I muttered to myself here: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks
about unbanning people who've been "hard banned". "Hard bans" would include Lir, DW, Helga, "142", possibly Zog, and no doubt others. I suggested that the best option is to say that bans are forgiven after three consecutive months of good behaviour - good behaviour in this case means:
* no coming back to Wikipedia under new pseudonyms, etc * no threatening Wikipedia contributors
It's a simple strategy, with many benefits: * If a banned user ignores the option of attaining forgiveness, then we're no worse off. In fact we're better off, because the ban will be respected by people who would not respect a ban with no possibility of reprieve. * If a banned user is forgiven, and then immediately channels Satan and has to be banned again, then we're better off, because we at least had three months of peace and quiet. * If a banned user is forgiven and turns into a model contributor, then we're much better off - plus one good contributor, minus one soure of conflict. * If a banned user stops trying to come back for three months, in order to be forgiven, and finds a much better site than Wikipedia, decides Wikipedia is actually irrelevant, and moves on, then everyone's better off, including the banned user.
I fail to see the benefit of requiring an apology. Such an apology, given under duress, has no value. Only a freely given and sincerely meant apology can aid in healing the wounds of conflicts past.
Three months seems a sufficient length of time for non-dwarfs to bear grudges, so I commend this simple policy to the house. Or, failing that, the list.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
That's a great plan, but I think one or two months would be more appropriate (3 months is a long time!). Perhaps we should reffer our banned users to something like Usemod or c2 wiki. They would probably embrace Lir for the valuable information he provides (and he does), unlike we, who shun him. Those sites don't have NPOV policies (afaik).
--- martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
I muttered to myself here: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks
about unbanning people who've been "hard banned". "Hard bans" would include Lir, DW, Helga, "142", possibly Zog, and no doubt others. I suggested that the best option is to say that bans are forgiven after three consecutive months of good behaviour - good behaviour in this case means:
- no coming back to Wikipedia under new pseudonyms,
etc
- no threatening Wikipedia contributors
It's a simple strategy, with many benefits:
- If a banned user ignores the option of attaining
forgiveness, then we're no worse off. In fact we're better off, because the ban will be respected by people who would not respect a ban with no possibility of reprieve.
- If a banned user is forgiven, and then immediately
channels Satan and has to be banned again, then we're better off, because we at least had three months of peace and quiet.
- If a banned user is forgiven and turns into a
model contributor, then we're much better off - plus one good contributor, minus one soure of conflict.
- If a banned user stops trying to come back for
three months, in order to be forgiven, and finds a much better site than Wikipedia, decides Wikipedia is actually irrelevant, and moves on, then everyone's better off, including the banned user.
I fail to see the benefit of requiring an apology. Such an apology, given under duress, has no value. Only a freely given and sincerely meant apology can aid in healing the wounds of conflicts past.
Three months seems a sufficient length of time for non-dwarfs to bear grudges, so I commend this simple policy to the house. Or, failing that, the list.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Martin,
in principle, I am not opposed to making bans temporary and have suggested doing so in the past. However, in cases where a user continues to be obnoxious by creating fake accounts, sending nasty letters etc. *during the ban*, I would think that the ban should not be lifted without an apology and a promise to improve the behavior. Furthermore, the criteria for re-banning a user who has been let back in after a ban has expired should be less rigid (it is extremely hard to get a signed in user banned); they should instead be considered "on probation".
In the case of Lir and DW at least, I would expect a public apology and an admission of what they have done ("I have created the following fake accounts: ...") before letting them back in, and I think we should be reluctant even then. The handful of people out of 10000 who have been banned over the last 2 years are not exactly models of social behavior or good candidates for rehabilitation.
Regards,
Erik
MyRedDice (Martin) wrote in part:
I fail to see the benefit of requiring an apology. Such an apology, given under duress, has no value. Only a freely given and sincerely meant apology can aid in healing the wounds of conflicts past.
I agree that forcing an apology as such (must say "I'm sorry that I ...", etc) is an invitation to insincerity and the valueless mouthing of words. But I also think that it's important that, should somebody like Lir return, this person should state what activities they will not do in future.
For example, suppose that a user (this example is no longer Lir, BTW) says "Toby should be eliminated" and I interpret this as a death threat. The user replies that they meant only that I should be kicked off Wikipedia, but Jimbo bans them anyway for (in part) making a death threat on talk. Requiring the user to say "I'm sorry that I threatened Toby's life." is an invitation to gross insincerity when the user denied that they did so. Rather, the user should say "I won't write personal comments about users that can be interpreted as physical threats.".
This is, first, less personal (I don't need my own wounded pride healed) since it doesn't mention me specifically; but also, it allows the user to save face and continue to deny that they meant it as a threat. It really doesn't matter at this point whether that's what they meant or not, once they've gone through the rest of your outlines process.
Disclaimer: This example is drawn somewhat from actual events, but I'm not suggesting that the user involved there is likely to do this. That's irrelevant to the point, which is just to borrow a good example.
-- Toby