[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Alec Conroy]

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