Kernigh wrote:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
* 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
I am not aware of the situation on en.wikipedia, though I do know that this
user is blocked on commons.wikimedia, and has used sockpuppets to evade the
block. However, this user has not been vandalising en.wikibooks, and the
only thing that I could find that resembles "trolling" are a few
allegations about sockpuppets, not anything which disrupted en.wikibooks.
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on
en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone
could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be
shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think?
-- [[en:User:Kernigh]]
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
I have dealt with this issue in the past, so far as there has been a
very significant community of people with visseral hatred of this
particular user. I don't understand completely what the justifications
have been, but yes, on en.wikibooks he has been a fairly quiet user and
hasn't really been too much of a problem. The largest "problem" he
created was with the Social Postulutes Wikibook and a few other books of
a similar vein. That these books could be considered original research,
perhaps, but that is something that can and was dealt with on the VfD pages.
I think these actions are encouraging the creation of a troll rather
than trying to deal with people with very different life philosophies.
I also see this as part of wheel warring that is going on regarding
this user's actions on Wikipedia, but unfortunately spilling over into
Wikibooks. I have instead tried to be very cordial and try to
discourage this user from doing the supposedly disruptive activities on
Wikibooks using communications as a tool, rather than trying to invoke
administrative tools.
Wikibooks has become a very hostile environment to work in, and
unfortunately I think it has aquired some critical mass of deletionists
lately whose opinions are changing the nature of Wikibooks that was one
of the major attractions to the project in the past. Decisions used to
be much more reasoned and weren't made in such a hurry, and all I can
hope is that this current wave of culling is going to burn out and that
Wikibooks will eventually return to the way it was in terms of being
much more rational in its decisions than Wikipedia has been. I also
agree with you Kernigh that if a user is to be banned on a project like
Wikibooks, they should be banned because of their actions on that
particular project, and not because of some universal action and policy
that was decided on another project, including Wikipedia. Particularly
because all I can get is very biased and POV information from Wikipedia
of the whole issue anyway.
--
Robert Scott Horning