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. Alec ****** Such statements often have a bit more behind them than the people who make them are at liberty to disclose openly. Alkivar agreed with a banned user, for instance. He didn't get desysopped for merely having an opinion.
A certain relatively small core of banned users do collaborate together and they attempt to game the concept you articulate.
-Durova
On 11/15/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Alec wrote:
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.
Such statements often have a bit more behind them than the people who make them are at liberty to disclose openly.
Oh Lordy, Durova-- that's true, there are cases like that but it's an incredibly dangerous direction. Secret claims the accused person can't rebut. Secret claims that can't be discussed in public. And as you imply, "doube secret" evidence-- where not only is the specific content of the evidence secret, but even the existence of such evidence might be secret (or at least unknown).
Maybe there's some secret evidence that suggests DanT really is in league with WR? Maybe there's some evidence that GTBacchus really is an advocate sent by ED? Maybe even there's some secret evidence being spread against me???
I hope not. And I hope no one will assume that "somebody must know something, or else they wouldn't make the allegation" the next time somebody throws out one of those "How's your buddy Awbry doing" jokes that are so common round here.
For my part, I will henceforth assume that there IS no secret evidence in all discusion I'm aware of, unless somebody specifically tells me otherwise. AGF _must_ entail Assume There's No Secret Evidence Out There Against the Person.
Alec
(as a personal trophy-- I made it through that entire email without once using a metaphor involving ANY past or present political event involving secret evidence or secret trials, including, but not limited to: the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russian, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Magna Carta, Acts 25:16, or Guantanemo Bay. And boy, that's not easy for a nut like me to do, so go me! visions of all of them were dancing in my head through that whole email, but Wikipedia is NOT the real world, Blocking is NOT execution, an Arbcom case is not a trial, Durova is a kind intelligent person and NOT a fascist dictator, and I am NOT a member of any resistance party about to restore my nation to freedom. But I hafta say-- the temptation was heavy hehehe)
On 15/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Oh Lordy, Durova-- that's true, there are cases like that but it's an incredibly dangerous direction. Secret claims the accused person can't rebut. Secret claims that can't be discussed in public. And as you imply, "doube secret" evidence-- where not only is the specific content of the evidence secret, but even the existence of such evidence might be secret (or at least unknown).
It's usually problematic in the case of checkuser evidence. "Supply your evidence!" "Er, no, I'm not allowed to." "Then unblock!" "Er, no." "FACIST ROUGE ADNIM!" The way around this is to get other checkusers for their opinion. But even two or three doesn't stop the querulous and their supporters from writing megabytes of ANI. Because people seem to think checkuser is magic pixie dust from Heck. When actually it's only something that serves to corroborate (or not) existing suspicion.
- d.
Durova wrote:
It's usually problematic in the case of checkuser evidence. "Supply your evidence!" "Er, no, I'm not allowed to." "Then unblock!" "Er, no." "FACIST ROUGE ADNIM!"
:) Well, I'm glad I'm on-record that you are definitely not a fascist then.
Well, those no doubt the life of a caring admin is definitely a hard one. I could never, ever do it. Being a gadfly is a much easier job, although you do risk the populace forcing you to drink hemlock if you get too good at it.
In all my rants and ravings, I haven't said thank you to the "Thin Mop-carrying Line" for all the article I've read that were not overrun by sockpuppets. So, thank you-- truly. Wikipedia is a wonderful place, it wouldn't last long without ya'll, and you deserve what few laurels you get.
Alec