Bringing this up again, as it's getting silly. Daniel Brandt posts here, and I rv him per policy as a banned user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185...
I get undone here with the comment "it is ridiculous that brandt should not be allowed to comment on his own article":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185...
I then refactored out his commentary (Brandt's), reported his IP to AIV as posting by a banned user, and that IP is now blocked.
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Bringing this up again, as it's getting silly. Daniel Brandt posts here, and I rv him per policy as a banned user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185...
I get undone here with the comment "it is ridiculous that brandt should not be allowed to comment on his own article":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185...
I then refactored out his commentary (Brandt's), reported his IP to AIV as posting by a banned user, and that IP is now blocked.
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block policy regardless of everything else?
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block policy regardless of everything else?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
OTRS, oversight, mail admins, mail arbcom. Why let them post on-wiki? If that is desired, change the policy to say-so.
- Denny
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block policy regardless of everything else?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
OTRS, oversight, mail admins, mail arbcom. Why let them post on-wiki? If that is desired, change the policy to say-so.
Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the sake of maintaining policy.
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to banned users to freely post under their own name.
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the sake of maintaining policy.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to banned users to freely post under their own name.
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the sake of maintaining policy.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
I would note that this is especially important in this case, when Daniel Brandt was banned partially for being disruptive about his own page.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&limit=500&a...
So multiple people have RV'd back in his comments. Is this appropriate?
- Denny
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&limit=500&a...
So multiple people have RV'd back in his comments. Is this appropriate?
Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi, Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey.
Jay.
On 3/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi, Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey.
Jay.
So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is, unfortunately.
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi, Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey.
So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is, unfortunately.
I don't think Jon Awbrey is actually banned - at least, I can't recall it. Rather, he 'left the project' rather volubly (on this mailing list especially, to the point of getting moderated) and then, like many 'departed' users, returned under different names. I'm not sure of the specifics.
-Matt
On 3/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi, Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey.
So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is, unfortunately.
I don't think Jon Awbrey is actually banned - at least, I can't recall it. Rather, he 'left the project' rather volubly (on this mailing list especially, to the point of getting moderated) and then, like many 'departed' users, returned under different names. I'm not sure of the specifics.
-Matt
He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006. He has since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article with over a dozen sockpuppets.
Jay.
Jay.
On 30/03/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006.
He was the one who wikilawyered assiduously, then when labeled as such tried to wikilawyer the definition of 'wikilawyer.' I think he was surprised when this turned out not to be Wikipedia's Godel number and instead he was blocked.
He has since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article with over a dozen sockpuppets.
I believe that after being kicked off Wikipedia, he soon was kicked off the Citizendium mailing lists too. CZ is a project of its own, not a refuge for Wikipedia malcontents ...
Jon Awbrey is a genuine expert in his field, and also just happens to have achieved new heights of excellence in the field of "problematic expert."
- d.
On 3/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006.
Ah - thanks for the correction! He didn't end up before the arbcom, and I don't keep up on the drama if it doesn't get there.
-Matt
<snip>
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the sake of maintaining policy.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
--
- Denny
Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone knows the whole backstory to this person.
Erica
On 28/03/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we > > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki > > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the > > sake of maintaining policy. > > > > Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) > > > > We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or > support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a > banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? > Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc. > > I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest > people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as > that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned > people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so. > > -- > - Denny
Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone knows the whole backstory to this person.
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
--
- Denny
Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone knows the whole backstory to this person.
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Then let's make it about Brandt, since this is the example we are using. What does "banned" mean, if he's allowed to just keep editing? The question is whether our banning policy really means anything.
I agree that it would be pointless to actually seek out edits by banned users, but again, let's use the Brandt example: He is obviously a disruptive user. Why don't we follow our own policy, revert his comments, and move on? Why are some people reverting him back? -- This is the question we are trying to answer.
Erica
On 28/03/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
--
- Denny
Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone knows the whole backstory to this person.
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Then let's make it about Brandt, since this is the example we are using. What does "banned" mean, if he's allowed to just keep editing? The question is whether our banning policy really means anything.
I agree that it would be pointless to actually seek out edits by banned users, but again, let's use the Brandt example: He is obviously a disruptive user. Why don't we follow our own policy, revert his comments, and move on? Why are some people reverting him back? -- This is the question we are trying to answer.
Erica
If we are to make this discussion explicitly about Brandt, then we need to clarify what has happened. To say that he is "allowed to keep editing" is a mischaracterisation of what has occured: he posted some concerns about his article on the talk page. He did not hide behind a sock puppet to do so (he fully disclosed that he was Brandt). His comments didn't seem disruptive and may well be valid and should be investigated.
There seem to be those who believe that banning should be absolute and those who pragmatically believe that exceptional edits may be accepted if they benefit the project. The question isn't at all "whether our banning policy really means anything".
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said. Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't right, change the policy.
- Denny
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said. Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't right, change the policy.
- Denny
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said. Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't right, change the policy.
- Denny
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
-- geni
That's not what we're talking about at all.
Erica
On 3/28/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
-- geni
That's not what we're talking about at all.
Erica
Its part of it. People I think are letting it slide for comments, because there is no penalty.
But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
-- geni
That's not what we're talking about at all.
Erica
Its part of it. People I think are letting it slide for comments, because there is no penalty.
But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?
Brandt was not given a free pass and to say so is to mischaracterise what has happened. A single non-disruptive edit he made while banned (and while disclosing his identity) was not reverted for exceptional reasons.
Importantly, we behaved exceptionally to a particular action, rather than to a person (as you seem to suggest).
I'm starting to feel that I'm repeating myself. I don't think reducing this discussion to statements and questions like "why Brandt's free pass?" helps anyone or clarifies anything.
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
-- geni
That's not what we're talking about at all.
Erica
Its part of it. People I think are letting it slide for comments, because there is no penalty.
But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?
--
- Denny
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This has already been answered several times so far, but I'll repeat the basic points:
Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.
He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other banned users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.
On 3/28/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other banned users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.
Why not update the banning, blocking, and BLP policies to say this is *endorsed*, then? Is there concensus for this, then lets have concensus for this and make the policy reflect practice...
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other
banned
users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.
Why not update the banning, blocking, and BLP policies to say this is *endorsed*, then? Is there concensus for this, then lets have concensus for this and make the policy reflect practice...
--
- Denny
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Okay:
[[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]
On 3/28/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Okay:
[[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]
If concensus is for it I wouldn't have a problem with it PROVIDED it was just on that article's talk page (not DRV, not AfD, other articles, noticeboards, etc..) and all other "in their name" edits were still nuked away. They... are banned for a reason.
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Okay:
[[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]
If concensus is for it I wouldn't have a problem with it PROVIDED it was just on that article's talk page (not DRV, not AfD, other articles, noticeboards, etc..) and all other "in their name" edits were still nuked away. They... are banned for a reason.
Let us not throw away common sense and goodwill in favour of nailing down every last jot and tittle of behaviour in wikilaw.
Banning isn't something that is rigidly enforcable, so there is little point in pretending that it is. If a banned user is careful and non-contentious, then they can be a useful contributor without attracting the attention of the wikiconstables. I find it ridiculous that a person may make an edit under one username and have it accepted gratefully, and yet that very same edit under another username will be reverted and reviled.
Just what is the point of "nuking" reasonable contributions? If they make for a better encyclopaedia, or illuminate the discussion, then leave 'em be, I say. Otherwise, with a "nuke on sight" policy, we are merely adding fuel to the fire of criticism that Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopaedia as a bunch of smalldicks throwing their weight around.
Denny Colt wrote:
Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said. Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't right, change the policy.
As somebody who restored (to the talk page) Brandt's comment on the most recent Brandt AfD, I'd advocate the latter. To me, a ban should be *permission* (and perhaps encouragement) to revert on site, but not an absolute requirement.
In the case of the comment on his AfD, it was more or less civilly stated and a useful contribution to the discussion (mainly, IMHO, in that kept people from speculating endlessly on what his views might be). A policy that forces editors to make things unambiguously worse should be changed, if only to prevent similarly endless discussion on when to apply IAR and how this place is going to hell in a handbasket.
William
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily).
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said. Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't right, change the policy.
Do you not think that such an absolute policy drives people to using sock puppets? I don't think this is something we want to encourage.
If someone has concerns about an article on them, they should be able to express them on wiki in a non-disruptive fashion. I am not suggesting we give out free passes (this discussion isn't about removing his block), I am suggesting we be pragmatic and make exceptions when those exceptions are to the project's benefit.
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to banned users to freely post under their own name.
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the sake of maintaining policy.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
Would this be problematic? I'm not suggesting we overlook the behaviour of all banned users, but I have never seen why exceptional edits (such as those which are of benefit to Wikipedia, are about the individual them self, &c.) can't be pragmatically accepted (not explicitly accepted, but let go). Doing so wouldn't incentivise editing while being banned since the vast majority of edits are still against our policy.
I posted a couple of weeks ago about an admin deleting a useful redirect because it had been created by a user while they were banned. Surely, to expend our energy deleting and recreating such redirects is allowing the banned user to continue to disrupt the project?
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance: 1) WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post complaints on the talk page instead. 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except possibly their own user talk page.
No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
Steve
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if
"some
people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
- WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
complaints on the talk page instead. 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except possibly their own user talk page.
No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
Steve
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring that would need us to put one policy over the other.
Mgm
On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring that would need us to put one policy over the other.
I agree. If we have banned a user, it's presumably because they're more trouble than they're worth. There are avenues to complain if they need it.
(in case anyone is confused, my previous post was summarising consensus, not my view...)
Steve
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain.
We
have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict
occuring
that would need us to put one policy over the other.
I agree. If we have banned a user, it's presumably because they're more trouble than they're worth. There are avenues to complain if they need it.
(in case anyone is confused, my previous post was summarising consensus, not my view...)
Steve
Since it takes many voices to reach a new consensus, I'll just chip in my two cents and state i agree with Mgm - the banning policy exists to discourage intolerable troublemakers from editing onwiki. Once you are banned, any presumption of good faith is gone, because you need to be absolutely intolerable to be banned - that's why all your edits are reverted on sight, and only the decent ones restored. A similar presumption should exist with regard to comments by banned users on articles where they are the subject - but rather than convoluting policy and creating an exception to the general presumption of bad faith, why not just direct such users to our normal offwiki channels for subjects of articles?
Johnleemk
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:33:48 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Since it takes many voices to reach a new consensus, I'll just chip in my two cents and state i agree with Mgm - the banning policy exists to discourage intolerable troublemakers from editing onwiki. Once you are banned, any presumption of good faith is gone, because you need to be absolutely intolerable to be banned - that's why all your edits are reverted on sight, and only the decent ones restored. A similar presumption should exist with regard to comments by banned users on articles where they are the subject - but rather than convoluting policy and creating an exception to the general presumption of bad faith, why not just direct such users to our normal offwiki channels for subjects of articles?
Precisely. The subject in this case already has access to the back-channels, and knows how to use them. He knows full well that if he emails certain individuals with factual errors, they will be attended to.
Of course, this is mainly about Brandt. We cannot subject ordinary editors to the risk of being sucked into his cesspit. The "revert, block, ignore" model exists in part to protect the well-meaning from being sucked into long-running disputes - as we know from past experience, any comment which is even slightly critical of Brandt will result in him publishing your username and whatever personal details he can glean (and he is pretty resourceful, let's not forget) on his Hivemind pages. That is a risk to which we should not subject unwitting editors. That is why he is banned. Removing his comments is not censorship, it's protection from involvement in a particularly nasty dispute.
I am not without sympathy, he was the subject of attacks perpetrated abusively through Wikipedia, but his inability to separate the project and those who (ab)use the project for their own ends has been a very large part of his problem. In particular, it takes a very high degree of unpleasantness to overwhelm Jimbo's natural tendency to be humane in respect of biographies.
Guy (JzG)
On 29/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if
"some
people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
- WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
complaints on the talk page instead. 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except possibly their own user talk page.
No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
Steve
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring that would need us to put one policy over the other.
Problem articles can be dealt with far more effectively if they are dealt with on wiki by Wikipedians. Back channels tend to be populated by administrators aware of past problems and who are a lot more wary and unforgiving of users who have been problematic in the past.
Gregory Kohs (of MyWikiBiz) emailed me to tell about his attempts to get an article fixed. I can speak from my own experience (and his) that OTRS can easily get clogged which means posts to that list take a long time to be responded to. So that makes me think. What other email addresses can banned people write to in order to get something fixed without posting to the wiki?
Mgm
On 3/29/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post
if
"some
people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the
banning/blocking
policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
- WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
complaints on the talk page instead. 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except possibly their own user talk page.
No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
Steve
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain.
We
have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict
occuring
that would need us to put one policy over the other.
Problem articles can be dealt with far more effectively if they are dealt with on wiki by Wikipedians. Back channels tend to be populated by administrators aware of past problems and who are a lot more wary and unforgiving of users who have been problematic in the past.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Kohs (of MyWikiBiz) emailed me to tell about his attempts to get an article fixed. I can speak from my own experience (and his) that OTRS can easily get clogged which means posts to that list take a long time to be responded to. So that makes me think. What other email addresses can banned people write to in order to get something fixed without posting to the wiki?
Mgm
My point was that articles can be dealt with more effectively if they are dealt with on wiki by Wikipedians. The fact that other routes are open to users doesn't nullify this.
Can someone point me to a page explaining the details of Brandt's ban?
Anthony