User talk:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews

From a procedural standpoint

Aren't any of these users free to request a review from any sysop? Have any of these users done so? -- FreedomBound 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only if they're able to contact them, for example blocked users who still have email privileges can email requests individual sysops or bureaucrats, and a user could make a review request on behalf of a banned user, but we don't have any formal ban appeal process. A few of the users on the list have emailed me requesting that their bans be lifted, however not everyone on the list requested an appeal, and not everyone who has sent me an appeal request is on the list. I have specifically excluded users who were recently banned for serious misconduct. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How should this work?

Should we just comment in the appropriate section on the page? poke | talk 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest, you've got it completely backward

In reality, the question is "why should I unblock these accounts?"

The accounts were all banned for violating policy or via sysop discretion. Calling for a re-trial requires that you provide evidence of their innocence - i.e., that they are ready to be unblocked. You don't go to a judge and say "this guy has been in jail for 1 year of his life sentence, if you don't give me any reason why he should stay there, I'm letting him out." You have to come in with a valid argument to remove it.

Your project also has significant other flaws - we had evidence in our possession back then that we may not anymore. I have lost (in my last HD crash) a bunch of GWW bookmarks that I kept as "evidence" of my claims or blocks I made. In a few cases, I could have linked you the diff that changed my mind, but I no longer have it. Your project is flawed because they are assumed innocent simply because of my lack of evidence right now. That's absolute tosh.

Basically, I'll have to say "I called it." This discussion is going to be a waste of time, and I'm saddened by the fact that you think any of this is necessary. Sysops are trusted by the community - except they're not when you second guess their decisions by projects like this. It's all well and good that you aren't naming them individually, but you're second guessing their blocks nonetheless. A more professional way to do this would have been to contact the blocking sysop individually, and not have a huge discussion on a pedestal about trolls and socks that were blocked months and months ago.

Finally, this is my biggest gripe - people like you are why trolls troll. You, Gordon, and anyone who takes this page remotely seriously, are getting trolled like fuck. You know why? Some of these accounts you're wasting time discussing have not been used in months. Trolling that they've gone and forgotten about is still winding you up. Short story? Stop getting trolled so hard. Realize that your project is a waste of time, at best you are calling into question the authority of a number of sysops, and at worst you are having troll accounts unblocked for no reason at all, and simultaneously destroying any semblance of power the blocks once had. -Auron 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Permanent blocks usually take too long to happen, leaving users who do nothing but disrupt the wiki with months to troll people around. Sysops are often less willing to use their discretion than they should be. Second guessing those sysops and those blocks, especially in such a public way as this, is doing nothing to help the wiki at all. Erasculio 12:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

" except they're not when you second guess their decisions by projects like this. It's all well and good that you aren't naming them individually, but you're second guessing their blocks nonetheless. A more professional way to do this would have been to contact the blocking sysop individually, and not have a huge discussion on a pedestal about trolls and socks that were blocked months and months ago."

personally i think he is trying to put in place some sort of guide lines so blocks can be appealed. instead of this behind closed doors bs, and the e-pen waving that is going on now. with the 'oh they are disrespecting me because they removed my block oh no not my e-honor and e-pride,' yes their should be discussion and a consensus should be meet and that discussion should involve more then 2 syops, it dose not need to be completely public but more so then just the 2 syops, and when a consensus is met it should be posted somewhere were the person involved (if not already involved in the discussion) can read it.- Zesbeer 12:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lena recently asked me to review his block and the blocks of his brother and Wafflez. I discussed it with Lena, Defiant Elements, Tanetris, Lemming (the original blocking sysop) and Auron (the most recently blocking sysop). I think also Wynthyst, but she can feel free to correct me if I am wrong and I heard excerpts from discussions that included Salome. Was that a thorough enough review and discussion for you, or were their other people you think I should have contacted? To contact all these people and discuss it with them took about a week of my time. I decided not to remove any of the blocks at this point in time. Misery 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the intent behind this project is sound. To set up a formalised process of appeal and review that does not simply involve an old boys club of private sysop chat with no transparency, as personally I find that incredibly distasteful and fundamentally unsound. I had this discussion with Misery some time ago and he knows my thoughts and views on this, so this won't be anything new to him, but I do believe that open and honest review of blocks is the only way any banning system can work in a fair and reasoned way. I do not believe that sysops should "stick together" just so that we don't undermine each other's authority as that wasn't what we were elected to do, we should be able to act coinfidentally in the knowledge that if our actions are reasoned and well thought out, that we will have the backing of our colleagues in the admin team, but that if we act in err that those self same colleagues will help us rectify those mistakes, that way we ensure the best service we can to the community at large. This is not a question of undermining each other's authority, in fact I feel it strengthens us as a team as it ensures that we are all performing at our best. A community should have a voice and should know that the voice will be heard and that one sysop's ban is not the be all and end all of the issue. However I do think looking at permabans first undermines your efforts Gordon, on the whole we are reticient to give out permabans and often many are far far overdue when they finally are given, thus in this instance I think you will find little support. I personally feel that it is the shorter bans that are more likely to be questionable in nature, as we debate and consult on them much less. So although I do deeply respect what you are doing here and I agree with the thought behind it, I just don't think a review of permabans has much merit at this time. However I would favour a more formalised procedure for appeals of bans in general. (before they go to BC, which in cases of shorter bans is often not viable) -- Salome 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reviewing permabans with more than one sysop is a good idea, but when and only when the user in question is asking for an appeal (and even then we're going to be just feeding trolls 90% of the time, but oh well). In this initiative, I doubt any of the users whose ban is being questioned have actually asked to have their bans reverted at this time (other than Lena, whose ban has already been handled nicely by Misery and the other sysops). Erasculio 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO an active, questionable permaban is more useful as a tool for trolls than a permaban which is clearly warrented. I can see three outcomes for each of these reviews. If the ban is upheld due to strong, clear evidence, it will be less useful due to the greater accessibility of that evidence. If the ban is overturned, either the account will be abused, which would greatly diminish any controversy over the old ban and the inevitable new ban, or the account will not be abused, indicating that the account holder is either innocent or has reformed. In any case, I think the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks. In response to Auron's conviction metaphor, I prefer to see bureaucrats as vaguely analogous to judges, and sysops as vaguely analogous to police or security guards, but I don't want to stretch the analogy too far, maybe an analogy which compares accounts to drivers' licenses, with obvious throwaway accounts as obvious fake IDs would be more accurate. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, no one other than you is claiming those permabans are questionable; in the end (and as Auron said), you are the one making them a tool for trolls (as seen on the fact that we have had no trolling linked to any of those bans recently). I see a fourth possible outcome for the reviews - those involved realize what a waste of time all of this is and how there's no true consensus in favor of even questioning, much less reverting, those bans, and thus abandon this project. Erasculio 08:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the records: "I'd like te point out that the bans on the main accounts of some of the worst trolls, vandals and sockpuppet abusers in the early history of the wiki have expired, and that they have not returned to troll or vandalize." - they haven't returned at all. Which is another sign of how much a waste of time this is - is anyone whose permaban is being questioned even interested at all in returning to the wiki? If those permabans were reverted, would they actually come back or even notice it at all? Erasculio 09:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Grinch has specifically requested the removal of Twinklepixie's ban and Lena has asked for Wafflez and Jonnieboi to be unbanned. As such, I believe those are the only ones worth even discussing. Misery 09:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Those are worth discussing, the others aren't. Erasculio 09:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell

Are you looking at unblocking people who don't care if they are unblocked or not? Some of these accounts were one time use or short time use trolling socks made by banned users. Other users were here purely to troll and knowingly broke rules continuously until a permanent ban was applied. They have never asked for these bans to be removed or reviewed because they know they deserved it. I do believe that permanent bans actually mean "indefinite" and should be reviewed upon request as any other approach gives no incentive to not come back on proxies or socks, sort of a GTFO until you want to come back and play by the rules, but why would you unban someone like Moo Kitty, who is actually a friend of mine, who is continuing to proxy to avoid her ban. Trust me, most of them are her, I know of one instance when it wasn't her. Misery 12:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add User:I AM GOING TO VANDALISE ALL YOUR SHIT BITCHES! I BET YOU CAN'T STOP ME! THIS IS GOING TO SUCK SO MUCH FOR YOU! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! EAT SHIT AND DIE MOTHERFUCKERS! and User:HAHAHA I AM GOING TO VANDALISE THE SHIT OUT OF THIS WIKI THIS IS GOING TO SUCK SO MUCH FOR YOU to the list. Neither account has any negative contributions. Misery 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think both of them fall under inappropriate user names. -- Salome 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with them. elix Omni 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different note

Moved from User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews

@ No one in particular While it is nice to express goodwill to people serving bans, we need to also consider the practicality behind it: It is quite possibly going to take up a lot of work. Giving my 2 cents worth, we should only consider reviews for bans if affected users request for it, or if the blocks were really done out of AGF/erroneous(has to be recent as well, or there is really no point to it). Ohaiyo Gozaimasu Konnichiwa Konbanwa Oyasuminasai Sayonara Ja Mata 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this new and highly intelligent user. Misery 14:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that review should only happen when requested by the affected user, otherwise it just ngenerates needless beuaracracy. -- Salome 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon makes an interest point about reviews generally. Perhaps it would be worthwhile if any sysop who instigates a long ban (greater than 3 days? 30 days?) puts a note on the Admin noticeboard asking for at least one other sysop to proofread. That doesn't slow down the block, it ensures that there's a timely review, and it reduces the possibility that the action might be perceived as prejudicial.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually sysops are able to notice any blocks and object on length, reason or the sole existence.. There is really no need to make everything explicitely stated somewhere and add unnecessary bureaucracy to it. poke | talk 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A) Pointless bureaucracy is pointless, B) Sysops are elected because we trust their discretion in dealing with situations like these bannings. We vote them in to do the right thing the first time. --RIDDLE 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Why is that more effective than just discussing a block with the sysops who disagree? For a majority of cases I'd be willing to bet that most of the sysops agree with (or at least do not oppose) a ban. Sysops are promoted because they're trusted to do their jobs and not suck at them- why is that being questioned all of a sudden? – Emmett 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved off-topic discussions

Professor Dog

→ moved from User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews#Professor Dog

This isn't mine. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's Tab's. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 23:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Who is permanently banned) -Auron 08:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On sockpuppets

Stop hating! We don't have a policy against sockpuppets. Neither is it helpful to start a Spanish Inquisition to route out socks of blocked users. If it is absolutely painfully obviously obvious an account belongs to a blocked user, block it for the remaining time of that user's block. Otherwise, GWW:AGF damnit. There have been multiple cases in which a new user was accused of sockpuppetry, which resulted in the parting of said user. That is not offset by scaring away a few vandal socks, we can handle that. Also, if there is any doubt a vandal or drama sock is actually a sock, treat it like any other user vandalising or starting drama.
Unless, of course, I am unaware of some change in policy. In that case, I request the permaban of Why Are We Fighting (talk • contribs • logs • block log). — Why 13:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Socking, like trolling, is a useful tool when used correctly. I don't see undue hate for sockpuppets on this page, because the sockpuppets being discussed are socks of banned users who used them to break policy, disrupt the wiki, circumvent bans, or a combination of the three. You might have noticed that there aren't very many socks that were permabanned simply for being socks on that list. -Auron 13:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know my comment is rather tangential to the original purpose of the page, but as I saw it mentioned I thought it appropriate to share my thoughts. It's more a general comment on the Specific issue discussions. — Why 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It sort of amuses me

That the sysop team is just as capable as generating useless drama as the rest of us. Go team! NuVII 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A question about CheckUser

How does CheckUser work? Will we only be able to access logs from after the extension is installed, or does the wiki software already keep logs that we just can't view without an extension such as CheckUser? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for before or after installation precisely, but I suspect the information is already recorded. What I will say is that the logs do not last forever. Misery 10:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since MediaWiki 1.8 or something the flag for storing the IP address together with the revision is set by default. poke | talk 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like we only have logs from early November onward. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hesitancy, ineffective policy text, hesitancy in complaining

"At the time, I was frustrated by my fellow bureaucrats' hesitancy to take cases, by the poorly written personal attacks policy, by the many wiki users' hesitancy in complaining about personal attacks, and be the failure of all attempts to get some kind of blocking policy or guideline, due to that frustration..."

Do you think any of above remains an issue? If so, do you recommend that this wiki tackle any/all?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon's tried the blocking policy/guideline thing, but that wasn't really successful.. due to opposition regarding blocking policies or guidelines (or to how a specific draft was written). -- pling 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser results

Okay, I've gotten around to using CheckUser, unfortunately, I was only able to get data for Festooned Twinklepixie. Checkuser only has one logged edit with this account, on November 29th, 2009. 7 other edits were logged with this IP, all by Mgrinshpon from November 17, 2009 to November 22, 2009. The most recent logged Mrgrinshpon edit was made with the same browser as the only logged Festooned Twinklepixie edit, logs of earlier edits by Mrgrishpon have no browser data. Jonnieboi05, Moo Kitty and Professor Dog's edits were all made before the logging started. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you hoped to learn from checkuser, would you care to enlighten me? Misery 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to find older logs with strong evidence supporting or refuting allegations of sockpuppetry for the other three accounts. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the people involved? Self admission of socking is pretty reliable. Lena admits to using the Jonnieboi05 account on occassion, they claim to be brothers so overlapping checkusers would be easily explained away even if he hadn't made that admission. I'm fairly certain Moo Kitty would admit to some socking, although she uses proxies so checkuser would be useless. I can personally guarantee that Professor Dog is not Mgrinshpon, but that's only worth as far as you can trust me. The only case where checkuser would have actually shown anything would be the Professor Dog case. Misery 09:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't tried asking them. Ideally, I'd like a public admission with both accounts, and with the current wiki settings, that's impossible as long as one of the accounts is blocked. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Moo Kitty

Gordon, it doesn't matter if you think you have the most rightful reason to unban Moo Kitty or any other user. This is a Block Review, not Unblock-If-You-Feel-Like-It (or something cleverer). I don't get the point of creating this page and the entire walls of text of arguments, if anyone of the sysop team can just say put a giant X across it, and unblock as he or she wishes. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Titani Ertan 08:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)