Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: that one guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:G5_Discussion

How long before this gets swarmed by people opposing a change like the WP:V one?

Posted by: Abd

This is a true factional dispute. The founders of Wikipedia mostly understood the hazard of punishing users by deleting content. They understood that punishment was dangerous to the unity of the community, that prevention of harm was what was needed. They also understood that it was nearly impossible to actually exclude people from editing Wikipedia, it would require resources that are not available.

It was long understood that contributions of blocked editors (not just banned, though in some discussions, "banned" is asserted as different from blocked, over precisely this issue) could be reverted by any user, but that this was not a requirement. With ordinary edits, what I've seen in practice is that a banned user makes an edit. Someone reverts it because they are banned, without review of the content.

I did that, once, reverting Fredrick day. However Fday was pretty clever. The edit was of a porn star article. The content removed was content that was actually verifiable, but that might be libelous if stated about an ordinary individual. I had an Arb showing up on my talk page telling me never to do that again. I really didn't care enough to pursue it, and researching articles on porn stars has its own hazards. Tough job, I'm sure, but I suppose someone has to do it.

What I realized when the banned editor was ScienceApologist, who was making harmless spelling corrections, was that there was a way for banned editors to contribute that was non-disruptive. Self-reversion "per ban." Makes enforcement easy, since the editor self-enforces. I floated the idea to an arb, who thought it fine, and then proposed it to SA, who angrily rejected it. Why should he revert a perfectly good edit? While I had some sympathy for the point, his purpose was actually to poke and embarrass any admin brave enough to enforce the ban. When this became obvious, he was site banned for a while.

General sentiment at that time, however, when it was one of their friends who was the editor, was that self-reversion would not be ban violation and that harmless edits were okay as well. When the situation was turned and I was the banned editor, that radically changed. That's when "a ban is a ban is a ban" was trotted out. Raul654 was prominent in that. This is the admin who effectively created more socks than from anyone before, totally needlessly, by an involved block and then involved enforcement, including as a checkuser. Scibaby.

The problem with G5 is that the contributed content cannot be reviewed by other editors for consideration. This would be a good use for WP:PWD, where contributions by banned editors would be blanked, with a category being added. Any editor in good standing could then review the page, check sources, etc. If the page was created by a banned user who had a record of good contributions, there is high likelihood of this review being useful.

Perhaps the blanked page category would be by month, to limit the time the page is available. I don't see why there should be any hurry, though.

But the faction involved here is not actually interested in maximizing quality of content. They are interested in their own power. I'll agree that there are issues with banned users, but there are alternative ways to address them, and bans, strictly enforced without regard for effect on the project, are definitely not optimal.

An independent way around this would be another wiki where banned editors may contribute content, ready to go for Wikipedia. Any user in good standing could then move this to Wikipedia. There are a few examples of successful use of this. Wikiversity is a possibility, and if anyone wants to use it for that, I'd suggest letting me know on my WV talk page (user Abd). Those pages should generally not be placed in WV mainspace, they will likely be out of scope. There would almost always be a way to do this consistently with the educational mission of Wikiversity. I can also transwiki pages from WP into Wikiversity, but I can't do that with deleted pages. And I can't transfer back to Wikipedia because of my ban there. I've also avoided doing waiting transfers to Wikiversity, requested through a template on WP, because I can't notify Wikipedia, openly, that the transfer has been done, and I'm not willing to email individual users there to place the notice. Too damned much work, basically.

This could all be handled easily in a sane system. One approach that was never tried with me: voluntary restrictions, with a mentor adjusting the boundaries. At one point, an Arb was offering to mentor me, because he understood what I was doing, and the value, but was told -- by ArbComm -- that this was impossible. Rather, what was done was to create, maintain, and tighten a vague "MYOB ban." Which was then enforced by involved admins, or, just as much of a problem, clueless ones. For example, an interaction ban was declared for me and William M. Connolley. Later, there was an MfD on a page he had originally created, it had been deleted, then it was restored independently by another user and was proposed for deletion. I voted to support keeping the page. Even though WMC had not commented, there, and even though I was supporting (as far as I could tell) his position, this was considered an "interaction," and, without warning, I was blocked. The *purpose* o9f the ban, to avoid argument between us, was completely forgotten. There were many such unexpected and creative interpretations of the bans..... I eventually closed that cycle with what could technically be called "Fuck you, Wikipedia." I felt much better. I recommend it. I then got to have some real fun playing Whack-a-Mole. Much more fun than trying to cooperate with a community that doesn't really value cooperation, only abject submission.

In a trial of self-reversion on Wikiversity, Thekohser created a new page, and blanked it with a note. It was then possible to revert that blanking. I can think of ways to do it on Wikipedia that could work. Consenting user, for example, best if an admin but not necessarily so, who allows a specific banned user to create pages in the consenting user's user space for consideration. If the banned user abuses this, the permission could easily be revoked, and then such creations would, indeed, be tantamount to harassment. Deleted on sight without regard to content.

One way to conceptualize bans as not involving exclusion of content, per se, is to consider that when someone is banned, it is like excluding them from a meeting, under standard democratic process. Such exclusion does not prevent any other member of the meeting from introducing motions originating with the excluded member. Self-reversion was designed to, essentially, require a "second" for content to remain visible. But it's obvious: the dominant faction on Wikipedia wants total exclusion, and, historically, they attacked restoration of contributions by banned editors as "meat puppetry."

Posted by: thekohser

The Ban Addicts all seem to think that their "bans" are having some sort of profound effect on the "banned" editor.

It's strange -- for me, being "banned" liberates me from having to try to conform to the ridiculously arbitrary and unfairly-applied rules that the Wikipediot elites have set up to further their control of information. I am more free to spread useful knowledge as a banned user than I was as a user "in good standing". And it pays for some rather nice dinners out once in a while. It's a win-win. The only ones who look foolish, in the end, are the ones who stand by the "banned means banned" mantra, thinking that it's accomplished anything at all.

Posted by: The Joy

Posted by: Rhindle

Raul654 has jumped on it now

Posted by: EricBarbour

I wish I could sell popcorn and candy here.

Posted by: Abd

They are profoundly narcissistic. I refrained from socking and attempted, for years, to work within "due process," and only gave that up when it was proven by events, beyond doubt, to be utterly useless, that ArbComm itself was corrupt or impossibly broken. I went far beyond the norm in this, most people would have given up completely, long before.

Yes. Once I actually edited after being blocked, I experienced a strong sense of freedom, of relief, of ease. And, in fact, I found that I was able to accomplish more per hour of editing. Had I not openly disclosed who I was, I would have been even more effective, in terms of stable results. I was, however, interested in exploring and demonstrating what a banned user could openly do (and what would happen in response). Finally, I created a classic "sock" and edited, but I made no attempt to conceal my IP, I didn't use evasive tactics to defeat checkuser. Most of my work stuck, even though, mysteriously, an arbitrator showed up. Canvassing, off-wiki, I'm sure. Some of my work was immediately reverted by a ban enforcing admin, and was reverted back by another admin.... uh, BLP violation I'd corrected ....

Wikipedia seems to turn the minds of many editors to some kind of smelly jelly. Or maybe they were that way from the beginning, and are simply preferentially attracted to this "community."

Posted by: Ottava

The G5 people have a logical point - if the community bans someone, why would we allow them any ability to continue furthering themselves. By allowing their edits to continue without anyone verifying them, or taking the responsibility upon themselves, what you are effectively saying is "oh, go ahead and sock as much as you want."

This is the equivalent of kicking a guy out of a football team for unnecessary roughness but allowing his "brother" who is the same guy with only a drawn on mustache to play.

If you are going to have any kind of ban, then you really need something like this. Otherwise, the ban becomes useless. Now, you can just toss out the bans, but yeah. It is all about consistency. G5 is consistent.

Posted by: thekohser

Yes, in practice, that is exactly what Wikipedia says to every user, banned or unbanned. Wikipedia's cabal essentially says, "We are so gullible in believing that people will willingly identify themselves by one account, so that we may abuse them and subject them to contradictory and unenforceable rules, we refuse to establish any system of public identification of editors, so go ahead and sock as much as you want."




Have you ever gotten a good look at the real Raul654? He's not capable of jumping on anything.

Posted by: Ottava

Well, maybe some people live by different codes than others do. I refuse to sock, but I seem to be the only banned user to do such a thing. I know it doesn't do me any good (ArbCom doesn't care), but I still care.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

There is more than one reason to ban a user. One reason is that the user really is a vandal or disruptive type, in which case the chances of him sneaking back to make constructive edits are negligible. The other type is someone who lost a content dispute with the cabal and was banned for that reason. It is the latter case which is of interest to system gamers like Raul654. They want to make sure their enemies stay defeated. Whether this helps or harms the encyclopedia is irrelevant to them.

Posted by: -DS-

Meh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=G5&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3ACriteria+for+speedy+deletion%2F&fulltext=Search, and I doubt it's gonna go anywhere this time.

DS

Posted by: Peter Damian

Yes absolutely. It is incredibly easy to evade a ban, as long as you don't publicly identify with the banned editor. So what they are trying to prevent is not good editing by banned editors, but rather the acknowledgment that something is deeply deeply and badly wrong when those capable of contributing good content have been banned at all.

And all that stuff on the page about people starting fights in bars is just ridiculous. They are avoiding any suggestion that some bans are just drive-by shootings, the result of someone getting on the wrong side of some administrators, or some little bullying gang of them.



Admin who can't spell weighs in.



Citation needed.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Bingo.

Posted by: Ottava

Yet I was able to find a way to get good content added without banning.

There are other options. However, I don't think you have the patience to make an 80k page for an important topic that lacks any real discussion on Wikipedia (you tend to make smaller pages and move on). There is more of a chance a page like mine would be picked up and transferred over because of the detail, complexity, etc.

But there is still a way.

Posted by: Abd

Well, he sort of rolls over on it, and it's finished, crushed. Mashed. Totalled. And checkusered from now until eternity.

Raul654 took a relatively harmless global warming critic and smashed him to smithereens, and each shard regenerated, creating the largest sock farm ever, such that Raul was blocking large swathes of the internet to prevent this guy from making characteristic edits about cow farts, easily reverted.

Posted by: everyking

Exactly right.

Anyone who believes a good article should be deleted simply because the "wrong person" wrote it has truly lost their way, and is not focused on the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Posted by: Abd

Now, what Raul654 et al did ''not'' do.

They did not educate users like Scibaby as to how to effectively advocate for fair coverage of their point of view, seeking consensus, following policies and guidelines, and they did not do that because they were not, themselves, neutral, so they seized on whatever errors the new editor made in order to ban them, and, later, identified everyone who made edits resembling those of the banned editor as being a sock, or, best argument of all, "meat puppet."

The effect: a ban of POV, or, at least, heavy administrative review of any editor expressing similar POV, resulting in participation bias. When an admin protected Global warming because of revert warring, William M. Connoley unprotected it, saying that it was being watched by multiple administrators. It sure was. The cabal. And they tag-team reverted any interlopers. I actually support their point of view on global warming, personally, and I attempted to edit that article for a time, and I found that, consistently, edits backed by reliable source, hewing closer to the sources than what was being permitted by the cabal, were reverted, with whatever excuse could be found, and sometimes no excuse. The talk FAQ was controlled by these editors, instead of what should really be the opposite: minority factions should have full access to the FAQ, to explain to newcomers why the article doesn't necessarily reflect their POV, explaining how to proceed in a way consistent with policies and guidelines. Instead the FAQ basically said to newcomers: Tough. Go away if you don't support our position, we are in charge.

ArbComm, with Cold fusion, suggested refactoring the Talk pages to explain, clearly and concisely, why the article was the way it was. There was only one editor interested in that task. They banned him because he talked too much about the article and the topic. It made them uncomfortable, and their comfort is far more important to them than neutrality.