This user has taken to calling me "Troll", and dismissing me w such in talk pages. I find this to be an offensive presonal attack. When I request for him to discuss this with me or change the behaviour, he deletes my request. "removing troll" is the edit summary. What is to be done w this sort of harassment?
Jack
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Jack Lynch jacklynch@excite.com wrote:
This user has taken to calling me "Troll", and dismissing me w such in talk pages.
This is very typical of Rick, He can be like this. Personally I feel Rick's behavior as sysop is terrible, and he should be de-sysoped. Now I have tried to reason with Rick, but he has called me a troll and the like.
I find this to be an offensive presonal attack.
It is, trust me on it.
When I request for him to discuss this with me or change the behaviour, he deletes my request. "removing troll" is the edit summary. What is to be done w this sort of harassment?
Nothing could be my brother in arms, becuase Rick will be defended by the sysops. Wikipedia is a Dictatorship, you cannot question people like Rick lest you'll be banned. However, I can help you nevertheless my brother, please join the IRC channel (as a matter of fact if Rick is reading this I'd like you also to join because I wish to discuss my POV with you).
Jack
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Horsefeathers, Grampa!
RickK has no special mandate. Please proceed using the established dispute resolution process. Time enough to cry "Wolf" if it fails. Incidentally that gives us a chance to improve the procedure.
There is a subtext. RickK would not be calling you a "troll" unless you were doing something. Whatever that is might also be examined, first by you... Then you might inquire of RickK as to what behavior he thinks justifies his label.
Fred
From: "N.T. Riche" vonriche@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT) To: jacklynch@excite.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RickK
Nothing could be my brother in arms, becuase Rick will be defended by the sysops. Wikipedia is a Dictatorship, you cannot question people like Rick lest you'll be banned. However, I can help you nevertheless my brother, please join the IRC channel (as a matter of fact if Rick is reading this I'd like you also to join because I wish to discuss my POV with you)
N.T. Riche wrote:
Jack Lynch jacklynch@excite.com wrote:
This user has taken to calling me "Troll", and dismissing me w such in talk pages.
This is very typical of Rick, He can be like this. Personally I feel Rick's behavior as sysop is terrible, and he should be de-sysoped. Now I have tried to reason with Rick, but he has called me a troll and the like.
When I see Rick's signature on a mailing list post I am already predisposed to give it minimum credibility.
Nothing could be my brother in arms, becuase Rick will be defended by the sysops. Wikipedia is a Dictatorship, you cannot question people like Rick lest you'll be banned. However, I can help you nevertheless my brother, please join the IRC channel (as a matter of fact if Rick is reading this I'd like you also to join because I wish to discuss my POV with you).
Wikipedia has far too many sysops. Too many are prone to use that status as a means for enforcing a POV, and acting theron like self-appointed policemen. There are enough now to be able to work together to succeed in their efforts. If a person is going to be a sysop, he needs to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than an average user. I would support any move to reduce the number of sysops.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Likewise.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I think we don't need to reduce the number, so much as ensure that they are following community made guidelines. Mark
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Likewise.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we don't need to reduce the number, so much as ensure that they are following community made guidelines. Mark
But if the sysops don't, surely they need to be desysopped.
Also: people who have been inactive for a while (6 months or more) should perhaps be desysopped (with cursory reinstatement if needed).
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Well, in general there seems little interest in holding sysops accountable to the community guidelines. Mark
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we don't need to reduce the number, so
much as
ensure that they are following community made guidelines. Mark
But if the sysops don't, surely they need to be desysopped.
Also: people who have been inactive for a while (6 months or more) should perhaps be desysopped (with cursory reinstatement if needed).
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we don't need to reduce the number, so much as ensure that they are following community made guidelines. Mark
But if the sysops don't, surely they need to be desysopped.
Also: people who have been inactive for a while (6 months or more) should perhaps be desysopped (with cursory reinstatement if needed).
I've considered that process which I would call desysopping without prejudice. I would have suggested 90 days, but would not oppose 6 months. This group has done nothing wrong; they just aren't around. For re-admission they just need to let us know that they are back and active. Some very good people would be a part of this group.
Ec
It seems uncontroversial to suspend the sysop powers of anyone who is inactive for a prolonged period, on the understanding that they can get them back simply by asking. Mark
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we don't need to reduce the number, so
much as
ensure that they are following community made guidelines. Mark
But if the sysops don't, surely they need to be
desysopped.
Also: people who have been inactive for a while (6
months or more)
should perhaps be desysopped (with cursory
reinstatement if needed).
I've considered that process which I would call desysopping without prejudice. I would have suggested 90 days, but would not oppose 6 months. This group has done nothing wrong; they just aren't around. For re-admission they just need to let us know that they are back and active. Some very good people would be a part of this group.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:40:07 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I've considered that process which I would call desysopping without prejudice. I would have suggested 90 days, but would not oppose 6 months. This group has done nothing wrong; they just aren't around. For re-admission they just need to let us know that they are back and active. Some very good people would be a part of this group.
What would this accomplish?
It would give a better impression of the number of 'real' sysops there are relative to articles - if there are 10, and only one is active, then you only really have one. Mark R
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:40:07 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I've considered that process which I would call
desysopping without
prejudice. I would have suggested 90 days, but
would not oppose 6
months. This group has done nothing wrong; they
just aren't around.
For re-admission they just need to let us know
that they are back and
active. Some very good people would be a part of
this group.
What would this accomplish? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Can someone please take a look at Request for review of admin actions and give me a reality check? It seems to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys them. They are claiming that s/he is the same as a previously banned user, but refusing to follow the procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user and then presenting evidence, insisting on the right to ban the user. I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has not yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine the committee and the policy to allow this sort of behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim that admins are unacountable and out of control. I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run amock, but it is important to retain some procedure and not have admins simply banning users that annoy them. Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it, adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
------
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation ? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of them. I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points : * do you need more information to convince you that enough evidence was provided ? * do you need more information to convince you that the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And * do you think a centralised committee decision making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while waiting for justice decision of AC ?
Anthere
Mark Richards wrote:
Can someone please take a look at Request for review of admin actions and give me a reality check? It seems to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys them. They are claiming that s/he is the same as a previously banned user, but refusing to follow the procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user and then presenting evidence, insisting on the right to ban the user. I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has not yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine the committee and the policy to allow this sort of behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim that admins are unacountable and out of control. I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run amock, but it is important to retain some procedure and not have admins simply banning users that annoy them. Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is too slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I can't go along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT being a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence that any of their edits are problematic. You are acting like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that. Mark R
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it, adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation ? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of them. I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points :
- do you need more information to convince you that
enough evidence was provided ?
- do you need more information to convince you that
the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And
- do you think a centralised committee decision
making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while waiting for justice decision of AC ?
Anthere
Mark Richards wrote:
Can someone please take a look at Request for
review
of admin actions and give me a reality check? It
seems
to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys
them.
They are claiming that s/he is the same as a previously banned user, but refusing to follow the procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user
and
then presenting evidence, insisting on the right
to
ban the user. I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has
not
yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine
the
committee and the policy to allow this sort of behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim
that
admins are unacountable and out of control. I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run
amock,
but it is important to retain some procedure and
not
have admins simply banning users that annoy them. Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
That sure has peps ;-)
Okay. Let's go on privately then.
Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
Mark Richards wrote:
You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is too slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I can't go along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT being a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence that any of their edits are problematic. You are acting like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that. Mark R
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it, adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation ? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of them. I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points :
- do you need more information to convince you that
enough evidence was provided ?
- do you need more information to convince you that
the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And
- do you think a centralised committee decision
making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while waiting for justice decision of AC ?
Anthere
Mark Richards wrote:
Can someone please take a look at Request for
review
of admin actions and give me a reality check? It
seems
to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys
them.
They are claiming that s/he is the same as a previously banned user, but refusing to follow the procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user
and
then presenting evidence, insisting on the right
to
ban the user. I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has
not
yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine
the
committee and the policy to allow this sort of behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim
that
admins are unacountable and out of control. I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run
amock,
but it is important to retain some procedure and
not
have admins simply banning users that annoy them. Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you not need any? Mark
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
That sure has peps ;-)
Okay. Let's go on privately then.
Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
Mark Richards wrote:
You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is
too
slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I
can't go
along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT
being
a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence
that
any of their edits are problematic. You are acting like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that. Mark R
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the
reincarnation
is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if
he
was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is
a
"reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop
to
ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral
as
well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing
this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say
it,
adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the
AC
to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
for
a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
are
getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the
society,
he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in
the
hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
wiki
way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a
reincarnation
? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and
I
have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our
bias
will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of
them.
I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points :
- do you need more information to convince you
that
enough evidence was provided ?
- do you need more information to convince you
that
the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And
- do you think a centralised committee decision
making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I have no opinion with regards to LT.
I know some people I trust, do not think JRR is 142.
Two cases
* if JRR is 142 : then the argument he should be banned for being a reincarnation fits with the policy.
* if JRR is NOT 142 : then JRR activity is only meant to irritate people in the community. That is a pure trolling issue. And this, deserve **either banning **or dropping the whole topic, stopping discussing it, as should be done with any good troll.
I trust Heph (even if I know that he is a bit hot on the ban button sometimes :-)), I know not Guanaco much (but I think he is totally acting within the rules, so he must not feel the community does not support him, he is acting well). And I also feel like you have a point.
I read your mail, but unfortunately must go for the day. I suggest that we see what is the feedback of other people on this issue. Certainly, we can find a common ground between all of you.
Ant
Mark Richards wrote:
Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you not need any? Mark
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
That sure has peps ;-)
Okay. Let's go on privately then.
Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
Mark Richards wrote:
You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is
too
slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I
can't go
along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT
being
a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence
that
any of their edits are problematic. You are acting like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that. Mark R
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the
reincarnation
is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if
he
was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is
a
"reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop
to
ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral
as
well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing
this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say
it,
adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the
AC
to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
for
a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
are
getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the
society,
he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in
the
hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
wiki
way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a
reincarnation
? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and
I
have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our
bias
will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of
them.
I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points :
- do you need more information to convince you
that
enough evidence was provided ?
- do you need more information to convince you
that
the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And
- do you think a centralised committee decision
making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Fred Bauder wrote:
I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about what would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation of a previously banned user?
It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
1) They look like a duck. Check, derivative usernames (Entmoots of Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
2) They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the same articles as the banned user did.
3) They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to the above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as those made by the banned user.
Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.
-Hephaestos
Putting aside the fact that I find your criteria outrageous, have you looked at LT's contributions? What is the problem? Mark
--- John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I definitely want to see some evidence and also
some information about what
would be evidence. How do we determine that someone
is a reincarnation of a
previously banned user?
It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
- They look like a duck. Check, derivative
usernames (Entmoots of Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
- They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the
same articles as the banned user did.
- They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to
the above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as those made by the banned user.
Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.
-Hephaestos>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
John Robinson wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about what would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation of a previously banned user?
It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
- They look like a duck. Check, derivative usernames (Entmoots of
Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
- They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the same articles as
the banned user did.
- They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to the
above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as those made by the banned user.
Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.
These are not evidence. They are merely grounds for suspicion, although I agree that simply asking them if they are reincarnations of a banned user can't be a very fruitful process.
Hard evidence likely involves the analysis of contribution logs.
We need a process to be somewhat more sophisticated than kangaroos jumping on ducks.
Ec
I have a question. I thought Halifax was range blocked, and proxies unusable. So, how could JRR or LT edit ?
John Robinson wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about
what
would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation
of a
previously banned user?
It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
- They look like a duck. Check, derivative usernames (Entmoots of
Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
- They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the same articles as the
banned user did.
- They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to the above-mentioned
articles are virtually the same as those made by the banned user.
Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.
-Hephaestos
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:49:05 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a question. I thought Halifax was range blocked, and proxies unusable. So, how could JRR or LT edit ?
Private proxies and perhaps alternate ISPs? Proxy blocking is not effective against nonpublic proxies.
Or, if they were not the same users. That doesn't seem to be an option we're prepared to consider though. Take them on the merits of their edits - I agree there is a case to be made in the case of Jrrt, but cannot see one in LTs case. Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:49:05 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a question. I thought Halifax was range blocked, and proxies
unusable.
So, how could JRR or LT edit ?
Private proxies and perhaps alternate ISPs? Proxy blocking is not effective against nonpublic proxies. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
... As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Without comment on this particular block, I completely agree with your above general statement. I would in fact like to deputize admins so that they have more authority to do this sort of thing but would have to implement such blocks in triads (three admins would be needed to issue a block; the ability for single admins to block obvious vandals would not be changed).
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry.
I agree - The AC is a panel of judges who have the authority to issue long term bans. This is a large responsibility and contrary to what many might think, it is not fun at all. Thus cases move slowly. We are not, nor have ever been a police force and therefore cannot protect people from the actions of others. Our job is to judge those people and issue remedies which we hope will be fair to the accused and to the community. Admins are the ones who implement those rulings.
In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly.
This concept in the U.S. at least is called 'probable cause'. It allows policemen to detain suspects before trial and allows individual judges to extend that through trial based on incomplete evidence. The goal is to balance the rights of the accused with the right of the public to not be harmed by somebody who the police or the arraignment judge reasonably thinks may do harm if released. A full trial will determine guilt.
In fact I want the AC to change its arbitration policy a bit to allow for probable cause blocks of users during a trial based on a simple quorum (4 votes in favor). Such a user would only be able to edit his/her user and user talk page, and the AC pages concerning him/her. But that only takes care of the trial part. IMO, admins also need the ability to do this during day to day operations (the pre-trial part). Either way we need to greatly increase the size of the AC so that it can deal with the workload.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
Not necessarily - if probable cause was in fact valid to begin with then the user was not wrongly blocked. But just as there is a possibility for police abuse, there is also the possibility of admin abuse. If that is the case, then the admin may be in a trial of his/her own. However, we should assume good faith of admins as much as possible - otherwise everybody will be too afraid of using their sysop power to do what needs to be done for the good of the community.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
I agree. The current set-up is rather top heavy with the AC having most of the authority and most of the admins feeling as if their hands are tied. I would like to spread some of the AC's authority around but would like to proceed with caution.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
In discussions of probable cause there is usually a notion of weighing the rights of the acused against the risk to society. Will someone please explain to me what threatening behavior LT has shown that deserves s/he being banned before any consideration can be given? Mark
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
... As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
for a group of sysops to
act temporarily, before the AC does.
Without comment on this particular block, I completely agree with your above general statement. I would in fact like to deputize admins so that they have more authority to do this sort of thing but would have to implement such blocks in triads (three admins would be needed to issue a block; the ability for single admins to block obvious vandals would not be changed).
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
are getting upset to see
reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
"judgment" by the AC. It is
no good that participants become angry.
I agree - The AC is a panel of judges who have the authority to issue long term bans. This is a large responsibility and contrary to what many might think, it is not fun at all. Thus cases move slowly. We are not, nor have ever been a police force and therefore cannot protect people from the actions of others. Our job is to judge those people and issue remedies which we hope will be fair to the accused and to the community. Admins are the ones who implement those rulings.
In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done
something deeply wrong
and is considered a potential threat to the
society, he may be put in
jail before the judgment is made. He should be put
in jail only if there
is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
damage to the society,
while giving time to judge fairly.
This concept in the U.S. at least is called 'probable cause'. It allows policemen to detain suspects before trial and allows individual judges to extend that through trial based on incomplete evidence. The goal is to balance the rights of the accused with the right of the public to not be harmed by somebody who the police or the arraignment judge reasonably thinks may do harm if released. A full trial will determine guilt.
In fact I want the AC to change its arbitration policy a bit to allow for probable cause blocks of users during a trial based on a simple quorum (4 votes in favor). Such a user would only be able to edit his/her user and user talk page, and the AC pages concerning him/her. But that only takes care of the trial part. IMO, admins also need the ability to do this during day to day operations (the pre-trial part). Either way we need to greatly increase the size of the AC so that it can deal with the workload.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
the wrongly-blocked
person, and re-consider how we are looking for
evidence for next cases.
Not necessarily - if probable cause was in fact valid to begin with then the user was not wrongly blocked. But just as there is a possibility for police abuse, there is also the possibility of admin abuse. If that is the case, then the admin may be in a trial of his/her own. However, we should assume good faith of admins as much as possible - otherwise everybody will be too afraid of using their sysop power to do what needs to be done for the good of the community.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in
the hand of people
first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
wiki way.
I agree. The current set-up is rather top heavy with the AC having most of the authority and most of the admins feeling as if their hands are tied. I would like to spread some of the AC's authority around but would like to proceed with caution.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
... As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Without comment on this particular block, I completely agree with your above general statement. I would in fact like to deputize admins so that they have more authority to do this sort of thing but would have to implement such blocks in triads (three admins would be needed to issue a block; the ability for single admins to block obvious vandals would not be changed).
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry.
I agree - The AC is a panel of judges who have the authority to issue long term bans. This is a large responsibility and contrary to what many might think, it is not fun at all. Thus cases move slowly. We are not, nor have ever been a police force and therefore cannot protect people from the actions of others. Our job is to judge those people and issue remedies which we hope will be fair to the accused and to the community. Admins are the ones who implement those rulings.
In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly.
This concept in the U.S. at least is called 'probable cause'. It allows policemen to detain suspects before trial and allows individual judges to extend that through trial based on incomplete evidence. The goal is to balance the rights of the accused with the right of the public to not be harmed by somebody who the police or the arraignment judge reasonably thinks may do harm if released. A full trial will determine guilt.
In fact I want the AC to change its arbitration policy a bit to allow for probable cause blocks of users during a trial based on a simple quorum (4 votes in favor). Such a user would only be able to edit his/her user and user talk page, and the AC pages concerning him/her. But that only takes care of the trial part. IMO, admins also need the ability to do this during day to day operations (the pre-trial part). Either way we need to greatly increase the size of the AC so that it can deal with the workload.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
Not necessarily - if probable cause was in fact valid to begin with then the user was not wrongly blocked. But just as there is a possibility for police abuse, there is also the possibility of admin abuse. If that is the case, then the admin may be in a trial of his/her own. However, we should assume good faith of admins as much as possible - otherwise everybody will be too afraid of using their sysop power to do what needs to be done for the good of the community.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
I agree. The current set-up is rather top heavy with the AC having most of the authority and most of the admins feeling as if their hands are tied. I would like to spread some of the AC's authority around but would like to proceed with caution.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I support all these suggestions. You are right that AC is judge, not force police. So, activities should be separated. And empowering teams of sysops (with a good balance of pro and con-banning for example) to act in good faith while you are working through the case seems a good idea.
I'd support this, if there were some credible way to review these actions against community made policy.
Mark --- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I support all these suggestions. You are right that AC is judge, not force police. So, activities should be separated. And empowering teams of sysops (with a good balance of pro and con-banning for example) to act in good faith while you are working through the case seems a good idea.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about what would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation of a previously banned user?
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere9@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:34:13 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy
- do you need more information to convince you that enough evidence was
provided ?
Anthere wrote:
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
I agree with this. Perhaps if we had an AC filled with lots of paid employees or people with no other non-Wikipedia commitments it'd be better to have a dedicated investigative team to decide these things, but that seems pretty far-fetched. I think reaching a consensus on whether the user is a reincarnation, (the wiki way, as you aptly described it) is a better approach. I'm not sure if this should be formalized or left sort of informal, but the general guideline would be that if a pretty large majority seem to think it's a reincarnation, we should assume it is, while if there is widespread disagreement, then perhaps we can't assume it is.
-Mark
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary - I think there is a word for that. Mark R
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Now, the question is (and that is a very good
question) : should
sysops take such decisions, or should they wait
for the AC to decide
for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
for a group of sysops
to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
are getting upset to
see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
"judgment" by the AC.
It is no good that participants become angry. In
real life, there is
similar provision.... when someone is said to have
done something
deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat
to the society, he
may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He
should be put in
jail only if there is enough evidence naturally.
But this prevents
damage to the society, while giving time to judge
fairly.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
the wrongly-blocked
person, and re-consider how we are looking for
evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in
the hand of people
first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
wiki way.
I agree with this. Perhaps if we had an AC filled with lots of paid employees or people with no other non-Wikipedia commitments it'd be better to have a dedicated investigative team to decide these things, but that seems pretty far-fetched. I think reaching a consensus on whether the user is a reincarnation, (the wiki way, as you aptly described it) is a better approach. I'm not sure if this should be formalized or left sort of informal, but the general guideline would be that if a pretty large majority seem to think it's a reincarnation, we should assume it is, while if there is widespread disagreement, then perhaps we can't assume it is.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
John Robinson wrote:
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
I just read through it. It looks like an honest expression of views in the Wikipedia namespace. Nobody is being attacked. What is there about the post that "provokes conflict"? Surely this is not an opinion that would merit banning.
Ec
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:16:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I just read through it. It looks like an honest expression of views in the Wikipedia namespace. Nobody is being attacked. What is there about the post that "provokes conflict"? Surely this is not an opinion that would merit banning.
Without commenting on whether or not this is honest or bannable or anything like that... this looks like it belongs on Meta.
Now, regarding the "banned user", I believe standard practice (at least on certain hard-banned users - Michael... 142? if not everyone) is to revert everything they do on Wikipedia, whether or not it is good, valid, right, wrong, misleading, or enlightening.
The implication in the preceding post seems to be that it's obvious via this page history that the user in question is in fact a user who is already hard-banned.
Fennec Foxen wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:16:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I just read through it. It looks like an honest expression of views in the Wikipedia namespace. Nobody is being attacked. What is there about the post that "provokes conflict"? Surely this is not an opinion that would merit banning.
Without commenting on whether or not this is honest or bannable or anything like that... this looks like it belongs on Meta.
Perhaps so, but putting it on the wrong project is not a bannable offence. What the appropriate project should be is arguable either way.
Now, regarding the "banned user", I believe standard practice (at least on certain hard-banned users - Michael... 142? if not everyone) is to revert everything they do on Wikipedia, whether or not it is good, valid, right, wrong, misleading, or enlightening.
Be that as it may you said before that it was his first post. That's inconsistent with his being a banned user.
The implication in the preceding post seems to be that it's obvious via this page history that the user in question is in fact a user who is already hard-banned.
There's nothing obvious in it at all. That post was slightly more than 11 days after the previous one. That's a flimsy excuse for evidence.
I was talking primarily about Leo Trollstoy - I have yet to see anything that merits banning. Mark R
--- John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote:
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see
whether
someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find
the
whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the
edits
they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much
the
better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is
necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or am I going too far?
I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance of that is vanishingly small.
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble. (was Re: Blocking without following policy)
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary - I think there is a word for that. Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d... 2878571&oldid=2754803
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or am I going too far?
Disclaimer: I have recused myself from this case and am only speaking as a Wikipedia editor.
I have also looked into the matter and also agree that JRR is the same as a long line of hard-banned troll reincarnations that started with 142.177 and probably even 24. In addition to what Fred has said, this user very often links to and copies pages that 142.177 and 24 wrote on meta. If this user were not 142.177 or 24, then how could he have known where all the 142.177's meta pages and Wikipedia articles were since 142.177 was a dynamic range and thus his edits are not easily tracked?
The preponderance of evidence is obvious here and IMO it even very close to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (looking at the server logs will determine evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). So I also agree with Fred's conclusion: that any admin may ban JRR and revert any edit he has made (especially when that edit was to restore an edit previously made by 142.177, 24, EoT or Cave Troll).
I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance of that is vanishingly small.
I also agree with this and think it comes under our existing 'offensive user name' policy. Trolls by there very nature are subversive and tend to tear down community structures and goodwill. So any user name with 'troll' in it (unless the user can prove it is part of their real name) is very offensive to me and I hope to many other Wikipedians since it represents a force that could destroy our community.
Our policies are meaningless if they are not enforced and undoing enforcement work is counterproductive and IMO often harmful to the community. What we need is to make sure that policy enforcement is not carried out by any single admin, but at least in groups of three (this would not affect the ability of single admins to unilaterally block vandals). Those admin actions would then be subject to reversal/approval by a quorum of the AC and if a more permanent solution is needed, by an AC trial.
But the AC should assume good faith in admin actions unless it is obvious that the admin was not acting in good faith.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Well, assuming you have access to more information than I do, because what has been published is precious flimsy, I'm prepared to take your word for it on JRRT, but what about LT? I see no connection in edits. Mark
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or am I going too far?
I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance of that is vanishingly small.
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble. (was Re: Blocking without following policy)
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
2878571&oldid=2754803
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Sorry, but who is LT?
Fred
From: Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:19:53 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Leo Trollstoy - still no evidence presented. Re: [WikiEN-l] Yes, A Reincarnation
Well, assuming you have access to more information than I do, because what has been published is precious flimsy, I'm prepared to take your word for it on JRRT, but what about LT? I see no connection in edits. Mark
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or am I going too far?
I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance of that is vanishingly small.
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble. (was Re: Blocking without following policy)
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on whether they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
2878571&oldid=2754803
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Leo Trollstoy --- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Sorry, but who is LT?
Fred
From: Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:19:53 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Leo Trollstoy - still no evidence
presented. Re: [WikiEN-l] Yes, A
Reincarnation
Well, assuming you have access to more information than I do, because what has been published is
precious
flimsy, I'm prepared to take your word for it on
JRRT,
but what about LT? I see no connection in edits. Mark
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or am I going too far?
I still think any user who has "troll" in their
name
should be summarily banned, after a request to change their name just
in
case a mistake has been made in choosing a name. However when this kind
of
edit is made the chance of that is vanishingly small.
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble.
(was
Re: Blocking without following policy)
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I
find
the whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the
user
needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits they make, there is no need to speculate on
whether
they are returning. If they don't do anything worth banning, so much
the
better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R
Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&d...
2878571&oldid=2754803
I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this previously-banned user who is attempting to
"provoke
conflict". Even more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Sunday 13 June 2004 21:19, Mark Richards wrote:
Well, assuming you have access to more information than I do, because what has been published is precious flimsy, I'm prepared to take your word for it on JRRT, but what about LT? I see no connection in edits.
In this and future cases, would this formula be acceptable as an evidence?
Wikipedia has n users which have "Troll" in their username, and exists for time t.
Therefore, on average, user with "Troll" in its username is created every t/n.
If an user with "Troll" in it username is created let the T be the time between its creation and banning of the last user with "Troll" in its username.
Then, p=((t/n)/2)/T represents probability that the user is previous user.
If the probability is higher then some value (say 10), ban the user. There's only 10/p chance that you are wrong.
(I am not a statistician but surely someone can check and improve this.)
Erm, no, this would be like imprisoning black people because you think they are more likely to commit crimes anyway. BTW, does anyone want to have a crack at why Leo Trollstoy was blocked? Mark
--- Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Sunday 13 June 2004 21:19, Mark Richards wrote:
Well, assuming you have access to more information than I do, because what has been published is
precious
flimsy, I'm prepared to take your word for it on
JRRT,
but what about LT? I see no connection in edits.
In this and future cases, would this formula be acceptable as an evidence?
Wikipedia has n users which have "Troll" in their username, and exists for time t.
Therefore, on average, user with "Troll" in its username is created every t/n.
If an user with "Troll" in it username is created let the T be the time between its creation and banning of the last user with "Troll" in its username.
Then, p=((t/n)/2)/T represents probability that the user is previous user.
If the probability is higher then some value (say 10), ban the user. There's only 10/p chance that you are wrong.
(I am not a statistician but surely someone can check and improve this.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 03:45, Mark Richards wrote:
Erm, no, this would be like imprisoning black people because you think they are more likely to commit crimes anyway.
Well, no. It would be like, if in a small city there is one known criminal, and if a crime happens soon after he's released, detaining him.
On 06/15/04 01:45, Mark Richards wrote:
Erm, no, this would be like imprisoning black people because you think they are more likely to commit crimes anyway.
My God, you're RIGHT! It's EXACTLY the same!
Er, no it isn't. It's nothing of the sort.
- d.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Likewise.
Oh the irony... Wasn't there a big push to *increase* the number of sysops not so long ago? I seem to recall much grumbling about how the sysops were being overloaded etc etc.
Stan
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Likewise.
I don't think I would, though I do think sysops should be sparing in using their powers, especially more controversial powers, and we should have some way to police this.
Having fewer sysops tends to make it more cabal-like, while the original intention was basically "anyone that is halfway trustworthy gets to be a sysop." Also, some sysop powers, like being able to delete a page whose only history is a string of redirects in order to make way for a page move, are very useful for day-to-day wiki maintenance tasks.
I think some sort of structural change is needed on the protected-page front to make that particular sysop power less frequently necessary though. Some have been proposed, although I'm not sure if anyone has fleshed out any particular details. I think that, similar to what some people have proposed, there needs to be some sort of "soft protection" for controversial articles. While "be bold" is in general the Wiki philosophy, some articles, like [[Gdansk]], [[Israel]], and [[Jew]], have been painstakingly crafted over a period of months (sometimes years) with lots of discussion. In those cases, people really shouldn't be bold and make massive changes to the article---they should make relatively local, isolated changes, and place on the talk page their reason for doing anything that might be considered reasonably controversial. If a major rewrite is seen as the only option, it should be discussed extensively on the talk page rather than simply boldly done---you can't just write your own [[Israel]] article from scratch and stick it there and expect it to stay.
One possibility is to avoid any software-level changes, but make it policy (or at least pseudo-policy) that on such articles large changes made without discussion will be reverted as a routine matter, with a comment to the person that they should read the talk page and propose their changes, preferably one at a time. Then instead of protecting the page, repeated re-applications of the changes without discussion will result in a ban of the offending user, or preferably a per-article ban, if that is implemented at some point. This way individual users making massive changes to controversial topics without discussion don't impede the normal compromise work by forcing a page protection.
There's other possible solutions, such as moving to a "submit proposed changes" model for controversial articles, instead of updating the wiki live, but they introduce a whole host of problems on their own... I haven't been able to come up with a model of that sort with the details worked out in a way that seems satisfactory, so I won't personally be proposing something of that sort (yet, anyway).
-Mark
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Likewise.
Thirded
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:01:43 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would support any move to reduce the number of sysops.
Wow. That's an awfully categorical statement. So would you support legions of trolls organizing themselves offsite then coming on Wikipedia and harrassing dozens of sysops until they quit out of frustration? ... that's rhetorical, of course.
We don't need fewer sysops- we need both more good sysops and more-good sysops. Perhaps we do need a more effective method to desysop certain controversial sysops, but consider how many people would categorically object to taking any sort of action of this nature. It's difficult enough to get rid of simple trolls (I'm not naming names here), and even cases such as that of Paul Vogel have taken quite some time to come to a head. Desysopping is likely to prove even less simple.
I'm sorry Fennec, how does one follow logically from the other?
There seems no logical connection between the number of sysops and 'legions of trolls harrassing'.
There also seems to be no evidence that the kind of actions that sysops take actually reduces the level of disruption caused by troll feeding.
We certainly need better sysops, regardless of the number. Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:01:43 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would support any move to reduce the number of
sysops.
Wow. That's an awfully categorical statement. So would you support legions of trolls organizing themselves offsite then coming on Wikipedia and harrassing dozens of sysops until they quit out of frustration? ... that's rhetorical, of course.
We don't need fewer sysops- we need both more good sysops and more-good sysops. Perhaps we do need a more effective method to desysop certain controversial sysops, but consider how many people would categorically object to taking any sort of action of this nature. It's difficult enough to get rid of simple trolls (I'm not naming names here), and even cases such as that of Paul Vogel have taken quite some time to come to a head. Desysopping is likely to prove even less simple. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Regardless of its "truth" it is a personal attack. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. They may be removed when they are found and can form the basis of a dispute which should be resolved using the dispute resolution process. The first step is to ask him to quit doing it.
Fred
From: "Jack Lynch" jacklynch@excite.com Reply-To: jacklynch@excite.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:40:09 -0400 (EDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK
This user has taken to calling me "Troll", and dismissing me w such in talk pages. I find this to be an offensive presonal attack. When I request for him to discuss this with me or change the behaviour, he deletes my request. "removing troll" is the edit summary. What is to be done w this sort of harassment?
Jack
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can you point to specific cases that you are complaining about? Mark
--- Jack Lynch jacklynch@excite.com wrote:
This user has taken to calling me "Troll", and dismissing me w such in talk pages. I find this to be an offensive presonal attack. When I request for him to discuss this with me or change the behaviour, he deletes my request. "removing troll" is the edit summary. What is to be done w this sort of harassment?
Jack
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
It appears that Heaphaestos has blacked these two users because they are 're-incarnations of banned users'. The current policy of "ask politely, show evidence, consider, block" does not appear to have been followed in this case. Please let me know if I am mistaken and you have, in fact, asked both these users, gathered convincing evidence, displayed it somewhere and given time for the community to consider it. Thank you, Mark
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked Leo Trollstoy (expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs) (Reincarnation of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien (expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs) (Reincarnation of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
That is presumption of innocence which is totally forgotten
* blocking is done without AC consideration first to the case
* reverting of dozen of edits is made, regardless of the quality of the edits; in effect blind reversion resulted in
** removing perfectly accurate categories, which resulted in people losing time to put them back ** restoring spelling mistake that the banned user had corrected
* letting RK go wild again on ethical topic.
I understand why Heaph blocked the guy, but in effect =>consequence number 1 (block) is saying "we do not trust AC to do what it should o"
=>consequence number 2 : deliberate impoverishment of the encyclopedia (reinsertion of mistake to enforce a ban) plus addition of work load for Bryan Derksen and I, who had to revert back the reversion, to restore the good edits manually
=>consequence number 3 : RK is removing again whole parts of articles, plus adding very unnice comments, which are irritating me *greatly*.
I feel like censorship from RK is on its way again. And I do not think this is good.
I think this is just plain bad.
Mark Richards wrote:
It appears that Heaphaestos has blacked these two users because they are 're-incarnations of banned users'. The current policy of "ask politely, show evidence, consider, block" does not appear to have been followed in this case. Please let me know if I am mistaken and you have, in fact, asked both these users, gathered convincing evidence, displayed it somewhere and given time for the community to consider it. Thank you, Mark
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked Leo Trollstoy (expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs) (Reincarnation of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien (expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs) (Reincarnation of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Hmmm, why does all this seem eerily familiar?
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
That is presumption of innocence which is totally forgotten
- blocking is done without AC consideration first to
the case
- reverting of dozen of edits is made, regardless of
the quality of the edits; in effect blind reversion resulted in
** removing perfectly accurate categories, which resulted in people losing time to put them back ** restoring spelling mistake that the banned user had corrected
- letting RK go wild again on ethical topic.
I understand why Heaph blocked the guy, but in effect =>consequence number 1 (block) is saying "we do not trust AC to do what it should o"
=>consequence number 2 : deliberate impoverishment of the encyclopedia (reinsertion of mistake to enforce a ban) plus addition of work load for Bryan Derksen and I, who had to revert back the reversion, to restore the good edits manually
=>consequence number 3 : RK is removing again whole parts of articles, plus adding very unnice comments, which are irritating me *greatly*.
I feel like censorship from RK is on its way again. And I do not think this is good.
I think this is just plain bad.
Mark Richards wrote:
It appears that Heaphaestos has blacked these two users because they are 're-incarnations of banned users'. The current policy of "ask politely, show
evidence,
consider, block" does not appear to have been
followed
in this case. Please let me know if I am mistaken
and
you have, in fact, asked both these users,
gathered
convincing evidence, displayed it somewhere and
given
time for the community to consider it. Thank you, Mark
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked Leo
Trollstoy
(expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs)
(Reincarnation
of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
03:40, 10 Jun 2004, Hephaestos blocked JRR
Trollkien
(expires 03:40, 10 Jul 2004) (contribs)
(Reincarnation
of previously banned user. 30 days should give Arbitration Committee time to approve or deny.)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/