..,.being a couple of thoughts on the differences of approach in general terms.
I totally understand the necessity of restricting users like myself from all editing, including vandalism reversion on a pragmatic level - I can see for example that some may view quality material as 'vandalism' because they disagree with it, and they're crazy people. I am interested in the priorities of users who would disagree with vandalism reversion on a philosophical level - ie. the "you're not wanted, even if you're helping" approach. The corollary of that approach is that the activity moves to email (as it has in my case in a very friendly, happy, useful fashion) - which seems to me to beg the question, why is that ethically a different activity?
Is it?
Further - a short note on Doc.s discussion of opening some of the Arb proceedings - my personal feedback would be that there isn't enough on-wiki communication on record to quickly and easily understand how the arb process has moved forward, from gathering evidence, to considering it, to reaching conclusions. I'd say this is evidenced by the number of unanswered questions / comments here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Private...
I appreciate Guy's willingness to engage there, and personally, I would have sincerely wished to either answer questions from any Arb, or discuss aspects with them.
The 'select committee' system used in the UK - or the US senate committee system could have some useful pointers for structures that could help. Interestingly, here's an example of where a transparent flaw in said system led to some damage to its reputation, and sympathy for an otherwise very (very) unsympathetic character;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Galloway.27s_response
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box - does anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like the Arb elections?
cheers,
PM.
Quoting private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box - does anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like the Arb elections?
No, The vast majority of banned users are headaches enough without letting them vote in ArbCom elections. We already see people voting oppose to arbitrators who were involved in proposals against non-banned people. We don't need to further encourage that sort of thing. I find that unfortunate because I suspect that your votes would be interesting in this election (and more selfishly I suspect you might vote for me) but exceptions cannot be made for this sort of thing.
On Dec 4, 2007 12:13 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box -
does
anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like
the
Arb elections?
No, The vast majority of banned users are headaches enough without letting them vote in ArbCom elections. We already see people voting oppose to arbitrators who were involved in proposals against non-banned people. We don't need to further encourage that sort of thing. I find that unfortunate because I suspect that your votes would be interesting in this election (and more selfishly I suspect you might vote for me) but exceptions cannot be made for this sort of thing.
So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy. Let's cut the crap about voting and just have Jimbo appoint anybody he likes. Who cares if banned users vote? They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will also be very much in the minority.
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
Let's get a grip on reality, please.
On 12/4/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy.
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Never has been. It's a despotic anarchy.
Who cares if banned users vote? They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will also be very much in the minority.
I'm not sure if you're saying we should go out of our way to let them vote, or just not go out of our way to stop them voting. Probably the letter is correct - we certainly don't need to attempt to get their views represented.
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned, we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct typos. If we allow that, they will want to be able to add useful content. Then they will want to be able to participate in RFC's etc etc. Then why did we bother banning them?
(In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience, this slope genuinely is slippery.)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned, we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct typos... (In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience, this slope genuinely is slippery.)
Actually, you don't even have to go for the slippery slope argument. Rewind back to "Some people will say 'they're banned, we want nothing to do with them'. Others will say 'they're not bothering me, let them stay'." Hey presto, we're wasting time arguing on behalf of a banned troll, instead of doing something productive, and -- the troll has trolled us into doing it.
On Dec 4, 2007 1:53 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote: > This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned,
we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct typos... (In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience, >
this slope genuinely is slippery.) Actually, you don't even have to go for the slippery slope argument. Rewind back to "Some people will say 'they're banned, we want nothing to do with them'. Others will say 'they're not bothering me, let them stay'." Hey presto, we're wasting time arguing on behalf of a banned troll, instead of doing something productive, and -- the troll has trolled us into doing it.
Do you see restoring vandalism as productive, just because a banned user reverted vandalism and "banned is banned"?
I don't. I see it is harming the encyclopaedia, If a banned user reverts vandalism, corrects typos and makes productive edits, then I'm all for it.
And just how does a banned user do anything on-wiki anyway? Obviously it would have to be done as an anon or under a new account. Seems to me that you'd have to use CheckUser to uncover the banned user. Making a CheckUser request on reverted vandalism edits strikes me as the pointless action of a defective mind.
There's more meat to the argument that banned users shouldn't vote in ArbCom elections, BTW, thanks for those who assured me that just because ArbCom elections involve voting, it isn't democracy. Not even "a faint shadow of democracy". Yeah, right.
Banned users (and again, I point out that CheckUser would be needed to uncover them) voting in ArbCom elections isn't a threat. Not unless their views were so extreme as to be easily distinguishable from normal editors, and they were a majority. Remember that each editor gets multiple votes - one for each candidate - so it's not a matter of banned users (or any other category of voter) concentrating their votes somewhere. Can't be done.
Besides which, Jimbo, in his role as head of state, isn't going to stand for anything that topples the machinery of government to the detriment of the project. Rampaging rogue Arbcoms would be swiftly booted off, regardless of whether they were elected legitimately or not.
Quoting Skyring skyring@gmail.com:
On Dec 4, 2007 12:13 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box -
does
anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like
the
Arb elections?
No, The vast majority of banned users are headaches enough without letting them vote in ArbCom elections. We already see people voting oppose to arbitrators who were involved in proposals against non-banned people. We don't need to further encourage that sort of thing. I find that unfortunate because I suspect that your votes would be interesting in this election (and more selfishly I suspect you might vote for me) but exceptions cannot be made for this sort of thing.
So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy.
We've been over this before. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Wikipedia is an attempt to build a user-editable free encyclopedia. Furthermore, many democracies do not let felons vote, and even more do not let prisoners vote. So not letting banned users vote isn't exactly the most undemocratic thing anyways.
Let's cut the crap about voting and just have Jimbo appoint anybody he likes. Who cares if banned users vote? They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will also be very much in the minority.
Really? Do you realize how many users have been banned? The signal to noise ratio if banned users were allowed to vote would be even worse than it is now. As to Jimbo thing- we are trying to run things by consensus, that's a fundamental part of how we attempt to do things, and simply put, banned users aren't part of the consensus-forming community (just as the prisoners and felons are not part of the democratic constituency). Furthermore, Jimbo is very busy and has other things to do. But yes, at some level the ArbCom elections are the community advising Jimbo who we want on ArbCom. He tinkers with those results occasionally, but he would face an uproar if he ignored them. Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees with the "advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a lot more attention to the advice part).
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
Let's get a grip on reality, please.
Do you want Amorrow to be undoing vandalism? Be realistic here. The vast majority of banned users will not be nearly as productive or helpful in this regard as PM would be (and indeed, that's a reason I really am not convinced that his ban makes sense) but extreme cases aren't useful test cases. Banned users as a group are people who we have decided having around does more harm than good as editors. That doesn't mean they can't contribute if they see something helpful, they just need to do so more indirectly. I've worked with banned users in the past (especially ones who are notable people who have concerns about their articles or organizations they are associated with) and will continue to do so. They have many avenues to help the project. Personally, I find continuing to help in a general sense (as PM wants to) a bit odd. If I were banned, I doubt I'd have the altruism or loyalty to wish to continue contributing to a project after that. But apparently many banned users feel differently.
On Dec 3, 2007 9:55 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees with the "advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a lot more attention to the advice part).
Is Jimbo supposed to be the President or the Senate in this analogy?
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 3, 2007 9:55 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees with the "advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a lot more attention to the advice part).
Is Jimbo supposed to be the President or the Senate in this analogy?
The President. It really isn't a very good analogy. After I sent it I realized how it doesn't work well (and the fact that you need to ask that question really demonstrates how bad it is).
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 9:55 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees with the "advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a lot more attention to the advice part).
Is Jimbo supposed to be the President or the Senate in this analogy?
Neither, he's the electoral college.
Ec
On Dec 4, 2007 3:06 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 9:55 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees
with the
"advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a
lot more
attention to the advice part).
Is Jimbo supposed to be the President or the Senate in this analogy?
Neither, he's the electoral college.
Hasn't the analogy always been the Queen with her reserve powers?
Johnleemk
Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees
with the
"advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a
lot more
attention to the advice part).
Is Jimbo supposed to be the President or the Senate in this analogy?
Neither, he's the electoral college.
Hasn't the analogy always been the Queen with her reserve powers?
Yes, and that analogy works a bit better. Jimbo becomes the Queen and ArbCom become the Cabinet (considered as part of the Privy Council), the Cabinet is officially selected by the Queen, but on the advice of the Prime Minister (and, by extension, the governing party, Parliament and the voting public - we skip the first two and have direct representation). In practice, the Queen just does whatever the PM says, but in theory she can appoint whoever she likes. Jimbo invokes his powers a little more often than the Queen, of course.
On Dec 3, 2007 9:55 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Personally, I find continuing to help in a general sense (as PM wants to) a bit odd.
It's particularly odd considering that he never showed much interest in reverting vandalism before he was banned.
Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
Personally, I find continuing to help in a general sense a bit odd. If I were banned, I doubt I'd have the altruism...
Personally, I think several things are clear:
1. Banned is banned.
2. In a sufficiently large internet (such as, for instance, the one we're using), it is not possible to tell the difference between a reformed troll and a troll who is cleverly trolling in a new way.
3. If a banned user wants to reform and return to the project, there's one sure-fire way to do it: under a brand-new username, with *zero* acknowledgement of the former identity.
4. If a banned user wants to reform and return to the project but insists on making reference to the former identity (whether coy or explicit), it ain't gonna work.
5. Given (1), (2), and (3) above, if we spend *any* time discussing *any* of this on behalf of a banned user, *we are being trolled*. (Or we might as well be.)
I'm serious about #5. The 150 words I've posted here are 150 too many.
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:23:36 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
- Given (1), (2), and (3) above, if we spend *any* time discussing
*any* of this on behalf of a banned user, *we are being trolled*. (Or we might as well be.)
Steve, thank you. That is a great summary.
I just wish I didn't handle trolls badly...
Guy (JzG)
On 12/5/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm serious about #5. The 150 words I've posted here are 150 too many.
No, that was really useful. Uh, I don't suppose you want to make a [[Wikipedia:Trolls]] or something that we can hereon point to?
Steve