On 12 Nov 2007 at 12:01:35 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
- Links to advocacy by banned or blocked users, in content debates.
This is completely consistent with existing policy for handling banned users: banned is banned, we ban people because they can't contribute neutrally, taking it offsite does not fix that problem.
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities devoted to gathering and sharing information.
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
On 12 Nov 2007 at 12:01:35 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
- Links to advocacy by banned or blocked users, in content debates.
This is completely consistent with existing policy for handling banned users: banned is banned, we ban people because they can't contribute neutrally, taking it offsite does not fix that problem.
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities devoted to gathering and sharing information.
Links that serve actually useful purposes should be kept. There's no reason however that we should just have links whose sole purpose is to harass or malign. They don't serve any purpose. I disagree somewhat with Guy on whether we should actively remove such links, since in most cases I think the drama created from such removal gives the sites more attention than they would get otherwise and can in many cases take up more time and effort than leaving them in place would, but the basic idea is sound. People forget that when we say that Wikipedia is not censored we are talking about articles. There's nothing wrong with banning links or other matters in other space if it will benefit the encyclopedia.
Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
...People forget that when we say that Wikipedia is not censored we are talking about articles. There's nothing wrong with banning links or other matters in other space if it will benefit the encyclopedia.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. In general, banning and censoring things is *wrong*, and saying it's okay under some circumstances as long as it "helps the project" is somewhat too Machiavellian for my taste. It's like saying that accepting advertisements to support the Wikimedia Foundation is okay if it will benefit the encyclopedia, or spamming Usenet newsgroups urging people to make donations is okay if it will benefit the encyclopedia.
As you said in the part of your message I snipped, attempting to ban or remove things from non-article space can result in large amounts of unnecessary drama, not to mention wasted time, extreme positions becoming solidified, productive editors being alienated, etc. I know I'm not alone in suspecting that the set of removals that will actually have a net benefit to the encyclopedia (and hence be acceptable under your proposition) is near zero.
Furthermore, something I'm noticing more and more lately is that an inescapable part of this sort of banning and censoring is a disquieting element of paternalism. The removals are performed by a small number of presumably-trusted senior editors, on the grounds that they know that the material being removed is "hurtful to the project". But since part of the alleged hurt is always the associated hype and drama, the removers tend to ask that the removals not be discussed either. We're supposed to trust that the person doing the removing knows what's best for the project, knows what's best for us, is better at deciding for us what we should and shouldn't discuss than we are ourselves. Obviously, the bigger and more disparate the project becomes, the harder it is to maintain that kind of trust.
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
...People forget that when we say that Wikipedia is not censored we are talking about articles. There's nothing wrong with banning links or other matters in other space if it will benefit the encyclopedia.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. In general, banning and censoring things is *wrong*, and saying it's okay under some circumstances as long as it "helps the project" is somewhat too Machiavellian for my taste. It's like saying that accepting advertisements to support the Wikimedia Foundation is okay if it will benefit the encyclopedia, or spamming Usenet newsgroups urging people to make donations is okay if it will benefit the encyclopedia.
I agree that other moral considerations can override building the encyclopedia (I believe the canonical example someone made a while back was that even if you could shoot a massively disruptive vandal, you shouldn't). However, I disagree that this is one of them. Simply put, some zones are free speech zones and other s are not. While in the ideal world, I'd like them all to be free speech zones, Wikipedia is not one of them. If a group of friends had a long rambling conversation about how a date went on ANI we'd ask them to take it elsewhere. So we already are not making non-article space a free speech zone. The cause for it is simply different. Different venues are useful for different things, and we may in some circumstances need to decide that Wikipedia is not a venue for certain types of links.
As you said in the part of your message I snipped, attempting to ban or remove things from non-article space can result in large amounts of unnecessary drama, not to mention wasted time, extreme positions becoming solidified, productive editors being alienated, etc. I know I'm not alone in suspecting that the set of removals that will actually have a net benefit to the encyclopedia (and hence be acceptable under your proposition) is near zero.
Yes, I suspect that the set is very small. I for one don't see why some editors have gone through old archives and unlinked many of these. It seems like a waste of time when we have many other things to do. (But I'm not going to bother making noise about it because the resulting drama would outweigh any possible benefit)
Furthermore, something I'm noticing more and more lately is that an inescapable part of this sort of banning and censoring is a disquieting element of paternalism. The removals are performed by a small number of presumably-trusted senior editors, on the grounds that they know that the material being removed is "hurtful to the project". But since part of the alleged hurt is always the associated hype and drama, the removers tend to ask that the removals not be discussed either. We're supposed to trust that the person doing the removing knows what's best for the project, knows what's best for us, is better at deciding for us what we should and shouldn't discuss than we are ourselves. Obviously, the bigger and more disparate the project becomes, the harder it is to maintain that kind of trust.
I think I have a higher level of trust for many of the editors concerned. And certainly one very basic idea in Wikipedia is transparency. But there are limits to that (which is one reason we don't have all deleted articles visible to all editors). I do agree that these issues are a serious concern, and they will get only worse as the project gets larger.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:10:07 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Furthermore, something I'm noticing more and more lately is that an inescapable part of this sort of banning and censoring is a disquieting element of paternalism. The removals are performed by a small number of presumably-trusted senior editors, on the grounds that they know that the material being removed is "hurtful to the project". But since part of the alleged hurt is always the associated hype and drama, the removers tend to ask that the removals not be discussed either. We're supposed to trust that the person doing the removing knows what's best for the project, knows what's best for us, is better at deciding for us what we should and shouldn't discuss than we are ourselves. Obviously, the bigger and more disparate the project becomes, the harder it is to maintain that kind of trust.
This is a very difficult line to tread. The Wikipedia community in general is much given to moral panic, and everybody has an opinion on everything.
I am a great advocate of discussion. If a link is removed, good faith discussion is *absolutely* appropriate. If the person removing the link can't make a rational argument then we have a problem.
On the other hand, there seems to be a presumption in some quarters that the discussion should only start *once the link is back in*. This is, to my mind, completely wrong. If a long-standing editor identifies anything as potentially damaging, we should extend the courtesy of discussing it before simply reverting. It's part of making sure that Wikipedia is not perceived as evil, and part of making sure that people have the confidence to contribute to controversial areas.
We should also remember that what we are talking about here is the margins. Most people with strong views do *not* get banned.
We are talking, for the most part here, about banned users, and banned users tend to advocate content which is pretty far from the ideal of NPOV - that's why they get banned. We are, despite all that is said here about the margins, extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion.
There is a lot to be said for one year bans, as handed down by ArbCom. If someone goes away for a year and then comes back and behaves impeccably, well, kudos to them. If they consistently attempt to evade the ban, then that tells us something quite important about them and their attitude to Wikipedia. If they go away and actively campaign to damage Wikipedia in retaliation, or harass the people who they perceive as having banned them, that tells us something else again. The more they do that kind of thing, the less I want to hear what they have to say. I don't think this is an especially remarkable viewpoint.
Guy (JzG)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:49:34 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities devoted to gathering and sharing information.
And I have a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that banning is "suppression", and indeed with your continued use of such loaded language to describe many attempts to create and maintain a safe environment for those editors who are, unlike banned users, prepared to work within our policy and community mores.
When we ban people it's because they have shown a complete inability to contribute neutrally. Taking their opinions offsite does not fix that problem. If they consider they have fixed the problem and have neutral input to make on a subject then they are more than welcome to appeal the ban. Luke 15:7 and all that.
We don't make them unpersons, we simply tell them, regretfully but firmly, that their input is no longer welcome. I completely fail to see why taking this input to a place where we have absolutely no control over it whatsoever would materially affect that judgment. If a view is significant and mainstream then we will usually have many unbanned users prepared to advocate it in a way that satisfies policy.
Guy (JzG)
Dan wrote:
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities devoted to gathering and sharing information.
Guy wrote:
And I have a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that banning is "suppression", and indeed with your continued use of such loaded language to describe many attempts to create and maintain a safe environment for those editors who are, unlike banned users, prepared to work within our policy and community mores.
[...]
We don't make them unpersons, we simply tell them, regretfully but firmly, that their input is no longer welcome.
[...]
If a view is significant and mainstream then we will usually have many unbanned users prepared to advocate it in a way that satisfies policy.
Ahh, but the specific ban isn't the problem. I haven't seen a ban yet I disagreed with. It's a weapon of last resort, and so far, ever single instance I've investigated, the ban was deserved and inevitable.
The problem is-- we don't leave it at that. But when we ban somebody, we don't let them go-- we let their ghost haunt the project. We let the spectre banned users continue to disrupt our community and divide us long after that specific user has left the project. So hurt and shattered our we by our experiences with the banned, we continue to push against them even after they have themselves been banned.
How many times have I seen "This change was supported by <Enemy of the Project _____>." as a justification to revert good-faith users in a content dispute. How many times have I hard "You're probably in league with <Enemy of the Project ____>" slung as a personal attack without one shred of evidence? How many times do the names of the Enemies of the Project get mentioned to support some argument?
The banned are banned. Just as we shouldn't consider their view to change the encyclopedia in ways they would like, so we shouldn't use their views to justify changing the encyclopedia in ways they would dislike.
Some people-- far too many, have come to view the encyclopedia as a way to minimize the influence of the banned, rather than view banning as a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
No one's weeping over the banned. What we fear is that these attackers, by inspiring such hatred, may be able to do more damage to the encyclopedia AFTER they are banned, through the mere mention of their name, than they ever could have done as unbanned users.
Criminals are criminals-- they'll be handled by the police, and little we can do to add or detract. And trolls are trolls. They'll be blocked, they'll be banned, they'll be reverted, and the project will survive. I don't actively fear either of criminals nor trolls destroying the project-- all they can do is slow us down.
But statement like: "This user edited in a way that supported an Enemy of the Project" "This user inserted a link to an Enemy of the Project" "Oh, but aren't you friends with Enemy of the Project".
These ARE dangerous. Left unchecked, these could be our undoing.
Alec
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:17:17 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Ahh, but the specific ban isn't the problem. I haven't seen a ban yet I disagreed with. It's a weapon of last resort, and so far, ever single instance I've investigated, the ban was deserved and inevitable.
And I have to say a certain amount of "argue first, then investigate" was evident in your handling of one dispute :-)
The problem is-- we don't leave it at that. But when we ban somebody, we don't let them go-- we let their ghost haunt the project. We let the spectre banned users continue to disrupt our community and divide us long after that specific user has left the project. So hurt and shattered our we by our experiences with the banned, we continue to push against them even after they have themselves been banned.
This is simply not true. The only time this happens is when *they* insist on not letting it lie. Do you consider that we are to blame for JB196's 500+ sockpuppets? Only in the sense that "if you don't do as I say I will kill the kitten, and it will be YOUR fault!"
How many times have I seen "This change was supported by <Enemy of the Project _____>." as a justification to revert good-faith users in a content dispute. How many times have I hard "You're probably in league with <Enemy of the Project ____>" slung as a personal attack without one shred of evidence? How many times do the names of the Enemies of the Project get mentioned to support some argument?
I have no idea. How many times have you heard it? And how many of those times were from people who mattered in circumstances that mattered?
The banned are banned. Just as we shouldn't consider their view to change the encyclopedia in ways they would like, so we shouldn't use their views to justify changing the encyclopedia in ways they would dislike.
And who's suggesting we do that? Specific examples, please.
Some people-- far too many, have come to view the encyclopedia as a way to minimize the influence of the banned, rather than view banning as a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
Who would those people be? Names, please. I've not come across anyone who thinks that not mentioning banned people is more important than the encyclopaedia. Of course, if you represent linking to a hate site as being crucial to the integrity of the project then it might *seem* as if that's the case, but most of us are, I hope, a good deal more pragmatic than that.
No one's weeping over the banned. What we fear is that these attackers, by inspiring such hatred, may be able to do more damage to the encyclopedia AFTER they are banned, through the mere mention of their name, than they ever could have done as unbanned users.
And this is precisely what I've been saying. We need to disengage. And that includes not actively participating in sites that engage in and support harassment, or with people on those sites who perpetrate that harassment. Alkivar fell for this, with disastrous consequences. Another example was closed on the noticeboards only today.
There is a huge tension here between not wanting to engage in drama, and not wanting to suppress dissent. We are extraordinarily tolerant of dissent. The ANI thread repeating Kohs' mad theory about Jehochman and Durova was prolonged by editors in good standing, but when you pick away at it, the vast majority of the heat turns out to have been injected by sockpuppets and IPs editing through open proxies. Was reverting the closure of that debate a smart move, or a dumb move? I think it was dumb, because the accusations had no merit and no source, other than allegations made by a banned user. That's what banned users are doing *right now* - they are trying very hard to poison our culture, and weaken the fairly weak structures we have in place to prevent anarchy and focus on the core goals of NPOV and verifiability.
Guy (JzG)
The AN/I thread to which Guy refers did not originate with any theory about Durova or Jehochman's actions, but with a specific complaint, which did not mention any of the subsequently aired theories. What I did see was so much drama and piling-on of one sort or another, by editors of good standing and TOR IPs alike, that the original IP who made the report was community-banned just to get rid of it, but without addressing either his complaint, which appeared justified enough for one admin to unblock, and without addressing the fact that his initial actions were to contribute to a discussion on sockpuppets which doesn't appear to be linked in the least to any COI nonsense. That drama and piling-on came precisely because various people assumed it was a banned editor, others pointed out there wasn't any reason to, anonymous IPs muddied the water, and so. The drama was created more by indignation at what everyone feared was 'trolling', and less by actual, IP trolling, which could easily be ignored and laughed at, as indeed it was. This is remarkably evident when one reads the entire thread with some attention.
I'm sure half the people reading the mess the thread eventually became thought that the upshot was that original poster was the sock of a banned user, when I don't think that there was any proof, public or private, that he was anything except a particularly frustrated editor. (Frustrated enough, after being blocked for reporting to AN/I, to have the bad manners to apparently email the blocking admin several times after he was asked not to.) The problem with giving people with large amounts of moral indignation extra discretion is that it is very easy for matters to not be sufficiently investigated, and for the casual observer to come away with the wrong idea. (Then again, maybe Saddam Hussein did have something to do with 9/11.)
RR
On Nov 13, 2007 11:26 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There is a huge tension here between not wanting to engage in drama, and not wanting to suppress dissent. We are extraordinarily tolerant of dissent. The ANI thread repeating Kohs' mad theory about Jehochman and Durova was prolonged by editors in good standing, but when you pick away at it, the vast majority of the heat turns out to have been injected by sockpuppets and IPs editing through open proxies. Was reverting the closure of that debate a smart move, or a dumb move? I think it was dumb, because the accusations had no merit and no source, other than allegations made by a banned user. That's what banned users are doing *right now* - they are trying very hard to poison our culture, and weaken the fairly weak structures we have in place to prevent anarchy and focus on the core goals of NPOV and verifiability.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:05:21 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The AN/I thread to which Guy refers did not originate with any theory about Durova or Jehochman's actions, but with a specific complaint, which did not mention any of the subsequently aired theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.19.33.82&oldid=17...
and the IPs contribs include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry&d...
And so on.
Guy (JzG)
Guy wrote:
Alec wrote:
How many times have I seen "This change was supported by <Enemy of the Project _____>." as a justification to revert good-faith users in a content dispute. How many times have I hard "You're probably in league with <Enemy of the Project ____>" slung as a personal attack without one shred of evidence? How many times do the names of the Enemies of the Project get mentioned to support some argument?
I have no idea. How many times have you heard it? And how many of those times were from people who mattered in circumstances that mattered?
Too many...
Way too many.
If we get through the next three days without somebody accusing somebody of being in league with somebody evil, I'll be really happy.
The banned are banned. Just as we shouldn't consider their view to change the encyclopedia in ways they would like, so we shouldn't use their views to justify changing the encyclopedia in ways they would dislike.
And who's suggesting we do that? Specific examples, please.
Anyone who's suggesting that the consideration of an Banned User's views matters.
So, for a specific example, which I promise I really wasn't TRYING to dredge up-- let's take your ANI post when you indefblocked PrivateMusings. You listed one of his disputed edits as: and HERE SUPPORTING AN EARLIER REVERT BY A JON AWBREY SOCK.
Now, if I understadn things, PM has already told you his identity. you knew he was a longstanding, good-faith editor, not a jon awbrey sock. So what did it matter if a Jon Awbrey sock had made a similar edit. Jon Awbrey doesn't get to affect us anymore. You knew PM was a good-faith editor in a content dispute. You weren't blocking him for being a Awbrey sock. Why invoke Awbrey?
Well, you did it because, of course, we all hat Awbrey. It gets us emotional. It subtly implies that PM and Awbry were in league-- although of course, you knew they weren't. It makes us angry that an Enemy of the Project is screwing up our articles again! And it makes us want to say Yes! Whatever you say! Just get Awbrey out of here! If we are band of villagers, Awbry is a word that makes us grab our torches and our pitchforks.
It's a dynamite debate tactic, but it's not a nice one. It's needless drama incarnate, and personal attacks if ever one was. DanT, Me, GTBacchus, etc have all been subjected to it, and my hope is that it will come to an end.
In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
Who would those people be? Names, please.
Fred and Flonight voted for BADSITES under the name "salt the earth". And since I think they were the first two to vote, it was positively chilling to watch, because I realized that they and I weren't working on the same project at all, and I didn't know if Wikipedia was what I wanted it to be or what they wanted it to be. It turned out okay, but i'm was very very happy when it did.
Incidentally, that's part of why your (Jzg) claim to having gotten three arbcom members to endorse your indefblock of private musings doesn't impress me. Arbcom turned out to be way more diverse than I realize. Turns out, if you ask, you can get two arbiters to vote to overturn WP:NPOV, and potentially one arbiter to redirect Enemies of the Project's biographies to Clown. <sigh>
The ANI thread repeating Kohs' mad theory about Jehochman and Durova was prolonged by editors in good standing, but when you pick away at it, the vast majority of the heat turns out to have been injected by sockpuppets and IPs editing through open proxies.
Was reverting the closure of that debate a smart move, or a dumb move? I think it was dumb, because the accusations had no merit and no source, other than allegations made by a banned user.
See, I couldn't disagree more. People need to consider something, mull it over, discuss it over-- they don't just need to be told the right answer. That's the wiki process for you-- there's much talking involved. If you don't want to have your behavior subjected to good-faith oversight, ya ought not be in the game, I'm afraid. 9 times out of 10, everybody will conclude that that everything was fine.
Police departments often have mandatory review every time an officer fires a weapon. You fire your weapon, the first they they do is take your weapon away, put you on administrative duty, and let everybody take a good hard look at what you did. There will be hard questions. It may seem adversarial. Almost always, they'll pat you on the back at the end of the day, give you weapon back, and tell you ya did right. But the review IS a good thing. Even when it turns out nobody did a thing wrong, the review is good.
There's a rumor going around that good-faith discussion of potential wrongdoing is a problem. It's not. It's just people doing their job. "Trust me, everything is okay and we don't need to talk about this" is a fine sentiment-- and in a few rare cases, people will accept it. But usually, it's just realistic. People are going to want to talk about whether or not SV is Mata Hari. People are going to want to talk about whether Durova has a COI. That's the way the world is, and it's okay.
Trying to squelch discussion won't solve things-- discussions need to be had, and if you take a good faith discussion about potential wrongdoing and try to silence it midway through (because you've already looked into it and know it's substanceless), you just add fuel to the fire.
If you want to piss off humans really really badly-- a perfect recipe is to find people having a discussion amongst themselves and tell them that they're not allowed to have it. Deleting discussions amongst good-faith editors is, I think, ALWAYS a big big mistake. It makes people furious. It makes people mistrust. It makes the situation MORE dramatic, not less. It accomplishes nothing but angering. We've got the space, we've got the bytes-- let the discussions happen.
(obviously, the critical component is GOOD FAITH editors. if people are just abusing the threads for no good reason, sure, delete away).
(and in a second email)
But we do self-censor.
Only if you stretch the word censor to the point that it means any decision at all. For me, the line of censorship comes when we impose a change that DEGRADES the encyclopedia instead of improves it. NOR changes for example, result in a better encyclopedia that's more useful .
Damnatio memoriae, on the other hand, degrades the encyclopedia to accomplish some OTHER aim, like minimized the harm of BADPEOPLE on the community.
We do it all the time. WP:BLP is 100%
self-censorship. So is WP:NOR. We don't include any old thing just because someone wants to, we include it only when it is of direct benefit to the core aims of producing a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia.
"Links aren't content" thing's just absurd and silly. If somebody started randomly delinking all our hotlinks, you'd block them immediately. But anyway, that's not to get into the whole link mess again-- my main focus in this thread has been trying to stop personal attacks.
Alec
On 13/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to squelch discussion won't solve things-- discussions need to be had, and if you take a good faith discussion about potential wrongdoing and try to silence it midway through (because you've already looked into it and know it's substanceless), you just add fuel to the fire.
Indeed. Trying to silence discussion sends a clear message: "We have something to hide".
On Nov 13, 2007 11:41 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Now, if I understadn things, PM has already told you his identity. you knew he was a longstanding, good-faith editor, not a jon awbrey sock.
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007. He had a dozen or so edits in 2005 and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the Essjay affair among others. His encyclopedia-space editing is only about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small handful of articles. Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
I don't think this is a good faith editor. I don't think this supposed original identity is the first identity this person has taken on Wikipedia either.
I don't think it's Awbrey - it's not his style, and does not share his idiosyncracies. However, this is not a person here to contribute in good faith; they're here for the drama.
-Matt
On 11/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007.
I don't think this is a good faith editor. I don't think this supposed original identity is the first identity this person has taken on Wikipedia either.
this is not a person here to contribute in good faith; they're here for the drama.
That's quite a charge. Only sporadic edits the first few years. Spending 4/5ths of his edits on talk and project pages. Lots of involvement in controversial areas. Sure sounds bad. Thank goodness only those of us who opposed BADSITES are subject to such microscopic examination-- if such judgements were unleashed on the Wikipedia population at large, who knows what portion of us would be found without sin.
I can only speak from personal experience. PM was an extremely civil, helpful mediator in a longstanding dispute. He was civil and polite. Ultimately, I think it was his informal mediation that really made the difference and stopped the 6 month long edit war at NPA. Based solely on my interaction-- if he could be as successful elsewhere on the project as he was mediating the NPA dispute, I'd say that if he's spending 4/5 of his time using talk pages on controversial issues, I wish we could get him to dedicate that extra 1/5 to helping resolve disputes.
Granted, that's based on my interaction with him-- I haven't poured through is other identity with a fine-toothed comb. But some big names vouched for him-- I'd be shocked if he had duped them all into thinking he was a good faith editor when he's really a drama troll.
--
As I've said before, from MY point of view, people didn't try to indefblock PM for using an avowed sock puppet account or for edit warring or for being john awbrey. The block surel looked motivated by PM's side in the BADSITES dispute. If PM was making the same edits, but arguing FOR badsites, instead of against, I have a disturbing feeling that the block never would have been considered, nobody would ever tried to even pour through his past to look for a reason to block him, nobody would be badmouthing him right now, and mere discussion about his other identity would probably be deleted for attempting to "out" an editor.
But then, hopefully I'm wrong, and perhaps Guy would have dealt with a Pro-BADSITES PM exactly the same way he dealt with an Anti-BADSITES PM. It's possible I'm just having a bit of a cynical phase about the whole issue. The Salt The Earth (BADSITES) votes, the "redirect michaelmore to [[Clown]] proposal, the PM indefblock attempt-- not to mention the fact that narry a day goes by without someone implying that good faith editors who opposed badsites are somehow in league, supporting, or friends with the perpetrators of criminal or near-criminal harassment.
Oh well-- It'll all come out in the wash. It's just a little bit like watching sausage being made, as the saying goes. :)
Alec
On Nov 13, 2007 1:47 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's quite a charge. Only sporadic edits the first few years. Spending 4/5ths of his edits on talk and project pages. Lots of involvement in controversial areas. Sure sounds bad. Thank goodness only those of us who opposed BADSITES are subject to such microscopic examination-- if such judgements were unleashed on the Wikipedia population at large, who knows what portion of us would be found without sin.
I suspect most of us started off article editing and only got into Wikipolitics and Wikidrama later. I certainly did and most serious contributors to the project did the same. Getting into that kind of stuff practically from the first edit is (IMO) a strong red flag for having worn another name before, and that it's Wikidrama that brings someone back is also troubling. Most of us are addicted to contributing, first, not drama.
Given that practically the first edit after returning was about the Essjay affair - and this was BEFORE the thing really blew up or became all that visible outside of a very small group of fanatical WP-watchers. This suggests, to me, that this person was involved in that group, which reinforces my troubling feeling.
That someone with a frankly short editing history and already willing to engage in controversy feels the need for a shielding sockpuppet account is also quite bizarre. I could understand it from someone who'd never before engaged in that kind of stuff.
I can only think of two reasons for it, one admittedly paranoid - that one being that claiming to be the sockpuppet of an established editor adds a sense of legitimacy that the first account would not have had - a feeling that the original account must be someone with a lot to use. The second is that PM felt he'd not be taken seriously with the edit history he had, and felt that a sockpuppet would escape that. That could be a sincere attempt to start afresh and do things right, OR deception.
As I've said before, from MY point of view, people didn't try to indefblock PM for using an avowed sock puppet account or for edit warring or for being john awbrey. The block surely looked motivated by PM's side in the BADSITES dispute.
From my point of view, making a sockpuppet account in order to engage
in policy debates is already a breach of at least the spirit of the sockpuppet policy; taking a step further and joining in edit wars is worse.
I can't speak for anyone else's motivation, and certainly people are more likely to see problems with the behavior of their opponents than their friends, but I'd have been unhappy with someone on ANY side of this debate doing so with an admitted sock account.
-Matt
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:41:12 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
How many times have I seen "This change was supported by <Enemy of the Project _____>." as a justification to revert good-faith users in a content dispute. How many times have I hard "You're probably in league with <Enemy of the Project ____>" slung as a personal attack without one shred of evidence? How many times do the names of the Enemies of the Project get mentioned to support some argument?
I have no idea. How many times have you heard it? And how many of those times were from people who mattered in circumstances that mattered?
Too many... Way too many.
Diffs would be good....
The banned are banned. Just as we shouldn't consider their view to change the encyclopedia in ways they would like, so we shouldn't use their views to justify changing the encyclopedia in ways they would dislike.
And who's suggesting we do that? Specific examples, please.
Anyone who's suggesting that the consideration of an Banned User's views matters. So, for a specific example, which I promise I really wasn't TRYING to dredge up-- let's take your ANI post when you indefblocked PrivateMusings. You listed one of his disputed edits as: and HERE SUPPORTING AN EARLIER REVERT BY A JON AWBREY SOCK.
Yup, repeating edits made by sockpuppets of banned users is a problem. But then, a lot of what PM did was a problem. Unsurprisingly, I guess, since the sock was registered exclusively to troll^wcontribute to a contentious debate without any comeback on the (limited) history of the main account.
But you're missing a vital point here: PM was never banned. I blocked one account and made it perfectly clear that I would quietly lift any autoblocks. All he had to do was go on editing with the main account.
Here's the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&d...
And it's a misrepresentation of that often misrepresented policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, which is not at all about supporting links (such as linking a blog as the supporting reference for the Really Vital Fact that the subject has... a blog). It's about explicitly content, and content which religious and other groups don't like.
I will say, in fairness, that I generally interpret edit summaries including "BLATANT CENSORSHIP" (sic) as an indication of an editor on a mission. In this case that diagnosis turned out to be spot on, of course.
So: I blocked a self-admitted sock for edit warring over a gratuitous link to the theory being actively peddled by banned user Judd Bagley and banned user Daniel Brandt, brought to the attention of the blogger by either one of them or a fellow member of their web forum, in a revert war precipitated by a sockpuppet of banned user Jon Awbrey.
But of course the problem here could not *possibly* be mad conspiracy theories, attempts to undermine admins by banned users with a grudge, rampant sockpuppetry by banned users, sockpuppet accounts registered just to stir controversy - no, it *must* be admin abuse and censorship, because Wikipedia always censors dissent, right?. How foolish of me not to realise.
Oh, wait, back to the original question: do you think I was suggesting changing the encyclopaedia in a way that Awbrey would or would not like? Think again. My involvement with Awbrey is strictly limited to playing whack-a-mole with the contents of his sock drawer and undoing the resultant collateral damage. If you could persuade him to just go away and leave us alone I can promise you that I will never give him another thought, ever.
Now, if I understadn things, PM has already told you his identity. you knew he was a longstanding, good-faith editor, not a jon awbrey sock. So what did it matter if a Jon Awbrey sock had made a similar edit. Jon Awbrey doesn't get to affect us anymore. You knew PM was a good-faith editor in a content dispute. You weren't blocking him for being a Awbrey sock. Why invoke Awbrey?
No, he was not a long-standing good-faith editor, he was an editor with a fairly limited and not at all spotless history, including a fair bit of controversial editing of controversial content and at least two other accounts, both equally limited in history. And three arbitrators agreed that this was not an appropriate use of an alternate account.
Why invoke Awbrey? Because Awbrey started the whole mess.
Well, you did it because, of course, we all hat Awbrey. It gets us emotional. It subtly implies that PM and Awbry were in league-- although of course, you knew they weren't. It makes us angry that an Enemy of the Project is screwing up our articles again! And it makes us want to say Yes! Whatever you say! Just get Awbrey out of here! If we are band of villagers, Awbry is a word that makes us grab our torches and our pitchforks.
I'm amazed! You can read minds! Hopefully more accurately than you can judge intent in editing, since you've already apologised once for completely misjudging a removal of mine, asserting it was a misplaced BADSITES removal when actually it was precisely as stated: removal of an offsite comment by a banned user, as it happens inserted by a sockpuppet of another banned user.
see, we keep coming back to this business of banned users. I find myself wondering why I have to spend so much time and effort defending myself from ill-founded allegations, when the real problem appears to me, as an admittedly interested party, to be the steadfast refusal of a small coterie of banned users to leave us the hell alone?
See, the reason they do it is blindingly obvious: attention whoring. They love the drama. Me, I'd be much happier if people just looked at the facts, nodded and moved on. But each go-round we have a whole new group of people who demand that their every tiny curiosity be satisfied - and if we keep long term abuse pages, then we're glorifying vandalism. Me, I've performed courtesy blanking or deletion on a number of long-term abuse related pages, to help people disappear with dignity. Guess what? I get shit for that as well. Seems like I can't win.
In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
Who would those people be? Names, please.
Fred and Flonight voted for BADSITES under the name "salt the earth". And since I think they were the first two to vote, it was positively chilling to watch, because I realized that they and I weren't working on the same project at all, and I didn't know if Wikipedia was what I wanted it to be or what they wanted it to be. It turned out okay, but i'm was very very happy when it did.
But there, you;re making value judgments about other people's motives. I would say that if you asked me who was more committed to the project, Fred Bauder and FloNight or you and Pirvatemusings and Dan Tobias, I'm awful sorry but I'm afraid Fred and Syney would get my vote every time. No contest. Not because they support removal of links to offsite harassment, but because they have contributed a vast amount to this encyclopaedia and handled any amount of abuse as arbitrators.
What you *haven't* done is cite any example of anyone who has advocated not mentioning banned attackers as being more important than the encyclopaedia. I think I can say with very close to 100% confidence that Fred and Sydney were motivated by absolute concern for the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Who's suggesting that not mentioning banned attackers is *more important than the encyclopaedia* - your premise, you provide the examples please.
Incidentally, that's part of why your (Jzg) claim to having gotten three arbcom members to endorse your indefblock of private musings doesn't impress me. Arbcom turned out to be way more diverse than I realize. Turns out, if you ask, you can get two arbiters to vote to overturn WP:NPOV, and potentially one arbiter to redirect Enemies of the Project's biographies to Clown. <sigh>
Please cite which two arbitrators would vote to overturn NPOV. Diffs are necessary for this, I think.
See, I couldn't disagree more. People need to consider something, mull it over, discuss it over-- they don't just need to be told the right answer. That's the wiki process for you-- there's much talking involved. If you don't want to have your behavior subjected to good-faith oversight, ya ought not be in the game, I'm afraid. 9 times out of 10, everybody will conclude that that everything was fine.
So you say. Me, I call that pointless drama. An anonymous editor (with trolling edits) comes along to push a mad theory originating with a known COI spammer aiming to undermine Wikipedia for his own commercial ends. Hmmmmm. How long should "people" need to discuss that do you think? Five seconds? Ten maybe?
The person who did most to prolong that debate skimped on their research to the point of not actually bothering to even read the talk page of one of the people he was accusing, on which page there was, prominently displayed, an thorough and compelling refutation.
Guess you missed that part?
Police departments often have mandatory review every time an officer fires a weapon. You fire your weapon, the first they they do is take your weapon away, put you on administrative duty, and let everybody take a good hard look at what you did. There will be hard questions. It may seem adversarial. Almost always, they'll pat you on the back at the end of the day, give you weapon back, and tell you ya did right. But the review IS a good thing. Even when it turns out nobody did a thing wrong, the review is good.
What you are asking for is to invoke that process every time a long-term jailbird walks into the station-house and says "hey, that guy who arrested me, he pulled a weapon! Better investigate him!" and then runs off.
Oh, and for your analogy to work, the review would have to be conducted with a peanut gallery full of all the other ne'er do well's that officer ever arrested, charged or had jailed. We'd have to let the jailed ones use an assumed identity, too, so that people don't feel their heckling is tainted in any way.
Anyway, this is making me angry, and that's not going to help anyone, so I'm stopping there. Do be sure to check out the ongoing threads in respect of Jehochman and Durova and see if you can find *any credible evidence whatsoever* to support the accusations.
Guy (JzG)
Just to repeat: the original edits by that IP were not trolling, but relevant contributions to the discussion at WT:SOCK, but put with a directness - not drama - that most of us would have avoided. Of the subsequent edits before he was blocked, I didn't see any 'pushing' of the COIanalyst theory. The most he said was "As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" to Jehochman, which, as has been pointed out on AN/I, is an unfortunate interpretation that could be made by someone glancing through Jehochman's userpage, if someone hadn't read the subpage in which he addresses those issues. It's precisely the lack of nuance that causes this to be interpreted in the manner in which Guy has which has concerned so many people. This is not sympathizing with disruptive users, this is not seeking to disrupt the project, this is simply a concern that some people are getting so heated that they are losing some of their judgment. So, yes. Under these circumstances I would have hoped for more than "five or ten seconds". I would have hoped for a quiet, drama- and hyperbole-free discussion of whether the IP's edits were block-worthy, and then we could have moved on. That this did not happen was not because of the IP.
RR
On Nov 14, 2007 4:29 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:41:12 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
See, I couldn't disagree more. People need to consider something, mull it over, discuss it over-- they don't just need to be told the right answer. That's the wiki process for you-- there's much talking involved. If you don't want to have your behavior subjected to good-faith oversight, ya ought not be in the game, I'm afraid. 9 times out of 10, everybody will conclude that that everything was fine.
So you say. Me, I call that pointless drama. An anonymous editor (with trolling edits) comes along to push a mad theory originating with a known COI spammer aiming to undermine Wikipedia for his own commercial ends. Hmmmmm. How long should "people" need to discuss that do you think? Five seconds? Ten maybe?
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:57:28 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Just to repeat: the original edits by that IP were not trolling, but relevant contributions to the discussion at WT:SOCK, but put with a directness - not drama - that most of us would have avoided.
You think. I think it was repeating a baseless allegation made by a banned user with a grudge. But then, I have been harassed by these people for so long that I am inclined to think that anything which has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate intent.
I seem to recall that the IP turned out to be using Tor as well, but that might just be the other IPs who stoked the drama.
Of the subsequent edits before he was blocked, I didn't see any 'pushing' of the COIanalyst theory. The most he said was "As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" to Jehochman, which, as has been pointed out on AN/I, is an unfortunate interpretation that could be made by someone glancing through Jehochman's userpage, if someone hadn't read the subpage in which he addresses those issues.
Quite. So it was an allegation picked up "somewhere" and not investigated with any diligence whatsoever. I have a word for that...
It's precisely the lack of nuance that causes this to be interpreted in the manner in which Guy has which has concerned so many people. This is not sympathizing with disruptive users, this is not seeking to disrupt the project, this is simply a concern that some people are getting so heated that they are losing some of their judgment. So, yes. Under these circumstances I would have hoped for more than "five or ten seconds". I would have hoped for a quiet, drama- and hyperbole-free discussion of whether the IP's edits were block-worthy, and then we could have moved on. That this did not happen was not because of the IP.
Which we had, except for the Tor nodes and sockpuppets which heated the debate, and the admin who repeated the allegation about Durova also without bothering to check the facts *at all*.
Just a quick question for you here: for how long does an unsubstantiated allegation made by our detractors and brought to us through Tor nodes have to be discussed?
Guy (JzG)
On 11/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:57:28 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Just to repeat: the original edits by that IP were not trolling, but relevant contributions to the discussion at WT:SOCK, but put with a directness - not drama - that most of us would have avoided.
You think. I think it was repeating a baseless allegation made by a banned user with a grudge. But then, I have been harassed by these people for so long that I am inclined to think that anything which has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate intent.
Okay!! Well, we're making progress. That's basically all I've been saying. There's been a culture developed where good-faithed editors who "sound somehow similar" to the banned people generally face an assumption of bad-faith and are often inappropriately treated incivilly because of it.
I think this is a natural human response to feeling "under attack"-- people get this "under siege" mentality, get a little hostile, a little hypervigilent. Wanting to protect your team. To create a safe place. To stamp out attacks. To defeat the enemy, etc. Falling victiming to that trend doesn't make you a bad person or a bad-faith editor-- just a loyal wikipedian.
It's great that you recognize a tendency to equate "similarity to banned users" with deliberate bad faith. It's bad that you don't automatically see this as a problem that needs fixing. But one step at a time.
Alec
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:02:43 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
You think. I think it was repeating a baseless allegation made by a banned user with a grudge. But then, I have been harassed by these people for so long that I am inclined to think that anything which has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate intent.
Okay!! Well, we're making progress. That's basically all I've been saying. There's been a culture developed where good-faithed editors who "sound somehow similar" to the banned people generally face an assumption of bad-faith and are often inappropriately treated incivilly because of it.
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
Let me correct a misconception you seem to be carrying. When an admin with long experience of one of our long-term abusers identifies a pattern of behaviour matching that abuser, you would be *amazed* how often CheckUser reveals that the IPs are either the same or open proxies.
You'd also be amazed how often those admins are sincerely trying to defend the project against abuse.
I am sure that one day an innocent, completely uninvolved, good-faith contributor will come along and ask, using an open proxy they've not used before, that we investigate some conspiracy theory they picked up on a website devoted to attacking and harassing our editors. One day, but I don't think it's happened yet.
You really do seem to be extending an assumption of good faith to the banned that you are not extending to long-term contributors to Wikipedia. I find that more than somewhat irritating.
Guy (JzG)
JzG wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:02:43 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Okay!! Well, we're making progress. That's basically all I've been saying. There's been a culture developed where good-faithed editors who "sound somehow similar" to the banned people generally face an assumption of bad-faith and are often inappropriately treated incivilly because of it.
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
I suspect he did. And I wondered if you'd take it that way. Do you have any idea how stubborn and single-minded you're sounding, by so consistently missing the points people are trying to make? (I'm not talking specifically about Alec, but rather about everyone in this whole, extended debate.)
Let me correct a misconception you seem to be carrying. When an admin with long experience of one of our long-term abusers identifies a pattern of behaviour matching that abuser, you would be *amazed* how often CheckUser reveals that the IPs are either the same or open proxies.
You'd also be amazed how often those admins are sincerely trying to defend the project against abuse.
Guy: with perhaps one or two exceptions, no one is denying that there are trolls, vandals, sockpuppeteers and abusers that desperately need to be summarily banned and/or utterly ignored. Furthermore, no one is denying that a relatively small number of editors are spending long, dedicated hours doing frustrating, unsung work sincerely trying to help the project and defend it against abuse.
When people ask questions about what you're doing, *you* need to do what you insist everyone else do, and assume good faith. You need to stop assuming they're all against all aspects of what you and your friends are doing. You need to understand what they're actually concerned about.
The complaint is not that the real trolls and vandals don't need banning. The complaints are instead about things like the transparency with which the bannings and ancillary actions are carried out.
We have some admins -- you are one of them -- who are regularly perceived as acting in a callous, high-handed manner. THIS IS A PROBLEM. It may not be a big problem, it may not be a problem that is worth solving or is possible to solve, it may not be a problem that you are willing to admit exists, but it is a problem.
Actually, I take that last part back, because it's pretty clear that it is not a problem that you are, in fact, willing to admit exists. Instead, every time someone criticizes the way you're doing something, you immediately defend yourself for doing the thing at all, and reiterate the reasons why the thing needed doing, and you and your critics end up talking right past each other again.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:51:32 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
I suspect he did. And I wondered if you'd take it that way. Do you have any idea how stubborn and single-minded you're sounding, by so consistently missing the points people are trying to make? (I'm not talking specifically about Alec, but rather about everyone in this whole, extended debate.)
Yes, I am stubborn and single-minded. I was not aware this was a secret. I am, not, however, so stubborn that I am incapable of accepting when I am wrong.
I am, however, somewhat frustrated by the continual arrival of newcomers to old discussions, each requiring that the whole thing be gone through again.
I am all for deleting "long term abuse" pages, but at least they fix this particular problem.
- - 8< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The complaint is not that the real trolls and vandals don't need banning. The complaints are instead about things like the transparency with which the bannings and ancillary actions are carried out.
Some of those methods won't be discussed in detail. If we tell the abusers how we pick them up, it will help them evade detection.
And some of it is blindingly obvious. When an anonymous editor comes along and starts a debate on a baseless allegation made by a banned user and already addressed by the individuals concerned, in some detail, then a degree of scepticism is perfectly reasonable.
We have some admins -- you are one of them -- who are regularly perceived as acting in a callous, high-handed manner. THIS IS A PROBLEM. It may not be a big problem, it may not be a problem that is worth solving or is possible to solve, it may not be a problem that you are willing to admit exists, but it is a problem.
And we have some users who routinely make querulous complaints about things that are blindingly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the problem, and insist on colouring every action with a filter of their pre-existing belief that such-and-such an action MUST be in support of a policy proposal they hate and which does not in fact have any current force.
From my perspective much of the demand for endless debate on this falls into the same category Phil identifies below re small and vocal groups of holdouts in policy debate. It reminds me of my kids on a stubborn day, and that will tend to make me react in a certain way.
And yes, I sometimes feel a bit beleaguered. When abusers phone your wife at home, it tends to raise the paranoia levels a bit.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 15, 2007 1:39 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:51:32 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Of the subsequent edits before he was blocked, I didn't see any 'pushing' of
the COIanalyst theory. The most he said was "As a consultant with what
looks
to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" to Jehochman, which, as has been pointed out on AN/I, is an unfortunate interpretation that could be made by someone glancing through Jehochman's userpage, if someone hadn't read the subpage in which he addresses those issues.
Quite. So it was an allegation picked up "somewhere" and not
investigated with any diligence whatsoever. I have a word for
that...
It appears it was an understandable, if non-AGF error based on a cursory reading of his blocking admin's userpage. Are you really getting on your high horse about that?
It's precisely the lack of nuance that causes this to be interpreted in the manner in which Guy has which has concerned so many people. This is not sympathizing with disruptive users, this is not seeking to disrupt the project, this is simply a concern that some people are getting so heated that they are losing some of their judgment. So, yes. Under these circumstances I would have hoped for more than "five
or
ten seconds". I would have hoped for a quiet, drama- and hyperbole-free discussion of whether the IP's edits were block-worthy, and then we could have moved on. That this did not happen was not because of the IP.
Which we had, except for the Tor nodes and sockpuppets which heated
the debate, and the admin who repeated the allegation about Durova
also without bothering to check the facts *at all*.
Just a quick question for you here: for how long does an
unsubstantiated allegation made by our detractors and brought to us
through Tor nodes have to be discussed?
Missed the point, Guy. I was talking about the original complaint of blocking, which was not investigated. The reason it was not investigated was that the person who made the complaint also appeared to make an assumption on the basis of Jehochman's userpage which is similar to, but nowhere near as pernicious as, accusations levelled by a banned user. In addition, it appears that long-term good-faith users have made the same error on the basis of Jehochman's userpage. In other words, someone came with a complaint, everyone said "sock! sock! block! block!", and the discussion descended into levels of drama and confusion to which the original non-TOR IP did not contribute. To repeat: the subsequent confusion did not need to be discussed. It needs to have been avoided. However, nowhere in the entire thread did the original block/complaint get discussed rationally. The fault for this, again, lies not with the original IP, but with the over-reactors and sockpuppets. Of course, it's the original IP that got blocked for causing drama, without sensible discussion. That's the sort of problem that muddy thinking gets you.
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
I suspect he did. And I wondered if you'd take it that way. Do you have any idea how stubborn and single-minded you're sounding, by so consistently missing the points people are trying to make? (I'm not talking specifically about Alec, but rather about everyone in this whole, extended debate.)
I am, however, somewhat frustrated by the continual arrival of newcomers to old discussions, each requiring that the whole thing be gone through again.
As I was forced to tell someone on a policy page the other day, if you do not want to explain yourself over and over again, then we have a problem. Wikipedia will expand further, new people will arrive with the same questions. Someone will have to answer them politely. If you cannot do it, then do not subvert the process by hanging around in the background assuming that just because someone you don't like asked the question before, these are the same people.
- 8< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The complaint is not that the real trolls and vandals don't need banning. The complaints are instead about things like the transparency with which the bannings and ancillary actions are carried out.
Some of those methods won't be discussed in detail. If we tell the abusers how we pick them up, it will help them evade detection.
And some of it is blindingly obvious. When an anonymous editor comes along and starts a debate on a baseless allegation made by a banned user and already addressed by the individuals concerned, in some detail, then a degree of scepticism is perfectly reasonable.
Yes. Of course, once again, this is not relevant to the specific example I brought up, and if it is supposed to be relevant, is an awful exaggeration.
We have some admins -- you are one of them -- who are regularly perceived as acting in a callous, high-handed manner. THIS IS A PROBLEM. It may not be a big problem, it may not be a problem that is worth solving or is possible to solve, it may not be a problem that you are willing to admit exists, but it is a problem.
And we have some users who routinely make querulous complaints about things that are blindingly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the problem, and insist on colouring every action with a filter of their pre-existing belief that such-and-such an action MUST be in support of a policy proposal they hate and which does not in fact have any current force.
It is far worse for the project to act in an apparently callous and high-handed manner than to apparently make complaints. Particularly when there is a power differential involved. Please do get that straight.
RR
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:07:50 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, it's the original IP that got blocked for causing drama, without sensible discussion. That's the sort of problem that muddy thinking gets you.
Well, no, it's the sort of problem that determined offsite attackers gets you.
And the drama was largely stirred by the person who picked up the Jehochman allegation not the block question. But even then, "I got blocked by this evil person" will always tend to get very short shrift on the noticeboards, for obvious reasons.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 15, 2007 3:09 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I am, however, somewhat frustrated by the continual arrival of newcomers to old discussions, each requiring that the whole thing be gone through again.
Guy, I have some very, very bad news for you.
We are growing at a rate of several hundred users, *every day*. Every one of these newcomers (well, the legit ones, not the couple dozen socks) has absolutely no idea what the history is of our long-term abusers. Each newcomer that encounters our dealings with these abusers is going to have questions about it, because that's human nature. So unless you write up documentation that can be used as a reference (not the LTA hall-of-fame that we had once, but real documentation), someone is going to have to explain things to them. If it's not you, or any of the rest of us, it's going to be WR.
Think of an elementary school where the kindergarteners, on arrival, have yet to be taught the basic things like queueing up, sharing the toys, raising your hand and waiting to be called on, etc. Now imagine a school that has a has a new class of kindergarteners every week. That's us.
If that sounds nightmarish to you, you're not alone. Your frustration is perfectly understandable and very human. Others have headed for the exits on realizing what the future held if they stayed. We can't specialize our way out of it, either; there is no Corps of Newbie Indoctrinators/Kindergarten Teachers who can do all the heavy lifting for us; the burden is on each of us.
This is an inherent part of being a Wikipedian. It won't stop until the community stops growing, which now that our growth has slacked from exponential to polynomial might not happen for a very long time.
So long as we can keep our wits about us and *stay patient* with our newbies, they will grow into mature members of the community, and help in turn with future generations. If we can't, we'll get a lot of anti-social behavior and the place will go to hell.
I'm sorry if this is unnecessary, but it seemed like a reminder of why WP:BITE is one of our most important policies was called for.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:46:50 -0500, "Michael Noda" michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I am, however, somewhat frustrated by the continual arrival of newcomers to old discussions, each requiring that the whole thing be gone through again.
We are growing at a rate of several hundred users, *every day*. Every one of these newcomers (well, the legit ones, not the couple dozen socks) has absolutely no idea what the history is of our long-term abusers. Each newcomer that encounters our dealings with these abusers is going to have questions about it, because that's human nature. So unless you write up documentation that can be used as a reference (not the LTA hall-of-fame that we had once, but real documentation), someone is going to have to explain things to them. If it's not you, or any of the rest of us, it's going to be WR.
And this is what I have suggested. Not LTA pages, because they have some deep structural flaws, but a page, possibly at Meta and not crawled by Google, where we can keep a history of the various debates attached to a given username. I would be much happier if we could keep Jon Awbrey's data somewhere without his name, as it's his real name and I'm rather dismayed that it's top hit for his name - as he must be.
I would like to be able to help people who can't work the Wikipedia way to leave gracefully. Sadly, a fair few of them seem to be making that rather hard by refusing to leave. This is probably not easily fixable.
Guy (JzG)
Guy wrote:
Alec Wrote:
Guy wrote:
But then, I have been harassed by these people for so long that I am inclined to think that anything which has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate intent.
Okay!! Well, we're making progress. That's basically all I've been saying. There's been a culture developed where good-faithed editors who "sound somehow similar" to the banned people generally face an assumption of bad-faith and are often inappropriately treated incivilly because of it.
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
Well, I actually didn't mean for it to sound all that bad. But when you said something roughly equivalent to the point I've been trying to communicate to you, it's a good thing. If I could have tried to find a one-sentence summary of "the problem", I could do far worse than to say:
Some people have been harassed by these people for so long that they are inclined to think that anything which has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate intent.
Seriously. Not as a rude debate tactic-- as a serious form of communication, you basically said the message I was kinda trying to communicate. That's a happy thing.
Let me correct a misconception you seem to be carrying. When an admin with long experience of one of our long-term abusers identifies a pattern of behaviour matching that abuser, you would be *amazed* how often CheckUser reveals that the IPs are either the same or open proxies.
So what? The point is, there's a systemic problem where people who AREN'T affiliated with with banned editors are routinely being falsely accused. It doesn't matter how often the "reminds me of a banned user" test is right-- the point is, sometimes it's wrong we need to stop callously throwing around charges that aren't justified.
Your comment reminds me of a similar comment made by an overworked and overstressed air traffic controller:
"You land a million planes safely, and nobody ever says a word of thanks. Then you get tired and cause one little mid-air collision and you never hear the end of it"
You see my point? I'm not denying that you've done thousands and thousands and thousands of wonderful acts in defense of the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to say you're a horrible person-- you're a wonderful person. I'm just say-- a tiny few of you are consistently making a mistake, and ya should stop.
Whatever logical error somebody made that let them to accuse GTBacchus of promoting ED-- that error should be corrected. ---
Virtually not a single comment goes by without someone accusing somebody of supporting harassers. In this very email I'm responding, you accuse me of "extending an assumption of good faith to the banned", even though I've never once said a word about overturning the ban of even one user. When I (and others) repeatedly disavow this support, and you repeatedly accuse me of it-- what am I to make of it?
You're not hearing me? You're confused? You don't believe me? You do believe me, but it's just too useful a debating tactic to let go of? Too automatic a tactic for you to stop it?
And again, I'm not trying to pick on your personally, Guy. There's a whole rift in the community over this. I bet if we had access to the arbcom mailing list, we'd see that the Pro-BADSITES arbiters accused the pro-NPOV arbiters of supporting harassers. Perhaps no, but you get my point-- it's a widespread behavior problem.
Alec
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:36:42 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
Well, I actually didn't mean for it to sound all that bad. But when you said something roughly equivalent to the point I've been trying to communicate to you, it's a good thing.
It would be, if it weren't for the fact that it's what I've been saying all along.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
Anyone who's suggesting that the consideration of an Banned User's views matters. So, for a specific example, which I promise I really wasn't TRYING to dredge up-- let's take your ANI post when you indefblocked PrivateMusings. You listed one of his disputed edits as: and HERE SUPPORTING AN EARLIER REVERT BY A JON AWBREY SOCK.
Yup, repeating edits made by sockpuppets of banned users is a problem.
Up to a point. If the editor has made a good point we may wish to discuss it even though the user is banned. And I've seen (I forget with whom, so don't ask me for the dif) at least one case where the insistence on removing banned edits led to a ridiculous result- the sock had fixed a spelling error in an article and then people reverted it and insisted that it stay reverted. I have trouble seeing what that accomplishes.
On 14/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Up to a point. If the editor has made a good point we may wish to discuss it even though the user is banned. And I've seen (I forget with whom, so don't ask me for the dif) at least one case where the insistence on removing banned edits led to a ridiculous result- the sock had fixed a spelling error in an article and then people reverted it and insisted that it stay reverted. I have trouble seeing what that accomplishes.
The error is in insisting it stay reverted, i.e. with the people in question.
- d.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:54:13 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Up to a point. If the editor has made a good point we may wish to discuss it even though the user is banned. And I've seen (I forget with whom, so don't ask
Well, yes, but the banning policy explicitly states that all contributions should be rolled back - David Gerard has manually repeated edits made by Amorrow, having assessed them, which is fair, but we really *really* don't want to give the impression that people can be "a little bit banned" - if they think the ban is excessive and want to plea bargain for an editing restriction, I've no reason to believe ArbCom won't hear them.
And contributions to policy debate can be done through this list. I note that most of the people we're talking about, when they've come here, have ended up being kicked from here as well. This probably tells us something about their ability to contribute constructively.
Guy (JzG)
On 14/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And contributions to policy debate can be done through this list. I note that most of the people we're talking about, when they've come here, have ended up being kicked from here as well. This probably tells us something about their ability to contribute constructively.
Not most, actually - and hardly anyone actually gets kicked, mostly they get put on moderation. And their stuff still gets through if it's not for whatever social failure caused them to be put on moderation. This is pretty much the only Wikipedia communications channel banned users are actually allowed on. Which probably doesn't do much for the tone of the list, but oh well.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 14/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And contributions to policy debate can be done through this list. I note that most of the people we're talking about, when they've come here, have ended up being kicked from here as well. This probably tells us something about their ability to contribute constructively.
Not most, actually - and hardly anyone actually gets kicked, mostly they get put on moderation. And their stuff still gets through if it's not for whatever social failure caused them to be put on moderation. This is pretty much the only Wikipedia communications channel banned users are actually allowed on. Which probably doesn't do much for the tone of the list, but oh well.
Many banned users who come here tend to behave more nicely than the people who banned them. Maybe it's because they have a point to prove with that behaviour, but an unjustly banned person would also show nice behaviour. Those of us who do not make a habit of following on-wiki banning debates are more prone to take what is said here at face value. Their opponents come across as dedicated rights-fighters who believe they can do no wrong and are thereby deserving of unquestioned trust. Instead they leave the impression that they are far more extreme than the people they are banning. They appear as prosecuting attorney who are out to prove their case at all costs.
Ec
On 13/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:17:17 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Some people-- far too many, have come to view the encyclopedia as a way to minimize the influence of the banned, rather than view banning as a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
Who would those people be? Names, please. I've not come across anyone who thinks that not mentioning banned people is more important than the encyclopaedia. Of course, if you represent linking to a hate site as being crucial to the integrity of the project then it might *seem* as if that's the case, but most of us are, I hope, a good deal more pragmatic than that.
The case in question was mentioning antisocialmedia.net at all (not a link, but naming it) in [[Judd Bagley]]. It went to arbitration, as you may recall.
- d.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:50:08 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The case in question was mentioning antisocialmedia.net at all (not a link, but naming it) in [[Judd Bagley]]. It went to arbitration, as you may recall.
I seem to remember it being about slightly more than that.
Guy (JzG)