[WikiEN-l] Intention to (re-)ban: Pizza Puzzle (Lir)

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There has to be a way for people to redeem
> themselves.  For Lir, leaving
> > > aside the multiple incarnation issue, the
> multiple small edit issue, may
> > > be an editing style that annoys some people, but
> looked at alone I would
> > > not consider it a banning offence.  What are his
> other '''recent'''
> > > offences?
> > >
> > > Ec
> >
> >He knows he is banned yet is trying to be here with
> another phony user 
> >name.
> >He was not patient enough to wait til ban was
> legitimately lifted. 
> >(Assuming
> >it is Lir).
> >
> >Fred
> >
> Fred is quite correct. Remember this is a user who
> has been hard banned 
> numerous times. They approached Jimbo and PROMISED
> that they would not come 
> on under an assumed identity again. They gave their
> word. In the 
> circumstances, they could have got Jimbo's agreement
> to come on again as 
> themselves. They could have waited for the specified
> period then come back. 
> But they instead went back on their word (yet again)
> and came on as an 
> assumed identity, in the process giving the two
> fingers to Jimbo and the 
> wiki rules on banning. As to Adam not committing
> offences - it isn't for the 
> want of trying. One of Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan
> Mason/Dietary Fiber/Shino 
> Baku etc's standard 'games' has been to provoke
> rows. One particular stunt 
> they used to pull was to enter a page where an edit
> war had been taking 
> place and just as peace was breaking out say or do
> something that would 
> re-ignite it. I have seen 'Pizza Puzzle' try that
> once so far. (Luckily the 
> people in question from past experience knew the
> 'game' and wouldn't play!)
> 
> PP placed bizarre messages on talk pages (I got one
> that said ''Adam 
> [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll'), in a attempt to provoke a
> reaction. Knowing Adam's 
> 'game' I ignored it.) When that failed a provocative
> message was left on 
> PP's user page by PP, proclaiming how they were a
> troll, again to see could 
> they start a row. By then people had pretty much
> worked out PP's identity 
> and after some emails and AIM messages (used so that
> Adam could not read 
> them, which he would do if they were on talk pages)
> decided to ignore his 
> latest bit of 'look at me. I'm a troll. Wanna
> fight?' antics.
> 
> So he tried another tried and trusted method. He
> voted then 'unvoted' on the 
> dates vote page, in the hope that (as happened when
> he was 'Susan Mason') 
> someone would react with a 'what the fuck do you
> think you are doing' 
> response; he could then assume victim mode and get a
> few newbies to rush to 
> his defence and turn the page into a nasty fight.
> But only one person 
> challenged him on that, so that fizzled out.
> 
> Next try - remove someone's vote. So far that hasn't
> resulted in a major row 
> of the sort that Adam as Lir, Vera and Susan seemed
> to love starting.
> 
> All of which poses the question: so what is next?
> What stunt with Adam try 
> next to stir up a row? Going by past experience he
> will keep trying. Rows 
> are the one thing Adam in all his identities has 
> contributed to wiki. He 
> seems to get a kick out of starting them off.
> 
> If wiki is to thrive as an encyclopædia, it needs to
> be able to deal with 
> the likes of Adam (now back on when he shouldn't
> be), Michael (though banned 
> numerous times still coming on daily to vandalise
> pages) and Ron (aka DW, 
> Black Widow, Elliot, Jacques Delson, 64.228.30.125,
> Joe Canuck and now 
> ChuckM). Ron has been on almost continually, not
> withstanding constant 
> hardbans since August 2002. Indeed Ron's contempt
> for wiki can be seen in 
> the fact that he often has two 'identities' in use
> at once, an IP for 
> editing and a named page for insulting. The fact
> that ChuckM, which he 
> created on the 10th of June could suddenly be
> brought back on the 22nd, 
> after his previous identity Joe Canuck was banned on
> the 20th shows his 
> contempt for wiki - one of his first acts was to
> remove the ban notice from 
> Canuck's page, then insult MyRedDice and accuse
> Wapcaplet, then remove a 
> note from me on the VfD page urging a quick deletion
> of Canuck's dodgy 
> images.
> 
> Our 'softly softly . . . maybe they might change'
> nonsense is not working. 
> Michael still defaces articles. Ron still downloads
> dodgy images and Adam 
> swans back giving Jimbo two fingers again and again
> and again. As a 
> hardbanned user, there should be no need for a
> debate. The rules said 
> explicitly that Adam should be banned immediately.
> Whether he writes good 
> articles is irrelevant. He has no right to be here
> and as someone who can't 
> even be bothered to keep his promises to Jimbo, we
> owe it to ourselves, 
> Jimbo and Wiki to ban him as soon as possible, as
> often as needs be. So that 
> Adam, Ron, Michael and everyone else gets the clear
> unambiguous message 
> 'wiki is a troll-free zone. All trolls will be
> barred on sight.', rather 
> than our current message ' em . . . we'll talk about
> it and talk about it, 
> and then talk about it a bit more. And when you are
> finally banned and come 
> back, we'll do a lot more talking, not acting. So
> you have nothing to worry 
> about.'
> 
> JT

I don't think banning will work in any of these cases,
since the users keep comming back, as you said.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com