Quoth Mark:
>The current arbitration case, [[Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and
>Mr-Natural-Health]], has turned up some evidence that Mr. Natural Health
>has participated in a good deal of flame-warring and whatnot on Usenet,
>and has in some newsgroups been considered a "troll" and general
>trouble-maker, at least by some people. There is currently disagreement
>over whether this should be taken into account, or considered relevant
>at all. See that page's edit history and talk page for more.
One or two arbitrators have said they don't think their own real-world
identities should be publically known simply because they are arbitrators -
what they do and how they behave outside the Wikipedia is irrelevant to
what they do and how they behave on it. I agree with that. It seems to me
that this maxim should apply to all users, even those accused of being trolls.
I can understand why somebody's behaviour in fora other than the Wikipedia
might cause us to regard their work with a little more suspicion than the
work of other users, but I really don't think we should make any decisions
on what we do with them at the 'pedia on the basis of what they do
elsewhere. It's basically irrelevant whether Mr. NH (or anybody else) is
causing trouble outside the 'pedia, and I don't like the implication that
if you're to edit at the Wikipedia, you have to behave well elsewhere. If
somebody is a stirling Wikipedia user but likes to troll on usenet, well,
so what? Similarly, if somebody is a lousy Wikipedia user, but loves his
mum and is good to cats, so what?
And again, if somebody is a problem Wikipedia user and also a problem
elsewhere, so what? Our concern isn't that Mr. NH is at the centre of
trouble outside the Wikipedia, it's that he's at the centre of trouble
inside the Wikipedia. That's all that matters and is quite enough for us to
take action if we have to.
I am an arbitrator, by the way, but I'm sure I'd say the same things if I
wasn't.
All this is just my opinion, of course.
Lee (Camembert)