[WikiEN-l] Bannie donc partie

Wed Oct 15 21:34:42 UTC 2003

From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

>The Mediator role account is a danger to the
community

>I worry intensely about how this "role account" got
>started, and where
>it's heading. Although the concept of mediation
sounds >very nice, 
>please
>note that the person who conceived of it was banned
>for extremely
>anti-social on-line behavior: User:EntmootOfTrolls
(or >"EofT"). This
>user scares me more than any other user; I came close
>to putting an
>emergency 'block' on his account when he seemed to be
>physically
>threatening user:RK (the 'sharia law' remark sounded
>like a real 
>threat,
>not at all akin to Rampton's obvious jest). 

>It is this contradiction between the "nice" sound of
>the concept and 
>the
>"nasty" character of its proponent that worries me so
>much. Given that
>EofT has caused so much heartache and fear in the
>past, I worry that
>this scheme could be some sort of trick to cause
>similar trouble in the
>future. I'm especially suspicious of the aspect of
>anonymity; at a
>minimum, I'd want the developers to keep an IP log of
>who's using the
>account at any time; but I worry that this won't be
>enough. I would 
>feel
>somewhat better if I myself knew who the 'Mediator'
>was at all times,
>but that raises other issues and does not settle all
>my current
>concerns. 

>Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so
>under their own
>names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate
>under that (each with
>his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some
>trickery or treachery
>brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I
don't >like or trust
>what's happening now.

>Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

I can only put that in perspective with your reaction
to this idea, just a few days ago, Ed

You wrote

:I support this idea wholeheartedly. It is the answer
:to my prayers. (I have an idea about who the
anonymous :current mediator might be, but "further
deponent :sayeth not", heh heh.) --Uncle Ed 14:57, 10
Oct 2003 :(UTC) 

I will be frank Ed, in the past 18 months I have been
there, I have been terribly trying to open my ears. To
all of you. To the cunctator a lot (he was there a lot
at that time), to Mav, to Toby, to Ec, to Martin, to
Erik, to you, and to many others (don't want to hurt
some I did not list); Some are considered very good
and trusted members of this                           

          , so are just more neutral. Others are
thought bad, if not dangerous.

I care about this, but I mostly care about ideas, and
when I read an idea I think hold interest, I am
willing to work on it.
When I realise, I am alone, or there are some powerful
forces against the idea, I usually gave up.

The other day, I read you were interested by the idea.
Ec obviously was interested as well. Alex criticized
it, but also admitted it was not in antagony with his
own proposal.

And several hinted that many points were bad. And I
agreed with that.

So, seing that at least 3 persons were interested in
pursuing the discussion on this idea (and this is
really on an idea), I thought it would be acceptable
to go on with this discussion.

I have often problems with lengthy discussions on
mailing list, because soon enough, we loose track of
others opinions; Perhaps no one ever noticed that I
usually rather quickly drop discussions when they get
lengthy, because I can't assume looooooog text very
well.

I thought it was best to go on discussing the matter
on wikipedia. Also, it is written no where that
discussion over meta option should ONLY happen on this
mailing list. Quite many discussions only occur on
wikipedia itself, and no one seems to complain about
that.

I can't help putting in perspective what you wrote the
idea day, and this so hurting mail and comment from
you here.

I am not very good at that, but I tend to like
mediating. When I proposed myself to Jimbo some two
weeks ago, mostly in case of issues with non-english
speakers (because I remember how good it was when some
people soothed me talking to me in french when I was
in conflict with RK), he did not dismissed me. Or so I
thought.

But usually I prefer mediating ideas rather than
people.

Today, I took most of the afternoon, not to mediate
between people, but to start mediation over ideas. I
thought that if there were two concepts, and at least
a minimum of people declaring themselves interested in
both concept, it might be beneficial by at least those
interested to remove all what was clearly
controversial in the idea, to clarify where the two
concepts were meeting, and where they were being
different. I had no idea this could be so scarry to
you, just discussing, removing the bad points, putting
in light the good one, not even as a proposition, but
just as a clean-up.

In short, you mention how much heartache EoT has
caused in the past. Do you have any idea of how much
heartache you caused me today ?
Because, if I did this, it was because YOU, EC and
perhaps Alex, are thinking of options. It was for you.
As I indicated both on the account today, and to
Martin yesterday, I intended it to be my last
participation over meta topic on en.
Last it indeed is.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:30:46 -0700
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20031015183046.GH31966 at joey.bomis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and
>anyone who is using
>one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some
>official function
>is doing something very un-wiki indeed.

At the top of that page is written

:Note: this user is not any kind of "official"
:Wikipedia mediator - The account currently exists to
:support a proposition to improve mediation on
:Wikipedia 

It is clearly labelled as being a proposition, a place
for discussion. It is clearly labelled that this is
not official in the least. Pretending otherwise is
disingenous; I left that note clearly in evidence. No
one could miss it.

>We can talk about the idea of role accounts *here* if
>people are
>interested in the concept.  Maybe it's a good idea. 
>But it must not
>happen in this way.

>Since that account was EofT, 24, etc., it was banned
>already.

When the account was banned, it was very clearly said
on this very list that the reason why it was banned
was because of who was using it. It was written no
where the user account was banned for making threats,
insulting people, making pov statement in articles. It
was not even a vandale. This account made nothing to
hurt wikipedia, and nowhere in the rules of Wikipedia
is there one that may justify the banning of this
account in itself.
Apparently, the rules changed, and the reason given
when the account was blocked was false. The reason is
given nowhere in the current rules. I am afraid this
set a precedent which will have to be noted. In any
case, it was not noted in the rules this afternoon, so
if it was not a rule at that moment, I did not break
any rule

>It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad
idea.

Martin certainly did not. I did. I explained it in
length on the user account page. And Martin read my
justifications and thought them valid enough not to
ban again the account. He could have. He could have
told me he thought it wrong, but he did not. I would
probably had stop if he had. But do not accuse him of
anything.

The only user who complained when I was around was
Rick. That is, he complained by reverting a page, then
did nothing more.

I explained in length on the user page, why I thought
the account could be unblocked, basing myself on the
reason that was given for the block, which was not
relevant any more.

I will copy below what I wrote them. (It was reworked
by Martin later, and that was sign for me what I was
doing was admittable).

You may find this edit in the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Mediator&diff=1568875&oldid=1568450

>Let me add to this for emphasis -- creating new
>accounts such as
>"TheMediator" or anything of the sort is something
>that I will frown
>on mightily as well.  If there's a policy proposal,
>then it should be
>proposed and discussed.  There is zero need for a
>special account that
>would mislead people into thinking that there
actually >is already some
>sort of policy of this type.

As I already said, this can't currently mislead
anyone.
I edited only the user page and subpages, and it is
clearly labelled at the top it was a proposition to
discuss.

>I think it is *highly* unlikely that the "Mediator
>role account" is
>something that could achieve community consensus. 
>It's just a stupid
>idea proposed by a user who has proven impossible to
>deal with.

In the real life, where I work, we work essentially
with decision making per consensus.
One of the key thing we were told, is that during the
first phase of a discussion, brainstorming, any idea,
even the craziest, should be given.
Because even if crazy, they might enlighten other
people, and lead to another idea, this one being great

Somehow, giving "stupid" ideas is highly regarded :-)
At least, at the end of the year, when salary raises
are discussed, it is better you are remembered for
crazy ideas, that no ideas at all.

I thrive on crazy ideas. I listen to people, anyone,
and try to see what is good, and what is not. Just as
on Wikipedia, I learn devil advocate from The
Cunctator, consensual behavior from Mav, wise comments
from Ec, juridical comments from Alex, fallacies
by...oh, so many people, professionalism from Erik,
warmth from KQ, fun from many
I learned a lot. And I also learn from bad people as
well. Because, even though bad, no one is entirely
bad. There is good to take in any person. Sometimes,
it is not what is required at the very moment, but no
one should assume that a difficult user is just one
that is 100% bad, just as the perfect user is never
100% good.
Which is why several of the trusted users around here,
sometimes make mistakes. That is no big deal.

>But in any event, there's no need of the account to
>already exist to
>pretend to fulfill a role that doesn't exist and
>probably won't exist.

We do not know that for sure. And that is no way to
think within a consensus process.

>By all means, though, let's discuss it and find the
>merits in the
>proposal.

>--Jimbo

Jimbo
I am sure of one thing, because I trust you to be a
very careful person. I am sure that before banning
someone, you carefully assess why you are banning this
person. I am sure that you review the pages written by
this person, in order to distinguish what you were
told in the mailing list. I know this is also why it
sometimes take you a long time to take a final
decision. Because not being on wikipedia all the time,
you can't take a decision just over a couple of
comments on the mailing list; Of course, you have to
go and see the extent of the problem

So, for this reason, I know you have read what was
written today by User:Mediator, and obviously, you
have read as well the comment left at the top of the
user page, to justify the unbloking, to explain what
was gonna happen, the clearing of the controversial
stuff, the removal of what was purely associated to
the EoT, then the intent to hand over the password to
those who had said they were interested by thinking on
the matter.

It can't then have escaped you that I wrote all that.
It can't have escape you that it was not EoT writing.

I especially wrote

I am not banned, have never abused anyone, nor being
offensive at an unreasonable level, never threatened
anyone afaik. I don't think I need to prove I am not
142. You know who I am; my poor language skills should
be enough; if necessary, I can make an anonymous edit
per request to show my ip (leading to a middle-size
french city :-); or any developper can check of
course. If it is still necessary, I will email Jimbo
:-)

And Martin indicated my name if that was not enough.

At the top of the page, you put a lign. You wrote

Note: this account is blocked again, and should not be
unblocked. Any discussion or debate about the concept
of a role account should take place in the proper
forum, the wikien-l mailing list. We do not set policy
by unilateral assertion, particularly not by
unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account.
Jimbo Wales 18:37, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 

I especially notice the "particularly not by
unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account".

So, I understand that my additions, the ones that
justified the blocking of this account today, are said
to be ones made by a banned account.

That is me. The banned account now. My assertions were
not anonymous. They were not unilateral. And this
afternoon, they were not by a banned user. The notice
makes reference to the current edits, so that is me.

I dont know policies very well, but there is one I am
aware of, the fact a banned user, should not edit
under other accounts. I saw that rule inforced enough
times.

Since I am someone who tend to obey rules, I will of
course comply. So, I will not edit wikipedia any more
from now on. I dearly hope that at least one user will
ask upon what motive I was banned, and that Martin
will update the policy pages upon banning accordingly.

I have talked to you privately enough to have the
weakness to believe that as a kindness, you will not
revert my user page to place a ban notice on it. Many
people know my user name, and I would feel quite
humiliated.

Well, I would lie if I did not admitted I feel
terribly humiliated right now. I am thinking of the
huge number of hours I spent on wikipedia in the past
18th months (really huge, but perhaps english users do
not realise that), and I would have thought I would be
granted good faith at least. Even if you disagreed
with me editing that page, you could have just told me
on the talk page to stop, and I would have complied
(or discussed). I thought you knew me enough not to
think I would go on if you ask me to really stop. Hard
is the fall.

I hope this example of you banning me will be
enlightening for those who think there is no need for
more mediation between people on wikipedia. Somehow, I
think the biggest issue between people, not only
Wikipedia, is the lack of discussion, lack of
understanding. I tried this afternoon to stimulate
discussion, I am here trying to explain to you again,
that I was acting in good faith, because the account
had been said blocked only because it was edited by a
banned user, not for any other reason.

You did not take the time to discuss with me, you did
not even take the time to put a word on the talk page.
I supposed you had no time, you thought it unecessary,
it was easier that way. 

I will copy one paragraph I wrote on that page today

...the worst problem at Wikipedia is that more and
more banning seems to be occuring, which could be
interpretated in several ways : perhaps more traffic
is bringing more vandals and difficult users. However,
it seems as well, that more and more people are just
banned because some think it the quickest, easiest,
less painful, or more reliable way to deal with
problematic users. This could also a sign of less
tolerance, less willingness to work out issues, lesser
capacity of listening to what others have to say, and
less desire to help Wikipedia:users in conflict solve
them through discussion.

So true I was, when you prove my point about 3 hours
later.

------

I should probably shut up now. I remember that banned
users are asked to make their case of the list. So
here is mine. I need no private mediation for that.
Neither anonymous. I always told you with my heart
open what I thought. Just as Ed, I do not think you
can perceive the pain you are giving tonight. I do not
think so. And for Erik, who will not miss saying I am
doing an appeal to pity, no, I am just honest. And
terribly disheartened.

The last thing I will say is, I intend to go on
editing the french wikipedia. I do not think french
wikipedians  would support my banning. If you think
the opposite, at least ask and respect their opinion.
Please.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com