User talk:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line

The associated page is currently a personal draft; while you are encouraged to Discuss it here, please leave editing the associated page to me. Thanks. -- orthogonal 17:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Jwrosenzweig's comment

I think you requested my comments, hence the following. -- The portion of the dispute I am familiar with is accurately characterized here. I would say that you seem fairly calm in the whole thing, although perhaps at the end the bold type and a little of the language shows your slant. I think it unnecessary to overplay a conclusion -- I always try to allow my reader to draw conclusions from a clear path of evidence, which will make the conclusion more powerful because of its internal origin. Your call, though -- certainly you're not going too far over the top in your characterization, that I can see.

It does appear that Snowspinner overstepped the bounds prescribed by policy in banning for personal attacks. As someone who suffered badly from a vicious personal attack troll (though not the most vicious of them), I do understand frustration. I also, however, resisted banning my troll even when I think it would have clearly been community consensus to do so. It may be that our policy is too lax....that we allow trolls too much latitude in driving off good editors and that stricter guidelines need to be approved. They aren't yet, though. Is the block on RB still active? Was it removed early or did it expire? This is somewhat troubling.

And in case anyone reading this freaks out, I've already concluded I'm too involved in this, even as a third party, to sit as arbitrator should it reach the AC, so I'll be recusing myself, and no one need fear conflict of interest. I'm not looking to get into a witch-hunt, either: I think an established user and sysop like Snowspinner deserves to be chatted with by the community about this. But I also think, if it is agreed upon that policy wasn't followed, there needs to be a consequence -- as simple as Snowspinner apologizing to Robert for blocking him unfairly (or at least to the community for having violated policy), or as complicated as a mediated or arbitrated solution, the details of which I cannot guess and will not idly imagine.

Interesting and thorough work, orthogonal. I'm sure Snowspinner sees the situation differently, and I'd be very interested in his side of the tale. But your conclusion at the present time seems pretty unassailable. Jwrosenzweig 23:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to Jwrosenzweig

My view is simple and accurately summarized by orthogonal.

I believe that policy exists that is not written, and that the mere failure of a policy to gather community consent (As opposed to actively gathering community rejection) does not mean that it is not policy.

More concretely, I believe that Robert was a POV pushing troll who damaged Wikipedia, and that he made continual and needless personal attacks against people.

I note that, since his block, he has not made a single trolling edit or personal attack.

This seems like a win to me. Snowspinner 23:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal's response to Snowspinner

Blocking for personal attacks was explicitly rejected by the community in the failure to accept Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. -- orthogonal 23:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to orthogonal

Rejection and failure to accept are, I think, two different things. Snowspinner

Jwrosenzweig's response to Snowspinner

Ok, Snowspinner, I think we disagree regarding policy -- I like finding the root of the matter. I will grant you that a well-placed ban often sobers up rude editors (well, often it just makes them more sly about attacks, but that's their problem, not ours). I will even grant for the sake of argument that Robert had severely crossed the line and that banning him was good for the disputes he's in (though I don't know that, having not seen the evidence). I still think vigilante justice is wrong, no matter how well-intentioned or successful -- it will only serve to continue the impression that there is a cabal, that the sysops are in it, and that anybody who messes with the right people is out. I know plenty of editors who personally attack trolls once they're frustrated. They never get banned no matter how rude they get, I believe because we all "understand", we've all "been there" and we know they're "good, nice people normally". This kind of behavior is very human, and I think it will serve to limit this site's growth and sense of openness if it continues. I'm not saying we ban everybody who says boo. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea to ban for personal attacks. I'm just saying that, in the absence of community consensus (80% is standard, I think), banning for personal attacks is a vigilante move. I'd go so far to suggest it's a violation of our social contract (sorry, just taught Rousseau to my high school students) as Wikipedians to be vigilante outside of policy. I'm not calling for a desysoping, Snowspinner. I'm calling for real government. If we're going to have policies, let's have policies that work. If you think our policies are nuts, then raise hell getting people to revisit them. Talk on the mailing list, request revisions, be persistent. But don't violate current policy because it's not changing fast enough for you. I know how dangerous and cruel trolls can be. I am still stinging from personal attacks I received this spring. But I'm proud I didn't take matters into my own hands, and I want others to know the satisfaction of having played by the rules when this site's enemies refuse to. I'm sorry you see things the way you do, and I hope you'll reconsider. You're a good editor. I don't want there to be any question you're a good sysop too. But if you violate policy as a matter of course, and are unapologetic, I guess in my eyes that means you're not a good sysop. I'm sure that means virtually nothing to you. But I have to say it because I don't like keeping secrets. I hope you'll think this over this week. I'd be happy to talk about it more if you'd like (anywhere you like, since you or orthogonal may not like to have the discussion here). Let me know, and thanks for conversing with me, Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to Jwrosenzweig

One thing that I do intend to be clear on is that I will be even-handed. To the point, really, of being unwilling to block someone in a dispute where both parties are clearly guilty.

I agree that I'd like policy to be improved. As you may have noticed, I've tried to do it, and, actually, been criticized by orthogonal, repeatedly, for trying to make "power grabs" (his words), and for only being interested in policy and power and not in writing an encyclopedia. I've seen the same group of trolls and users who seem to oppose anyone other than the arbcom enforcing anything object over and over and over. I've seen that well over 80% of the userbase wants a way of dealing with trolls and personal attacks and the general problems that Wikipedia continually suffers, but that, of that 80%, there's about five groups, and thus any single proposal to deal with them is doomed to failure.

I mean, I'd like the policy to reflect the reality. And I'd like there to be a way to deal with the continual problems that Wikipedia is encountering, and that are destroying article after article, and making user after user leave. And, quite frankly, I agree with Raul. If policy won't catch up to the problem, I'm not going to fiddle while Rome burns. I'm going to do what I can to maintain things, and to apply common sense on matters, because the alternative is just not acceptable on any level. So, yes, while I'd rather policy be flexible enough to deal with the problems on Wikipedia, it's not, and I don't think it's going to become so. Which means that something else has to be done. I honestly don't think sitting idly by works. Snowspinner 00:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jwr replies to Snowspinner

I'm glad you intend to be even-handed. I wouldn't expect anything else from you. And I will agree with you -- orthogonal needs to ease up on you when you're seeking policy changes. Otherwise you're damned if you do and don't. He can criticize the policies and seek to amend them, or even oppose them, but I think he needs to avoid ascribing personal faults to you when he does so, and I don't believe he's always successful in that avoidance. But I don't think it absolves you of the responsibility to keep on the policy change bandwagon even if you are rudely treated, and I am very glad you have remained focused on policy change.

I think some things can be easily dealt with. Why not poll the userbase on a simple question: "should there be a method of temp-banning users for personal attacks other than arbitration"? If 80% say yes, then you're absolutely right that the userbase is with you -- then we only need to work on specifics. Perhaps if we saw 80% agreement for _some_ system, we'd all be less picky about what system was chosen. I think, though, that the community will not long tolerate unilateral bans. If there is to be this kind of banning, it will need to be by an agreement of a gruop of admins, I think, and if a significant minority object, the ban needs to be disallowed. Quickpolls (oft maligned) might be a way of managing this. I don't know what the sentiment is for this.

I respect and fully agree with your desire to protect this site. But I think we may need to consider that there is an alternative that allows us to avoid fiddling while Rome burns or racing headlong into the burning streets to shoot anyone who looks like a looter. I'm not saying that you'll be careless in banning -- I haven't seen a sign of that yet. But if we give unilateral bans the ok, I'm sure carelessness will erupt somewhere, probably many places. We need to avoid that. Don't despair -- policies can change. They have. For months they said the AC wasn't going to work. I think it does (and I thought it did before I became part of it). I don't think it solves everything. I do think it solves some things very well, and better than what we had before. We can change things, but it requires the willingness to compromise and to admit that none of us may get all of what we want.

Your problem is twofold -- nobody's sure how to define a personal attack, and what to do about them. I suggest getting creative about problem-solving. Don't rely on the unilateral ban approach -- it won't get consensus. Focus on ideas that impose consequences that are open to community comment, and that are easily (and clearly) reversible if necessary. Justice is hard. It's also important. I know you are a creative and intelligent person -- I trust you to come up with some good ideas. I bet others have them too. Maybe you can get some brainstorming going on a subpage or on IRC. But let's get some policy ideas out there that aren't the same battles we've fought for 10 months. If the people are truly with you (and I don't have many doubts they are), they'll rally around a sensible idea. Have a little faith in the rest of us. Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal's response to Jwrosenzweig

Jwrosenzweig writes: And I will agree with you -- orthogonal needs to ease up on you when you're seeking policy changes.... I think he needs to avoid ascribing personal faults to you when he does so

Occasionally I have been acerbic with Snowspinner; I'm no plaster Saint and I don't claim to be.

But I don't believe I have ascribed personal faults to Snowspinner when he has sought to change policy by consensus. What I have opposed is his attempts to, after a policy has failed to achieve consensus, resurrect it from the dead by unilaterally declaring it to be "semi-policy" and edit warring with multiple editors in order to do so, or by edit warring over whether a mere 14 support votes over six months are sufficient to give a proposal legitimacy, or unilaterally declaring that certain votes (and only those in opposition to his preferred outcome) are "too late" and moving then from the main list of votes in opposition.

If Snowspinner gets a policy passed by consensus of the community, and it's a fair vote, and his actions conform to that policy and all other policies, I will have no further complaint with him. Indeed, I have asked Snowspinner to do just that: to put his creative interpretations of policy and "semi-policy" to a vote. For whatever reasons, he prefers not to. According to the IRC conversation he quotes on his User page, it is because he fears such a proposal will not pass. But if he fears the policy he wants will not pass, then he knows he is acting against consensus. -- orthogonal 22:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal's response to Jwrosenzweig

As to my conclusion, perhaps you are right and it should be left to the reader. I plan more work on the draft and of course welcome your specific comments.

As to the substance: this is by no means an isolated mistake.

Snowspinner has also banned Xed for personal attacks. Again, is the user a pain? Sure. But we're have a situation where Snowspinner is making decisions that belong to the whole community: he bans whom he wishes, he pushes the envelope of policy or just disregards it, and he goes about altering policies to fit what he thinks they should be rather than what the community has agreed on.

And today in IRC (which Snowspinner argues should be adjudicated by ArbCom), Snowspinner banned two users from IRC, initially for 24 hours, for extremely minor arguing over the IRC banner. After several users objected to this, and it turned out Snowspinner knew how to ban but not to unban, Angela unbanned the users. In IRC, Snowspinner also explained that "With RickK giving up on blocking, someone's gotta be the rogue sysop. I accept my duties with a heavy heart. :)"

But I should also note that this is not just a Snowspinner problem: today Mintguy blocked a user, Netoholic, (and Snowspinner unblocked) with whom Mintguy was involved in a dispute with. Guanaco blocked Cantus and them removed Cantus's messages about it on various Talk page. And Raul fully believes in "common sense" and abandoning explicit policy because explicit rules have inevitable loopholes. In other words, the longer this sort of the attitude unilateral action by zealous sysops continues, the more that contempt for procedure grows.

And that contempt will not be limited to sysops: it is only going to increase "trolling" and vandalism; the more that people feel that they can be arbitrarily treated on Wikipedia because of the lack of restraints on sysops, the more they're going to react negatively and "troll", and eventually leave Wikipedia to vandalize pages without logging in. And inevitably, the "common sense" sysops will point to this as all the more justification for action outside policy.

In IRC, a sysop (not me, I'm no sysop) asked Snowspinner to please stay within policy, and to not usurp the Arbitration Committe, for fear that "not going by the book will eventually lead to sysops warring against each other. That is why it is good to codify things." I fear that sysop is prescient. -- orthogonal 00:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig's response to orthogonal

The block on Xed is somewhat disturbing -- he'd exceded 3 reverts, but at most that should be a 24 hour ban, not a week. And the AC had already rejected a request to arbitrate, so it's not as if the AC was moving slowly to address the Xed issue. I don't know enough about the rest, but this is certainly making me a little concerned. I'll have to think about this. Have a pleasant evening, both of you. Jwrosenzweig 00:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S. Lest I be accused of defending Xed, it should be noted he was brought before the AC for insulting me, and in fact insulting my personal commitment to my faith. I figured I'd make clear my sentiments as far as he's concerned. The ban troubles me even so. Ok, really going now... Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to Jwrosenzweig

Xed is a new account, and thus susceptible to the disruptive users policy. He has also previously been blocked, making this a repeat offense. I don't think that a week is unreasonable in this case. Snowspinner 00:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal's response to Snowspiiner

Well, maybe 80% of Wikipedia agrees with you, Snowspinner. Why not ask? I also note that Snowspinner is something of an editor warrior himself -- but being a sysop, he's not blocked. -- orthogonal 00:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geogre's view

It seems to me that the issue of bans is a measure of frustration with the current methods. Like VfD, RfC seems to get everyone to agree on only one point: "It's broken." No one agrees on how it's broken, though. Some folks are clearly abusers of Wikipedia. Some are, indeed, saying that they will never recant or cease actions that they know are against the project. Some are insulting.

I sympathize with the frustration at not being able to ban, but I say the same thing about bans that I say about VfD. I don't trust myself to know when someone should be banned, and I don't trust Snowspinner or orthogonal. I don't trust anyone to know when someone needs to be banned, and that's why I trust everyone to know when someone needs to be banned. I.e. it is the agreement of multiple users that gives some hope of proper action, and unilateral action is as abusive to Wikipedia in correction as in vandalism.

If this project is going to continue to stay true to its origins, we cannot let our frustrations lead us to "unofficial" actions. We can't have failed policy be the backbone of our actions. We have to rely upon consensus. If Snowspinner wants to reform the RfC process, I would agree with that. For example, I agree with bans. I think our bans are of too short a duration. There are people, and one of them Snowspinner currently banned, who probably will never be good faith editors at Wikipedia. But "he insulted me" is too subjective a reason, and unilateral is itself an abusive manner of acting.

I must say that I hoped orthogonal's characterization had missed some of the nuances, so I was surprised to see Snowspinner agree with the account. I must say that I am, from first to last, a believer in deliberative justice as the best system we have.

Anyway, that's my view. Geogre 02:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to Geogre

I should specify - I agree that I blocked Robert for a reason that is not explicitly allowed under policy, and that I did so knowingly. I do not find a lot of the content of orthogonal's timeline particularly relevent to this action. I also strongly disagree that this is illegal. But I am willing to be quite open about the fact that I feel policy is broken, and that letting it sit broken isn't going to work. Snowspinner 02:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Zocky's view

I've been following this since it started, I was even partly involved in it, as the page says. I'll skip the narative and offer some thoughts for Snowspinner to consider:

• About wikipedia:
  • There are hundreds of editors and hundreds of thousands of articles and talk pages. Most people have never heard of you and have never edited the same article as you. Even less people have ever met any of the trolls.
  • There is no deadline. Wikipedia is years away from being the encyclopedia it wants to be. Articles don't have to be perfectly NPOV right now. No sane user expects to read a 100% NPOV article on a genuinely controversial issue.
  • It is vital for wikipedia to include as many editors with as many POVs as possible. Tolerating people with different POV's, even if weird, is important.
  • Wikipedia is based on the good will of the editors and preserving good will is very high on its list of priorities.
• About human interaction in general:
  • There is no one common sense. Everybody follows what they call common sense. If everybody agreed what it was, there would be no courts, no wars and no revolutions.
  • Vigilantism doesn't work. People invented procedures, policies and due process because it doesn't.
  • In case of no consensus for change, status quo is the default choice. That's what provides the necessary stability to any community.
  • Good ideas and good intentions do not give one the right to unilateraly change the modus operandi of a community one has joined. Initiation or promotion bestows on one more responsibility to follow the community ways and habits, not less.

Zocky 00:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)