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
Anthere wrote:
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 intothe 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 virtuallyinstantly, so as to discourage the behavior.
*only* to ban *certain* variants on a known banned troll.
And that was basically my policy statement on [[Wikipedia:Bans and blocks]]. So you can see why I'm pessimistic about the power of statements of policy, unless they're backed up by threat of punishment or technical measures.
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.
Out of the ordinary or exceptional. Apparently once upon a time it used to be used positively but now it means "very bad".
http://www.bennetyee.org//http_webster.cgi?isindex=egregious
-- Tim Starling.
Tim Starling wrote:
Egregious is unfortunaly not in my dictionnary, but I can guess.
Out of the ordinary or exceptional. Apparently once upon a time it used to be used positively but now it means "very bad".
http://www.bennetyee.org//http_webster.cgi?isindex=egregious
Although it's true that it was once used in a positive sense, your definition is not correct. It rather means very apparent, and standing out, flagrant. Thus egregiously bad behavious would be of a kind that would be noticed by everybody.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org