Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Walter van Kalken
After months of people asking me on IRC, in mail on my Talkpage etc.  if
I would please please please contribute again to nl.wikipedia I decided
to give it a try and started redoing some Thai provinces. Since I had
stopped editting last year no-one had any interest in those articles.
The only edits besides mine are "pimp my article edits" like cats and
replacing the texts without any information adding! On average 50 edits
like this per article! And no knowledge added!

Within 2 hours I was mobbed by 3 users, with whom I have had conflicts
previously and who stalk me on talkpages, who feel that the appearance
of an article is more important than what is in it. I have a number of
fans on nl.wikipedia who take turns in following me everywhere, or do
groupattacks. This is why I decided to stop contributing knowledge in
october last year as it was of no use. These people are in no way
interested in the subjects I write about, but are more interested in
attacking and harassing me and stopping me from contributing. Sadly
enough I can only edit if I edit under another name. I have been
requested multiple times by users on IRC to start editing under another
wikinick. It is said that this has to be.

The conflict resulted in a block which saw one of those 3 blocked for 1
hour and me for 3 days. This was later adjusted to me for 6 hours which
was doubled again when I editted through TOR to protest the double
standards.

After this I was and still am so sickened by the way wikipedia and ALL
wikimedia projects have become that I decided to stop editting on April
10th.

Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a
month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.

I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything
that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend
themselves don't they?

And now comes worst.

I was "sentenced" to a monthlong block for editting through proxies. But
no one told me I was sentenced! Someone who disagreed with the block
mailed me. 2 weeks after THE BLOCK.

This is a really odd procedure.

You trial someone without giving him a DEFENCE
and you sentence him
but don't tell him of the sentence!

Waerth


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Andre Engels
2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]>:

> Within 2 hours I was mobbed by 3 users, with whom I have had conflicts
> previously and who stalk me on talkpages, who feel that the appearance
> of an article is more important than what is in it. I have a number of
> fans on nl.wikipedia who take turns in following me everywhere, or do
> groupattacks. This is why I decided to stop contributing knowledge in
> october last year as it was of no use. These people are in no way
> interested in the subjects I write about, but are more interested in
> attacking and harassing me and stopping me from contributing. Sadly
> enough I can only edit if I edit under another name. I have been
> requested multiple times by users on IRC to start editing under another
> wikinick. It is said that this has to be.

What Waerth does not tell you is that the "attacking and harassing"
consisted of nothing more than removing some very non-standard layout
that Waerth had put on the article. Wikipedia is a community project,
and Waerth should not be surprised if the articles he writes are
adapted so that they are more similar in style to the rest of
Wikipedia.

> After this I was and still am so sickened by the way wikipedia and ALL
> wikimedia projects have become that I decided to stop editting on April
> 10th.

Well, you had stopped editing before as well. And if this is sickening
you, then I am not surprised that you are sickened very often on
Wikipedia.

> Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a
> month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.
>
> I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything
> that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend
> themselves don't they?

Well, protest if you want. But above you yourself admit that you used
proxies to edit while you were blocked. That's what you were blocked
for, so I don't see how you would have successfully defended yourself
against that.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Walter van Kalken
>
>
>  
>
>>Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a
>>month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.
>>
>>I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything
>>that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend
>>themselves don't they?
>>    
>>
>
>Well, protest if you want. But above you yourself admit that you used
>proxies to edit while you were blocked. That's what you were blocked
>for, so I don't see how you would have successfully defended yourself
>against that.
>
>  
>
That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a
"process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No
Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had
obviously responded.

I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.

Trying someone without giving them a defence Andre, while giving the
other party an opportunity to respond ...... and then not even informing
the tried person of his or her sentence???????

Andre you are intelligent enough to know that no matter how I had
defended myself you should have given me the right to a defence. And you
should at least have had the politeness of informing me of your decision.

This is on par with a firingsquad in a bananarepublic.

Waerth
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Andre Engels
2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]>:

> That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a
> "process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No
> Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had
> obviously responded.

No, they weren't asked. Apparently they found it by themselves.

> I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.

That's true, that was a mistake on our side.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Walter van Kalken
Andre Engels wrote:

>2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]>:
>
>  
>
>>That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a
>>"process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No
>>Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had
>>obviously responded.
>>    
>>
>
>No, they weren't asked. Apparently they found it by themselves.
>  
>
Well I can read clearly in other cases that people WERE ASKED to give
their view to the arbcom (See Torero's talkpage for example) How can a
judge judge without hearing the accused parties? The nl-arbcom would fit
in perfectly will within the neighbouring country to Thailand, where
people are tried without a hearing and locked up.

>>I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.
>>    
>>
>
>That's true, that was a mistake on our side.
>

I hope you learn from that mistake and find a way to correct past errors.

You have my mailadress

Waerth


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Maury Markowitz-3
In reply to this post by Walter van Kalken
>Andre you are intelligent enough to know that no matter how I had
>defended myself you should have given me the right to a defence.

No, that's often not the case. This is a common misconception.

As I understand the case, you were blocked for repeatedly using proxy
accounts. When these were blocked, you opened another proxy account. You
cannot claim that you were unaware of the infraction. The creation of a new
account demonstrates that you were fully aware of what was going on.

>This is on par with a firingsquad in a bananarepublic.

No, it's on par with a parking ticket.

If you get a parking ticket and fail to respond, you'll be considered guilty
by default and fined. This is true even if you claim you were unaware of the
fine (the "wind blew it off" non-defence), but it seems clear from my
readings here that you couldn't even claim that in this case.

It's simply the way the system works. Minor crimes that have little effect
on the guilty (like a small fine) can be considerably "more wrong" than
major ones that have major effects on the guilty (like jail time). You've
likely heard the statement that "it is better for ten guilty men to go free
than one innocent man go to jail", but in the case of minor infractions the
reverse is true. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way it is.

And let's face it, the punishement in this case is hardly limiting you. A
month ban on an account you clearly stated you no longer wanted to use
anyway? I wish I had such problems.

>What Waerth does not tell you is that the "attacking and harassing"

This is always the case in my experience. I've seen edit wars over changes
in grammar.

That said, I have been repeatedly upset by the "invisibility" of the
process. For a project that claims to be about sharing information, the way
the arbcom decisions are made without any publically available information
being posted. That discredits the wiki, IMHO.

For instance, I recently came across a perma-ban on a use whom I had past
"dealings" with. Try as I might, I was unable to find out any information on
what had happened to precipitate the ban. I wrote to the banning user, and
the person that started the process, and was given the runaround for days. I
still don't know precisely what happened.

Is it really too much to require a CLEAR explaination of what the events
were to be posted on the userpage in question? I think this should be
policy.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Find the best places on campus to get take out, study & unwind
http://www.liveu.ca/explore.aspx


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Berto 'd Sera-2
Hoi,

>Is it really too much to require a CLEAR explaination of what the events
>were to be posted on the userpage in question? I think this should be
>policy.

+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the
socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take
responsibility for what they say/decide.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html




_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Maury Markowitz-3
>+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the
>socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take
>responsibility for what they say/decide.

What really chuffed me in this particular case is that when I asked what had
led to the ban, the people involved started asking questions about _my_
motives, like I was some sort of spy or something.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Win a webcam! Nominate your friend’s Windows Live Space in the Windows Live
Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win!
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx



_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Berto 'd Sera-2
Hoi,

Well, our motives are clear: we want to know, and that's it. Once we know
maybe we will be happy about what we just knew, maybe not; yet until we do
not know we are unhappy by default.

I'm not discussing anyone's power to make decisions; I simply think people
must take responsibility on how they use such a power. I'm positive there
are passages in a discussion that require to be private, that is always the
case with any Committee. Yet once a decision is made it must be public and
it must have a CLEAR public explanation.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Maury
Markowitz
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:18 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Trying to edit wikipedia on request
Result:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

>+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the
>socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take
>responsibility for what they say/decide.

What really chuffed me in this particular case is that when I asked what had

led to the ban, the people involved started asking questions about _my_
motives, like I was some sort of spy or something.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live
Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win!
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx




_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trying to edit wikipedia on requestResult:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

Maury Markowitz-3
>Well, our motives are clear: we want to know, and that's it. Once we know
>maybe we will be happy about what we just knew, maybe not; yet until we do
>not know we are unhappy by default.

Exactly.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Locale=en-CA#


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l