Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere-
But there are very numerous policies that have to
be decided by each
local community. The policy of banning on en is not the *correct* policy
to handle difficult user, it is *one* point of view among other. A pov
that might fit the cultural background of en users, but not of all
wikipedias.
I doubt that there's any substantial cultural difference when it comes to
banning *vandals* - and that's all the banning feature is for, other bans
have to be authorized by Jimbo.
Banning of french editors is decided by french community.
The banned user is offered the possibility to discuss with Jimbo.
Wheter you're in Beijing, in Stockholm, in
Chicago or in Tokyo, if someone enters your home and
destroys your stuff,
you probably want to throw them out. There may well be cultural
differences when it comes to banning people who misbehave in other ways,
but this is not at all affected by the banning policy on En: - sysops are
*not* allowed to ban signed in users for non-vandalism.
This is the english policy. Is valid on the english wikipedia. Was
discussed and approved by english users.
How do you know that this exact policy (sysops *not* allowed to ban
signed-in users) is (will be) the one adopted by other wikipedias when
other part of the banning policy are already different in other wikipedias ?
Banning policy is not similar on every wikipedias, if only because the
arbitrator deciding the banning on the english wikipedia cannot do it on
the other wikipedias.
I do not necessarily mean this feature is *bad*, I mean that you can't
ask that all wikipedias policies are consistently identical to the
english wikipedias, when structurally the situation is different.
Making this policy consistent across all wikis makes
sense because it
makes the non-English wikis less dependent on help from the English one.
No need to call for help from California (Brion) or Florida (Jimbo) when a
signed in vandal runs amok on the French Wikipedia.
Quite true.
But what is currently a problem is not to ban *loggued-in* users but
rather to know the log information of the user perhaps.
This information is not available to us.
Now, just for information Erik, and for the sake of transparency :
We have a user that have been vandalizing the french wikipedia for now
two months. I talk of hundreds of pages, since each attack is from 10 to
20 or more articles vandalized. Sometimes, several attacks per day.
As soon as his user name was banned, he vandalized under ips. He uses
non-fixed ip, provided from up to 7 internet providers.
We can't block all these adresses, for many people (several current
editors) rely on these isp.
What we do : when the guy is around, we click on the list of
contributions, we add &bot=1 to the end of the link, and we roll back
everything. It takes less than one minute to revert perhaps 20 articles.
As a result, the guy edits are *not even* visible from recent changes,
which is likely to spoil much of his fun. We can hope this way to
discourage him, because except for the few people just here when he is
around, no user even know he has been around.
To the point, more and more users think he has given up vandalising.
It is not even a problem any more really. Just routine work to roll back
his changes to "a deep shaft".
Over interesting features are a "ring" each time someone makes an edit
with a comment containing CENSURE or WARLOPEDIA. Eh ! with vandals, we
get creative :-)
The current policy is
discriminatory to the non-English wikis -- it gives
the En-Wikipedia a
useful tool and keeps it away from the others, under the false pretense
that they can't handle this kind of responsibility.
Oh, please Erik. Do not throw in the great "discriminatory" word. You
know quite well it is not the point. Obviously, any wikipedia should be
able to handle weapons of mass destruction :-) Not just the members of a
few self-designed commitee.
But some of the wikipedias do not even have sysops ! I doubt they even
had the opportunity to even begin to think about what they like their
security solution to be. I just would like that they are giving the
right to their own choices, perhaps that they suggest other solutions,
not once again that they are just brought the solution cooked for
another wikipedias technologically 3 years in advance.
I for one trust the
non-English Wikipedias that they will use banning of
signed in users
responsibly if they are informed of the limitations.
Which limitations are you talking about ? The limitations that only
Jimbo has the right to ban loggued in users ? Sorry, too late. We
outgrew that limitation :-)
This should be announced first and any serious
objections should be dealt
with, until near unanimous consensus is reached.
Nod. But announcement just on the technical list, or even on wikipedia
list is not enough. A *very* small number of international editors read
them. And those who read do not necessarily transmit the information.
And some wikipedias have nobody reading the list permanently.
You did something I liked at the end of the logo contest. You put a word
on the pump. Everyone could see it there. That was a good idea.
I suggest that something similar is done perhaps.
A detailed message on the mailing list, explaining the benefits and what
the "so-called" limitations are.
Then, a small message on all pumps, with the link to the mail message.
Even if no one answered, no one comment, we will be sure they *are*
informed and it won't get lost in the mailing list.
I think you misunderstand why I wished that feature not to be made
freely and immediately available. I recognise that this feature is
necessary, likely, everyone will endorse it. But, what bothers me, each
time a new feature is decided by the english wikipedia is that
* it does not give us the opportunity to grow up enough to reach the
state when it is necessary. It is like feeding us with a baby spoon.
That make people even more in a situation of *waiting* for things to be
done by miracle, rather than empowering them. Just passive. The opposite
of what I believe is the wiki way
* it prevents us to explore our own path, to discover our own options.
It is just as if, the solution english found was not only the best, but
the only possible. Again, it kills creativity
* Asking people afterwards if they are interested send a signal that
means they were not very important in the initial decision, much more
than a message telling them they are trusted. Just the mention that one
wikipedia trusts them enough to "let them use the feature" is slightly
offending. We do not need to be "trusted", we need to be "part of".
Regards,
Erik
Me as well Erik, me as well :-)