Reinstating edits made by banned users, A battle royal Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This debate seems like one with substantial implications for the future. Among the POV-pushing elites at WP, a cherished tactic is to delete material they don't like, claiming that it was authored by a banned user, or similar to material added by a banned user, or stylistically reminiscent of material by a banned user. There are some heavy hitters contributing to the discussion, including our resident arbcom experts One, No One, and NYBrad, with incisive humor contributed by DTobias. The slight modifications that have been suggested have caused Will Beback and Tom Harrison to go off like roman candles.

[One]

Whoever McWeenie is, that's not helpful.

[A Horse With No Name]

Unless I am mistaken, most people are banned for actions that take place away from the creation of the articles -- primarily for stuff on Talk Pages and Forum discussions, though occasionally people get smacked for off-Wiki intrigue. Personally, I wish there was a way we could restrict Talk Page and Forum access for those who are incapable of keeping the big mouths shut and staying out of trouble.

[No one of consequence]

Unless I am mistaken, most people are banned for actions that take place away from the creation of the articles -- primarily for stuff on Talk Pages and Forum discussions, though occasionally people get smacked for off-Wiki intrigue. Personally, I wish there was a way we could restrict Talk Page and Forum access for those who are incapable of keeping the big mouths shut and staying out of trouble.

The most visible bans may be due to talk page and noticeboard stuff but I think there are a lot of blocks and bans over article content. Maybe most. I have not researched the reason for the original "Scibaby" ban; let's assume that he was edit warring, repeatedly violating 3RR and ignoring the results of reasonable consensus discussions and that it was a good ban. The problem we are having now is editors trying to block, ban or topic-ban other editors for introducing the same material. To the extent that the new editor is copying the disruptive behavior of the banned user, this may be blockable, but if the new editor behaves according to policy (discussion, respectful, no edit warring, etc) then the edits should not be blocked just because they were once previously advocated by a banned user.

[A Horse With No Name]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 31st August 2009, 4:46pm

[No one of consequence]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

[Nerd]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It's called politics, and not caring about the encyclopedia. If a perfectly acceptable page was created by a banned user, the only reason it would get deleted is because of one thing: spite. It's a method of rubbing it in.

People who actually apply G5 to perfectly good articles are normally ban-worthy themselves.

[No one of consequence]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It's called politics, and not caring about the encyclopedia. If a perfectly acceptable page was created by a banned user, the only reason it would get deleted is because of one thing: spite. It's a method of rubbing it in.

Because I can think of one case where this is not true, I can't endorse your view as universally correct. It may be correct in many cases, though.

[Nerd]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It's called politics, and not caring about the encyclopedia. If a perfectly acceptable page was created by a banned user, the only reason it would get deleted is because of one thing: spite. It's a method of rubbing it in.

Because I can think of one case where this is not true, I can't endorse your view as universally correct. It may be correct in many cases, though.

Oh, there are exceptions, for sure. There always are. But when articles written by users who were banned just for being a nuisance (e.g. Peter Damian) are deleted, I find that incredibly spiteful and vindictive. As much as I disagree with Peter Damian, if he's improving the encyclopedia, there is nothing to lose by his creating articles. Sure, he should be blocked, but deleting the article is too far.

[gomi]

This "proxying for banned users" discussion illustrates the ever-smaller and less reality-based circles in which the Wikipedia Cabal find themselves when it comes to undesirable users and points of view.

If they had some semblance of an editorial policy, then edits could be tested against that policy, and pass or fail -- none of this witch-hunting for banned personalities. But that can't be, so they create ever more baroque arguments for reinforcing the power of the current ruling cabal and its sycophants.

More of the same ....

[Kelly Martin]

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

This is David Gerard's favorite policy. Take from what what you will; frankly I think a large part of the reason for the policy is the potential for dramaturgy that underlies it. The rationale behind it is also stupid; having categorical policies for dealing with banned users just invites trolling of those categorical policies.

[everyking]

On a side note, I really wish someone in charge (assuming someone is in charge) would kill G5 - "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others."

Hello, if the page is properly referenced and the subject passes WP:N, who gives a sh*t who wrote it? And if a banned user is writing quality work, maybe the ban needs to be reconsidered? Or perhaps we need to acknowledge that it is utterly impossible to ban people, as opposed to disabling account names?

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It's called politics, and not caring about the encyclopedia. If a perfectly acceptable page was created by a banned user, the only reason it would get deleted is because of one thing: spite. It's a method of rubbing it in.

People who actually apply G5 to perfectly good articles are normally ban-worthy themselves.

You've got it exactly right: it's all about priorities. Only a person who cares more about politics than encyclopedia content would favor deleting a perfectly good article simply because it was created by a banned user.

[Moulton]

It's one of practices that turns WP into a marketplace of personalities rather than a marketplace of ideas.

[MBisanz]

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It would be much more of an effective deterrent if we could be 100% sure that the person re-instating the edits was the banned person. But since at best we can get a checkuser to say they are on the same IP (which meets an evidentiary standard well below that which most users are comfortable with in real life), we end up blocking innocent users from time to time and not blocking banned users for extended periods of time, which diminishes the community's faith in the banning system, as if it is only 50% accurate, does it actually accomplish anything?

I suspect the reason more people (or at least more people in the legal profession) are ok with bans from places like malls, casinos, etc, is that the chance of mistaken enforcement is much lower and the technology in place to catch banned individuals is much more effective (Griffin Book, etc).

[everyking]

In part, this is supposed to be a disincentive, so that banned users will stay away, knowing that any time they spend will be wasted. I'm not sure this works in practice, and it is ever only appropriate for certain banned users.

It would be much more of an effective deterrent if we could be 100% sure that the person re-instating the edits was the banned person. But since at best we can get a checkuser to say they are on the same IP (which meets an evidentiary standard well below that which most users are comfortable with in real life), we end up blocking innocent users from time to time and not blocking banned users for extended periods of time, which diminishes the community's faith in the banning system, as if it is only 50% accurate, does it actually accomplish anything?

I suspect the reason more people (or at least more people in the legal profession) are ok with bans from places like malls, casinos, etc, is that the chance of mistaken enforcement is much lower and the technology in place to catch banned individuals is much more effective (Griffin Book, etc).

Of course, the best way to ascertain the validity of a ban is to wait and see whether the person tries to come back and write good content afterwards. If they do, then clearly the ban is right and just--someone so committed to Wikipedia would surely not be a worthwhile editor!

[Kato]

It's one of practices that turns WP into a marketplace of personalities rather than a marketplace of ideas.

Good post.

[Guido den Broeder]

At least a dozen people all over the world have been said to be me on en:WP by the prevailing pov warriors, when they agreed with my edits. Some of them even got banned, obviously without CU (I have access to exactly one, fixed, IP address).

I don't think the rule makes any difference either way.

If restoring a banned user's edit is not allowed, the new editor will be blamed for breaking the rule.

If it is allowed, they will still be blamed, for not agreeing with the pov.

Reverts, defamation, taunting and blocks will arrive at exactly the same speed.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Mon 31st August 2009, 6:42pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

At least a dozen people all over the world have been said to be me on en:WP by the prevailing pov warriors, when they agreed with my edits. Some of them even got banned, obviously without CU (I have access to exactly one, fixed, IP address).

I got a useful glimpse into the process from this post by Nishkid64, where he announces two more CU-based bans of editors alleged to be me, and says "rangeblock expanded." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but would that not mean that these editors were blocked as socks while being connected from outside my putative IP range, which is why the rangeblock must be "expanded"? I get the impression that instead correcting the allegations on the basis of evidence, the evidence gets corrected on the basis of allegations.

Incidentally, from looking at the context, it seems to be an open-and-shut case that the both "Prehistoric Fish" and "Epistemologically yours" are both Coleacanth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who had just been blocked (alleged to be me, I believe.) Coleacanth had been digging up sources on LaRouche in Russian, and Will Beback was highly displeased. Coleacanth had said he was about to provide some more sources, at which point he was banned, and these other accounts showed up with Russian sources, contributing one talk page comment each.

[Milton Roe]

Whoever McWeenie is, that's not helpful.

It sounds like what McDonald's would come up with, if they finally were foolish enough to come out with a competitor for something made by Der Wienerschnitzel. In this case, no doubt the Polish Sandwich.

There are some topic bans on WP, and Carolyn Doran is one. If you want to see the foundation in action, I dare you to reinstate her biography, carefully sourced and all. And update it, also scrupulously and factually. If you keep at it, and insist that WP follow its own rules, they will eventually block you. Bet? Oh, first, they'll warn. Then cajole. Then find this thread and accuse you of some version of BADSITES. Then, accuse you of making a WP:POINT and being disruptive. And the final reason they'll stop you will (seem to) have nothing to do with what you are actually doing, and the fact they they do not WANT a Doran BLP up. But, regardless, the result will be the same. They don't want a Doran BLP up, and you'll be gone. They will stop at nothing to keep one from going up, unless some WMF board member were to get a bug up his or her butt about it. And they'd bring heavy pressure to bear even if that happened. Personally, I don't think any one person could do it but Sue or Jimbo or both.

So forget this idea of "the community" and its rules. That's all complete bullshit. WMF will keep itself from being embarassed by its own mechanisms. But these do not apply to other people being embarrassed by WP.

[Guido den Broeder]

I get the impression that instead correcting the allegations on the basis of evidence, the evidence gets corrected on the basis of allegations.

I've had the same impression since about the day I joined.