I thank you for this Tim :-)
I do not question the utility of the loggued in ban
option to fight worst cases of vandals. Thank you for
doing it and saving people time.
I note what Jimbo said. I think, just to take a bit of
perspective, it is interesting to read it again, with
awareness of the recent cases discussed.
I think we need to revisit having the ability for
sysops to ban logged
in users. Maybe the wiki way of doing this is to put
the ability into
the software, but all sysops must agree to use it
*only* to ban
*certain* variants on a known banned troll.
In the current case, it seems clear to me that
banning Zog, Anti-Zog,
Baboon Mouth, JamesERay, and so on, should be done
virtually
instantly, so as to discourage the behavior.
*only* to ban *certain* variants on a known banned
troll.
This has to be an emergency situation to ban someone
who is doing something really egregious right now, or
to ban someone who you are *certain* is one of our
usual suspects.
Emergency.
Usual suspects.
Egregious is unfortunaly not in my dictionnary, but I
can guess.
And your wise answer :
I agree. But how do we implement it? We could create
the concept of a
"trusted user", perhaps defined in terms of number of
edits and joining
date. If a user is not "trusted", a sysop can ban >him/her.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com