QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:22am)
Okay,
we'll see if the measured and rational likes of Adrignola and Geoff Plourde prevail, or whether whimsical and privately-agreed bans by Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard prevail.
That's the way to proceed. There are also alternate pathways, explored on Wikiversity. Thekohser could use them on Wikibooks also, if the unblock is denied. Self-reverted edits by IP, the original edit summary says "Will self-revert per block of Thekohser," and then the revert summary says the same when it reverts, except drop the "will."
If this is used only for positive contributions, it will turn block or ban enforcement into positive content. It does not complicate enforcement of a block, and ultimately the community will not support "punishing" the editor by blocking IP that is only used for positive contributions. In theory, this could also be used for negative content, but I'd avoid pushing it!
What self-reversion, if used, does is to demonstrate cooperation with a block. It's quite different from defiance. It helps the block enforcing administrators by eliminating the reversion work that they do, by doing it for them, in advance.
It worked on Wikiversity, and, my belief, Adambro will ultimately stop blocking the IP that he did not block during the main experiment, and only started blocking because he concluded that there had been "enough" proof that Thekohser could make positive contributions. He will not be sustained in that by the community when it is clearly brought before them. What is "enough positive contributions"? Hello? What's the goal of the community, the purpose of allowing IP editing, etc.? Isn't it continued positive contributions?
Adambro is doubly off because he reversed an unblock for a user who was not blocked by community consensus, and without any basis in current disruptive contributions. The only reason this situation has continued is the continued hegemony of Ottava and Adambro. Ottava will probably be history quickly, he's started his self-destructive countdown, and I don't see that he has it in him to stop that ticking clock. He is ignoring all the warning signs. Adambro is not like Ottava, I suspect. He'll back off when the community speaks, as it will, I predict. It already is, here and there.
I'm recommending the use of self-reverted edits to all blocked users on any wiki. Make positive contributions, if you care to (I can understand why you might not care to), by IP. If you want to continue railing against the machine, do it with self-reverted edits, as I've described. They will be reverted anyway, so make it simple.
If you only "evade your block" with self-reverted edits, there really is no basis for the oft-repeated objection to unblock, "evaded his block." You could already make contributions by proxy and pre-arrangement, or just by making suggestions to any unblocked editor, who implements them on his or her own responsibility. Self-reversion simply makes this efficient and transparent. Your "railing against the machine" may not get reverted back in, but so what? It's there in the database, anyone can read it if they look for it, you've said your piece.
For a time, until this becomes consensus, you may be blocked anyway.
I made a self-reverted edit to an ArbComm case because I had highly relevant evidence to present. It is not at all clear that ArbComm intended to prevent me from doing this. I could certainly have done it directly by email to ArbComm. But I used self-reversion, partly to demonstrate the technique. I reverted "per ban of Abd from cold fusion." I was blocked for a week. Piffle! This was a demonstration of pig-headed adherence to formal rules while forgetting about the purpose of it all. It's not that closing admin's fault, he was just doing what he saw as his job. It's the fault of the community for not seriously considering the "self-reverted" issue when it came up and was proposed as a revision of WP:BAN. In reality, self-reversion was shot down only because it conflicted with the goals of the cabal, not because it was deeply considered.
And self-reversion is impossible to stop. Call it civil disobedience if you will. A demonstration that the "machine" will punish users for making helpful edits, or at worst, harmless ones.
What if GRAWP self-reverted? The guy was a vandal because he created constant mess that needed to be cleaned up. If he self-reverted, he'd be making his statement, which might be offensive in itself, but there would be less mess to clean up. As a vandal, though, he wants, probably, to create that mess.
Self-reversion is not going to be used by vandals. It's going to be used by people who want to make positive contributions, and who are willing to respect and cooperate with the decision of the community or an individual administrator to block them.
Really, it's brilliant, and Thekohser has helped to prove that on Wikiversity, I very much appreciate his cooperation with the experiment. If Moulton adopted it, I'd predict fairly rapid unblock, a few months at most. As long as he isn't self-reverting content that would get him legitimately blocked again (i.e., with community consensus.)
In the comparison with nonviolent protests, self-reverted edits are like the demonstrators who hold up their hands so they can be handcuffed and taken to jail. Who are polite and friendly to the police who arrest them. Who demonstrate their harmlessness as they are hauled off. Who are polite to the judge who considers their case, while still asserting the importance of their cause. Who allow unjust laws to be exposed by their willingness to take on the consequences of violating them. In this case, the unjust law is the rule that
all edits while banned are cause for further blocking.
This was the remarkable fact about my sequence with WMC. I first proposed self-reversion for ScienceApologist when he was under a ban from editing articles about fringe science. He was making "harmless" spelling corrections. They were being ignored. Hipocrite therefore started raising Arbitration Enforcement requests. Why? Hipocrite was cooperating with SA's plan, which was to tempt an enforcing admin into blocking him for making a harmless edit.
But they were not harmless. They complicated ban enforcement. The suggestion was made that SA suggest the spelling corrections on Talk (he was permitted to do that, Talk page edits did not violate the ban. By the way, this was grossly unfair. Editors who had been battling with SA were not allowed to comment on Talk, and they were, in some ways, more expert on the topics than he.) SA rejected this as cumbersome, and he was right. A self-reverted edit, though, is easy to cite, if needed, review and revert if it's a good edit. It is the most efficient way to propose an edit of any kind without making the change.
I proposed this to Carcharoth, who thought it a great idea. SA rejected it. Why? It's obvious. His purpose wasn't to make spelling corrections, it was to incite a questionable block. When this plan became obvious, he was site-banned for three months.
During the discussion of these "harmless edits," WMC opined that it was "stupid" to block someone for a spelling correction. That is, in fact, the general consensus when it comes up for review, except for the matter of ban enforcement! Self-reversion directly addressed this.
But when I made an attempt to fix a formatting error on the Cold fusion article, which WMC had banned me from (and then the cabal arranged that ban to become a community ban for a month), WMC promptly blocked me. Previous to that, Verbal (very much on the "other side") had reverted my edit back in. He really should have checked the effect first, my edit made that very easy, just look at the revision I'd created before reversion. I'd not done it right, but, as a result of the edit, someone fixed it promptly. Self-reversion worked as planned, to encourage cooperation between previously competing factions.
This was an opportunity for the community to review self-reversion. It was brought up at AN, not by me, but by another editor regarding a different topic ban of PJHaseldine, where I'd suggested self-reversion as a more efficient way to make a contribution under ban. It had worked, and the very editor who had asked for PJH to be banned was the one who reviewed the edit and brought it (mostly) back in. What did the community say on AN?
It didn't look at the details, it did not look at the proposed revision to WP:BAN, it just said, mostly, "a ban is a ban is a ban." I.e., those who were watching AN and commented were the "Follow All The Rules" faction. Those who actually reject Rule Number One, IAR. These people tend to take over, in time, if better structure is not put into place. This is part of the process by which a wiki dies. Ossification.
Jimbo calls for global ban on Thekohser, and his bidding is done
