[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)

Wed Nov 13 05:08:42 UTC 2002

On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:09 am, kq wrote
>anonymos wrote
>>Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven that is was a big
>> mistake to unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a 
>>anti-social pest who is on the verge of driving at least one other 
>>contributor away and drove Andre away for some time. I also haven't 
>>seen Lee around much since you so publically reverted his IMO perfectly 
>>valid ban on Lir. I guess he is a bit discusted about the whole matter - I 
>>sure would be (and am).
>>
>>Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
>>about alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
>>their ilk and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
>>
>>Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
>>
>>--.sig
>>
>>PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
>>it that way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
>>contributions. I just think that your idealism has been a bit on 
>>unrealistic side in this particular matter.
>
> FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also.  Lir does not
> contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
> butting heads with.  I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
> to do it now I think I would.  I had high hopes that Lir would turn
> around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
> think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.
>
> kq

"Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick 
out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)

Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in 
the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and 
being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is 
reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games. 

Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I 
make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to 
each edit window. It could state something like the following; 

    "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the 
     rules and conditions of using this website" 

'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a 
new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the 
basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and 
Wikipetiquette.

Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to 
the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social 
contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract 
set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more 
explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least). 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract