I was going to bring this up to the arbitrators, but it seems to be a general principle of wider interest, so I'm bringing it up here instead:
The current arbitration case, [[Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health]], has turned up some evidence that Mr. Natural Health has participated in a good deal of flame-warring and whatnot on Usenet, and has in some newsgroups been considered a "troll" and general trouble-maker, at least by some people. There is currently disagreement over whether this should be taken into account, or considered relevant at all. See that page's edit history and talk page for more.
Off the top of my head, pros of taking it into account include an ability to avoid dealing with known trolls and troublemakers (we don't wait for someone to troll Wikipedia extensively if they've already trolled a dozen forums and sites before). Cons include possibly carrying over unwarranted persecution from other forums to Wikipedia (we can't always be sure of who the people making accusations are, and most of us aren't familiar with the context and climate of these non-Wikipedia forums).
Comments can go here on the mailing list or on the talk page referenced above. This seems like a general principle we ("we" here being "Wikipedians") should decide on, not just for this particular case.
-Mark
I don't propose we start screening people before we let them edit. Just that once they start trolling Wikipedia and it becomes so much of an issue that it is before the arbitrators that then behavior in other forums becomes relevant both for determining what kind of a person we are dealing with but also for determining remedies, keeping in mind that there is little prospect that a person with long-standing habitual habits of disruption will be able to change or would want to.
Fred Bauder
From: Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:08:05 -0800 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] outside evidence and arbitration
pros of taking it into account include an ability to avoid dealing with known trolls and troublemakers (we don't wait for someone to troll Wikipedia extensively if they've already trolled a dozen forums and sites before).
On Feb 8, 2004, at 8:37 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't propose we start screening people before we let them edit. Just that once they start trolling Wikipedia and it becomes so much of an issue that it is before the arbitrators that then behavior in other forums becomes relevant both for determining what kind of a person we are dealing with but also for determining remedies, keeping in mind that there is little prospect that a person with long-standing habitual habits of disruption will be able to change or would want to.
One problem with bringing up a person's pre-Wikipedia history is that a reformed troll is likely to be, shall we say, tact-impaired. Such a person is *more* likely to be falsely accused of trolling (remembering that trolling includes intent). On the other hand, this history can greatly help arbitrators to decide how to deal with a user. Many people are simply bad at garnering sympathy for their point; it's a skill not everyone has. Simply accusing such people of trolling is likely to make matters worse and make the arbitrators' job harder.
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --