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

Sat Feb 5 17:03:02 UTC 2005

The Arbcom will enforce any Wikipedia policy you choose to make subject to
limitations Jimbo may impose. Problem here is that outlaw status might
extend for over one year.

Fred

> From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:08:40 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cheese Dreams/proposal for a *new* policy
> 
> 
> 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 mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l