[WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a new policy

Sat Feb 5 16:08:40 UTC 2005

Okay, maybe some people are unaware of CheeseDreams exponential use of sock 
puppets to get around the ArbCom's one year ban on Jesus (or is it 
Christianity?) related articles.  I know I am partisan, but I think we can 
fairly say Cheese Dreams is now out of control:

>Cheesedreams is now editing under User:Cheese-Dreams. I thought all the 
>sockpuppets were blocked? I've blocked this one now anyway. --fvw* 23:44, 
>2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
>This is just a new sock. Sigh - I don't think CD gets it. --mav
>Darling, your so wrong, I get it very well, I just ignore you, darling. 
>CheeseDreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
>The other note is that CheeseDreams uses a dialup and this makes it 
>impossible to block her IP range. She can redial as many times as she 
>likes, and she doesn't need to use open proxies. Rhobite 04:28, Feb 1, 
>2005 (UTC)
>LOL, you cant stop me now, darling. CheeseDreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As Rhobite points out, it will be very difficult if not impossible to block 
CheeseDreams.

I know there has been much discussion of ways to get around the 
difficulties in blocking someone whose IP address is shared, or who can 
easily move from one IP address to another.  I happen to know next to 
nothing about computers, so all I can say is I trust the people working on 
this problem and wish them luck.

But I do have another proposal for dealing with these kinds of situations: 
give the ArbCom the power to declare a user an "outlaw."

We would need clear guidelines for how to decide who is an outlaw, but for 
one thing we must be specific that this is someone who has utter disregards 
for bans or partial bans, and who cannot effectively be blocked.

There should be some deliberation at the ArbCom before declaring someone an 
outlaw, to ensure due process.

The consequence of being an outlaw is this: anyone -- any editor, sysop or 
not -- can revert an outlaw's work at any time, without restriction (so if 
doing so means that they must revert more than three times in one day, 
their reverts will still be considered legitimate and they won't be punished).

My thinking is this: in the case of CD right now, blocking is not effective 
so all we really can do is revert her work.  Right now this is being done 
primarily by sysops, and however large the list of admins are, in the case 
of someone as reckless as CD this still becomes a big job.  My idea is that 
there are some violations of behavior -- eg. when someone laughs and says 
"you can't stop me now" -- that the best thing to do is to mobilize the 
entire community to take action.

Okay, I know that this sounds off the wall.  Please just think about it,

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701

[WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy

[WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a new policy