimbo rejects it, so be it. But to reiterate, what I am suggesting should only be used in the most extreme cases, and after some sort of due process.
We only give up to a year's ban, because a year is forever in Internet time.
Also - and this is important - all banned users are theoretically redeemable. Michael was turned form a swearword into a good editor. If that particular miracle can happen, anything is possible.
Michael's behaviour was clearly (to me, at least) a symptom of some sort of emotional or psychological issue. The people I'm worried about are just malicious.
But the main point that I share with Nicholas Knight: "It's just going to get worse, and as legitimate users get fed up and leave, people like CD will turn Wikipedia into a laughing stock."
CD is the merest flea on Wikipedia. And we're already a laughing stock, ask
CD is just the current convenient example of a larger problem that desperately needs fixed.
Larry Sanger.
Larry's recent rant really isn't at issue here.