I'd like to remind everyone, including myself, that Anon has been banned since January 2006. Therefore, WardsWiki
is not the appropriate place to
- hammer out clear rules with Anon
- engage Anon in get-to-know-you conversation
- watch Anon and others carp about each other ad nauseum
- debate with Anon about the nature of someone else's ban
- discuss with Anon his mental and social problems
- encourage Anon to edit WikiPedia
In other words, no conversation with Anon should take place here. Getting sucked into conversation or argument with him here merely serves to reinforce his belief that his ban is "expired" or "revoked" or "soft" or otherwise meaningless.
A fresh WikiWikiWebMessageBoard
has been begun. Let's do any conversing with Anon there. Anon is welcome at the message board.
And if he chooses not to go there, that's his own loss.
We resolve that: for as long as Anon is banned, we will not talk to him at WardsWiki.
are authorised to block any person's access to this site.
By means of an EditWar?
I was uninvolved with the recent edit wars and certainly not interested in stirring things up as I cannot be the judge. However, I also see that a series of back/forth exchanges centered on who is hard banned, etc. As far as I am aware, its WardsWiki and Ward has only called for 1 person to leave and tried HardBan on him. Even in that particular instance Ward was trying to reconcile with him off the wiki. Maybe this information should be moved to the HardBan page after the stewards, I assume both signed names above are, have allowed time for others to read.
I don't know what Ward is up to at the moment. But as a steward I speak on his behalf, and I can tell you that AnonIsStillBanned
. As in HardBan
. -- EarleMartin
It's hardly likely that Ward would want anyone to take a far more authoritarian approach than he ever did, regardless of what's been communicated privately.
May I discuss this page?
You've written and signed because... if you view Anon as a "problem", then maybe encouraging wikizens to shun him will "solve" him? I believe that this is unlikely to do what you want, and also that it's quite impolite. I understand that you may feel impoliteness is necessary or justified, given what's happened while I've been away, but I disagree. I don't think it's justified or likely to be useful, and the recent EditWar
on this page shows that it causes strife.
What I don't understand: in the wiki context, how is talking about
a person different from talking to
him? Fact is, banned or not he's here making edits. There's nothing more likely to provoke conversation than talking about someone as if he were absent, yet you afford no space for dialog.
If the signers unsign themselves, you can replace the contents of this page with a simple statement of fact about which addresses are banned, since when and what this means in terms of who is and is not welcome here. That is enough to demonstrate our host's intent. Please consider doing this.
Anything else is inflammatory, and this by itself is enough that I will prefer not to sign. Adding SilenceImpliesConsent
to the fact I've read this page and am still welcome to edit, I have to speak out. I hope you can accept this as an honest and calm view, and at least AgreeToDisagree
Unsign? Not a bloody chance. No space for dialog? We tried and tried and tried dialog, only to watch Anon quibble and squirm and argue and nitpick with not one shred of an attempt to cooperate, collaborate, communicate in good faith, or do anything except demonstrate a bull-headed, rude, obstinate desire to force his own petty, irritating little will on Wiki. Worse, he deliberately badgered a former contributor until he left, and then futher badgered that contributor when he legitimately attempted to remove his signature, and was even today posting malicious and unjustified little quips about/to that contributor when the issue should
now be dead and gone. And you think we
are being impolite???
I'm not sure which disgusts me more: Anon's behaviour, or the fact that you're implicitly encouraging this forum to become Anon's Wiki.
Inflammatory this may well be, but Anon's already been inflammatory enough to last a lifetime, and with no apparent recourse on anyone's part. At this point, it seems perfectly reasonable to speak about Anon, to not speak to Anon, and to declare our intention to do so. If you have a better idea for dealing with him (or her), then I'm all for it, but the above paragraph ain't it.
"[Y]ou afford no space for dialog."
- [You conveniently forget that a wiki user created a page (eventually deleted) whose name consisted entirely of words designed to insult Anon.]
- Clear evidence of how much Anon's bizarre behaviour angered him... -- DV
- So anger justifies rudeness and an edit war to maintain that rudeness?
- No, Anon's rudeness and causing an edit war justifies anger. Now this is enough, as quibbles of this sort have proven unproductive. Please take further discussions to the WikiWikiWebMessageBoard. -- DV
There's plenty of space for dialog at the WikiWikiWebMessageBoard
. The message board technology has the advantage that entries cannot be edited. Hence, there can be no edit wars or UnethicalEditing
. Anon is entirely welcome there. In fact, I revived the message board idea so that dialog with Anon can take place, I'm hoping with less contention.
"[Y]ou can replace the contents of this page with a simple statement of fact about which addresses are banned."
I doubt it. I'm not one of the WardsWikiStewards
, so I don't know how this works. But I do know that the stewards don't publish lists of blocked IPs. It has something to do with SecurityThroughObscurity
. And the fact that Anon has a virtually unlimited supply of IPs to use complicates matters considerably. Participants are often known by their MOs, not necessarily their IPs.
Matthew, you are merely demonstrating that you still haven't familiarized yourself with the background on all of this, and as a result, your take on things can't be anything other than naive at best; you completely lack context. As it happens, a further result is that your comments above are actually inflammatory again, despite your apparently good-natured intentions.
If you care enough to comment, kindly care enough to figure out the context first. There is still plenty of relevant material here to study that sheds light on such, if you go to the trouble.
As it stands, comments such as yours give the impression of 100% adding to the problem, rather than assisting with a solution. They are, amongst other issues, quite unsympathetic to the victimized. -- DougMerritt
[When someone is banned] no fundamental rights are violated. WardsWiki
is a private forum owned by Ward and administered by the WardsWikiStewards
. Whether perceived as fair or not, use of this Wiki is a privilege extended by them, and its public access is subject to their benevolence and whim. Therefore, an indefinite ban is no more "victimization" than permanently barring a disruptive customer from a privately owned pub, restaurant, or store. Just as a barred customer is free to patronise another establishment, a banned ex-WikiCitizen
is free to use another Wiki or set up one of his or her own and run it as he or she sees fit. -- DaveVoorhis
Having a right to do something doesn't imply it's fair and not victimization.
[This message removed per ZeroTolerance
, later restored by the following AnonymousDonor
Agree with the person making with the above statement. Removal of contrary opinion totally, or distorting its meaning, is IntellectualDishonesty
It sure is. Anon has done the above, frequently. That's one of the reasons he's banned.
- I apologize, AnonymousDonor, for believing at first that you were trying to pass yourself off as two people. I have no quarrel with you, good sir knight. -- Eliz
[No reason was given in January, and there was no such cause at the time.]
Thanks. I suppose you somehow figured out that I am indeed not the original person that you people banned as individuals. Now do you know why I use a proxy?
Because you like to be confused with Anon? In other words, no, I don't know why you use a proxy. Had you used a consistent IP address or UserName, thus unambiguously distinguishing you from Anon, there wouldn't have been an issue.
There are clues in this page already, if you look carefully. Anyway I like others to add their observations before I say anything more here. And some of these people are not daily trackers of edit wars.
Ah! I get it now: You use proxies because you like to reply with riddles, evasion, and anything but a straight answer, and you'd rather your true identity not be associated with such irritating behaviour. Thank you for fuzzifying the mudification.
Actually...If you want real security, become an AnonymousDonor
. Since they really are
a bunch of different people, Anon, (or the GrammarVandal
as he is now called) can't hijack it for his own nefarious purposes, causing you to be banned. So long as we know that Anon can't hijack IP addresses yet...
Someone editing from browster.com has just deleted a chunk of current RecentChanges
. -- JohnFletcher
See also WardsWikiStewards