...

Toby Bartels wrote:

I guess that I just want the system be clear and above-board. Even if only Jimbo, Brion, and mav (all of whom /I/ universally respect ^_^) are the only people with access to the witch-huniting software, I still think that any hunting that they do should be publicly logged. Exactly what this entails would depend on the system, of course. Maybe I don't grasp what you're thinking of in enough detail?

I agree. It needs to be carefully organised, not haphazard. The reason why I suggested Jimbo, Brion and Mav was because Jimbo . . . well in his case the reason is obvious, Brion is our number 1 software guy and Mav is someone widely respected who has shown on the whole great tact, is a consensus builder and is someone whom from what I have seen is not likely to have a 'head the posse' approach but would approach the issue demanding a high level of proof. And having three rather than one or two allows for occasions when someone is off wiki or on holidays. It is unlikely that all three would disappear from wiki at the same time.

I would disagree with the description of what I am suggesting as 'witchhunting' software. The whole idea is to avoid witchhunts and allow for three of the most responsible people on wiki to quietly keep an eye on the IP range associated with Michael, DW or a similar character. Both Michael and DW tend to leave 'footprints' both in their editing style and in their treatment of other wikipedians. DW in particular is a serious threat to wiki; from raising possible serious legal difficulties over copyright photos, to threatening to sue anyone who 'outs' him, to scaring off newbies and not so new-bies with his behaviour.

The rules should be:

/Only/ multiple banned users will a history of causing actual or potentially serious damage to wiki should be capable of being checked out; If evidence is found when examining a suspicious user's behaviour that they are (a) editing in the style and manner of a banned user; (b) acting towards wikipedian in a manner consistent with the behaviour of the multiple banned user; (c) come from the IP range of that banned user

then a report detailing the transgressions of the user and the strong suspicion as to the identity of the user, should be brought to general attention, along the lines of - 'this is the evidence we have found. Your opinions sought on the next step'. That could be done on the wiki list, along the lines of - 'please express your opinions. If there are serious doubts, please express them within next 48 hours'. Unless it is clear that the consensus opinion on the list is not to do anything and let the issue drop, the information would ''go live'' on a special wiki page. So the whole process should operate on three stages: quiet check, list discussion, full public debate on wiki, with at each stage acting as a system of checks and balances to protect the innocent and require a high standard of evidence. So if Jimbo, Brion and Mav find no evidence, the issue is dropped. If they have strong suspicions but the list says 'no' the issue is dropped. If Jimbo/Brion/Mav and the list think 'there is something serious happening here' then the details go on /full/ public record on wiki, for a time limited debate and a decision by everyone.

All that would be the 'active' stage. As a protection, there would also be the 'archive' stage, where all wikipedians could find out whether checks had been going on, etc. So a /public/ record should be kept of all 'checks'. That record should be accessible to all users. But it should be time delayed. The last thing we need is DW to check the revelant page to see if he has been rumbled and is /currently/ being checked. So a report on each month's checks should be put into the open one calendar month after a particular month' searches. So searches carried out in June, for example, would be posted on 1st August, July on 1st September. That time delay would ensure that whatever searches were carried out will have ceased and won't be ungoing (though if one was, a note could be put saying that an ongoing check was continuing and the details will be posted as soon as it reaches a conclusion).

The odds are that most of the time there will be no checks of any sort. But in the event of a serious problem arising, wiki should have a team in place with access to additional software so that they can review suspicious behaviour of the sort that seems to be orchestrated and if not caught could damage wiki and all our work. A system of checks and balances should exist to halt the process at any stage if the consensus was that the suspicions are wrong or the evidence doesn't add up. And transparency would be achieved by having details of all checks available, though with a time delay to enable checks to be carried out in the first instance in privacy and so avoiding witchhunts or letting DW or whomever know they are being checked out, so allowing them to play cat and mouse by changing IPs, changing identities, or disappearing for a few days until the coast was clear. Personally I don't think we need to be told " [[User:Slugman]] checked out'', simply ''a user within xyp IP range was checked out amid suspicions that they were a multiple banned user. No evidence was found to substantiate the suspicion."

This process would not replace the standard hard banning procedure. It would simply add another line of defence for dealing with /the/ most extreme behaviour of the sort we have /enjoyed/ from DW and which we can no doubt expect to experience on occasion from him and others in the future. It might also act as a defence which wiki can use if someone as DW did starts throwing around legal threats, given that the process would have plenty of checks and balances; 3 people doing the preliminary work, its approval on the list and its discussion on wiki. So they could not claim they were the victim of a witchhunt but of a careful process of examination and thorough review involving three different parts of wiki.

JT

_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail