[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/15/07, Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
> Neither checkuser nor sockpupet investigation is 100% accurate.  We do our
> best, but no human endeavor is going to be perfect.  When people seek to
> resolve the mistakes in a reasonable way these things get cleared up pretty
> quickly.

Again, I think people believe I'm making a much larger indictment than I am.

In my limited experience, I've yet to see an actual ban that wasn't
deserved, and I haven't seen an indef block that wasn't deserve which
wasn't promptly overturned.  I'm sure I looked hard enough, I could
find instances, but it doesn't seem like this is a problem we actually
have, as a project.

If we were willy-nilly banning people left and right, that would be a
really huge problem--   but it's not a problem that we have.  It
worries me that people think I'm claiming we have this problem,
because it's so unsupported by evidence that anyone who thinks i'm
protesting the bannings of users must also think me a complete
lunatic. :)

So, to clear:

*** I'm NOT arguing that any bans be overturned ***
*** I'm NOT arguing that the bans are unwarranted ***
*** I'm NOT arguing that the admins who have fought the genuine
sockpuppets of banned users are doing anything but being wonder
defenders of the encyclopedia ***

----

As I say-- the actual bans seem to be carried out quite well--  and
the inappropriate blocks seem to be quickly overturned.  We seem to be
quite good identifying actual sockpuppets of banned users.

There  problem we do have is much much smaller, and relates more to
incivility and NPA than to the banning policy.   It involves not
seriously believing people to BE a banned user, but sort of loosely
tossing around the accusations of a vague sort of link to banned
users.   "Supporting" the banned user.  "Agreeing with" the banned
user.  "Friends with" the banned user.  "Your buddy" the banned user.
etc.

Nobody seriously believes GTBacchus is a sockpuppet of whatever loon
runs ED-- but he tenuous connect to the site is continually harped
about.  Nobody seriously believes DanT is a sockpuppet of whatever
loon runs WR-- but people do keep implying it.   I'm pretty sure
nobody actually believed Private Musing WAS Jon Awbry-- but Jon
Awbry's unrelated vandalism of the same page was as evidence to try
and indefblock PM.  (granted, anyone who didn't know PM's identity is
off the hook on endorsing that one, since it's a logical pattern of
evidence).

Anyway, now that the whole BADSITES thing is settled, maybe this
pattern of incivility will just die out too, and maybe my discussing
it just prolongs it.  Hopefully that will be the case.  In the grand
scheme of wikipedia, it's not a very big incivility at all-- the only
disconcerting part is that some of our most respected editors have
fallen into that pattern of incivility.

Alec