[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Alec Conroy]

Flameviper Velifang <theflameysnake at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alec wrote:
> >  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.

No-- it's really not.  That's a logical fallacy as has been discussed.
 Not all banned user edits are bad ones-- they're smart enough to make
good ones from time to time, just to mix it up.

When considering an edit made by a good-faith editor, where the banned
user stands on the content dispute has absolutely zero weight, one way
or the other.  By quoting Awbry's action, just you empower him with
the ability to further influence our content.





> I will say, in fairness, that I generally interpret edit summaries
> including "BLATANT CENSORSHIP" (sic) as an indication of an editor
> on a mission.

But remember-- it was a revert of vandalistic deletion by a banned
sockpuppet, and it was a revert made with the support of consensus on
talk, after similar consensuses elsewhere.  That's was what was so
sadly ironic about the whole PM block-- he was block for reverting a
banned sockpuppet and for trying to protect his privacy, in the midst
of a debate about how we should fight against banned sock puppets and
try to protect peoples privacy.

Anyway, I don't mean to hash that over too much.  Ulimately, the world
decided your block should be overturned, but didn't hold the block
against ya.

> >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.

Well, I'm not tryin to judge their motives per se.  They were doing
their best to improve the project just like everybody else.  They
aren't nefarious, they aren't acting in bad faith, they aren't out to
do anything wrong-- they just envision a very different project than
the one I envision, and I very much wanted my vision to be the one
that ultimately came into being.


> 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.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "The Encyclopedia".   We can take
the ED article as a hypothetical.  Let's suppose ED is/will be
notable-- what would be best for encyclopedia-- to cover it or to
exclude it.

To me, an encyclopedia that has a good entry on ANY topic is better
than an identical encyclopedia which is the same in every way but
lacks that article.  And, for me, that works on ANY topic you can
imagine-- from "neonazi theories of racial superiority" to "How people
construct a pipe bomb".   A good entry is better than no entry, no
matter what the topic.

But to other people, the encyclopedia is more like a village-- and for
them, the "best" encyclopedia is one which omits some information that
would, despite being good articles, would  be highly hurtful the
members of the community.

Both at very valid points of view-- and who is to say what is right?
So with all the intense arguing, let me step back and say I do
recognized that Wikipedia just faced a VERY intense, very difficult
decision, and both sides of it had valid points, and were 100% trying
to make the universe the best place it can be.

Ultimately, from a polysci point of view, BADSITES was really about
whether Wikipedia was going to be molded in the style of the US or in
the style of Europe.   The First Amendment is really an incredibly
radical statement, and in France and Germany, there is no First
Amendment, because they feel Hate Speech is so odious, it can't be
allowed.   The US has its Neonazis, but a NeoNazi speech would be a
crime in Germany.

So, there you go--  the whole BADSITES debate as replayed on the scene
of World Politics.  Fred and Flonight voted for a European Style
deletion of hate-links, and everyone else went with an American-style
"hate speech is tolerated".   Neither side is evil,  but on that
issue, I'm proud to be in america, and I wouldn't want to wake up one
day and find out I've been living on the other side of the pond.

> >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.

Again, this is MY conception of NPOV-- what I'll term ALEC:NPOV.
NPOV, as I understand it, simply doesn't allow us to delete attack
site links from our articles, period.  In my mind, it really was that
clear-- one or the other had to go-- either BADSITES would win out, or
NPOV would win out, but they couldn't live together.


Of course,  Fred had his own interpretation of NPOV, FRED:NPOV that
DID allow Damnatio memoriae.   How he reconciled this with the policy
currently enshrined in WP:NPOV I don't know, but I'm sure he did.
Maybe he thought of it as "Almost neutral POV" or "Usually Neutral
except in a very few cases POV", or maybe he really didn't  think
there was even a conflict between the to at all.  (And nothing special
about fred here-- this same question could go to anyone who supported
his proposed decision).

But for me, yeah-- it really was that serious, and that two arbiters
against actually was kinda creepy.

> >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.
> > [...]

> So you say.  Me, I call that pointless drama.
>[...[  How long should "people" need to discuss
> that do you think?  Five seconds?  Ten maybe?

If they're acting in good faith, they get to discuss it as long as
they want! That's the way forums work.

Discussion is not an act of violence.  They weren't assaulting Durova,
they were discussing an allegation made against her.  Take the bad
faith users and block them, then let the good faith users discuss as
long as they feel necessary.   It works-- I swear.

Swooping in on a conversation between good-faith users and telling
them to stop talking, and all you did is up the temperature and
increase the volume-- you won't solve their pre-existing concerns, and
you'll add new concerns on top of it.

Now, if you don't care what they think about you or Durova, well,
swooping in and stopping an in-progress discussion is a fine thing to
do.  But it's horribly unwise.  The prosecution making the false
allegations against Durova had already had it's chance to present it
case--- shutting the discussion down midway would only have stopped
people from exonerating her, and it would have contributed to a
feeling of suppression, and left a lingering suspicion about her.

Trying to forcibly shut down in-progress discussions (among good-faith
editors) about admin misbehavior is a HORRIBLE idea.  A discussion is
like a high voltage laser containment system-- simply trying to turn
off would be like dropping a bomb on the discussion.  Widespread
suppression of stupid claims is how those claims wind up gettting
Slashdotted.

> >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.

I'm not saying that the investigation of groundless accusations is
always a good thing, but  once such an investigation by good faith
editors is underway, the only realistic option you have is to let it
run it's course.  We can hope people will be more saavy and vigilent
in being skeptical about claims from those who have no edit history.
But if good faith editors do consider it worth looking into, the only
option you have is to allow them.

So, to use the police review board analogy---  hopefully they wouldn't
start a review process based on just ANY old jailbird's claims--  but
once a review board is convened, your only option is to make your case
and hope it's over soon.  Getting your buddies to running into the
board room, promise the people that nothing wrong happened, and then
at gunpoint ordering the reviewing officers to stop the review
immediately and burn the transcripts--  that's NOT going to help the
situation one iota.

Alec