Message For The Stewards

As of 11-Oct-2006 6:15 p.m. NewYorkCity time, this page is "read-only" because I say so. Read it and ponder. Read it and weep. But don't contribute to it. Starting now, I will personally revert all contributions to this page until a consensus about how to refactor it is reached at the WikiWikiWebMessageBoard or elsewhere. -- ElizabethWiethoff

Please do not delete this page yet. This is a WardsWikiStewards request. -- EarleMartin

Does this page serve some purpose besides troll-bait? -- TomStambaugh

It was originally a message for the stewards, but is now effectively a message from the stewards, who are content-controllers as well, it seems, starting with this page!

I see no evidence that the Stewards are controlling content. The Stewards endeavour to control undesirable and unsocial behaviour, in order to reduce unproductive conflict. Since this is a Wiki, behaviour is only manifest through changes to content, so the two can become confused. However, anyone who is familiar with the history here should be aware that the problem is Anon, not the Stewards. -- DaveVoorhis

[Funny, I thought Dave said he wasn't going to reply to Anon. Also, he is repeatedly reverting other changes which were not originally made by Anon, and removing a response (not to Anon, and mistakenly thought to be to Dave) signed by Earle. That is strange, as whilst the stewards wish to prevent edit wars, Dave is actively participating in one. Of course, Dave's now busy amending his own reply as well!]

I can respond to whomever I like, and amend any of my own content however I like. My "rules" are my own to break, it's a Wiki, and I'm not banned. The EditWar will stop the instant the banned user ceases to participate in it and goes away. I only engage in EditWars to enforce HardBans already in effect. Furthermore, I have endeavoured (perhaps not always successfully) to preserve the latest changes of any non-banned participant. Think of me as a non-Anon filter that permits edits from non-banned participants to pass unhindered, whilst extracting all banned contributions. -- DaveVoorhis

What evidence of content control is possible beyond "do not delete this page" as stated above?

Whatever its intended purpose, this most recent exchange convinces me that this page is now simply troll-bait. I propose its deletion. -- TomStambaugh

I agree. There is no information content on this page and it should be deleted. -- AndyPierce

The content of this page is not the point. Indeed, I've somewhat arbitrarily chosen this page to make a stand. The point is that Anon is banned and the ban must be enforced or it's meaningless. Would you rather he badgered you and changed the meaning of your contributions until you felt compelled to leave, and then wouldn't let you remove your UserName like he did to Colin? If a ban can't be enforced, what's to stop him? You might be next.
If technical means of banning Anon are not forthcoming, then there is one and only one way to deal with Anon, and that's to show him that any attempt he makes to edit is utterly futile. Otherwise, you might as well let him run rampant. Hell, in that case you might as well invite RA back, for all that a HardBan means. -- DaveVoorhis
- Doesn't this page make obvious that a HardBan is ineffective as a wiki management tool? The efforts to enforce the HardBan, their good intentions notwithstanding, are efforts in reinforcing failure. -- AndyPierce
  - I don't disagree, but do you have a better solution? We're caught between a rock & a hard place here, and I'm choosing the rock (manually enforcing the HardBan) because the hard place (it becomes Anon's Wiki) seems worse. -- DaveVoorhis
    - I suppose we could start by the technically-enforced disallowing of editing of signed contributions, by other than the signee. Since putting your name after text essentially makes it "quoted material", it seems that it should stand with its creator, warts (if any) and all. I'd be in favor of allowing outright deletion of signed material as necessary, however, to reduce ThreadMode. I believe the implied ownership of signed contributions tends to make the originator "fall in love with their text". Falling in love with text seems counter to WikiNature and may be a large part of the friction generated on this and other pages. -- AndyPierce
    - Nice idea, but I think we can state with some assurance that a "technically-enforced" anything is not likely to be implemented on this Wiki any time before the heat-death of the universe, and probably not any time after that, either. Also, what you're describing sounds like a typical Web forum, e.g., PHPBB2. Nor does this have anything to do with "falling in love with text." It's entirely to do with the simple fact that an individual user referred to as "Anon" has been banned, mainly for reasons I've listed below. As a result, he is not permitted to edit. Period. Full stop. Etc. -- DaveVoorhis

Can we reach simple agreement with Anon on this point then without the need for technical enforcement? We formally lift the HardBan on him in exchange for his agreement to not correct direct quotations or directly signed material? -- AndyPierce

No. Point of history: A few days before the HardBan was announced in January, Doug and I tried to get Anon to agree not to edit contributions signed by either of us. Anon did not agree. -- ElizabethWiethoff
Indeed. I notice Anon has not jumped in to agree with this idea. In the past, offers of compromise have been met with arguments. It would appear that while we regard Anon as a problem for the reasons enumerated at the bottom of this page, Anon regards us as a problem because we do not give sufficient (i.e., utmost) priority to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, spacing, order of lists, and other minutiae. Therein lies a fundamental clash of views, and Anon appears to be unwilling to compromise on his. Though, to his credit, he has indicated that he tries to confine batches of corrections to slow periods. However, his treatment of Colin was reprehensible. Any compromise after that would be tantamount to a slap on the wrist. -- DaveVoorhis

In other words, if Anon doesn't edit this page you won't know which edits to revert. Hence, this page really is useless. At best, it exists to tempt Anon to edit it, implicitly revoking the ban.

If Anon doesn't edit this page, I won't revert anything. And temptation or not, Anon is banned. You think we should tiptoe around Wiki, being careful not to awaken the sleeping Anon who might edit a page? I should be able to dangle the fat, tasty Carrots of Infinite Mispeling in front of his drooling maw, and he shouldn't bloody edit them. HE IS BANNED! Banned. -- DaveVoorhis

Regardless of the merits of this page, please do not take the side of anonymous hostiles. -- DougMerritt

If any other wiki user wants this page to continue like this, let them say so. Otherwise, retaining it is contrary to the wish of the community. Votes for continuation . . .

This is not a democracy, and Earle, a steward, wants the page to remain for now.
- Some people reacted with the most extreme of moral outrage at this statement (6 months ago), as if it were inherently unforgivable to say such a thing, as if such a position were inherently and obviously the sheerest of evil. Unfortunately for them, it is simply the truth. Rather than arguing the point in regard to c2, simply observe that the very reasonable wiki site wikipedia has an official policy identical to that ("Wikipedia is not a democracy"). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WWIN#DEMOCRACY

It has to be noted that nobody is supporting Dave either in warring over this page.

I support Dave. (Whoever you are. Anonymous comments do not give rise to very positive perceptions in these regards these days.) -- DougMerritt

You didn't say you supported an edit war over this page, but merely its existence. The two aren't the same. It's a function of the stewards to support the community by avoiding edit wars.

It is not an "EditWar" in the traditional sense when the war is against the stewards. The stewards represent the owner of this wiki, whether one likes that or hates that.

Anyone who resists the stewards is putting themselves on the side of the bad guys, and that is a fact regardless of delusions of good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. -- DougMerritt

Ok Doug, now YOU have crossed the line into fascism. How dare you presume to lecture us about "good intentions", especially when you put forward a false "us or them" dichotomy that is the stock-in-trade of tyrants and dictators, including our current dictator-in-chief. -- TomStambaugh

I have the highest respect for your past contributions to wiki, as I have said explicitly, as you know. But in regard to your current comment to me, You just crossed the line, there!

Gentlemen, might I suggest a bit of calm? I suspect this is exactly the sort of conflict that Anon wants to cause! -- DV

I notice with interest that you did not edit out your own inflammatory epithets directed at me. I presume that this was an oversight. -- DougMerritt

It was an oversight that I have attempted to correct. I have preserved enough of our "candid and frank exchange of views" to convey the passionate spirit of the discussion -- which, in my view, is perfectly in keeping with this community. And, I might add, I still think this page is mostly troll-bait and should be removed. -- TomStambaugh

Your correction falls short. I largely agree with your implied views about U.S. politics, but you are being unfair in applying them to me. You are still being quite, quite rude to me in your remaining remarks. If you like, we could discuss the issues neutrally...but you have not presented your disagreements neutrally, not at all. (P.S. you appear to have missed my "confused" comment above, in the midst of the flurry of page edits.) -- DougMerritt

You wrote: "Anyone who resists the stewards is putting themselves on the side of the bad guys, and that is a fact regardless of delusions of good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions." You wrote this in apparent support of the WardsWikiStewards disagreement with my suggestion, seconded by AndyPierce, that this page be deleted as troll-bait. I therefore read your comment to mean that anyone, specifically like myself and Andy, who feels that this page should be deleted is taking the side of the "bad-guys" and delusional. I therefore think you are mistaken to suggest that I'm being unfair in applying my comment to you. The dichotomy, whether true or false, is yours. Your comments are surely not "neutral", and therefore neither are my responses. In my view, I am clearly NOT "on the side of the bad-guys" (as if there are only two sides) and I clearly disagree with the stewards about the status of this page. I therefore argue that your dichotomy is false. I suggest that your presentation of this false dichotomy in context at least creates the appearance of being the sort of polarizing demagogery that so plagues the US executive branch and its supporters. Surely you agree that when you offer a such a provocative contribution, you increase the likelihood of an equally provocative response. Not all of those responses come from "bad guys". That's about as neutral as I can make it. -- TomStambaugh

It has to be noted that nobody is supporting Dave either in warring over this page.

I'm going to respond to this, and I don't care if it's from Anon or someone else.

Except for Doug, Earle, and others who have fought Anon in the past, you're right. I can't say I'm surprised, though. I'm sure most of you would just like me and Anon to go away so RecentChanges won't be cluttered with crap. I've certainly felt the same way at times. I felt the same way when Elizabeth was reverting Anon's edits. I helped for a little while, and then I gave up. I thought it wasn't worth the effort.

But I've changed my mind, and now I'm sorry I didn't help Elizabeth more.

It is worth the effort, because if Anon isn't banned, history has shown that he will initially confine himself to minor changes, but will slowly escalate his activity until another crisis point is reached, like the one that happened most recently with Colin. Then another valued participant will leave, and another, and another. Left unchecked, eventually I suspect only Anon and the occasional wandering visitor will be left.

If technical means can't be found to block Anon, then Ward might as well hand the Stewardship over to him. In fact, why stop there? Ward might as well give him root on the box, because that's effectively where we wind up. If every edit is subject to Anon's stamp of approval or an EditWar ensues, then it's no longer a collaborative forum, composed of people who cooperate as equals. It's simply Anon in charge. It becomes Anon's Wiki.

I still believe in the notion of a collaborative forum, where folks voluntarily cooperate, communicate, collaborate, and where necessary, compromise. Anon has proven incapable of these things and even actively works against them. I think they're worth fighting for. That, as far as I can see, means reverting Anon's edits on sight. If someone has a better suggestion, I'd be delighted to hear it, as long as it doesn't mean handing the reins over to Anon. As far as I am concerned, that would be intolerable.

-- DaveVoorhis

I agree with Dave's points and position in the above. -- DougMerritt

Thanks, Dave. -- Eliz

What history are you referring to? Your example was long after the ban and was a sudden event rather than gradual escalation.

It followed a period of increasing volume of trivial edits, some with comments (complaints, mostly) injected into the material. A similar pattern was followed prior to the crisis in January, with an increasing volume of trivial edits until they were interfering with active discussions. -- DV
I don't know whether Dave had this in mind, but the ban also came a few days after Anon admitted to Doug and me that Anon used to be 217.137, who had gotten into horrendous EditWars a year and two earlier. It's because of those wars that Wiki came to a halt in the spring of 2005 and we now have NewRecentChanges, WardsWikiStewards, CodeWords, and the whole screwy security shebang. -- Eliz

I'd like to observe that: (1) this page offers little or no new content (2) has generated far more traffic than its limited content merits and (3) amounts to troll-feeding, if not troll-bait. As nearly as I can tell, the primary motivation cited for preserving it is the desire of the stewards to "take a stand" against anon. The posture of the stewards towards those who are banned is already highly publicized on other pages. I therefore repeat my observation that our community will be better served if the dialog among the stewards is taken offline and this page deleted. -- TomStambaugh

Anon is not the typical troll who deliberately seeks attention. Anon is something else. What that might be, I can only speculate, but this page and its history provides ample evidence of the problems he causes. You might note that Anon is now actively spoofing UserNames in order to sustain edits. Doesn't that disgust you? Rather than complain about the existence of this page and let it be deleted -- presumably so we can effectively kiss Anon's ass and get back to the business of collectively being his bitch -- it would be nice to see more people take an active stand against his grossly unethical and anti-Wiki behaviour. -- DaveVoorhis

Dave, I started reading this wiki about this time of year nine years ago, in autumn of 1997. Some of the text from that period is still here. I'd like you contemplate what image of you a visitor of 2015 (nine years from now) will take away from this page, and whether phrases like "presumably so we can effectively kiss Anon's ass and get back to the business of collectively being his bitch" enhance or detract from the image you intend to convey to that future visitor. Now I'd like to remind you that so long as this page stays at or near the end of RecentChanges, you convey that same image to each 2006 visitor. Are you certain this is the way you want the wider world to know you? I share your disgust with the behavior of this particular anon. As your own frustration with this disgusting behavior demonstrates, the current approach isn't working. However that problem gets solved, you are now part of the problem. Your own behavior is far easier to change than whoever this anon is. In this page, it is YOU and, for example, DougMerritt who are attacking and insulting ME. I came within a hairsbreadth last night of doing my own WikiMindWipe of the 400-odd pages I'm mentioned on, and I promise that if I do reach that point, I'll be much less gentle than Colin was. Your insults, and this kind of immature cat-fighting, is just as problematic as the behavior you seek to prevent. When you attack those who want this page deleted as you did above, you make yourself far more personally offensive to me than anything anon has done to date. Please try and keep that in mind as you perpetuate this exercise. -- TomStambaugh

You started out well, but then -- oh, please. You call me a fascist, which is an ad hominem (a logical fallacy, please recall), and insist that you are being neutral? This is setting an example? If this is an indication of what you think is good behavior, and of how you intend to behave, then you should indeed mind wipe yourself. Wiki has enough problems without bad attitude calling itself good attitude -- which was my original point.

Alternately, I'm still awaiting your cleanup of inappropriate comments, and your apology, which of course should have immediately followed my apology to you last night -- if you intend to even pretend to be civilized about things. -- DougMerritt

As I'm sure you are all aware, the person who used to post as 82-44-94-98.cable.ubr04.croy.blueyonder.co.uk, sometimes known as Anon, sometimes known as BlueYonder, is now using OpenProxy addresses to continue to post here, despite the announced HardBan. Currently he is using ge1-0.cc1.cpt1.alter.net (a confirmed OpenProxy) and is, for example, constantly removing the list of addresses he is using from ReverseIpLookup.

The recent withdrawal of the CodeWord was obviously intended to stop this sort of behaviour, only allowing trusted parties to post. This clearly isn't working, as he continues to post. Either:

he has the "back-door" CodeWord
the code word withdrawal is not blanket, and he is not caught by it.

I have long admired the spirit of openness and trust, cooperation and collaboration that WardsWiki has fostered. I have seen vandals, WikiPuppys and excited newbies of all flavours come and go, and this wiki has survived. No doubt it will survive the current edit wars. I just wish the problem would go away so we can get back to being constructive.

The obsessive behaviour that first drew our attention to this individual - the insistence on One True Spelling and One True Grammar, the mindless adherence to rules, and the unwillingness or inability to engage in any meaningful dialogue - probably mean that he won't go away. I recognize that there is only so much that can be done with someone who constantly abuses the freedoms given, especially when it is those very freedoms that make this wiki what it is.

Quite right too - as long as proxies are available, I will continue to correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. How petty of Colin to vandalize other pages in retaliation. -- Anon

And there you have it. I know you, the stewards, will consider carefully the actions you take. I wish you good luck it trying to defend this wiki against this sort of behaviour.

-- Colin, signed because I am content to be associated with my writings and my actions.

PS: "Anon" added "such as vandalizing other pages" to my personal signature there. While he is entitled to his opinion I ask that he acknowledges them as his own. -- cdw

"despite the announced HardBan..." - for a while earlier on the vandal would find a new proxy every minute or so which I would then immediately block, accounting for most of the list above. This continued for a while until real life called and I had to go out.

We are working on ways to ensure that this vandal will be permanently removed. -- EarleMartin

My, and I'm sure others', appreciation for your work. -- cdw

Just curious, is there a page which specifically disrecommends this kind of obsessive editing behavior? If so, it might be wise to link it from some of the introductory pages. -- IanOsgood

That would be useful, but it wasn't the obsessive gnoming of itself that led to the problem. It was the inability or unwillingness to listen when people asked him to back off a little. That, combined with editing signed personal comments when directly asked not to. The gnoming itself was OK, except for the remorseless and relentless application of "rules" that were not universally accepted.

Certainly the lessons learned from this adventure should be written up as strong guidelines and made very visible.

-- Colin

Wait a mo! How can a wiki with a constantly changing pool of editors have content rules which are universally accepted? Even a straightforward rule asking for politeness will soon be ignored when any two people are mutually convinced that their own views are correct, but the other's views are completely wrong. They may not call each other ignorant jackasses straight away, but the debate will tend to progress in that direction. Also, what happens if someone objects to universally accepted rules, so that the basic concept itself isn't universally accepted?

I've been "banned" as well, apparently, I don't know if blueyonder found a proxy in my neighborhood or something else happened. The funny thing is that last week I visited some friends, and their neighborhood was banned - at that time my home IP was working, but I stayed there a couple of days, having fun. I wrote an email to Ward, and, surprise, their IP got unbanned. But then I returned home to find my IP in the wrong neighborhood.

I'm tired of bothering Ward, so you steward guys, do you mind if you don't use a shotgun in a crowd to kill a mosquito? What are you doing, are you banning class B ranges? Do you mind to explain yourselves? -- CostinCozianu

Costin, we're using the tools we have available. We also wish that they weren't so blunt. Sorry for the inconvenience. As far as the interaction with Everett goes, well, I personally don't have the time to track the guy down in real space and deal with it that way. There's no guarantee that it was actually him and not his students misbehaving, and no guarantee that there even were a teacher and a class behind the IP. It was a form of persistent vandalism, and dealt with the same as any other. -- DanMuller

Yes, use your tools, but try to use your brains as well. And do not try to come up with lame excuses, because I know you're all well-intentioned and so on, so forth, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. -- Costin

Eliz summarized yesterday's events very accurately. The block I made for DanEverett's class was mainly as a way to force them to listen. I've now lifted it. I hope they got the message. Most blocks are meant to be equally or even more transient.

As Dan mentions, our tools are currently very imprecise. We hope this will change soon. -- EarleMartin

How about this idiotic policy of banning huge IP ranges? I know it works for China, but California? I do not think you guys think seriously of the consequences of your acts. Ward put a shotgun in your hands, and every time something bothers you, you go for the easy way out. Fire!

No, I do not think that your "hope" is a good enough explanation. You guys must be accountable. And it doesn't look like you're willing to account for your actions with more than handwaving.

I mean I am sorry for plagiarizing RichardKulisz style here, but it is completely brain dead not to set up a wiki page with the current ranges being banned, possibly with a brief explanations, if that's not asking for too much. You know (what?) and a public email for the whole group where people have some recourse. This behind the bushes activity and disregard for its consequences is completely ridiculous. And I'm not the first one to say it, I've seen a few people ridiculing c2 elsewhere for exactly this kind of shit, but it has to be said here more forcefully.

I'd rather see C2 read only and put in formol then being profoundly vitiated by a well-intentioned but hopelessly inadequate group. -- CostinCozianu

Sorry you feel the stewards are inadequate, despite the obvious reduction in vandalism over the past year. Ward's email address is available here, and the stewards are accountable to him, so you have at least that channel for communication. -- DanMuller

Gee, if I forgot to sing your praises before criticizing, but must you sing it for yourselves? We didn't need any wiki steward for that "obvious reduction in vandalism" you're bragging about. That much can be achieved by making wiki read only, so that's not that big of a deal that you achieved. I am asking you at what cost have you achieved that? And you're not willing to answer. Not that you would know anything, but you're not even curious to find out or at least be open about it. Cause otherwise you wouldn't have to repeat the same non-answers over and over again.

And don't you find it kind of lame to hide behind Ward? Sure I can write Ward, but why should I have to? And why should Ward be bothered all the time because you're not willing to do a decent job, nor are you even willing to take responsibility and at least explain the logic of your actions. I've told more than a few people this year that they could write Ward and I've written to Ward myself about my own Ips when the situation was just too ridiculous. You know what, outsiders would rather move on to something else than write to Ward.

There's no way you can count how many good new people you turned away from wiki, and how many old contributors no longer bother to be active. Now let me explain this extremely simple thing to you, cause you guys seem too hard-headed to even think about it:

Ward is a very nice guy, but he is extremely busy. Never mind, he's a personality. Not only that, but his inbox would be full even without "help, my IP is banned." traffic, but many good people don't even find the courage to write to Ward. It's understandable if you step outside your "way too important" (wiki steward / old guy's club) shoes. Even for people who write to him, it's not unlikely that Ward reads his email with 2 weeks or more delay. He is simply too busy a person for you to pretend that such a mechanism works for a wiki community who respects itself.
You guys are a bunch. And you are not personalities. Some of you might even have plenty of time to kill, judging by energy spent and reaction time. So you guys can together monitor a group email much more efficiently.
Obviously now for me it is easy to send an email to those whom I know, eventually copy Ward, but that's beside the point. The point is that a willing visitor who might have something valuable to say will not email Ward (I personally know two instances of this case from my private email, although I tried to encourage the persons in question), but such people could email to a group address. Even if they email Ward, they may just give up because of the reaction time.

Now why do I have to tell you all the obvious stuff? And why do you always have to come up with all the lamest excuses, instead of thinking just a little bit more. You've got the power to ban, and anything beyond that, you could not care less, or at least it doesn't show at all.

Assume that it doesn't show, Costin. I really can't say anything more that would clear up your lack of understanding of the situation, though I wish I could. -- DanMuller

Then you can shut up, take responsibility, and assume it is your lack of understanding. And because you are not willing to communicate, you cannot break the vicious circle of the self-righteous, know it all, but who does not quite know it. Tragic though it may be, it is entirely your choice to defend this absurdity when you really cannot. Ward gave you power to be exercised with discretion. Nobody really controls how much discretion you exercise, and it is bloody obvious that you exercise none. Not you, DanMuller, but the group as a whole. And that is disgraceful.

You failed it, so face up to it, but quit coming up with lame and implausible excuses. Much less brag about it. -- CostinCozianu

For all Costin's hyperbole, since the current system was introduced, Wiki has spent more time than ever before with less barriers in place. The current situation is just like previous ones, to wit: 1) we go ShieldsUp for a while 2) whatever nerd is causing trouble gets bored and goes away 3) shields go down again. It's happened before and will happen again. Incidentally, until this has been resolved I will be taking it myself to undo any and all unattributed edits that I see which appear to consist only of whitespace changes or similar. If you want to gnome that way, set yourself a username cookie. -- EarleMartin

Gee, how quick you are to congratulate yourselves. You must have done a heck of a job. You do not happen to have any idea what were the adverse effects of your actions, cause when you ban this neighborhood or that neighborhood, you always avoid your own, don't you? You do not happen to have any clue how many people you have put off, cause there's hardly any way to tell. So what controls do you have in place? Absolutely none. Except that of congratulating yourselves. -- CostinCozianu

Costin, kindly descend from your high horse. I can see that you relish your self-appointed position as the voice of the howling oppressed masses, but you need to bear these things in mind: firstly, IP blocks are transient. Secondly, being unable to edit wiki is simply not that important. It may be to you, but this is not actually the centre of the online universe and the Acropolis of internet communities. Life does not come to a halt if you are unable to edit. If being unable to edit makes someone feel that it does, I suggest they take a deep breath and switch the computer off for a while. -- EarleMartin

Amen Earle. Now could someone kindly insert a comma after the first word of these two sentences? -- EricHodges

Earle, have you considered for a second that maybe the higher horse could be yours? I suggest you take an even deeper breath and consider your self-righteous attitude. To claim that "we can do no wrong", with all the evidence to the contrary, is beyond pathetic. You can and you have done it. To err is human, but to persevere is evil. And rather than be responsible for it, you want to shoot the messenger now, accusing me of riding a high horse, flaming, etc, etc. Why do you guys get so defensive? How do you want to establish that you have done a good job, or a bad job, if all you say is "we can do no wrong", "you have to trust us"?

How about your extremely stupid and completely gratuitous condescension? Would you like, when you are in the middle of a social conversation anywhere online and offline, that someone (a trusted steward nevertheless) comes and shuts your mouth forcefully and lectures you that life doesn't end there, you just have to keep it shut and be happy with it, now how would you like that? It's not that I am unable to edit, it's maybe that some steward decides on his own that he shuts my mouth in the middle of a conversation. Yes, if I am asked politely that because of security reasons I should temporarily close the conversation and resume it later, I will do just that. But that's not what happens here. And when rather than being responsive and responsible, you start on the condescension part, you want to take no credit for the damage you've done on wiki, rather you want to flame your critics, this is getting ridiculous. You guys have way too much ego and way too little humility to be acting as stewards.

I understood the ("bad neighborhood" / "tough luck, buddy" ) scheme in the beginning, when such incidents were few and far between. But now it looks like you have been given a shotgun and you go with it hunting a mosquito in a crowd, cause it now titillates you to fire it. Gee, and you get unnerved when the crowd protests? By the way, who was that brave dude claiming to speak in the name of the "community" and claiming to be a steward? I mean, it could have been somebody masquerading as a steward, but that's highly improbable cause he had to know within minutes that David Liu was really being banned? He was not brave enough to reveal to me who he was, so now instead of trusted stewards, it looks like we have a group with show offish personalities, and that's why I am willing to bet that at least part of the blanket IP blackouts could have been easily avoidable, should you have exercised more discretion. I simply did not see that many attacks on this wiki to be able to trust that all your IP bans were strictly necessary. And your refusal to be accountable is so pathetic in this context. -- Costin

Now that he mentions it, I do think Costin's idea of posting the IPs banned from editing is a good one. -- Eliz

The restriction mechanism currently benefits by security through obscurity. Adding transparency to it would invite some attacks that would be much harder to defend. I agree that in principle it should be made transparent, but right now, it just isn't practical. -- MichaelSparks

Complete non-sense. And if you're not willing to discuss it, why handwave about it?

What part of that is nonsense? The part that disclosing the details of the restriction system would enable individuals to exploit its weaknesses? That makes perfect sense to me. If this is handwaving, then I think it's better than leaving everyone in the dark. -- MichaelSparks

I'm a moderately competent software engineer and all your claims are nonsensical, in their entirety. But, for example, how would setting up a group email address where the first available "steward" can pick up email and unblock the IP of your "collateral victims", hamper your "obscure security" in any way, shape or form?

Let's start with his one, it ought to be simple, and if we manage to figure it out, we'll go from there. -- Costin

SecurityThroughObscurity is a known AntiPattern. That should be obvious.

Only certain aspects benefit from that. Some aspects work better if divulged.

Unfortunately, this site (and I hate to say it, but that primarily means WardCunningham) is unwilling or unable to adapt even the most trivial technical measures to keep out vandals without ruining it for the rest o' the world - things which virtually every other wiki on the planet takes for granted. Is it a lack of time on Ward's part? Or an ideological objection to technical countermeasures? It took god-damn forever for this site to respond meaningfully to R*****A****** (and no, "please leave, Robert" in a chat doesn't count, when dealing with a nutbar like Abitbol). The current solution - which none of us know what it is as TheStewards? ain't saying - seems to be little better; BlueYonder? is still running round, thinking he's RobertDeNiro? in Brazil, and more than a few innocent users seem unable to access the Wiki.

Given a choice between transparency and "trust us", I will choose transparency every time.

-- ScottJohnson

And I'll stick my neck out, and I'll claim there are most likely two types of IP patterns, one that are permanently banned (requires manual intervention to unban) - that these exists is bloody obvious and disclosing the contents of this category would create no security breach whatsoever. And the other category of IP patterns (and possibly domain name as well) are likely those that expire automatically after a certain time. If it were my system, the time would be configurable on per-pattern basis. They fear that publishing the second category would allow a script-kiddie to cycle and select the available web proxies according to the dates when they are automatically unbanned. And because they're not willing to discuss details (such details can be discussed without compromising security, unless you chronically lack imagination).
In any case, the security by obscurity does not work. Blueyonder will get half the Europe and a quarter California banned because stewards probably ban one class B pattern (or larger) at a time. And even if those bans are allowed to expire, the damage to wiki's image when so many newcomer and old contributors alike faced with some silent, impersonal, and patently absurd denial is irreparable. Security by obscurity encourages TheStewards? to execute a "self-denial of service attack". -- CostinCozianu

Yes, security through obscurity is an antipattern. We all know that, and I wouldn't have used that name if I wasn't ready to admit as much. Unfortunately, we have no recourse if the system's weakness is exposed and exploited. Until such time that it can be fixed, it is better that the weakness isn't exposed. That's all I'm going to say about it. I think the email idea is good. I wasn't opposed to that. It would be up to Ward to set up an address on c2.com, but in the meantime, some people have had success with complaints made on Meatball. -- MichaelSparks

Wow, what a poor imagination you have these days, Michael. Why do you keep running for excuses, can't you just create a group account on yahoo or anywhere, or I can transfer the existing one to you. I'm tired of implausible excuses and all kinds of BS like "some people have success with complaints on MeatBall". Have you tried to read the phrase to see how pathetic it sounds in this context?

I want you to have a group email and respond to complaints within one day.

Do I ask for too much? You guys should have thought about it first, cause it was damn obvious. -- Costin

The WikiWay worked much better before the days of WardsWikiStewards, as some of them either participate, or associate with people who participate, in UnethicalEditing. -- A different AnonymousCoward

Now now. If you're going to make jabs like that, you should at least put some substance behind it instead of leaving it as a vague allegation. Feel free to remain anonymous, of course.

By the way, the WikiWay worked much better before sociopathic cowards like Nomad discovered it. -- EarleMartin

If you want Wiki to be moderated, say so (and explain how moderators can be chosen), but that won't make it like it was six years ago. [extracted from reverted post]

What is obvious to everyone is that adding "coward" (or some similar ad hominem) to every reference to someone serves no useful purpose. [This I agree with and extracted from a deleted remark, presumably from an EditWar.]

Communities are about people. Some people have pathologies, and some pathologies are harmful to a community. Admitting this fact, and taking steps to accommodate it, is not an "ad hominem". If someone urinates on the bar in my lounge, I'm going to have them removed -- forcefully if necessary. So it is with analogous behavior here. -- TomStambaugh