Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned_...
I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page isn't too active at all...
* 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
* 2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like Barbara Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it (as defined in policy). Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks. Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that some allow banned users...
- Denny
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
- Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like Barbara Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it (as defined in policy). Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks. Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that some allow banned users...
Generally we don't require that admins HAVE to perform administrative actions; I'd be uncomfortable with mandating that users or admins must not speak with certain individuals. The outcry over freedom of speech would be counterproductive, IMO.
-Matt
On 3/22/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
- Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
Generally we don't require that admins HAVE to perform administrative actions; I'd be uncomfortable with mandating that users or admins must not speak with certain individuals. The outcry over freedom of speech would be counterproductive, IMO.
-Matt
From that perspective.... I can see the possible problems there. But...
isn't it a policy violation to post on behalf of banned users...? Isn't this the exact same principle?
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned_...
I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page isn't too active at all...
- Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you do so on all their edits anyway? If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later on. Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the project.
The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be true and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they won't be sanctioned for removing it.
Mgm
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you do so on all their edits anyway? If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later on. Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the project.
Well... if they post anonymously, or on a pseuodnym, sure. But if a John Smith or Jane Doe are banned by name, and they post anything and I.D. themselves by name... and we allow the posts to stand... what was the point again to having banned them?
The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be true and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they won't be sanctioned for removing it.
Mgm
The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them (they announce it is them) or fits the standard form for a puppet/sock, why shouldn't they be nuked on sight? If not... why have a banning policy at all?
On 3/22/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you do so on all their edits anyway? If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later on. Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the project.
Well... if they post anonymously, or on a pseuodnym, sure. But if a John Smith or Jane Doe are banned by name, and they post anything and I.D. themselves by name... and we allow the posts to stand... what was the point again to having banned them?
What indeed?
The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be true and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they won't be sanctioned for removing it.
Mgm
The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them (they announce it is them) or fits the standard form for a puppet/sock, why shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
Jay.
On 3/22/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
(they
announce it is them) or fits the standard form for a puppet/sock, why shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
Jay.
Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
On 3/22/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
(they
announce it is them) or fits the standard form for a puppet/sock, why shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
Jay.
Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
--
- Denny
I'm not writing of any specific cases, but of a general approach to banned users.
Jay.
On 3/23/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
(they
announce it is them) or fits the standard form for a puppet/sock, why shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations, even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they were by a banned editor they didn't like.
This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are encouraged.
On 3/22/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations, even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they were by a banned editor they didn't like.
This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are encouraged.
-- Peter in Canberra
I can see the point you are coming from... but if a user is banned, they can either (not endorsing this mind you) post under a new name--start over, not do bad things, and be a helpful member of the community, severing all old ties I guess... or appeal to get their name cleared/unblocked. my concern/problem is that certain admins in presumably good faith are giving people who are banned a free voice to participate... which makes no sense. I am not understanding why we are turning a blind eye for *certain* banned users. Why should some have magic rights the other thousands of blocked ones dont?
On 3/22/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> >Why should some have magic rights the other thousands of blocked ones > dont? > > -- > - Denny
I am also curious about this.
Erica
Perhaps... the real question is: if a user is banned but has an article of their own/about them, why should they be allowed to post *on-wiki* even when banned...? I don't think they should get a special priviledge. Being banned, what should they be contributing beyond pointing out BLP violations? Isn't that what OFFICE & OTRS are for?
Maybe the wording on the ban policy should be that there are no circumstances where banned users, even if they were 'notable wikipedians' can be allowed to interact on-wiki, no different than other non-notable banned wikipedians? I don't see why they should get special rights that others bannees don't get...
Skyring wrote:
On 3/23/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are
determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations, even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they were by a banned editor they didn't like.
This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are encouraged.
I fundamentally agree with this. Wikipedia is ultimately about the articles, and not about the editors. If the edit is good it doesn't matter who did it. To be sure the edits by banned users should be viewed suspiciously, but when they are checked individually and found to be good there is no valid reason to remove them. Hopefully, when we are finally able to have stable versions those can be marked as such.
This should not be about Brandt & Schwartz either. Using serious problem editors as straw men to justify a broader policy is not a logical valid way of arguing. If these guys are going to be continuing problems deal with them on their own merits (or lack thereof), but don't let them be excuses for dealing with situations that don't involve them.
Ec
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned_...
I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page isn't too active at all...
- Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you do so on all their edits anyway?
To discourage them from violating their ban. They are not wanted on Wikipedia.
Jay.
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
- Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
Imagine a banned user sneaks in and reverts a vandalism. Or fixes a misspelling. OK, it's annoying, and deliberately defiant, sure, but reverting it, then reverting the vandalism, all that would be extra hassle and is rather procedurally silly. So some slack is useful there, and creating a definite mandate is always a bit difficult to work out (does it get enforced? how?). "May" vs. "Shall" makes our lives easier in that sense. "Should" might make a bit stronger, but in any case I think that is implied.
FF
Ok, stupid question. I assume that a banned user would be blocked along with any socks he has so just how would he post or edit anything in the first place? Post anonymously and say "HEY, IT'S ME, BANNED USER ON WHEELS!!! The only other way is for him create a new sock, perform some kind of dickery and someone does a checkuser. Even then, would somebody necessarily know he's banned until he's blocked again?