Wikipedia's methods to deal with trolls are broken. I'll refer to 2 cases, one I'm not involved in, the other I am.
The former is Irismeister, who, as well as engaging in a prolonged edit war on [[Iridology]], has now threatened legal action against not one but two other users. Is this acceptable behaviour now? He remains unbanned.
The latter is User:Plautus_satire, who has engaged in edit wars on:
[[Quasar]], [[Laser star hypothesis]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Black hole]], [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], [[Space Shuttle Columbia disaster]] and others.
A look at the full (ie 500 edit) history of [[Black hole]] shows that on that one page he's been reverted by me, SheikYerBooty, Cyp, Jwrosenzweig, Isomorphic, Modemac, Morwen, Curps, and an anonymous IP.
He has had similar wars on other pages. Even after 8 days, and certainly after having had NPOV pointed out to him, he continued the insertion of opinion as fact, for example, on [[Laser star hypothesis]], stating categorically that Hubble is a spy satelite.
According to a a poster at Apollo-moon-hoax groups, who commented at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire]], he has been banned from two such groups. Said poster gave a link:
http://www.clavius.org/plautus.zip
At the above is an archive of Plautus's messages to the Yahoo Apollo group, in which he sends literally hundreds of messages, often abusive, in the space of a single week. This suggests to me his motives are simply stirring up arguments, rather than any genuine desire to contribute.
[[User:Silsor/fanmail]] contains several extremely abuse emails from him when he was temporarily banned. As has been noted on this list, he also spammed just about every sysop in connection with that event.
Now, I freely admit I have not always acted well when faced with Plautus - I have occasionally adopted a sarcastic and condescending tone, for example. As a result of feeling I was in too deep, I decided to try to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. Yet even after this was pointed out to him, he repeatedly trolled my talk page with absurd complaints about me removing comments from it.
Lest anyone should think it's just me who has a problem with this guy, there is a vote at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire]] where, at the time of writing, 14 people are in favour of him being banned, with 5 opposed.
Yet he remains unbanned.
Supposedly, instead of banning him, we now have to mediate with him. This is quite literally insane.
Allan-
The former is Irismeister, who, as well as engaging in a prolonged edit war on [[Iridology]], has now threatened legal action against not one but two other users. Is this acceptable behaviour now? He remains unbanned.
The latter is User:Plautus_satire, who has engaged in edit wars on:
[[Quasar]], [[Laser star hypothesis]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Black hole]], [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], [[Space Shuttle Columbia disaster]] and others.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.
I would not be averse to this, but I have to hear more arguments pro and con first. I'm trying to get out of the business of benevolent dictating, but I've no intention of adbicating my responsibilities before we have better systems in place.
--Jimbo
Do you mean using the legal system is considered bannable behaviour?
--Optim
--- Allan Crossman a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk
The former is Irismeister, who, as well as engaging in a prolonged edit war on [[Iridology]], has now threatened legal action against not one but two other users. Is this acceptable behaviour now? He remains unbanned.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Optim wrote:
Do you mean using the legal system is considered bannable behaviour?
Well, if you indicate you wish to sue Wikipedia or its users, you indicate that you have no interest in working within our established procedures, and therefore we may kindly ask you to leave (or force you to leave) as your presence is hurting our community and hampering our work to produce a free encyclopedia. We have no obligation to allow all people to edit Wikipedia.
-Mark
(I don't refer to the specific case presented by the originator of this thread, but I talk about legal rights and wikipolicy in general)
If some troll-behaviouring individual makes a user's life difficult, can't the user sue the troll-behaviouring individual? (IN THEORY)
--Optim
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
Well, if you indicate you wish to sue Wikipedia or its users, you indicate that you have no interest in working within our established procedures, and therefore we may kindly ask you to leave (or force you to leave) as your presence is hurting our community and hampering our work to produce a free encyclopedia. We have no obligation to allow all people to edit Wikipedia.
-Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools