spprotect template |
Killa Kitty (talk | contribs) →Arbitrary section break: comment |
||
Line 276: | Line 276: | ||
:::He recently (this week) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MyWikiBiz&limit=500&action=history posted on] the [[MyWikiBiz]] talk page as MyWikiBiz. Why is he using this sock account now? Maybe a RFCU is in order? Didn't he have multiple socks before I saw/read? - [[User_talk:DennyColt|Denny]] 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
:::He recently (this week) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MyWikiBiz&limit=500&action=history posted on] the [[MyWikiBiz]] talk page as MyWikiBiz. Why is he using this sock account now? Maybe a RFCU is in order? Didn't he have multiple socks before I saw/read? - [[User_talk:DennyColt|Denny]] 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
=== Arbitrary section break === |
…=== Arbitrary section break === |
||
What would this proposal accomplish that cannot already be accomplished via e-mails to the Foundation? BLP concerns are already a legitimate exception to the policy about proxy editing. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
What would this proposal accomplish that cannot already be accomplished via e-mails to the Foundation? BLP concerns are already a legitimate exception to the policy about proxy editing. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
:::Durova, I appreciate your point of view, and I respect that this is not intended to be my personal "grievance playground". I just noticed that it happened to be "you" making the above comments, and since "you" were also the source some weeks ago of what I felt was a defamatory statement about me, I found it a bit ironic. Mind you, just because I think something you've said about me is defamatory, doesn't mean that I have the time or energy to make it actionable. In fact, being that you (as far as I know) don't reveal your true identity on Wikipedia, I'm actually insulated somewhat by the fact that I'm being defamed by someone who isn't even willing to sign their real name to the accusation. So, that's actually comforting enough to me. It's like being libeled by Daisy Duck. I don't think the courts would accept a case labeled Kohs v. User:Durova!, would they? I'll also mention that I certainly do '''not''' know all of the intimate details of what ''specifically'' Brandt has asked to be modified or deleted, nor am I aware of the exact communications channels that he chose to pursue. So, admittedly, I'm not qualified to guide any Wikipedia policy on this matter. I'm merely trying to offer my ''personal opinion'' based on the fact that I was a banned user who had difficulties with the then-existing system for communicating grievances. Perhaps this area could be improved, so that more fruitful outcomes -- for all parties -- could be realized. That would be a very good thing, wouldn't it? Whether my opinions contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia or not, depends on their effect on more influential users like yourself. --[[User:Zibiki Wym|Zibiki Wym]] 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
:::Durova, I appreciate your point of view, and I respect that this is not intended to be my personal "grievance playground". I just noticed that it happened to be "you" making the above comments, and since "you" were also the source some weeks ago of what I felt was a defamatory statement about me, I found it a bit ironic. Mind you, just because I think something you've said about me is defamatory, doesn't mean that I have the time or energy to make it actionable. In fact, being that you (as far as I know) don't reveal your true identity on Wikipedia, I'm actually insulated somewhat by the fact that I'm being defamed by someone who isn't even willing to sign their real name to the accusation. So, that's actually comforting enough to me. It's like being libeled by Daisy Duck. I don't think the courts would accept a case labeled Kohs v. User:Durova!, would they? I'll also mention that I certainly do '''not''' know all of the intimate details of what ''specifically'' Brandt has asked to be modified or deleted, nor am I aware of the exact communications channels that he chose to pursue. So, admittedly, I'm not qualified to guide any Wikipedia policy on this matter. I'm merely trying to offer my ''personal opinion'' based on the fact that I was a banned user who had difficulties with the then-existing system for communicating grievances. Perhaps this area could be improved, so that more fruitful outcomes -- for all parties -- could be realized. That would be a very good thing, wouldn't it? Whether my opinions contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia or not, depends on their effect on more influential users like yourself. --[[User:Zibiki Wym|Zibiki Wym]] 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::(Replied at editor's user talk page). <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
::::(Replied at editor's user talk page). <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::I think this is entirely appropriate. Why were requests for office action on Brandt's article ignored while those for [[Alan Dershowitz]] were not? Why should we require an editor to jump through hoops when a simple note on a talk page to editors actively editing the article would be more efficient and less bureaucratic? Wait…I think I may have answewred my own question there…. [[User:Killa Kitty|Killa Kitty]] 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Brandt posting HERE == |
== Brandt posting HERE == |
Revision as of 16:30, 29 March 2007
Archives |
---|
Appeals process confusion
"Users who have been banned indefinitely may, if they wish, appeal to the Arbitration Committee after one year." Does this apply just to bans issued by Arbcom, or community bans as well? I was under the impression that a community ban could be appealed to the Arbcom any time after it has been applied, and as the Arbcom is the only entity with the authority to make binding decisions, that seems the way it should be. Either way I think this should be clarified. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.
- Users who have been banned indefinitely may, if they wish, appeal to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
- The way it is written it seems like community bans must be appealed directly to Jimmy Wales or the foundation or the banned user must wait a year. I can understand why that may sound confusing though as a community ban may have been imposed without any attempt at arbitration. That said, it takes a lot to be community banned (like a massive block log) so would it really be of any use to take such a matter to ArbCom? MartinDK 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- They've definitely accepted such cases in the past. Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal is one that springs to mind.
- Would anyone object if I replaced the first two paragraphs of that section with
Users who have been banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee may, if they wish, appeal to the Arbitration Committee after one year by emailing one of the committee members.
Indefinite bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
To ask for an appeal, email a current Arbitrator. Banned users should not create another account to appeal, as it may be blocked. The Arbitration Committee has consented in the past to temporarily unblocking a banned user in order to edit pages related to the appeal, on the condition that it does not make any other edits.
- The last paragraph addresses a different problem, that it doesn't tell indefinitely banned users how to appeal their block. I don't know if there's a written policy about this right now, but allowing users to edit temporarily in order to contest their ban seems current and sensible practice. Again Saladin1970 is an example, Blu Aardvark's appeal is another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some additional info to inform any changes: The "one year clause" started out as an arbitrary period after which a repenting sinner banned by the ArbCom could have their case "retried" by the ArbCom or Jimbo. See diff and discussion above. At the time, the appeals process was, apparently, limited to immediate appeals to the next higher authority (ArbCom handled appeals for community bans, Jimbo handled appeals regarding ArbCom bans). This situation did not have any options for banned editors wishing to turn another leaf. The change clearly stuck (that was 2,5 years ago). The wording developed into something that now may have the opposite (unintended) implication that indef community-banned editors have to wait for a year if they wish to appeal, as explained by Sam and MartinDK.
- Perhaps we can (re-)instate wording that differentiates between appeals to re-assess the same situation (soon after the ban) and repenting sinners who are ready to abide by our rules? AvB ÷ talk 11:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Adopting & adapting Sam Blanning's proposal - would anyone object to replacing the first two paragraphs of this section with
Indefinite bans imposed by the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Community bans with a duration of three months or longer may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
To ask for an appeal, email a current Arbitrator. Banned users should not create another account to appeal, as it may be blocked. The Arbitration Committee has consented in the past to temporarily unblocking a banned user in order to edit pages related to the appeal, on the condition that the account does not make any other edits.
The only major change: the "three months" threshold, which I base on (1) the time it may take the ArbCom to conclude a case and (2) the fact that I would not want ArbCom members to waste any time on shorter blocks (or expect them to accept such cases).
I'm not so sure about resurrecting language for repenting users, so postponing that one for now. AvB ÷ talk 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I think the key issue is making sure that a community ban is not devalued while on the other hand making sure that we do not undermine ArbCom's authority when it comes to binding long-term decisions. 3 months minimum sounds like a good solution. As we have seen before a persistent editor will find a way to bother us no matter what. The ban is the "punishment", the block is the tool to implement it and is a totally different matter. MartinDK 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since when did community bans have lengths attached? Users occasionally get blocked for weeks or months, but that's usually when repeated violations have resulted in escalating blocks. I don't see that as part of a ban. Remember that "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, once again the policy is rather unclear as it doesn't really talk about this. The only real reference to time is when it says that the timer is reset in case of evasion. And even there it makes no distinction between community bans and ArbCom bans so it makes it rather difficult to decode what the intention of the wording was. Indef means "no automatic expiration". The issue is what it takes for a community ban to expire.... MartinDK 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the issue. As to the duration of a community ban: Since I've taken part in only three community ban discussions, my impression that community bans can have a set duration may well be wrong. If so - in other words, if there is wide support for the notion that a community ban must always be effected through an indefinite block, I would say that Sam's original proposal can go live and the new info (community ban -> indef block) should also be included in this policy. If my impression was right, the changes I proposed still stand. In that case, the ArbCom may want to indicate a preference. AvB ÷ talk 15:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- What we seem to be getting at here is ArbCom's undisputed sole right to make binding decisions vs. the community's right to say enough is enough. I don't think ArbCom would like to be told that it can't review a ban not imposed by itself but on the other hand commmunity bans do exist for a reason. Giving ArbCom the right to reverse a community ban at any time but making it a general rule that a community ban should last 3 months before being reverted sounds fair to me. Problem is how do we express that in a way that does not appear to be undermining ArbCom's authority. I would not like for us to create a precedent for policies that do not allow ArbCom to step in at any point in time. That said, I know of at least 2 recent community bans where ArbCom appears to have expressed their informal accept at AN/I. MartinDK 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
blocking an IP
Hello,
I don't know how to propose some IP to pe blocked, but check this IP: 80.3.96.10
He has been vandalising articles for some time and no action has been taken.
--PET 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- A little late to be answering this one but for anyone else wondering the same you should refer to WP:AIV. An administrator will then look into it. Cheers, MartinDK 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite blocks and comunity bans.
There's currently discussion on the relationship between use of indefinite blocks and community bans at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_Blocks. --Barberio 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Partial bans including Talk Pages
The article presently says:
- Partial bans usually do not extend to talk pages.
This description has a narrow and restrictive scope, although the "usually" provides a way out. Partial bans which exclude talk pages miss one of the more common problems in Disruptive editing where an editor engages in frequent and lengthy discussions on an article's talk page advancing original research or a particular point of view. I suggest the description be revised to give a more positive scope to partial bans:
- Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages.
--SteveMcCluskey 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lacking objections, I made the proposed change. --SteveMcCluskey 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No misconduct is necessary for a partial ban
A perceived WP:COI is sufficient {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Banning_policy&diff=110884134&oldid=110656617] My edits were described by the arbcom as responsible but I got banned anyway. User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries Andries 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Community banning
This looks like a good time to update the community ban section. The community has begun applying topic bans in addition to outright sitebans. See Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Archive2#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, which GordonWatts attempted to appeal to ArbCom and the committee rejected his appeal. Also the recently closed Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_Miracleimpulse.
Also I suggest including a link to the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which offers a model for community action culminating in community bans. An important criterion there makes a consensus of uninvolved editors is the standard for community banning. That part has been at guideline level for half a year now with no problems (it was implemented as a safeguard against good people getting railroaded out of the project) so I suggest adding that qualification to the banning policy statement on community bans.
Respectfully proposed. DurovaCharge! 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans. The crossovers are more likely to occur in some areas than others - eg English/Simple English.
A broad policy and a case by case handling might be easier than a "sledge and peanut" policy. Jackiespeel 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any comprehensive survey has been performed about multiple language problem users. Each language edition is administrated separately and decides on its own policies. Wikipedia.en doesn't have an oversight role - that would rest with Meta. While an effort to coordinate banning policies across languages might be worthwhile, it's tangential to this particular thread. I'm requesting that the policy language be brought up to date with actual practice. DurovaCharge! 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- "As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans
- I think you are misinterperting the use of "ban" in this area. A community ban is only for en.WP. Although sometimes people may use "ban" to describe a wikimedia wide ban for editor who engages in threats, it is seldom done in practice since currently every wiki has a seperate user log and there is not way to automatically connect account on several wiki's to one person. Alhough there are occasions when a "banned user" popped up on another wiki and was noticed and blocked; it is rare. This may change in the future, but I have heard of no disscusion of a method for instituting wikimedia wide bans as of now. In any event such an method of banning would need a seperate policy (i.e. not on en.WP) with much wider discussion. If you are disscussing a policy on en.WP, the issues being disscussed will not be applied outside of en.WP.--BirgitteSB 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- A very low number I think. Sofar I only have been tracking a spammer and a group of kids trying to get their names into various articles. Apart from that I have only come accross one crackpot being banned/blocked in 3 or 4 wikkies. OTOH some editors have been referred to as being banned on xx wikki, which never was a reason to block them here as long as they did not disrupt here. Agathoclea 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) May we return to the original suggestion? DurovaCharge! 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Updated community ban language
Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[1] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: here, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. As the previous thread here at this board demonstrates, I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. DurovaCharge! 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[2] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. DurovaCharge! 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've struck most of the change as instruction creep ("reasonable expectation of notification", "disruptive user may forfeit these expectations", "not obliged to wait"). Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? >Radiant< 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that merge, they are very different things. The distinction is already too vague in my opinion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely my point. If the distinction is vague, then one page should clearly explain what it is. I'm not saying that blocking is the same as banning, obviously it's not, but they're related enuogh to be covered on one page, for the same reason that protection is on the same page as unprotection. >Radiant< 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Radiant, I really am disappointed that you responded to none of the several solicitations for input and then unilaterally altered policy counter to the discussion consensus immediately after the update got implemented. The new paragraph addresses reasonable concerns expressed at two different appeals to ArbCom where editors were blocked during community ban discussion and not notified of their ban discussion until after it had concluded, effectively denying them the means of defense. Additionally, the stipulation for uninvolved editors to decide on community bans has been at guideline level for half a year and was the most important provision in getting the proposal accepted as a guideline: partisan edit warriors shouldn't be empowered to railroad people out of the project. DurovaCharge! 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add that, by selectively leaving some new material and deleting others, Radiant's diff amounts to a unilateral attempt to WP:OWN banning policy. If Radiant disagreed with the method used to garner consensus, the appropriate response would have been to revert the entire update. DurovaCharge! 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Get real, Durova, that someone disagrees with (part of) your edit has nothing to do with ownership (ad hominem is a fallacy, I'm sure you knew that). Policy pages are edited all the time by lots of people without "formal consensus gathering", and none of the links you cite point to any actual consensus gathering in the first place, just to lengthy talk pages where that gathering supposedly occured. I hadn't noticed your earlier invitations, or I would have responded earlier. >Radiant< 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please express your thoughts in less a less inflammatory manner than get real, Durova and refrain from accusing me of logical fallacies I have not committed. My objection in no way constitutes an ad hominem attack: it regards your actions, not you as an individual. As your question Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? reveals, you were unaware of recent precedents that affect the policy you altered. I did link directly to the threaded discussion that formed consensus on the policy and within that thread my posts provided other links to the relevant precedents, upon which I would have gladly expanded had you requested clarification. Alterations to policy are weighty edits and should not be made in ignorance. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add that, by selectively leaving some new material and deleting others, Radiant's diff amounts to a unilateral attempt to WP:OWN banning policy. If Radiant disagreed with the method used to garner consensus, the appropriate response would have been to revert the entire update. DurovaCharge! 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that merge, they are very different things. The distinction is already too vague in my opinion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:KETTLE, Durova, you're the one that started with the accusation of ownership (and now, of of ignorance, although you're apparently unaware that most policy pages are edited all the time by a lot of people, a process which is neither weighty nor formal). You linked to the top of four lengthy talk pages, and one thread about the purpose of this noticeboard. None of that demonstrates consensus for the change you made. Basically, you added a long paragraph that doesn't really say anything. >Radiant< 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear
Please have a look at this diff and Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Updated_community_ban_language_at_WP:BAN. We've got a problem on our hands. DurovaCharge! 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No we don't, we have one editor (you) making a change to a policy, and another editor (me) undoing part of, but not all of, that change. Policies are edited all the time, so I fail to see the problem here. We could discuss the matter at the policy talk page, as is common for suggested changes to a policy; I'm not sure what this thread is doing here. >Radiant< 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- And the thread to the policy talk page has been open for eight days where you could have commented at any time, yet you acted without offering input and responded afterward to WP:CN. I initiated this thread here in order to notify people that the proposed changes had been implemented. It seemed like the responsible thing to do, particularly since it was the first time I had implemented a significant change at the policy level. Your reaction truly baffles me - it comes across as if you're itching for a fight. DurovaCharge! 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I was not aware of that thread, and apparently neither were most other people because it didn't see much participation. But you're really missing the point here:
- You don't need to announce policy changes; the normal wiki process governs.
- The policy isn't "set" because you discussed it at some place, it can be edited later on; the normal wiki process governs.
- You haven't actually linked to any major consensus building related to this change. Not that that's necessary, but you claim to have a strong consensus backing for your actions and this is not apparent.
- If people (e.g. me) disagree with an addition to policy, we discuss it on its talk page.
- Don't accuse people of WP:OWNership or of ignorance, per WP:CIV and WP:NPA.
- >Radiant< 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I was not aware of that thread, and apparently neither were most other people because it didn't see much participation. But you're really missing the point here:
- And the thread to the policy talk page has been open for eight days where you could have commented at any time, yet you acted without offering input and responded afterward to WP:CN. I initiated this thread here in order to notify people that the proposed changes had been implemented. It seemed like the responsible thing to do, particularly since it was the first time I had implemented a significant change at the policy level. Your reaction truly baffles me - it comes across as if you're itching for a fight. DurovaCharge! 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this proposed change. The change to "consensus support among uninvolved users in good standing" will herald endless wikilawyering about what constitutes "involved," and in any event, just because someone may be "involved" doesn't mean their opinion should be discounted. If someone has been harassed by a user, for example, that person has a right to have their opinion carry weight without allegations that they're too "involved" to count. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, as has been pointed out many times, troublemakers often start harassing the admin who takes action against them, or an ArbCom member, so they can claim that admin or arbitrator is too "involved" to continue to deal with them. We should resist all such efforts. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it only the uninvolved users in good standing passage that earns your objection, Slim? That's been at guideline level for six months at WP:DE and was the key provision that garnered consensus support when that was at guideline level. As the talk page archives there demonstrate, it was the only effective safeguard against teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website. DurovaCharge! 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Durova, can you give one example of "teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website"? I've never seen it happen, though of course every user who's banned claims to be a good editor who was unfairly treated. Users who are banned indefinitely are almost always given warning after warning, usually from multiple admins. I've personally never seen any good editor (good in terms of content contributions or behavior) have this happen to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- What specifically does "in good standing" mean? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it only the uninvolved users in good standing passage that earns your objection, Slim? That's been at guideline level for six months at WP:DE and was the key provision that garnered consensus support when that was at guideline level. As the talk page archives there demonstrate, it was the only effective safeguard against teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website. DurovaCharge! 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, as has been pointed out many times, troublemakers often start harassing the admin who takes action against them, or an ArbCom member, so they can claim that admin or arbitrator is too "involved" to continue to deal with them. We should resist all such efforts. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) To respond to SlimVirgin first, I'm not aware of a case where such railroading actually happened. The potential for that type of abuse got discussed extensively when WP:DE was at the proposal stage. Would you like me to cite specific posts and threads from those discussions? As long as community ban discussions were housed at WP:AN and WP:ANI the risk of that abuse was pretty low (although other problems attended holding them there). With the opening of WP:CN I've been active to reduce potential for that happening.[3] So far the community has handled this well, and I'm proud that it has, yet - let me know if you need more specifics than a general link to Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1 - what's apparent to me from close involvement throughout the process is that the community has addressed this proactively. I don't really object to keeping that language at guideline level if consensus hasn't formed for advancing it: my impression had been that it was merited. Slim, is that your only objection to the edit I implemented this morning or are there other points you wish to raise?
And to Milo, in good standing here means the same thing it means at WP:AFD discussions or WP:RFA discussions: basically someone who has a meaningful edit history, isn't blocked or banned, and isn't a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If we can presume that without explicit wording then I've no objection to deleting the phrase. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, it's odd that you claim to have been unaware of a discussion that occurred on a page you edited while the discussion was open.[4] I have no wish to personalize a disagreement, nor do I wish to cast aspersions. I have exerted more than reasonable efforts to solicit discussion and consensus proactively, operated with maximum transparency, and promptly laid my actions before the community for scrutiny. My good faith should be evident and please assume it if you have doubts. Yet I must express very serious misgivings about the way you have conducted this matter: I do not accuse you of acting in ignorance - your own post announces it. And if you believe my efforts to solicit discussion were inadequate or improper, please revert to the entire prior policy version rather than your own customized version, which you have declared you composed without understanding the events that had necessitated an update. Also I again request that this discussion move forward in a less precipitate and "hot" manner. There are many other things on my to-do list and a conflict impedes progress in all of them. Let's take a deep breath, straighten this out, and work toward our shared goal of a reliable online encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Durova, if you are unwilling to lay off the accusations I will not discuss this with you any further. I removed only the parts of your change to which I objected; I see no reason why I should remove parts to which I did not object. As I have pointed out several times already, policy is not edited by making formal proposals, but through the Wiki Process, which means organic editing until a compromise is reached. >Radiant< 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's done via consensus. Durova has demonstrated how the consensus was reached. Your lack of awareness or disagreement isn't an argument against it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well duh. But he has demonstrated no consensus. Your insinuations are not a consensus. >Radiant< 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- What else do you need to see, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an excellent example of why adding anything about "involved" editors would be a disaster. Basically, if you know anything about the user, your opinion wouldn't be taken into account. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- What else do you need to see, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well duh. But he has demonstrated no consensus. Your insinuations are not a consensus. >Radiant< 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's done via consensus. Durova has demonstrated how the consensus was reached. Your lack of awareness or disagreement isn't an argument against it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that, of course, since it was posted to my own user talk page. And I'm also aware (and sympathetic) that community banned editors recently targeted SlimVirgin with similar allegations in recent WP:RFAR requests. I've been targeted in the same way - see this example. It's taken some hard consideration to arrive at the conclusion I've reached: that it's simpler and easier for the community to identify such allegations as frivolous and disregard them as such than for the community to remedy deliberate railroading by a coterie of edit warriors (if policy explicitly allows such exploitation). I've little doubt that I'll take heat from time to time for being bold and impartial in the community's interests, yet any sysop who takes action in dispute resolution keeps a good wardrobe of flameproof suits for that purpose. If you see a way to close both methods of exploitation I'm all ears. I chose the lesser of two evils. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would seem to be a false dichotomy. >Radiant< 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that, of course, since it was posted to my own user talk page. And I'm also aware (and sympathetic) that community banned editors recently targeted SlimVirgin with similar allegations in recent WP:RFAR requests. I've been targeted in the same way - see this example. It's taken some hard consideration to arrive at the conclusion I've reached: that it's simpler and easier for the community to identify such allegations as frivolous and disregard them as such than for the community to remedy deliberate railroading by a coterie of edit warriors (if policy explicitly allows such exploitation). I've little doubt that I'll take heat from time to time for being bold and impartial in the community's interests, yet any sysop who takes action in dispute resolution keeps a good wardrobe of flameproof suits for that purpose. If you see a way to close both methods of exploitation I'm all ears. I chose the lesser of two evils. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)It's unhelpful to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without being specific. Which part that statement do you interpret as a false dichotomy, and for what reason?
As examples of how it's fairly simple to deal with frivolous allegations of involvement, let's look at the two recent arbitration requests where SlimVirgin got targeted. First, the Arthur Ellis attempted appeal:
- ...It is also rather unfair that a community ban by admins and invited editors like Clyoquot, who also alse edit warred with Ellis and Slime Virgin on pages like Rachel Marsden, unlike an Arbcom process, allows permanent banning without anything resembling due process and without even informing the ban target that a ban is being considered or asking for his take on things or the reason why he feels wronged enough to act out in ways that are seen as vandalism.[5]
There's the reference to SlimVirgin: one insulting assertion with no supporting evidence. The attempted appeal ended in early closure. It was already on its way to rejection on its merits when I submitted a statement that linked to extensive vandalism, template abuse, and a user threat by the same IP addresses that had requested the review.
The BabyDweezil request has garnered more serious consideration and, as of this writing, there remains a chance that it could open. Yet this appeal at my talk page, which got cited at this discussion yesterday as an example of how an involvement claim could be gamed, turned out to be an honest misunderstanding that got resolved with an explanation. I'll quote that explanation in full here because it's also relevant here.
- I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.
- That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.
That explanation led to this polite response that had got it as the edit summary and further constructive dialog.[7][8]
I've worked intensively on community banning for months and followed most of the individual cases where community bans have happened since I consider it one of the more important long term developments in site administration and I'm committed to seeing it implemented fairly. These two examples where users misinterpreted the uninvolved requirement follow a pattern: either the user is reasonable, in which case he or she adjusts to feedback, or the user is unreasonable, in which case the protest can be disregarded. DurovaCharge! 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Updated wording
I agree that Durova's wording was overly wordy and complicated. What about something simple like: "A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to respond." If someone really wants to, they can make a notification template for user talk pages. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. They can post on their talk page if they want their views to be taken into account. Otherwise, they'll turn the discussion into another platform for personal attacks. Bear in mind that editors subject to community ban will usually have had many last chances already. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was talking about responding on their talk page. Do you really object to notifying users that there is discussion going on about a potential community ban? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I have no object to their being notified at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If there's any simpler way to express the gist of this I'm open to refinements. Regarding notification and defense, there can be situations where a disruptive user's participation renders notification all but impossible. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. And as for submitting a defense, sometimes a blocked editor is so problematic that the user page needs protection. Apologies in advance to participants who aren't sysopped: the example that springs to my mind is from a deleted user talk page. So as I expressed before implementing my edit, two different factors deserve balanced attention: notification and defense where feasible in order to prevent one kind of exploitation (good editors getting railroaded), weighed against troublemakers who would exploit policy loopholes and try to tie the community's hands and prolong their own disruption. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I have no object to their being notified at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was talking about responding on their talk page. Do you really object to notifying users that there is discussion going on about a potential community ban? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What about ""A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and if blocked may respond on their own talk page." Or if necessary "...on their own talk page, unless their actions have caused it to be protected." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The second version of that looks pretty good. What about a situation like the anonymous Gundagai editor where the user never registers an account and edits through a variable IP range? DurovaCharge! 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case the blocking summary could be used to point to the page where the ban is discussed. But we don't need to spell out contingencies for every single possibility; it's best to keep it simple. >Radiant< 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users
Two questions/propositions:
1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers? - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why indulge people who are contributing positively, even if they've been a bit naughty in the past? I'll let you figure that one out for yourself, Denny. Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Banned users have a process they can go through to get unblocked/returned... they can go to ArbCom or post to the unblock email list. But applying treatment of banned users unevenly is a problem. None of them should get special treatment over another... - Denny 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as will is too prescriptive, we are all volunteers and nobody can force us to make an edit we dont want to and to try and make such a prescriptive move is not good. I definitely think it should be left as may, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- No one can force an edit, no, but having it be stated that it should be removed still doesn't mean that anyone has to. But it makes crystal clear that ban evasion is wrong and not to be endorsed... if someone chooses after to enable ban evasion by proxy/communicating with banned users on-wiki, that's their own issue for others to review after... - Denny 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly in Brandt's case it was possible to identify his edits because he signed his name. All you will achieve is that he wont sign his name and you wont be able to prove it is him. Its your proposal to punish users who co-operate with banned users that I find so alarming, reminiscent of the Siberia that Grace refers to, SqueakBox 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think banned users should be free to edit. I think someone like Brandt should not be allowed to edit in the main spac3e but I do think in his case he should be allowed to comment on his article onits talk page and that of any afd's, drv's etc related to that one article. i also think that every case must be taken on its own merit when talking about edits outside the mainspace. At the end of the day Brandt can edit his talk page and so we cant under current policy completely silence his voice. thje ref he gavce me the other day after I asked if anyone had one was put in the article by me and not by him and I should not in a future) be punished for such an edit on the basis that it was co-operating with a banned user. We need to trust the judgement of our good faith editors, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You said, "someone like Brandt". Why does he get special treatment? there are thousands of banned users. Why give him magic rights no one else has? - Denny 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am only aware of 2 banned editors who have their own article and my above statement only gives leeway to banned editors commenting on their own articles, SqueakBox 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You said, "someone like Brandt". Why does he get special treatment? there are thousands of banned users. Why give him magic rights no one else has? - Denny 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think banned users should be free to edit. I think someone like Brandt should not be allowed to edit in the main spac3e but I do think in his case he should be allowed to comment on his article onits talk page and that of any afd's, drv's etc related to that one article. i also think that every case must be taken on its own merit when talking about edits outside the mainspace. At the end of the day Brandt can edit his talk page and so we cant under current policy completely silence his voice. thje ref he gavce me the other day after I asked if anyone had one was put in the article by me and not by him and I should not in a future) be punished for such an edit on the basis that it was co-operating with a banned user. We need to trust the judgement of our good faith editors, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly in Brandt's case it was possible to identify his edits because he signed his name. All you will achieve is that he wont sign his name and you wont be able to prove it is him. Its your proposal to punish users who co-operate with banned users that I find so alarming, reminiscent of the Siberia that Grace refers to, SqueakBox 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- No one can force an edit, no, but having it be stated that it should be removed still doesn't mean that anyone has to. But it makes crystal clear that ban evasion is wrong and not to be endorsed... if someone chooses after to enable ban evasion by proxy/communicating with banned users on-wiki, that's their own issue for others to review after... - Denny 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as will is too prescriptive, we are all volunteers and nobody can force us to make an edit we dont want to and to try and make such a prescriptive move is not good. I definitely think it should be left as may, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an example of why this would be a bad idea. User:Mike Church often begins one of his sockpuppets by making several positive contributions with it, so he can better hide the negative ones. I've been blocking a lot of his sockpuppets, but not reverting all of his changes -- it would make no sense to revert a positive contribution to an article just because of who made it or why. (Sometimes it annoys me that the "sockblock" template gives me no choice but to say "...and all your changes have been reverted" if I use it.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. While, in general, banned users should be reverted, one shouldn't be excessively legalistic and Wikilawyering about it... zero tolerance is rarely a sensible policy anywhere. There will always be cases where it would be reasonable to make exceptions; one, in my opinion, is for banned users with a bio on this site commenting on the talk page of their own article, if they can do it without resorting to further bannable offenses such as legal threats; also, if a banned user happens to revert vandalism, it wouldn't make sense to force other usrs to restore the vandalism, would it? *Dan T.* 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like Barbara Schwarz Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it. Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks. Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that some allow banned users... - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If only we could send them to Siberia... Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose this is completely unacceptable and is an attempt to foce good will editors to act in a particular way. This is a bad suggestion that will only antagonize the already difficult situation on the Brandt and
SchwartzSchwarz articles and suggests punishing good faith editors. Such a suggestion actualised would only harm wikipedia, SqueakBox 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)- Hey Squeak, we're not voting on policy changes. At any rate, Denny, you seem to be treating this overly much like a book of law, which it's not. >Radiant< 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know, Radiant, I'm just frustrated by what seems to be some users giving certain banned users inappropriate free passes, even to the point where they threatened admin actions vs. them. do you think some banned users should get free passes? is it OK for them to be able to interact with the community even when banned? I don't understand why Brandt or
SchwartzSchwarz for example are given magic rights others aren't. it makes no sense to me. - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know, Radiant, I'm just frustrated by what seems to be some users giving certain banned users inappropriate free passes, even to the point where they threatened admin actions vs. them. do you think some banned users should get free passes? is it OK for them to be able to interact with the community even when banned? I don't understand why Brandt or
- Hey Squeak, we're not voting on policy changes. At any rate, Denny, you seem to be treating this overly much like a book of law, which it's not. >Radiant< 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose this is completely unacceptable and is an attempt to foce good will editors to act in a particular way. This is a bad suggestion that will only antagonize the already difficult situation on the Brandt and
- Quote from Jean-Luc Picard: However... the excuse "I was only following orders" is the epitaph of too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.--Kamikaze 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure Starfleet command also doesn't allow incarcerated prisoners to freely wander off from the penal colony, because some random Captain of a ship decided that the given prisoner should get a few minutes off-world to communicate and hang out... - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about when Captain Janeway took Tom Paris from prison cause she needed a pilot? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Brandt is NOT a prisoner and nor should he in any way be treated as a criminal or law-breaker, SqueakBox 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was replying to a silly ad hominem with another silly ad hominem... I never said Brandt was a law-breaker. But he is a rule breaker, and banned from Wikipedia. - Denny 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on Brandts talk page, why can't they use OTRS or off-wiki? All they can do anyway is point out BLP vios/errors. why do they get magic ban evasion rights on-wiki? - Denny 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was replying to a silly ad hominem with another silly ad hominem... I never said Brandt was a law-breaker. But he is a rule breaker, and banned from Wikipedia. - Denny 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure Starfleet command also doesn't allow incarcerated prisoners to freely wander off from the penal colony, because some random Captain of a ship decided that the given prisoner should get a few minutes off-world to communicate and hang out... - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quote from Jean-Luc Picard: However... the excuse "I was only following orders" is the epitaph of too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.--Kamikaze 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. I see no reason to get so punitive... it only plays into the hands of some of our enemies that like to call us "fascist". *Dan T.* 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny, bans are generally taken to be preventive, not punitive. At least they were, in the days when they weren't simply ways of getting rid of one's enemies. But anyway, that's the theory. A bit of flexibility at the margin allows the possibility of rehabilitation. It should be considered a success if a bad user turns good, surely? Also, the focus has mostly been on behaviour rather than personality. We're not discouraging the person as such, we're discouraging the bad editing patterns. Many of Wikipedia's policies are at base edit focused rather than person focused. It doesn't make sense in that framework to scrub out good edits just to punish bad editors. And yes, I suppose it can be frustrating when banned people just won't stay banned, but they are not necessarily pursuing negative ends, and allowing some wriggle room keeps us (just barely) human. We can argue over the wriggle room -- on the one hand, I can see a strong argument for hardbanning everyone who contributes to Wikipedia Review (and I'd like to see Jimbo do it, given the disgusting treatment handed out to some of the valued contributors here), while on the other, I urge accommodating those who are trying to contribute positively here (which is, in the case of contributors such as Jon Awbrey, a petulant, whiny child, a losing proposition -- I guess I cannot help wanting the grievances of hurt people to be resolved) -- but I think it has a purpose, particularly given the belief in rehabilitation.Grace Note 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I should be banned then, since I registered an account on Wikipedia Review, for the purpose of being able to comment directly when they talk about me. This precipitated a big debate over there over whether I should be banned from that site for being part of the "evil Wikipedia cabal". *Dan T.* 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Grace Note, if your concept were implemented (banning any Wikipedia Review contributors), do you see how easy it would be to prank the system by registering "identity theft" accounts on that site, then mouthing off that Jimbo Wales eats babies? --Zibiki Wym 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Allowing banned users to make comments on talk pages of articles about themselves
I would like to propose an edit to the current policy which will allow users (most obviously Daniel Brandt) who are banned and have articles about themselves on Wikipedia to be allowed to make civil non-abusive comments on the talk page of their article without being reverted. I would have thought that this would simply be common decency; however, others are choosing to wikilawyer about it. Thoughts? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Would edits to other aspects on-wiki under their "name" be subject to the same, expected RVing? - Denny 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Banned is banned, and for good reason. Editors are only banned after extensive conflict, allowing them to edit for any reason would force good editors to have to deal with users who have abused and harrassed them repeatedly. Also, there is no technical way to allow this, so you would either have to allow posts from unverified IP addresses which claimed to be the banned user, or to unblock the banned user's account and hope they only use it for the allowed purpose. People with complaints about the content of articles naming them can contact the Foundation by e-mail; the communications committee routinely reviews such complaints and posts valid ones to talk pages. Banned is banned. Thatcher131 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question, Thatcher: Arbcom said before posting on behalf of banned people was a bad thing. Is reposting banned user's content AFTER someone RV'd it as a banned user posting by proxy then? I removed Brandt's stuff three times on his talk page today, and got reverted by different people each time... - Denny 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- When is someone going to ask about the fact that Denny's account came into being only as recently as January 28th; on his first day of editing he was posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard; and now (after thousands of feverish edits) he's at the highest levels of wikilawyering surrounding the Daniel Brandt issue? Is it even possible that DennyColt is not a sockpuppet account? I suggest that it is, and I suggest that this calls into question the account's role in trying to alter Wikipedia policy through a test case. --Zibiki Wym 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um, pot->kettle, Zibiki Wym? Especially as it turned out that 4 of the accounts who were restoring Brandt's comments were sockpuppets of a banned user? I was probably wikilawyering with the best of them at 2 months. Let me check...yup, I was on Categories for deletion my second day and posting to AN/I at one month. Anyway this is all a distraction. The people who think that it's ok to let banned users make "reasonable" comments make the mistake of thinking that "banned means banned" is some kind of adherence to rules for rules' sake. Banned users are banned for good reasons and it is these reasons why tolerating or encouraging cracks in the dike is a bad idea. Thatcher131 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of banning someone is to prevent them from damaging Wikipedia. If allowing a banned user to edit their own talk page does no damage, then what exactly are you trying to prevent? It's a matter of common human decency. Not allowing someone to make civil edits to their own article talk page is petty and vindictive. It serves no purpose to prevent it. Frise 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I happen to think that human decency requires that we consider the interests of admin A, who was hounded off wikipedia when Brandt outed her real identity and got her in trouble with her employer; of admin B, whom he also tried to out, including calling old boyfriends of 20 years past; of admin C, who was so unnerved by the fact that Brandt had discovered his identity and that he posted from a country that does not value freedom of speech that he allowed himself to be blackmailed into editing the article with a sockpuppet, resulting in a desysopping; and of admin D, universally regarded as one of the nicest wikipedians ever, who had to explain to investigators from the Internal Affairs who Brandt was and why he would be calling a police station about her. I happen to think that such behavior damages Wikipedia greatly, and that tolerating comments by such users on talk pages, even nominally reasonable comments, is not only the camel's nose, but shows enormous disrespect for the distress that many good Wikipedians went through before the user was banned. I happen to think that entertaining such edits is offensive to good Wikipedians in the same way that giving a seat on the PTA activities planning committee to a person who had lost custody of their own children through abuse and neglect would be offensive to good parents. And I happen to think that the OTRS email system satisfies our duty to banned users quite well enough. Thatcher131 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've just been libeled by Thatcher131 in the above paragraph. This page gets indexed by Google, which means it is "published" by any conceivable legal definition. I want the above comment deleted. —Daniel Brandt 68.90.164.198 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the PTA analogy is that the PTA can't do things which affect the lives of non-PTA adults--while the whole *point* of having a policy about biographies of living persons is that Wikipedia can affect non-Wikipedians by having articles on them. Any comparable PTA analogy would be a little contrived, but imagine a small town where the PTA both deals with children and also occasionally chooses a townsperson to kill, like a less random version of The Lottery. If the PTA was trying to kill someone, I'd think it's reasonable for them to be able to attend a PTA meeting whether they've been deprived of their children or not. Ken Arromdee 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who has resorted in the past to the OTRS e-mail system, I can say that my letter went 10 days without any response, after which I sent a courtesy reminder, which was responded to in a couple of hours with a breathless note saying (and I quote), "Do you have any idea how clogged our mail queue is? We're doing the best we can", with no indication of when or whether my concern (factual error from enterprise) would be addressed. After another 10 days, I sent another reminder. After four more days, I received a response that Jimmy Wales had taken care of the problem (which he had). I believe it is a common myth among too many insiders that OTRS does an adequate job serving the needs of those who need to report problems to Wikipedia. Twenty-four days (after three messages sent) is not something to say is satisfying duty "quite well enough". --Zibiki Wym 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have checked with someone in OTRS and there are no outstanding complaints from DB. In any case, your experience points to the need for more OTRS volunteers, not to relaxing the banning policy. Thatcher131 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of banning someone is to prevent them from damaging Wikipedia. If allowing a banned user to edit their own talk page does no damage, then what exactly are you trying to prevent? It's a matter of common human decency. Not allowing someone to make civil edits to their own article talk page is petty and vindictive. It serves no purpose to prevent it. Frise 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um, pot->kettle, Zibiki Wym? Especially as it turned out that 4 of the accounts who were restoring Brandt's comments were sockpuppets of a banned user? I was probably wikilawyering with the best of them at 2 months. Let me check...yup, I was on Categories for deletion my second day and posting to AN/I at one month. Anyway this is all a distraction. The people who think that it's ok to let banned users make "reasonable" comments make the mistake of thinking that "banned means banned" is some kind of adherence to rules for rules' sake. Banned users are banned for good reasons and it is these reasons why tolerating or encouraging cracks in the dike is a bad idea. Thatcher131 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- When is someone going to ask about the fact that Denny's account came into being only as recently as January 28th; on his first day of editing he was posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard; and now (after thousands of feverish edits) he's at the highest levels of wikilawyering surrounding the Daniel Brandt issue? Is it even possible that DennyColt is not a sockpuppet account? I suggest that it is, and I suggest that this calls into question the account's role in trying to alter Wikipedia policy through a test case. --Zibiki Wym 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question, Thatcher: Arbcom said before posting on behalf of banned people was a bad thing. Is reposting banned user's content AFTER someone RV'd it as a banned user posting by proxy then? I removed Brandt's stuff three times on his talk page today, and got reverted by different people each time... - Denny 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Banned is banned, and for good reason. Editors are only banned after extensive conflict, allowing them to edit for any reason would force good editors to have to deal with users who have abused and harrassed them repeatedly. Also, there is no technical way to allow this, so you would either have to allow posts from unverified IP addresses which claimed to be the banned user, or to unblock the banned user's account and hope they only use it for the allowed purpose. People with complaints about the content of articles naming them can contact the Foundation by e-mail; the communications committee routinely reviews such complaints and posts valid ones to talk pages. Banned is banned. Thatcher131 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. Any banned user who is the subject of an article needs to have the right to discuss his biography on the article's talk page. Only a particularly severe amount of invective should be cause for withdrawing this, and then only for limited times. It is blatantly unfair to have an article on someone while prohibiting that person from discussing his or her concerns about it. Everyking 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other than Mr. Brandt, are there any users at all who are both banned and the subject of an article? It seems unnecessary to add a clause to policy for only a single instance. >Radiant< 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but even if he's the only one now, future cases are bound to appear. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gregory Kohs and his business, MyWikiBiz.com, were subject of attempted articles at various times while he was banned. The banned party would generally make his concerns known by logging in as an anon IP and making comment on the article talk page. These IPs would get checked and then blocked, or just blocked on suspicion (without a Checkuser being run). Seemed like a lot of extra work for admins, when it would have stirred up less commotion to just let Kohs post the comment or concern about the self-referential article. Anyway, Brandt is definitely not the first or last in this regard. Another one to consider is/was Joel Leyden and Israel News Agency, right? --Zibiki Wym 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if we are going to start making exceptions, I don't see why we want to start with Brandt. Gregory Kohs never set out to deliberately drive admins off of wikipedia and invade their private lives. Thatcher131 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this about being an impartial encyclopedia or is this about settling a score, Thatcher? Killa Kitty 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, all those articles you mention about Kohs/Leyden/Wikibiz got deleted, so that's hardly a precedent for anything. My point is that I see insufficient instances of this happening to actually make a Rule for it; see also WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 12:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that, Radiant!? And, besides, maybe a desire for deletion is the motivation for some banned subjects of articles to want to comment. So, saying "all those ... got deleted" is an irrelevant consideration, in my humble opinion. --Zibiki Wym 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if we are going to start making exceptions, I don't see why we want to start with Brandt. Gregory Kohs never set out to deliberately drive admins off of wikipedia and invade their private lives. Thatcher131 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Living people who have biographies at Wikipedia and have never had an account and don't want to register one can and presumably do contact the Foundation with complaints. Mr Brandt already has an extra advantage as a user — he can contact any administrator through "email this user". Why do people talk about this as if leaving him banned means that he's 100% helpless with regard to inaccuracies in his article?
- I gather, based on his own complaints, that people ignore him when he tries to contact them privately. By posting on the talk page he reaches a wider audience and makes it more difficult to ignore him. Furthermore, as the subject of the article Brandt is an invaluable resource, and instead of just demanding the article be taken down he has been making specific points about ways to improve the content lately, so I would argue that in the interest of creating a better article about him we should give him a voice. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Other banned editors with biographies are Derek Smart and Mark Bourrie. Smart was banned by ArbCom from Talk:Derek Smart; shall the community overturn that? Bourrie also considers himself a defender of Rachel Marsden, should he be allowed to post there as well? What about User:Richardmalter, who is the representative of Yoshiaki Omura and has been banned by ArbCom from all related articles and talk pages. Thatcher131 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's also Ashida Kim (though he just got ifdef blocked, not formally banned), Barbara Schwarz and Igor Bogdanov, who was banned by the Arbcom. So there's no lack of non-Brandt examples. - Ehheh 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this proposal. The banned user can email us, which is generally the more responsive pathway to such issues anyways. It's important to note that unless we screwed up, they should only be banned because of a history of harmful and/or disruptive behavior. If there isn't such a history we shouldn't make an exception to the ban, we should unban them. :) --Gmaxwell 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: As stated on his User page, Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. For full disclosure. - Denny 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I simply don't see why they can't contact us in a million other ways. The fact that he (Brandt) knows it will cause a proverbial storm each time he does this "in his name" means he's not out for changes, but to just troll. - Denny 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. He's been community banned, so why the hell is he still posting? --Calton | Talk 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- apparently Jimbo unblocked him. Thatcher131 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
…=== Arbitrary section break ===
What would this proposal accomplish that cannot already be accomplished via e-mails to the Foundation? BLP concerns are already a legitimate exception to the policy about proxy editing. DurovaCharge! 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for one, see my note above that my experience with the "e-mail" method was that action took a whopping 24 days (not hours -- days) to occur, and that was only the result of sending two additional reminder e-mails. Second, there is a certain ethical unfairness in Wikipedia stating something unproven or unsourced about a subject (for example, that someone "has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press"), and while this defamatory information stands uncontested in the public forum of Wikipedia, the offended party is told to privately contact the Foundation for assistance. (Meanwhile, Mr. Brandt has indicated in many places that his multiple private, postal-mailed correspondences to Jimmy Wales and to Brad Patrick have gone "ignored", in his words.) To me, "ignored" doesn't mean that they were considered but rejected; rather, that they deliberately or inadvertently failed to make any response whatsoever. Is that really the path of trust and tolerance that we're told are the pillars of Wikipedia? In sum, these claims that there are plenty of off-wiki ways to gain resolution for these problems seems disingenuous. I honestly hope this can be my last statement on this subject. If I'm not changing anyone's way of thinking with thoughtful and civil rationales, I'm not going to resort to name-calling or bashing. --Zibiki Wym 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Kohs, this is the talk page of Wikipedia's banning policy, not a forum for your personal grievances. I hope you become a productive and valued editor now that you have returned, but if you wish to pursue that particular matter further please do so via a thread at WP:AN or a request at WP:RFAR. Policy should be guided by general principles that apply to all relevant situations. The examples Mr. Brandt showed me were of requests that his entire article be deleted rather than of specific BLP concerns within the article. As for your own e-mail experience, please substantiate it with specific examples. Be aware also that either you or Mr. Brandt also could have followed up with an e-mail petition to an uninvolved administrator (we have over 1100 of them). DurovaCharge! 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Durova, I appreciate your point of view, and I respect that this is not intended to be my personal "grievance playground". I just noticed that it happened to be "you" making the above comments, and since "you" were also the source some weeks ago of what I felt was a defamatory statement about me, I found it a bit ironic. Mind you, just because I think something you've said about me is defamatory, doesn't mean that I have the time or energy to make it actionable. In fact, being that you (as far as I know) don't reveal your true identity on Wikipedia, I'm actually insulated somewhat by the fact that I'm being defamed by someone who isn't even willing to sign their real name to the accusation. So, that's actually comforting enough to me. It's like being libeled by Daisy Duck. I don't think the courts would accept a case labeled Kohs v. User:Durova!, would they? I'll also mention that I certainly do not know all of the intimate details of what specifically Brandt has asked to be modified or deleted, nor am I aware of the exact communications channels that he chose to pursue. So, admittedly, I'm not qualified to guide any Wikipedia policy on this matter. I'm merely trying to offer my personal opinion based on the fact that I was a banned user who had difficulties with the then-existing system for communicating grievances. Perhaps this area could be improved, so that more fruitful outcomes -- for all parties -- could be realized. That would be a very good thing, wouldn't it? Whether my opinions contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia or not, depends on their effect on more influential users like yourself. --Zibiki Wym 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Replied at editor's user talk page). DurovaCharge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is entirely appropriate. Why were requests for office action on Brandt's article ignored while those for Alan Dershowitz were not? Why should we require an editor to jump through hoops when a simple note on a talk page to editors actively editing the article would be more efficient and less bureaucratic? Wait…I think I may have answewred my own question there…. Killa Kitty 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Replied at editor's user talk page). DurovaCharge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Durova, I appreciate your point of view, and I respect that this is not intended to be my personal "grievance playground". I just noticed that it happened to be "you" making the above comments, and since "you" were also the source some weeks ago of what I felt was a defamatory statement about me, I found it a bit ironic. Mind you, just because I think something you've said about me is defamatory, doesn't mean that I have the time or energy to make it actionable. In fact, being that you (as far as I know) don't reveal your true identity on Wikipedia, I'm actually insulated somewhat by the fact that I'm being defamed by someone who isn't even willing to sign their real name to the accusation. So, that's actually comforting enough to me. It's like being libeled by Daisy Duck. I don't think the courts would accept a case labeled Kohs v. User:Durova!, would they? I'll also mention that I certainly do not know all of the intimate details of what specifically Brandt has asked to be modified or deleted, nor am I aware of the exact communications channels that he chose to pursue. So, admittedly, I'm not qualified to guide any Wikipedia policy on this matter. I'm merely trying to offer my personal opinion based on the fact that I was a banned user who had difficulties with the then-existing system for communicating grievances. Perhaps this area could be improved, so that more fruitful outcomes -- for all parties -- could be realized. That would be a very good thing, wouldn't it? Whether my opinions contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia or not, depends on their effect on more influential users like yourself. --Zibiki Wym 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Kohs, this is the talk page of Wikipedia's banning policy, not a forum for your personal grievances. I hope you become a productive and valued editor now that you have returned, but if you wish to pursue that particular matter further please do so via a thread at WP:AN or a request at WP:RFAR. Policy should be guided by general principles that apply to all relevant situations. The examples Mr. Brandt showed me were of requests that his entire article be deleted rather than of specific BLP concerns within the article. As for your own e-mail experience, please substantiate it with specific examples. Be aware also that either you or Mr. Brandt also could have followed up with an e-mail petition to an uninvolved administrator (we have over 1100 of them). DurovaCharge! 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Brandt posting HERE
See this where he accuses Thatcher of a legal threat. I am not going to remove this one myself as I don't feel like getting targetted more today. But this is a legal threat by a banned user on a page that is not an article on him. Why again are we suggesting a policy to give HIM alone a break currently when he obviously has no respect at all for us? - Denny 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)