[WikiEN-l] 'does not matter whether you have done something wrong or broken any rules'

[Armed Blowfish]

On 24/09/2007, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not dragging individuals into this.  But
>> surely you have noticed that if someone
>> breaks some bureaucratic rule (most of which
>> have nothing to do with legal issues) and
>> someone else draws attention to it, it doesn't
>> matter how much that person has contributed
>> to the encyclopaedia (images, text, good
>> articles, featured articles, whatever), and the
>> person gets banned?
>
> I haven't noticed. Most bans are often justified;
> we are not a democracy, we do not have due
> process (which is pretty much a legal concept
> specific to the US, as most other countries have
> different approaches - and besides, we are not
> a country).

    Once Law was sitting on the bench,
        And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
    "Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench!
        Nor come before me creeping.
    Upon your knees if you appear,
    'Tis plain your have no standing here."

    Then Justice came.  His Honor cried:
        "Your status? -- devil seize you!"
    "Amica curiae," she replied --
        "Friend of the court, so please you."
    "Begone!" he shouted -- "there's the door --
    I never saw your face before!"
                                                                  G.J.

> If the community consensus wants you gone, it does
> not matter whether you have done something wrong
> or broken any rules, you're tossed out.

I agree, that is exactly how it works.  Hey, it's your
(you == Wikipaedia) website, if you want to ban people
rather than thanking them, fine.

Writing a note on top of Google saying, 'ATTENTION
FUTURE EMPLOYERS: [Banned user] CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE AN ASSET.  DO NOT HIRE', or, if the
user did not reveal their real name, attempting to
destroy the user's online reputation, goes too far.

> We can debate whether this is desirable, but it's
> worked pretty well.

(text moved from below)
> It's imperfect, it's definitely not what I like to see.
> But the point is, it works, and I've yet to see any
> ideas that would be more effective without causing
> so much controversy and chaos as to make the costs
> outweigh the benefits.

If you ban people who were good contributors, that's
your loss.  But punishing them beyond that... no,
sorry, the cross-site flame wars definitely are not
working.  And, when you punish people beyond not
letting them contribute, you stoke the flame wars with
the other attack sites (WT, WR, et al.)

> If one admin does not like what's going on, then
> that admin unblocks (community bans only work if
> no admin is willing to lift the ban). Wheel warring
> and/or discussion may ensue, and after all the
> ridiculous crap that goes around comes around, we
> either ban or unban and get back to work on the
> encyclopaedia.

If the person even wants to contribute after being
treated like dirt....