On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:41:12 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy(a)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&…
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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG