No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to be yet another reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on the same articles in the same style and not responding to messages.
So, should we ban him? He will probably just reappear under a new name, but if we do this often enough, he might be deterred.
I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.
Regards,
Erik
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to be yet another reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on the same articles in the same style and not responding to messages.
So, should we ban him? He will probably just reappear under a new name, but if we do this often enough, he might be deterred.
It seems he's found a delightful game: bait the Wikipedians and watch them swat. People play this game with their cats all the time; neither cat nor human ever seem to tire of it.
But what if the cat stops swatting? The cruel human will get bored and stop taunting the poor cat with yarn / flashlight / laser pointer.
Stop giving him the satisfaction of making a big fuss. Just revert crap that's crap, and work with stuff that's good (should there be any). What more do we need?
I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.
You have heard of hotmail and yahoo, right? :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion, I think that ultimately, you are right -- vigilance and patient deletion or reversion is the only way to deal with such a troll. But even reverting crap is a form of swatting. If the question is whether we simply ignore someone and let them do what they want, or act in some way against vandalism, it seems we all agree on some form of action.
The question is, what form. From context it seems like you are arguing against banning. Well -- and I raise this as a general question, not just concerning No-FX -- would you ban under any circumstances?
Clearly, banned people will always have a way to work around a ban. But from the discussion I have seen on this page, the main point of banning is not that it effectively keeps someone out; rather, once it is clear that a banned person has returned, other members of the community have more authority (ok, not a great word here -- let's say less cause for self-doubt?) in deleting or reverting.
Steve
At 03:34 PM 5/22/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to be yet another reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on the same articles in the same style and not responding to messages.
So, should we ban him? He will probably just reappear under a new name, but if we do this often enough, he might be deterred.
It seems he's found a delightful game: bait the Wikipedians and watch them swat. People play this game with their cats all the time; neither cat nor human ever seem to tire of it.
But what if the cat stops swatting? The cruel human will get bored and stop taunting the poor cat with yarn / flashlight / laser pointer.
Stop giving him the satisfaction of making a big fuss. Just revert crap that's crap, and work with stuff that's good (should there be any). What more do we need?
I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.
You have heard of hotmail and yahoo, right? :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
On Thu, 22 May 2003, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Brion, I think that ultimately, you are right -- vigilance and patient deletion or reversion is the only way to deal with such a troll. But even reverting crap is a form of swatting. If the question is whether we simply ignore someone and let them do what they want, or act in some way against vandalism, it seems we all agree on some form of action.
The question is, what form. From context it seems like you are arguing against banning. Well -- and I raise this as a general question, not just concerning No-FX -- would you ban under any circumstances?
Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed appropriate. A visit to [[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly "banning" the same person over and over, when proven ineffective with that person, is rather pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't discouraged the person (indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found a way around the very simple technical effects of the ban.
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion Vibber vibber@aludra.usc.edu wrote:
Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed appropriate. A visit to [[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly "banning" the same person over and over, when proven ineffective with that person, is rather pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't discouraged the person (indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found a way around the very simple technical effects of the ban.
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I agree, but what do you propose? --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Brion Vibber wrote:
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.
I hear what you're saying, and look forward to some fresh ideas. :-)
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we
want to do anything
other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To
continue to use the
same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is
neurotic.
I hear what you're saying, and look forward to some fresh ideas. :-)
--Jimbo
Soft security seems to work for the other wikis, but since we're the biggest wiki, it doesn't seem to work for us. Is there something in the middle? --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Soft security seems to work for the other wikis, but since we're the biggest wiki, it doesn't seem to work for us. Is there something in the middle?
Well, although we obsess over difficulties on the mailing list, the reality is that soft security works remarkably well for us across a broad spectrum of possible and actual problems. Hard security (bans) works well for passing vandals, but has a decidedly mixed record on some others.
Despite all our (necessary and important) kvetching on the list, we should remember that at any given time, you can check recent changes and 99%+ of the edits are delightful WikiMagic.
Just now, I see User:Sned and User:Evercat working together on an article on [[BCC]]. User:Frecklefoot is continuing his excellent article on [[Sundog Frozen Legacy]]. These quiet folks never come to our attention on the list, but they are the heart and soul of what we're here for.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 06:42:46 -0700 From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NO-FX ban
<snip>
Just now, I see User:Sned and User:Evercat working together on an article on [[BCC]]. User:Frecklefoot is continuing his excellent article on [[Sundog Frozen Legacy]]. These quiet folks never come to our attention on the list, but they are the heart and soul of what we're here for.
--Jimbo
Which reminds me, I've been intending to nominate User:Evercat for sysop status. If nothing else, to save me from having to check the history before deleting what he's just blanked all the time. ;) So, anyway, I'm nominating him now. I've mentioned my intent to him, but he didn't say outright whether or not he'd accept.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Soft security seems to work for the other wikis,
but
since we're the biggest wiki, it doesn't seem to
work
for us. Is there something in the middle?
Well, although we obsess over difficulties on the mailing list, the reality is that soft security works remarkably well for us across a broad spectrum of possible and actual problems. Hard security (bans) works well for passing vandals, but has a decidedly mixed record on some others.
Despite all our (necessary and important) kvetching on the list, we should remember that at any given time, you can check recent changes and 99%+ of the edits are delightful WikiMagic.
Just now, I see User:Sned and User:Evercat working together on an article on [[BCC]]. User:Frecklefoot is continuing his excellent article on [[Sundog Frozen Legacy]]. These quiet folks never come to our attention on the list, but they are the heart and soul of what we're here for.
--Jimbo
I think most passing vandals only do something once, see if it actually goes on it, then leave. They deserve soft security, and only the worse people deserve hard bans. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
What do you suggest? I am very open and willing to learn. Michael refuses to discuss why he insists on putting false information into articles. That's why he was banned in the first place.
Zoe
--- Brion Vibber vibber@aludra.usc.edu wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Brion, I think that ultimately, you are right --
vigilance and patient
deletion or reversion is the only way to deal with
such a troll. But even
reverting crap is a form of swatting. If the
question is whether we simply
ignore someone and let them do what they want, or
act in some way against
vandalism, it seems we all agree on some form of
action.
The question is, what form. From context it seems
like you are arguing
against banning. Well -- and I raise this as a
general question, not just
concerning No-FX -- would you ban under any
circumstances?
Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed appropriate. A visit to [[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly "banning" the same person over and over, when proven ineffective with that person, is rather pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't discouraged the person (indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found a way around the very simple technical effects of the ban.
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Brion-
Stop giving him the satisfaction of making a big fuss. Just revert crap that's crap, and work with stuff that's good (should there be any). What more do we need?
First: Lee has banned No-Fx, so this will only be applicable to the next incarnation, should there be any.
Neither option is very appealing. Michael seems to be a person with mental problems, and I doubt he much cares about the existence of other users on Wikipedia at all. He considers it his playground, or maybe an information storage system. Those who try to talk to him are insulted.
Furthermore, it is not easy to determine which of the information he inserts is actual junk. For example, a couple of days ago I noticed that he had changed one on the articles on my watchlist and modified the release date of an album. I checked the date from multiple sources, and the old one was correct. I do not know where he gets his information from, but much of it is quite obviously incorrect. Add to this the personal insult to people like Zoe, on whose user page he put the text "I like oral sex" and pasted the whole oral sex article.
Just reverting everything he writes may be an acceptable solution for the time being, but it's also considerable work, and needlessly spams the server. Every couple of days some newbie will ask why we do it because his edits seem to be acceptable. I would really like to see these matters resolved more quickly and concentrate on writing an encyclopedia. Otherwise I fear at some point we might have 10 or 20 users like him at our hands in the future.
There may be the option of threatening legal action, but if Michael is as stubborn as I think, that will also not really deter him.
I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.
You have heard of hotmail and yahoo, right? :)
True, but signing up for a new account takes time -- all these email account providers ask plenty of questions. He may go through it a couple of times, but unless he is a script kiddie, he'll probably get tired of it soon enough.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
No-Fx has vandalized Zoe's user page. He appears to be yet another reincarnation of the banned user Michael, working on the same articles in the same style and not responding to messages.
So, should we ban him? He will probably just reappear under a new name, but if we do this often enough, he might be deterred.
I should point out that the problem of users appearing under dozens of names would probably go away if we required an email confirmation during signup, although that might deter some users from creating an account.
Regards,
Erik
email confirmation is completely ineffective, not to mention intrusive. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com