Reasons for enforcing ban:
In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds,
Banning somebody for making too many edits to one article in too short a space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think it's even close to a a good reason for banning.
Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm frequently guilty of this as well.
Graham (quercus robur)
--- Graham Burnett grahamburnett@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Reasons for enforcing ban:
In spite of repeated warning, persists in his
annoying habit to make
dozens of edits per page within an interval of
seconds,
Banning somebody for making too many edits to one
article in too short a
space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think
it's even close to a a
good reason for banning.
Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm frequently guilty of this as well.
Graham (quercus robur)
I used to make many multiple edits to an article, but as soon as it was pointed out that this was bad (with lir), I've tried to avoid it. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Graham Burnett grahamburnett@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Reasons for enforcing ban:
In spite of repeated warning, persists in his
annoying habit to make
dozens of edits per page within an interval of
seconds,
Banning somebody for making too many edits to
one
article in too short a
space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think
it's even close to a a
good reason for banning.
Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm frequently guilty of this as well.
Graham (quercus robur)
I used to make many multiple edits to an article, but as soon as it was pointed out that this was bad (with lir), I've tried to avoid it. -LDan
At some point, I heard so much how bad it was, I tried to fit all my changes in only one edit. I lost my work several times when some timeouts occured.
Perhaps my doing all my edits in one row can make up for those requiring plenty of savings ???
For sure, this cannot be a reason for banning. It is annoying perhaps. But not *hurting* anyone, nor *damaging* the project. Are they any other reasons for rejecting people ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere-
For sure, this cannot be a reason for banning.
It would be nice and an entirely new approach to things if people actually started to read what I write. I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on Lir. For this, the threshold of annoyance should arguably be much lower. Furthermore, Lir's number of edits is excessive by any standard. At which point does it get too much? 100 edits per page? 1000?
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Anthere-
For sure, this cannot be a reason for banning.
It would be nice and an entirely new approach to things if people actually started to read what I write.
I did read what you wrote :-) I promise I did. I always read what you write. I rarely agree with you, but I like you nonetheless. I rarely agree with you but your opinions are supported, fair and interesting. So, I always read you :-)
Among all your propositions, I found one I happen to agree with. Which is "making a valid email adress when registering a requirement".
I proposed to *enforce
the existing ban* on Lir.
But, it is not sure it is Lir
For this, the threshold of annoyance should
arguably be much lower.
If it is proved PP is Lir, you have enough of a reason to ban her (along current trend of hard banning anyway). If it cannot be proved PP is Lir, she must be treated just as any other contributor. In which case, the threshold has to be the same for her than for anyone. You, Quercus, Lir or me.
Furthermore, Lir's number of edits is excessive by any standard. At which point does it get too much? 100 edits per page? 1000?
Ok. Let's set a number then :-) I would say the treshold would be different for a list than for a regular article.
Seriously, a much more important topic right now imho, is the absolutely incredible slughishness (I really can't find the right spelling, sorry) of Wikip�dia. Which is currently basically making it non editable :-(((
Regards,
Erik
Amicalement
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere-
I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on Lir.
But, it is not sure it is Lir
He posted a link to the text "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" on Jtdirl's talk page. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is Lir's real name. What more evidence do you need? I already pointed this out in my original mail.
Ok. Let's set a number then :-) I would say the treshold would be different for a list than for a regular article.
Seriously, a much more important topic right now imho, is the absolutely incredible slughishness (I really can't find the right spelling, sorry) of WikipΘdia. Which is currently basically making it non editable :-(((
Sure, it's terribly slow. And the more edits you make, the slower it gets. See the relation?
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Anthere-
I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on Lir.
But, it is not sure it is Lir
He posted a link to the text "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" on Jtdirl's talk page. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is Lir's real name. What more evidence do you need? I already pointed this out in my original mail.
this is evidence ?!? whaoooo
Ok. Let's set a number then :-) I would say the treshold would be different for a
list
than for a regular article.
Seriously, a much more important topic right now
imho,
is the absolutely incredible slughishness (I
really
can't find the right spelling, sorry) of
Wikip�~dia.
Which is currently basically making it non
editable
:-(((
Sure, it's terribly slow. And the more edits you make, the slower it gets. See the relation?
bright !
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere-
He posted a link to the text "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" on Jtdirl's talk page. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is Lir's real name. What more evidence do you need? I already pointed this out in my original mail.
this is evidence ?!? whaoooo
Nobody except a few select Wikipedia insiders and a few unfortunate relatives of his has any idea who Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is. Pizza Puzzle, a new user, was accused of being Lir because of his editing behavior (which is composed of a variety of factors, which you are apparently unable to see as a coherent picture). Nobody even mentioned the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]", only the first name "Adam". In response PP posted a link to the "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" came out. We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his social security number.
Regards,
Erik
Erik wrote: In response PP posted a link to the "Adam | [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He | probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" | came out. We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his social security number.
Hehe. :)
-SM-
| Erik wrote: In response PP posted a link to the "Adam | | [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He | | probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" | | came out. We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his | social security number. | | | Hehe. :) | | -SM- |
Its also true that Adam has or has had some direct communication with Jimbo, despite the ban... and yet the long standing opinion remains that hes to nuts to deal with. I'm still not sure about that. Hes certainly nuts, and Im qualified to say, but....
Its kinda like the war on drugs... does it sap too many people, too much time, and energy to deal with? Or is it appropriate to enlist a Militia (why does that sound familiar?) -- people interested primarily in policework -- to deal with the issue by force. Does this even work? People whos job it is to contain other people (police, mp's in Iraq, prison guards, airport security, etc) some may say, tend to become weary and or abusive.
Just as much energy as goes into curtailing specific actions or specific peoples might be better spent on domestic programs... kinda like WikiScholarships, or Wiki-welfare. :) (Ahem.) (Choke.)
-SM-
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Anthere-
He posted a link to the text "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" on Jtdirl's talk page. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is Lir's real name. What more evidence do you need? I already pointed this out in my original mail.
this is evidence ?!? whaoooo
Nobody except a few select Wikipedia insiders and a few unfortunate relatives of his has any idea who Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is. Pizza Puzzle, a new user, was accused of being Lir because of his editing behavior (which is composed of a variety of factors, which you are apparently unable to see as a coherent picture).
Probably so.
I think that given that Lir appears to have a very *obvious* pattern of writing, and that most english editors are able to recognise this pattern, it is also possible that some of these english editors are able to imitate him.
Nobody even mentioned the
name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]", only the first name "Adam". In response PP posted a link to the "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" came out.
True. But all it probably proves is that Pizza is not a newbie but an old hand. It does not prove she is Lir.
Pizza might be somebody else who is trying to make other people believe she is Lir.
Note that it won't change anything in the end, because on Wikipedia, we ban people for what they do (the damage) and not on their names/personality.
We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his social security number.
Regards,
Erik
Perhaps. But what will we do if she has two social security numbers ?
gute nacht
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere-
Note that it won't change anything in the end, because on Wikipedia, we ban people for what they do (the damage) and not on their names/personality.
Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense. In case of such a deliberate deception, the person in question should not / could not be surprised if they were banned for being Lir, of course, nor would such a ban be an abuse of power.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Anthere-
Note that it won't change anything in the end,
because
on Wikipedia, we ban people for what they do (the damage) and not on their names/personality.
Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense. In case of such a deliberate deception, the person in question should not / could not be surprised if they were banned for being Lir, of course, nor would such a ban be an abuse of power.
Regards,
Erik
Dear Erik
An abuse of power is losing a lot of its potency when it may be reverted.
Removing content from article would be really abusive were the removing permanent
Sysop banning IP adresses could be potentially really abusive were the other sysops not able to unban
Deletion of articles could be really abusive if deletion was permanent. Fortunately, the process is reversible, the regular users now have an official tool to ask for abusive deletions to be reverted, and perhaps one day they will even be able to directly judge by themselves whether the deletion was abusive or not.
Banning a loggued in user may not be so abusive, if other people have the possibility to unban these users.
Degree of abuse is depending a lot on whether actions may be reverted without damage.
When banning cannot be agreed upon between the different members of the community, and nobody is available to balance the power held by the one applying the ban, there is a risk of abuse.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere-
When banning cannot be agreed upon between the different members of the community, and nobody is available to balance the power held by the one applying the ban, there is a risk of abuse.
Uh, yeah, that's why I asked for feedback before enforcing the existing ban on Lir, remember?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on Lir. For this, the threshold of annoyance should arguably be much lower. Furthermore, Lir's number of edits is excessive by any standard. At which point does it get too much? 100 edits per page? 1000?
I agree with everyone on this. :-)
What I mean is, yes, of course, merely editing an article "too many" times is not a bannable offense. It's discourteous, but probably happens because people don't really realize that it's discourteous.
And I also agree -- for people already banned, all the thresholds of annoyance are set a lot lower. Like, to zero.
Here's the thing -- let's say someone gets banned for ongoing annoying behavior. And then, upon being banned, they feel stupid and embarassed. (Well, work with me here, it _could_ happen.) But they want to work on wikipedia. So they come back under a new username and actually behave completely. There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem anyway.
But, what we don't want to encourage is multiple attempts by banned persons to come back again and again under different usernames.
--Jimbo
Jimbo wrote: they want to work on | wikipedia. So they come back under a new username and actually behave | completely. There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem | anyway.
The above is a textbook example of defacto-practicality - minimum wasted energy, maximum effectiveness.
What I think this also means, (Excuse me if this has all been said before) is that people shouldnt be too keen on looking for phantoms, or to call someone a Lir. If one gives themselves away, then this should be reported - in a formal way, and the ban would be automatically extended to the new identity.
People ought not be so quick to jump to calling for a ban before there is conclusive evidence. *The *very *first *mention of a case should be *conclusive, *well detailed, and practically *incontrovertible. Its like cops calling someone a rapist without enough proof to convict - theyd be sued for libel. Cops just gather evidence, only reporting it to a prosecutor when theres enough of it. Then theres a quick and speedy trial.
The case for banning is then based not on particular behaviours, rather these collected behaviours (if well documented ) can serve as evidence of that persons true identity. In more blatant cases, of course, this is all somehwat moot, but keeping to the established, orderly *due process ought to save everyone some stress, and quiet the critics of ban enforcement - who really only call for some deliberate, maturely conducted process. There are advantages to both informality and formality.
History lesson: Formal democratic ways developed from the popular need to surpass royal Law, which ultimately tended to be 'at a king's (or queens) discretion.'
IMHO -Stevert
I wonder if there might be a way for a single contributor to combine many of their changes into one.
Example: Before: Change by Chris Change by Chris Change by Chris Change by Chris Change by Chris Change by Chris
After: 6 Changes by Chris (combined)
This would include the different diff lines (essentially caching the diff display) into /one/ entry.
This may help people who are leery of making too many edits at once, for fear of timeouts or "Contributor conflic", as well as keep the database from growing too much.
Thoughts?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Christopher-
This may help people who are leery of making too many edits at once, for fear of timeouts or "Contributor conflic", as well as keep the database from growing too much.
Yes, we've discussed this before. I think I have found a solution now that I will probably implement at some point:
Automatically have a checkbox appear after the second edit by the same user to the same page that says "Combine with previous edit"
This checkbox would not be active by default to avoid data loss. But users who make lots of subsequent edits could pick:
User preference: [ ] Combine subsequent edits by default
Combining the edit would simply mean deleting the previous revision. The edit comments could be concatenated.
Regards,
Erik
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:45, Erik Moeller wrote:
Christopher-
This may help people who are leery of making too many edits at once, for fear of timeouts or "Contributor conflic", as well as keep the database from growing too much.
Yes, we've discussed this before. I think I have found a solution now that I will probably implement at some point:
Automatically have a checkbox appear after the second edit by the same user to the same page that says "Combine with previous edit"
This checkbox would not be active by default to avoid data loss. But users who make lots of subsequent edits could pick:
User preference: [ ] Combine subsequent edits by default
Combining the edit would simply mean deleting the previous revision. The edit comments could be concatenated.
Uses the last edit summary, or an automatic edit summary saying "combined last X edits"? And could we have this turned on by unchangeable default for Michael? ;)
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:45, Erik Moeller wrote:
Christopher-
This may help people who are leery of making too many edits at once, for fear of timeouts or "Contributor conflic", as well as keep the database from growing too much.
Yes, we've discussed this before. I think I have found a solution now that I will probably implement at some point:
Automatically have a checkbox appear after the second edit by the same user to the same page that says "Combine with previous edit"
This checkbox would not be active by default to avoid data loss. But users who make lots of subsequent edits could pick:
User preference: [ ] Combine subsequent edits by default
Combining the edit would simply mean deleting the previous revision. The edit comments could be concatenated.
Uses the last edit summary, or an automatic edit summary saying "combined last X edits"? And could we have this turned on by unchangeable default for Michael? ;)