From: daniwo59@aol.com Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language Wikipediawikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking AOL users Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:58:48 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by mc12-f18.adinternal.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:06 -0700 Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx3n32081;Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:59:03 GMT Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163])by pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx1n32071for wikien-l@wikipedia.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:59:01 GMT Received: from daniwo59@aol.comby imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 8.43.21785a6e (16781)for wikien-l@wikipedia.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:58:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Info: vAu4ZEtdRigHscoddWhVe52f53EV3Kow Message-ID: 43.21785a6e.2c81f988@aol.com X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 531 X-BeenThere: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia<wikien-l.Wikipedia.org> List-Unsubscribe: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l,mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://pliny.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l List-Post: mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org List-Help: mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help List-Subscribe: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l,mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe Sender: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2003 12:59:06.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[7EC166C0:01C36EF6]
I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to Wikipedia for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for blocking thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. There must be some other solution.
Danny
I would hate to use Danny, who is a superb contributor, and many other potentially excellent contributions. What I would suggest is
1. Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the Michael problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked and the blocking of AOL will be PUBLICLY announced to the media in a publicity blitz, in which it will be accused through negligence of placing wikipedia and other websites in danger from vandalism. That formal request come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL. To balance the threat, Wiki must make it clear that it will work with AOL to do what it takes, if AOL is willing to act. That should offer a methodology whereby, to avoid public criticism, AOL can back down and work of a solution.
If they don't, it must be made clear that Wiki WILL act. That will require a professional media campaign, with Jimbo and others available to brief the media on why this extreme action is being taken. Press releases should be released to all news organisations, including AP, Reuters and the main print and broadcast sources in the US. The BBC in particular should be targeted. AOL is currently mounting a major PR campaign in the UK. Having criticism of it on the BBC both locally and internationally would be something I suspect AOL would be desparate to avoid.
The effects of this campaign would be three-fold: (a) to leave AOL in no doubt but that wikipedia is deadly serious about its threat; (b) That AOL risks damaging its own reputation, and having other websites also publicly criticising its behaviour (there is a lot of unhappiness out there with AOL. One credible encyclopædia attacking AOL may well lead to other websites too going public on their problems with AOL); (c) the campaign would earn widespread coverage for wikipedia, identifying itself as a credible, serious encyclopædia that will not tolerate vandalism and will not allow its reputation to be damaged by the arrogance and poor standards of any provider.
2. A specific date, perhaps two weeks or a month from the issuing of the press release, is stated at which point a ban will be imposed. In the intervening period, a message is prominently displayed on the main page and if possible in a banner on other pages, stating that because of AOL's negligent refusal to offer a means to control vandalism to the site, AOL users will no longer be able to enter the site from 'x' date.
3. A separate page be created explaining in detail /why/ this decision is being taken, with suggestions to users like Danny as to how to change provider, making it clear that wikipedia is not accusing AOL users of vandalising site and that the problem with AOL, not them.
4. A message is created which will show up after the cut-off date to AOL users trying to access the site explaining why they cannot gain access.
The chaos with Michael and others cannot continue. And the threat from isolated nutters targeting the site is likely to increase as the site grows. So this problem needs to be confronted now, rather than left drift until we have a far bigger problem later on, one which could turn good users away on frustration.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--- james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
- Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the
Michael problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked...
Note that I said "blocked from editing" rather than blocked from viewing the site at all.
otherwise, i agree with your post.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
While I doubt that this idea will go anywhere, I figured I'd weigh in against it anyway.
First of all, the whole idea is somewhat ridiculous. AOL is the single largest ISP in the United States, providing internet access to millions of people, including quite a few of our better contributors. Blocking it would be incredibly counter-productive, and do far more damage than Michael could possibly do. Furthermore, it is unlikely to receive *any* even remotely good publicity, regardless of what publicity blitz you put on. It will receive good publicity on slashdot, in NANAE, and other similar internet-zealot locations, but universally bad press everywhere. Wikipedia will essentially be painted as an elitist internet-zealot organization that doesn't allow common folk in, while we'd like to be painted as a bit more open than that.
In addition, it's completely unnecessary. Even if we were to need a technical block of sorts (which IMO would require far more vandalism than Michael has caused so far to justify), it should be done as minimally as possible. Using something heavy-handed like blocking all AOL IPs from editing is certainly not minimal. A first step I *might* possibly support *if* it were a huge problem and all other avenues were exhausted would be to allow sysops to ban logged-in users if they are currently on an AOL IP (then Michael could simply be banned by any sysop each time he pops up by clicking the "ban" button). However, even this I'd prefer not to have, given that other solutions are possible (my preferred so far being extending rollback to support rolling back page moves).
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
While I doubt that this idea will go anywhere, I figured I'd weigh in against it anyway.
I'm listening.
First of all, the whole idea is somewhat ridiculous. AOL is the single largest ISP in the United States, providing internet access to millions of people, including quite a few of our better contributors.
I'm with you so far.
Blocking it would be incredibly counter-productive, and do far more damage than Michael could possibly do.
Arguably so.
It only takes one or two really tenacious little vandals to piss off and demoralize many good contributors.
Furthermore, it is unlikely to receive
*any* even remotely good publicity, regardless of what publicity blitz you put on. It will receive good publicity on slashdot, in NANAE, and other similar internet-zealot locations, but universally bad press everywhere. Wikipedia will essentially be painted as an elitist internet-zealot organization that doesn't allow common folk in, while we'd like to be painted as a bit more open than that.
Agreed.
..to allow sysops to ban logged-in users if they are currently on an AOL IP (then Michael could simply be banned by any sysop each time he pops up by clicking the "ban" button). However, even this I'd prefer not to have, given that other solutions are possible
(my preferred so far being extending rollback to support rolling
back page moves).
That would be great, and it would be great regardless of Michael and AOL.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Delirium wrote:
First of all, the whole idea is somewhat ridiculous. AOL is the single largest ISP in the United States, providing internet access to millions of people, including quite a few of our better contributors. Blocking it would be incredibly counter-productive, and do far more damage than Michael could possibly do.
What we should do is the following,
1) Contact AOL pointing out those specific sections of the AOL TOS that the user has violated.
2) If this fails to get a response, send a letter stating that access to wikipedia could be withdrawn from AOL users.
3) If this fails, make a wikipedia front page that described the problem we've been having with AOL and serve it up to all AOL users accessing the site. On the page supply an email address for AOL and ask AOL users to contact AOL about the issue.
Hopefully that will be enough to make AOL take action, and if we have to take more extreme action against them we will be able to show that we are fully justified in taking those actions.
Imran
I would definitely say that starting gently with AOL is a good idea.
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Delirium wrote:
First of all, the whole idea is somewhat ridiculous. AOL is the single largest ISP in the United States, providing internet access to millions of people, including quite a few of our better contributors. Blocking it would be incredibly counter-productive, and do far more damage than Michael could possibly do.
What we should do is the following,
- Contact AOL pointing out those specific sections of the AOL TOS that
the user has violated.
- If this fails to get a response, send a letter stating that access to
wikipedia could be withdrawn from AOL users.
- If this fails, make a wikipedia front page that described the problem
we've been having with AOL and serve it up to all AOL users accessing the site. On the page supply an email address for AOL and ask AOL users to contact AOL about the issue.
Hopefully that will be enough to make AOL take action, and if we have to take more extreme action against them we will be able to show that we are fully justified in taking those actions.
Imran
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
james duffy wrote:
That formal request come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL.
Hey, I'm all for it, unless people come up with good reasons for me not to try, but I don't think I really have any access to anyone of any importance at AOL. I've never even done any business with them in order to have a contact in the business development department or anything like that.
Also, I think detailed threats against AOL might not be as helpful as just an ordinary abuse complaint. I mean, have we tried that yet? I'm under the vague impression that, if anything, AOL is too *quick* to close accounts for complaints. I think they basically figure why bother dealing with the expense of defending a customer, right or wrong.
--Jimbo