Let me correct a misconception you seem to be carrying. When an admin with long experience of one of our long-term abusers identifies a pattern of behaviour matching that abuser, you would be *amazed* how often CheckUser reveals that the IPs are either the same or open proxies.
So what? The point is, there's a systemic problem where people who AREN'T affiliated with with banned editors are routinely being falsely accused. It doesn't matter how often the "reminds me of a banned user" test is right-- the point is, sometimes it's wrong we need to stop callously throwing around charges that aren't justified. ****** Yes, Alec. It's good to stop callously throwing around charges that aren't justified.
Neither checkuser nor sockpupet investigation is 100% accurate. We do our best, but no human endeavor is going to be perfect. When people seek to resolve the mistakes in a reasonable way these things get cleared up pretty quickly.
What happens in practice is that blocked editors who make the most noise about "injustice" are almost always the ones whose blocks and bans were very well deserved. And even then it is quite simple to get reinstated, if they do us the courtesy of believing we're sincere: just wait by the sidelines until the block expires, or if it's a ban take a few months' breather and send a polite request for reinstatement, promising not to repeat the behavior that led to the ban.
What that requires is patience. Sometimes it also takes grudging acceptance of a consensus decision that went the other way or of a policy that's necessary for the project's overall health (but that causes a few inconveniences in one's own particular case). There are very few exceptions where an editor who acquires those traits couldn't come back.
-Durova
On 11/15/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Neither checkuser nor sockpupet investigation is 100% accurate. We do our best, but no human endeavor is going to be perfect. When people seek to resolve the mistakes in a reasonable way these things get cleared up pretty quickly.
Again, I think people believe I'm making a much larger indictment than I am.
In my limited experience, I've yet to see an actual ban that wasn't deserved, and I haven't seen an indef block that wasn't deserve which wasn't promptly overturned. I'm sure I looked hard enough, I could find instances, but it doesn't seem like this is a problem we actually have, as a project.
If we were willy-nilly banning people left and right, that would be a really huge problem-- but it's not a problem that we have. It worries me that people think I'm claiming we have this problem, because it's so unsupported by evidence that anyone who thinks i'm protesting the bannings of users must also think me a complete lunatic. :)
So, to clear:
*** I'm NOT arguing that any bans be overturned *** *** I'm NOT arguing that the bans are unwarranted *** *** I'm NOT arguing that the admins who have fought the genuine sockpuppets of banned users are doing anything but being wonder defenders of the encyclopedia ***
----
As I say-- the actual bans seem to be carried out quite well-- and the inappropriate blocks seem to be quickly overturned. We seem to be quite good identifying actual sockpuppets of banned users.
There problem we do have is much much smaller, and relates more to incivility and NPA than to the banning policy. It involves not seriously believing people to BE a banned user, but sort of loosely tossing around the accusations of a vague sort of link to banned users. "Supporting" the banned user. "Agreeing with" the banned user. "Friends with" the banned user. "Your buddy" the banned user. etc.
Nobody seriously believes GTBacchus is a sockpuppet of whatever loon runs ED-- but he tenuous connect to the site is continually harped about. Nobody seriously believes DanT is a sockpuppet of whatever loon runs WR-- but people do keep implying it. I'm pretty sure nobody actually believed Private Musing WAS Jon Awbry-- but Jon Awbry's unrelated vandalism of the same page was as evidence to try and indefblock PM. (granted, anyone who didn't know PM's identity is off the hook on endorsing that one, since it's a logical pattern of evidence).
Anyway, now that the whole BADSITES thing is settled, maybe this pattern of incivility will just die out too, and maybe my discussing it just prolongs it. Hopefully that will be the case. In the grand scheme of wikipedia, it's not a very big incivility at all-- the only disconcerting part is that some of our most respected editors have fallen into that pattern of incivility.
Alec
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:27:20 -0800, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Neither checkuser nor sockpupet investigation is 100% accurate. We do our best, but no human endeavor is going to be perfect. When people seek to resolve the mistakes in a reasonable way these things get cleared up pretty quickly.
This is true. The problem here is when the banned users themselves continue stirring up shit, and draw in a never-ending succession of new participants to the debate.
Why is "there is absolutely no evidence to support this fatuous assertion made by a banned user in order to advance his grievance against Wikipedia" never an acceptable answer?
We had an allegation made by banned user Greg Kohs against two admins, brought to us by a sockpuppets and open proxies, and several people tried to pick it up and run with it despite the substance of the allegation already having been thoroughly refuted by the admins in question.
That is, in my view, a serious concern.
Guy (JzG)