Daniel Mayer wrote:
"Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)
Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games.
Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to each edit window. It could state something like the following;
"By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the rules and conditions of using this website"'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and Wikipetiquette.
Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I agree Mav! Something like that does not force 'rules' down people's throats, since they seem to object to the idea of having them, but it does give us better grounds for control over the morons who consistently break the peace. Of course I agree to the rules of the wikipedia, and I have no objection to that little line being inserted on the screen :)