Zero Tolerance Discussion
Zero Tolerance DiscussionDiscussion of the ZeroTolerance page
last wipe was by 128.163.110.72 - Nomad? Or someone who just doesn't like this page?
128.163.110.72 today is from me, AndyPierce. I vote this page for deletion. My rationale for deletion was that this page is "pointless, old news, ineffective". Do you, MartinZarate(?) assert that this page is other than pointless, old news and/or ineffective? Can you elaborate upon the utility of this page?
[Are you a steward, Andy?]
I vote that not only should this page remain, it would be nice if a few more people took up the cause of ensuring that Anon's edits do not persist. Giving in is not a solution. If a vandal in your neighbourhood spent every night hucking stones through windows, and for whatever reason the police couldn't (or wouldn't) stop him, would you give up and leave the glass broken? Would you also tear down the sign that says, "Help Us Stop The Vandal"? -- DaveVoorhis
[Unless they are unavoidable (as is the case, due to dynamic ip address or non-proxies constantly blocked). However, it's absurd to treat minor corrections as window-breaking.]
I would be fascinated to hear what what circumstances make double-edits "unavoidable for technical reasons".
[By definition, a double-edit is merely two edits by the same person. Since all history files are retained, such edits are harmless.]
There is one, and only one reason why DoubleEdits are done by Anon, and that's an attempt to make reverting his edits slightly less convenient than hitting the EditCopy link. Legitimate double-edits that occur as a result of an IP address change are infrequent and obviously involve significant changes to content by the same signed author - typically moving from one IP to another on the same ISP, or moving from one consistent work address to a home address (or vice-versa), as I sometimes do. Anon's frequent double-edits invariably involve an insignificant tweak (like adding or removing a space) to someone else's content from a new open Web proxy. He's doing it as I write this, which can be clearly, obviously, and semi-permanently seen in http://c2.com/cgi/RecentChanges. Yes, it's inexcusable, as is Anon's penchant for spoofing UserNames in order to reverse others' edits without preserving history, and his habit of simply deleting content he doesn't like. Bad, bad Anon! UnethicalEditing isn't how we play well with others. -- DaveVoorhis
[Of course, DV fails to notice such things are caused by use of ZT rather than LetHotPagesCool.]
What Anon fails to note is that ZeroTolerance only exists because of him. Without him, there would be no problem, and hence no ZeroTolerance. -- DV
[How quickly you forget RA, dispute between RK and CC, etc.]
These are solved problems, via bans et al. ZeroTolerance is not about RA, RK vs CC, etc. ZeroTolerance is about Anon. Anon is the problem, no matter how much he may deny it. -- DV
[No - bans, ZT, etc., are used precisely because a problem has not been solved. The ethical approach is LetHotPagesCool.]
Correct. The problem has not been solved, because Anon is an ongoing problem. The problem will be solved when (a) Anon learns to cooperate, or (b) Anon goes away. -- DV
[Bans and ZT prevent "learn to cooperate", so that isn't genuinely an option.]
Subtle sarcasm on my part. In truth, (b) is the only option, because (a) has been shown to be unattainable. Hence the bans and ZeroTolerance. -- DV
[No. Option (b) was caused, not a cause, and is unethical; without it, option (a) is possible.]
Ongoing conflict with no attempt at compromise on Anon's part has demonstrated that (a) is not possible. -- DV
I finally encountered this behavior today. An edit I made on GoodIdeasAreExpensive is now merged in with anon's edits and credited to him. Very confusing. I had no idea before this how his hacking was changing history. -- IanOsgood
[That's how Wiki Works; see WikiNow.]
Nonsense. Anon spoofed a UserName in order to disguise his actions. That is UnethicalEditing, and it is categorically not how Wiki is supposed to work. -- DV
[Wiki merges edits with the same UserName (if known), else the same reverse dns (if obtained), else the same ip address (which needn't be the same user).]
Entirely correct. In this case, Anon used the same UserName as IanOsgood, in an obviously unethical manner. Anon frequently spoofs UserNames, to the point that a number of us no longer set UserName cookies in order to avoid having him reverse our edits or mis-attribute his edits to us. -- DV
No. -- DV
[How come? Ian pointed out that it was his edits that were apparently attributed to the later editor.]
Whatever. The issue is not whether A is confused with B, or B with A. The issue is spoofing UserNames, for which there is no earthly valid reason, and which is obviously unethical. -- DV
[There is no definition of how Wiki is supposed to work - how it actually works is what counts.]
There are ethical standards and rules that apply to all human interaction, including that on a Wiki. These are implicit to the majority of us and govern our social behaviour. We do not, for example, spoof UserNames, and we don't need to be told it's wrong. It's obvious.
[So they obviously include LetHotPagesCool.]
Actually, no. I find it telling that Anon cannot distinguish the significant and obvious ethical implications of spoofing UserNames from a relatively minor guideline like LetHotPagesCool.
[Whatever.]
If I am not mistaken, Anon is a high-functioning autistic. Therefore, the standards that are implicit to us will effectively not apply to him, because he lacks the cognitive facilites to appreciate them. He can no more appreciate our social rules than we can understand the profound emotion of "z'qp!ck" (that's the English translation -- it's unwritable in the original language), which accompanies the spreading of seeds and sharpening of writing instruments among the sentient grasses of the sixth planet of an inconsequential star near Alpha Carinae, and which inevitably leads to murder if the writing instrument isn't sharp enough.
Hence, Anon continues to engage in behaviour that the majority find unacceptable, but that make sense to him and (I assume) he thinks are perfectly reasonable. That, unfortunately, represents a significant problem for the majority, as it will continually cause Anon's behaviour to remain at odds with the expectations of the majority. -- DV
[You are mistaken.]
I merely state what I observe. Outside of Wiki, for all I know Anon might well be a popular and award-winning salesman, public entertainer, and the social convenor for his local church. Here, Anon comes across as socially awkward and difficult. See if the following is Anon: http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/what_is.html -- DV
[You are mistaken. Your only interest is in replacing nonsense in the parent page.]
Um, Dave, may I remind you of the fruitlessness of responding to Anon's bracketed comments? -- Eliz
Indeed. Once again, I got troll-baited. It is my weakness. Sorry. -- DaveVoorhis
Another anonymous editor writes: I have Asperger syndrome and feel insulted to be compared to Anon. I get on with other people well enough to write to several wikis. I am not sure if you are speaking about Asperger syndrome or high-functioning Autism, though. You link to an article about Asperger syndrome, while you speak about HFA. This is incorrect. A high-functioning Autistic person has Kannerian aka early-childhood Autism, not Asperger syndrome. Asperger and HFA are somewhat similar, so they medically belong to the Autistc Spectrum. But even a high-functioning autistic must understand from your comments that he acts in a wrong way. A low-functioning autistic can't write. So I believe that Anon's behaviour has nothing to do with Autism.
I believe that Anon only wants to annoy you. He know how you feel, when he misspells words in articles, breaks links etc. And he enjoys it. His behaviour seems like low-level bullying. It is so sophisticated that he can't have Autism or Asperger syndrome. I have never discussed anything in this wiki, so I hope that my edit doesn't disturb anyone. But I hate to see people spread misinformation about Autistic Spectrum.
Thank you for your enlightening input, and I apologise for any insult. In the future, I shall not refer to Anon as autistic; "low-level bullying" is a much better description. By the way, he does not misspell words or break links. His behaviour and the reasons why he is HardBanned are described on the GrammarVandal page. -- DaveVoorhis
I would have no problem with the ZeroTolerance page being removed if it weren't for the fact that Nomad continually attempts to hack it in half. If he sees it as an affront, I'd like to keep it around out of my own stubbornness. The problem with Nomad is ongoing, so it only makes sense that pages relevant to the problem remain on Wiki. -- MartinZarate
I use it as part of my Nomad auto-filter; any block of edits including an edit of ZeroTolerance is by definition Nomad, and therefore nugatory.
Elizabeth, can I talk you into giving it a rest with Anon? We don't have the technical means to eradicate him. The ban in unenforceable. At this point I think it makes sense to stop adding fuel to the fire. -- MichaelSparks
"The ban in unenforceable." Au contraire, mon frère. But unfortunately, my life is too overwhelming these days for me to formulate a good response or participate in a discussion about Anon and ban enforcement. In fact, my life is too screwy nowadays - and my timezone too far off - to do ZeroTolerance as consistently as I would like. As for my specific ZT strategies, I won't reveal them in front of Anon, for ZT is a head game. I'll say this much, though. I notice there's less activity from Anon when I'm diligent with ZT and increasing activity when I'm away for a few days. And so my own lack of diligence could be making things worse. :-( This lack of diligence also applies to the community, however. I believe ZeroTolerance can work with enough people effecting a consistent strategy. Communicating strategy to enough concerned and available WikiZens is the big trick. -- ElizabethWiethoff
[That's a coincidence - my PC had a fault.]
How do you propose to enforce the ban? If you don't have the time to respond, then it is an open question. How does anyone propose to enforce the ban? ZeroTolerance doesn't seem to be working. It doesn't prevent Anon from editing. It causes a lot of noise and makes the wiki an overall very unpleasant place to be. The only hope it has of working is to wear out his patience. But what makes anyone think that by the time his patience wears out and he leaves, there will be anything left of this wiki worth having defended? -- MichaelSparks
How do you propose to enforce the ban?
Elizabeth has already answered this. To wit: "I believe ZeroTolerance can work with enough people effecting a consistent strategy."
I too believe it.
-- DaveVoorhis
[But clearly there aren't enough people.]
You know, with the advent of the Shark bot, Nomad's little crusade has become almost humorously Sisyphean. He pushes his changes uphill, which will all inevitably roll back, and then he tries again. -- MartinZarate
First, it is probably done by zombie bots, not humans. Second, it does not matter. He/she feels they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife, or some similar moral reward for fighting to the bitter end. The hardship to others caused by code word block bans etc. is probably satisfaction enough for this e-terrorist.
EditText of this page
(last edited November 9, 2014)
or FindPage with title or text search