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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)