[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:41:07 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

Yes-it really is.  Precisely *because* of that.

We do not recognise the concept of being "a little bit banned".  We
use editing restrictions and parole for that.

What I do see here, though, is an issue that might be fixable.

There are two types of response I get when I do something that
someone thinks is wrong:

(1) I think that was wrong, would you mind taking another look?

(2) How dare you abuse your administrative powers in this way, I
demand that you undo this immediately and apologise profusely.

I bet you can guess which is more likely to work.

I bet you can guess which is more likely to be used by
single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets of banned users.

Now intellectually I *know* I should treat both responses the same
way, but I am not that kind of person, and I don't think very many
people are that kind of person.

Here's another problem situation.  An article has a recurrent
problem leading to numerous complaints, including from legal teams.
Every time someone adds the same problem material, in good faith, it
has to be removed.  We might say: please do not reinsert this
material, we have had detailed discussion of it before, legal
complaints have been made.  That kind of thing.  Responses are
generally of one of two classes:

(1) Oh, OK.  But I have something that might be new information, can
we discuss this?

(2) Prove it, and I'm going to put the material back in until you've
proved it to my satisfaction, and I'm going to complain everywhere I
can think of about this abuse of powers and suppression of THE
TRUTH.

Which of these is more likely to work, and which to cause drama?

Sure, I am not very trusting of banned users.  Especially those who
systematically attempt to evade their bans.  But some users are not
very trusting of our long-standing editors, either.  People seem to
forget that in Wikipedia, "admin" is synonymous with "long-standing
user" more than with cop, moderator or nazi.

Here's another problem: We get a lot of complaints of "admin abuse",
most of which turn out to be baseless.  And some of them turn out to
be malicious, as the one in question was.  That doesn't mean that
everyone who supports the complaint is malicious, only that
malicious people are manipulating us.  What do *you* think is a good
way of dealing with that?  I think advising them to email ArbCom is
a way forward.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG