Anthere- It would be nice and an entirely new approach to things if people actually started to read what I write. I proposed to *enforce the existing ban* on Lir. For this, the threshold of annoyance should arguably be much lower. Furthermore, Lir's number of edits is excessive by any standard. At which point does it get too much? 100 edits per page? 1000? Regards, Erik

Anthere- He posted a link to the text "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" on Jtdirl's talk page. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is Lir's real name. What more evidence do you need? I already pointed this out in my original mail. Sure, it's terribly slow. And the more edits you make, the slower it gets. See the relation? Regards, Erik

Anthere- Nobody except a few select Wikipedia insiders and a few unfortunate relatives of his has any idea who Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is. Pizza Puzzle, a new user, was accused of being Lir because of his editing behavior (which is composed of a variety of factors, which you are apparently unable to see as a coherent picture). Nobody even mentioned the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]", only the first name "Adam". In response PP posted a link to the "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" came out. We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his social security number. Regards, Erik

| Erik wrote: In response PP posted a link to the "Adam | | [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll" page. I'm sure this is all a big coincidence. He | | probably fell with his head on his keyboard and the name "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" | | came out. We'll have to wait until Adam posts his home address and his | social security number. | | | Hehe. :) | | -SM- | Its also true that Adam has or has had some direct communication with Jimbo, despite the ban... and yet the long standing opinion remains that hes to nuts to deal with. I'm still not sure about that. Hes certainly nuts, and Im qualified to say, but.... Its kinda like the war on drugs... does it sap too many people, too much time, and energy to deal with? Or is it appropriate to enlist a Militia (why does that sound familiar?) -- people interested primarily in policework -- to deal with the issue by force. Does this even work? People whos job it is to contain other people (police, mp's in Iraq, prison guards, airport security, etc) some may say, tend to become weary and or abusive. Just as much energy as goes into curtailing specific actions or specific peoples might be better spent on domestic programs... kinda like WikiScholarships, or Wiki-welfare. :) (Ahem.) (Choke.) -SM-

Anthere- Oh yeah. That makes a lot of sense. In case of such a deliberate deception, the person in question should not / could not be surprised if they were banned for being Lir, of course, nor would such a ban be an abuse of power. Regards, Erik

Anthere- Uh, yeah, that's why I asked for feedback before enforcing the existing ban on Lir, remember? Regards, Erik

Jimbo wrote: they want to work on | wikipedia. So they come back under a new username and actually behave | completely. There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem | anyway. The above is a textbook example of defacto-practicality - minimum wasted energy, maximum effectiveness. What I think this also means, (Excuse me if this has all been said before) is that people shouldnt be too keen on looking for phantoms, or to call someone a Lir. If one gives themselves away, then this should be reported - in a formal way, and the ban would be automatically extended to the new identity. People ought not be so quick to jump to calling for a ban before there is conclusive evidence. *The *very *first *mention of a case should be *conclusive, *well detailed, and practically *incontrovertible. Its like cops calling someone a rapist without enough proof to convict - theyd be sued for libel. Cops just gather evidence, only reporting it to a prosecutor when theres enough of it. Then theres a quick and speedy trial. The case for banning is then based not on particular behaviours, rather these collected behaviours (if well documented ) can serve as evidence of that persons true identity. In more blatant cases, of course, this is all somehwat moot, but keeping to the established, orderly *due process ought to save everyone some stress, and quiet the critics of ban enforcement - who really only call for some deliberate, maturely conducted process. There are advantages to both informality and formality. History lesson: Formal democratic ways developed from the popular need to surpass royal Law, which ultimately tended to be 'at a king's (or queens) discretion.' IMHO -Stevert

Christopher- Yes, we've discussed this before. I think I have found a solution now that I will probably implement at some point: Automatically have a checkbox appear after the second edit by the same user to the same page that says "Combine with previous edit" This checkbox would not be active by default to avoid data loss. But users who make lots of subsequent edits could pick: User preference: [ ] Combine subsequent edits by default Combining the edit would simply mean deleting the previous revision. The edit comments could be concatenated. Regards, Erik

On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:45, Erik Moeller wrote: Uses the last edit summary, or an automatic edit summary saying "combined last X edits"? And could we have this turned on by unchangeable default for Michael? ;) -- John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/ When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be. --Dukhat -- John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/ When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be. --Dukhat