User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/on ban pages

This is not about RKism, RKology,RKs big lie or RKdia, it's about the role of ban pages in general, and how we must deal with 'em.

I reverted the RK palava page. Not because I disagree with what was written there but because I fully support Jimbo's decision to stop /ban pages, and that was one, albeit by another name. Angela 18:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Angela, reverting RK's ban page to blank it is a serious mistake. Not only are you favouring a "squeaky wheel" (blanking his renamed ban page while every other /ban page remains in place), but, you are sending him a signal to continue, as his propaganda techniques are working. You have fallen for a rather obvious trick: he accepts a measure for a limited time, then after protests that it is not harsh enough die down, he begins agitating against that measure, arguing that it is unique and therefore he has been "singled out" - whereas in fact he has got a special favour, which is, to have his record moved to a less obvious place. It is revolting in the extreme to watch otherwise intelligent people fall for trick which come straight from the Provocateur's Handbook. You must get over your feelings about /ban pages and at least recognize that the same policy must be applied to all of them at once, and that RK may set a precedent, but he may not be allowed to gain special favours for himself by such means as he uses. EofT

This is not a schoolyard. Literally the whole planet can read what is posted here. Because of the inordinate, indeed insane, Soviet-like process User:Jimbo_Wales wants to apply (secret letters to himself no less, straight out of Stalinism), this has become dragged out the point where a lot of RK's behaviour is more than obvious. The commentary on this has been painstakingly centralized so that decisions taken on his "case" can be fair. But you wish to let him hide all that and simply continue on as he has, with a clean and invisible record, so that others can give him leeway and find the same treatment being applied to them again. You are literally erasing the memory of Wikipedia, by which it can come to grips with this kind of gross infection. EofT

Perhaps you should read Nineteen Eighty-Four again. EofT

'I think that you have misread what I'm arguing for, and in any event I'm sure you can agree that calling it "Soviet-like" and "straight out of Stalinism" is not helpful to a useful mutual dialogue on the relevant issues.

Maybe, maybe not. Stalin ran a state that, despite being hobbled by a poor economic theory, eventually succeeded after some mis-steps in feeding itself, clothing itself, housing itself, beating Nazi Germany (where they took by far the brunt of the task), and remaining a superpower until the 1990s. But what I mean is, specifically, asking that all complaints about user behaviour be kept private and forwarded to you in private for a process known and managed only by you, is, historically, exactly how the Soviets did things. It's historically correct, much as you might dislike comparison. EofT

But it's a complete falsehood to say that I have ever argued that 'all complaints about user behavior be kept private and forwarded to [me] in private'. I have said the exact opposite, in fact. When something does rise to the level where some sort of actual action has to take place, then it has to take place in the sunshine of public discussion. Distorting what I have said may win you points with some people who aren't paying attention -- but it doesn't do you any good in trying to convince me, when I know exactly what I have said and why. Your comparison to Stalin is just self-serving bullshit, and furthermore I'm sure you were aware of it when you wrote it. Jimbo Wales 22:11, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, what I proposed is that people write to me for assistance at resolving conflicts before it becomes a hugebrouhaha, rather than immediately jumping to public denunciations and arguments about banning in any forum.

But, you have (a) not proven useful in resolving these conflicts, in particular, 'ban threats', and indeed, outright bans, are not useful it seems.

But, I have in fact proven useful in resolving conflicts. What has not proven useful are bans, because there are people who have so little respect for the community (you for example) that no amount of pressure results in them leaving. You threaten to leave and take 'the best people' with you, but what you fail to recognize is that if you aren't happy I want you to go,

and to take with you anyone who is willing to put up with you.

And (b) you surely have no time to give each case what it deserves and (c) you are talking to the wrong guy. The initiation of this "ban" stuff was entirely RK vs. Anthere, RK vs. 172, RK vs. me, RK vs. Martin, RK vs. Netesq. I did not myself, as you can verify by looking at the old User_talk:RK/ban (woops no it's gone! Gee so much for 'due process'), even call for a ban, just for offing RK to a place that had MPOV with sympathetic main article - the Bauder approach, - or to textbooks. That is, until his (description omitted) behaviour got so truly out of hand that I saw him driving other people off. At that point, it becomes important to make a public show of support for them, defiance of RK, and defiance of YOU, if you support RK over them. I have operated that way for a while. I will continue to do so. Call me Yeltsin, Mr. Gorbachev. There is no future for the "Soviet System". EofT

I recommend this because I'm actually pretty good at helping people to resolve conflicts amicably, and I think it can be useful to adopt a co-operative model of mutual love and respect as opposed to your loudly advocated competitive model of public shunning.

Sometimes mutual love and respect works, sometimes shunning works. You may be "pretty good" but so far you have failed to calm this down. Review this recent history of an article where I have had no input to decide if what is really going on here is continual insertion of POV, and removal of it by diligent parties (as I read it), or some of your "mutual love and respect". EofT

'Additionally, you have criticized the use of mailing lists to conduct these discussions, but the mailing lists have some virtues that the wiki software does not. You identified one of them above: centralization of commentary, so that interested parties can actually track the discussion and review what has taken place in a transparent manner.

"Who said what when" can be tracked through page history, if it is not sabotaged, and far more reliably than "summarized" or "clipped" reports to a mailing list. The participation on the mailing list is necessarily different, thanks to the email medium, than on the wiki, so, I reject it on principle. EofT

You reject it on _what_ principle? It would be helpful if you would actually elucidate the principle for me so that I can undersatnd. Jimbo Wales 22:11, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

'While it is true that everything on the Wiki is just as public as what happens on the mailing list (i.e. open to anyone to read, archived on the web), it can be painstaking to go back through and reconstruct what actually happened. Let me give an example: my own requests to you to leave RK alone were deleted from the page by you, thus obscuring what has happened. New visitors are not likely to see that, and it would be very hard for someone to piece together a sensible history of our interactions on the wiki.

I moved them to User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia and answered them. I don't think most people care about our debate on this. As it is impossible to "piece together a sensible history of our interactions" without the mailing list stuff (i.e. you read lies about me, you are annoyed, you check it out for yourself, you come to some quick conclusion, you drop me a boilerplate text), I do not think there is a "clean paper trail" about this regarding me. EofT

You don't need this trail anyway, in your model of "send everything in private to me". You need follow no visible or transparent process, in your view, so ban away. EofT

Again, you distort what I have said. If you really think no one is watching this, then what motive do you have for lying to me about my own words? If this is going to end up as a ban, it will be discussed at length, in public. But I see no reason for it to end up that way. Anyhow, if I ban you, you won't leave, will you? You've promised as much. You've violated a ban before. So what would the point of that be?

'As to the accusation that the mailing lists are somehow more private or less public than the wiki itself, well, I think that's plainly wrong. The mailing lists are archived on the web, and links between the wiki and list archives are easy to make. Participation on the mailing list is equally available to everyone, via mechanisms that are actually significantly more anonymous (if desired) than wiki participation can ever be.

But, it takes an additional effort to set up an account for that purpose, and, one can harass one's opponents off the map simply by forcing them to do this, answer to the trash posted to the list, etc. I will not participate on that list, and consider it to be a Soviet-Communist-like "politburo" that is not one party among many, but, a monopoly on such power. Yes, there could be competing mailing lists, but, would they have any power? No. I believe in a much more serious political structure that would be able to deal with challenges from the provocateurs. EofT

'What I'm arguing against, primarily, is the extant procedures that lead us to these fruitless animosities. I now have you insisting that I should ban either you or RK, while of course simultaneously you implicit threaten that any ban on you would be fruitless since you'll just come back again anyway. Why should it come to that? I view it as a proof of failure of the competitive model of interaction.

I view it as implementation of RK's own request.

I am under no obligation to implement RK's request. So you might as well stop asking.

It is always fair to judge someone by their own extant ethics. *HE* said 'ban EofT or I leave'. I did not say that. I say 'shun and auto-revert RK or I keep talking about him, and to him'. If anyone called for a competition, it was him. As for "coming back", well, it's a fact that no one can be stopped from doing so. It also seems to be a fact that the ones motivated to do so are often motivated by a very competitive process, that of pushing their politics or religion. The Wikipedia:list of controversial issues is just going to expand and expand as more zealots arrive. Some zealots are now focusing direcly on the Wikipedia:list of central issues in order to maximize their influence, and offsetting methods like m:twelve leverage points are just being ignored. So at that level, I view it as poor governance. EofT

'It would be preferable if, instead, we insisted strongly on community norms which subvert conflict through helpful and friendly intervention at the earliest possible time. Instead of you making pages of rants against RK, then, if your actual goal is honestly peace and harmony, I propose that there are better ways to handle it.

I don't view answering to multiple false accusations as "pages of rants". Nor would a lawyer who often assembles pages of such in pursuit of justice. EofT

My "actual goal is" NOT "honestly peace and harmony" between all trolls, of all stripes, but the best encyclopedia that can be produced in Full English DESPITE those trolls, of all stripes. My user name promises deliberation of all trolls, but NOT submission to tyranny - recall, even Treebeard and crew come to a decision and when they do, they fling orcs and trolls all over the place. EofT

'For now, and against a rather large volume of advice I've received to the contrary, I don't intend to ban you, despite you having done many things that would normally deserve a ban. I'm doing this because I'm hoping to offer a better way forward for everyone than a "him or me" ultimatum.

I don't accept this "having done many things that would normally deserve a ban". I consider it bullshit. I don't think I've done a thing that I have seen anyone else banned for doing. Maybe you think a lot of people "deserve a ban" but don't get it, but I can't know that. The ultimatum remains RKs not mine. EofT

'If either you or RK absolutely can't live with that, then it's a shame. If you both agree to give it a shot, then that's great too, except that of course if the experiment just means that you're going to act like a troll anyway, then I'll have to give up and resort to the methods that I now think are inferior.

There has been civil discussion. It ends when RK doesn't get his way, or wh someone so much as questions his objectivity. It is RK calling for inferior methods. And everyone acts like a troll when they are abused without end, and then forced to devote more of their own precious free time to correcting POV edits by pathological personalities of demonstrable ill will. I suggest you end your "experiment" by simply making a choice: review RK's contributions and recent behaviour, the degree to which he is seen as constructive or useful versus not, compare it to mine, and determine if RK's solution (ban me) will result in this peace and harmony (or "RKdia") you want. If not, well, realize that your methods aren't working, good people suffer for that in good faith that you'll do something about it, and *MAKE A CHOICE*. EofT

'Will you work with me on this? Will you please lay off RK, completely? Just declare a cease-fire, avoid him like the plague if you like, and try really hard to let him be the bad guy, if that's what he wants. Jimbo Wales 14:21, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Blind reverts is the only possible compromise. When RK writes on any of the Wikipedia:list of central issues, where he has proven himself untrustworthy again and again, I revert. Even talk pages. You permitted User:Maveric149 and User:The_Anome to apply that method for a good long time a while back. Is it now "wrong"? Is there something you wish to say about that method, before I/we apply it?EofT

If you try that, I will ban you. I want you to calm down and try, for a period of a few weeks, to just let it go. Don't worry about RK. Don't pay any attention to him. Just drop it. Just shut up about it. Mind your own business. You two can just steer clear of each other.

I would regard blind reverts by you against any user who is not banned to be simple vandalism. You may not unilaterally decide to try for your own brand of vigilante justice outside of community norms. If you want to fork over this, then I support you in your efforts -- our goals are incompatible, and you should just leave, if that's what you want.

I don't intend to show any favouritism to RK and I'm sorry if you see it that way.

Not him specifically, but you are favouring squeaky wheels and liars and whiners and libellers over sincere and diligent and fair-minded people like User:MyRedDice. You tell me, who would you rather see leave? Him or RK? EofT

No, I'm not and that's a pointless question. Angela

I think it's down to losing RK or losing the ones who RK is frustrating every time they try to implement some kind of protocol, and lying about them, and reverting any attempt to document. If he was a sysop, he'd be deleting. EofT

If I see any other /ban pages I shall blank them too, but there is less of an issue with the others because no-one is being threatened with a ban if they remain, whereas you are if you continue with the RK one.

This is irrelevant to my life. I restored them because there is no policy against all of them that is uniformly applied. I am happy to take my share of heat for refusing to watch the entire productive culture of Wikipedia bend to accomodate one liar and libeller, and I'm happy to be banned for that too. It will affect me not at all, I'm done here. I am now just making up things to do like Wikipedia:list of central issues. If Wales has an issue with that let him be the first to edit User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban. EofT

I think you're overestimating the effect of RK on Wikipedia. I'm done here - really? Angela

Yes. Wikipedia:List of central issues and my contributions to various aspects of Pushing to 1.0 are my attempts to form a transparent process to settle all outstanding editor and publisher concerns. Neither anarchy nor dictatorship can do that, so, if these are the choices offered, I am glad to be gone. It's a "do or die". I am pleased to take whatever I understand about this and go apply it elsewhere - one may reject the "community" without rejecting the content, thanks to GNU FDL. But it is fair to let *them* reject *me* after hearing me fully out. EofT

It's not RK's propaganda I'm falling for. All RK wants is for you to be banned, and if you keep trying to edit that page, you may well be, which is something I don't want to see.

What you want is interesting. What I want, when it regards me, is vital. I am not "trying" to edit that page, I am doing so, less all the time as it bores me. But at the same time, I will keep restoring it every time it is selectively blanked and the other "/ban" pages are not equivalently dealt with. EofT

Can you imagine what this place would be like if RK successfully "got me banned"? LOL. Think about it. Those he has offended would be even more angry, not intimidated at all. Some would leave. Others would suicide bomb RK in various virtual ways. Wales would find it more difficult to manage even than the status quo. As I said, I want him to make a choice. The choice RK laid out. This issue is simply not ever going to go away. EofT

But I don't think people would attribute that to RK. Why does it have to be a RK or EofT thing anyway? Why are you making it into a war between the 2 of you? Angela

I didn't, he did. He picked a fight (see User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism) with the wrong guy. Then he did it again. And again. And has asked several times that either I be banned, or he will go. I think he's lying, as usual, and that he should put up or shut up. And that Wales should make the choice RK demanded he make - see User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia. Even if no one but RK attributed my disappearance to RK, that would be enough - think about it - who is the one with delusions of power and persecution around here? EofT

I'm not giving anyone any special favours. No-one should have a ban page at all

I have advocated a Shun: space. Start Shun:RK if you want alternative justice. But your impression of "should" is in my view both wrong and not worth more than the goodwill of User:MyRedDice, and the others who suffer under the rule of RK. Yes, I consider him to actually run this place at this point. Wales is ineffective. EofT

You honestly think RK is running anything? I don't agree. A shun space is just yet another name for a /ban page. Angela

No, read shunning. The consequences are quite different, and a shun is in fact exactly what we actually do. There's no facility to reliably "ban" and even if there were, the GNU FDL seems to make it impossible to really keep one at least from retrieving editable text. EofT

and I fully agree that the same policy must be applied to all of the ban pages. Is it up to me to go 'round finding them? Generally the point of a ban page is to bring to the 'community's' attention that there is a problem with some user. In this case it isn't necessary. Who doesn't that know that RK is a problem. I've knew this 2 weeks after finding Wikipedia and being advised by RK to "LEAVE THE PROJECT NOW!!!".

That is "RKOJECT". Or RKdia as I call it. EofT

I appreciate the efforts you and others have gone to in centralising this information, but I don't see it doing any good now. Everyone knows already. It's not about letting him hide, it's about doing something that will actually help, and this page won't do that. RK doesn't have a clean record, we all know that, and unless this page is handed out to every newbie who ever wants to go anywhere near the topics he edits on, then I don't see what benefit you think it will have.

I think it should in fact be on the welcome page of every user: warning, there are people here who are not representative of the community of contributors but who are tolerated because we cannot find a uniform and fair way to remove them, here is list of them... feel free to shun them or ignore anything they say. The [[Talk:]] facility is not here for them, it is for contributors who stick to an etiquette proven to work for the purposes of developing an encyclopedia.

I can see your point about vital information being erased and I don't know what the solution to that is. Angela 18:47, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just leave it up. Don't you see that RK delights in literally every action that anyone takes that disrupts solidarity against him, and confuses the main point, which is, whether he should or can be tolerated on here at all'? EofT

I think you're the one diverging attention from RK's problems. You're making the issue into one of whether we ought to have ban pages, not whether we ought to actually ban RK. Angela

No, both issues exist, and I keep them straight by not letting any one ban page from being removed or hidden from sight. By letting that happen, you are actually confusing the issue. It is then not about just "all ban pages" but about "RK's ban page", i.e. RK is special, i.e. RK is persecuted, and all that. EofT

Regarding ban pages, they have their problems, but, there must be alternative policy, before we abandon them. And if we are to empower one squeaky wheel over all others, then, we must make it someone else. EofT

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:EntmootsOfTrolls/on ban pages" page.

Start a discussion