[Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

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

[Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

Eddy Paine
Hello,
First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user but there are more users like this.
I understand that its needed for people to block users when the encyclopedia or the project is in danger, but where do will place the border? I think destroying people or behaving against people like I will describe below is also endangering the project. We should all remember that we are humans and not robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I am sure that there was behavior that was totally wrong, but the way the whole international community decided to handle it was wrong also.
First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe that its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working together with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to use new accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as socks neither are old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy in place that says that people are free to leave the project or abandon a username and continue with a new name. This I guess is for protecting the project and protecting the people that work on it.
Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the Dutch Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before you all click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is now almost two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong please point me to that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all "don't waste our time".
In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this "sockmaster" needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on that list we see the following:
Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by meta communety en en.wiki communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm abigor... Its points to my abigor account and its created to protect my own account. Execpt for the rename edits, it didn't edit at all.Huib (old) (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Did a rename request to get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed from Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L Laurens (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account created for my uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with information about me as photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for the userpage and information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with a link.WikiLinkBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot. Only editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed, the dutch admins didn't want to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V from Meta.
Now go to the policy:
Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy accounts used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib (old) Sterkbak SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts without overlapping edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some accounts doesn't have edits at all but where only there to redirect. WikiLinkBot is intresting cause its now in use by a other user. This user is also the source for the blocking on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would have placed personal attacks against this user and now the user is having that accounts. Very intresting don't you think.
Then we get a bunch of accounts:
Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this users. I strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing something out and say "hey it was you". But the account where I want to speak about is Delay. We have the policy that says that you can start right over with a new account. But still a Foundation employee confirms a link between the Delay Account and the Abigor account something CU didn't do at start. So we have a policy, but the policy doesn't work for some people?
The coolest thing here is that we block him for disrupting a project. Or disrupting multiple projects, but every account used on the Wikipedia did get a barnstar for good work. Since when do we give vandals barnstars? Or since when do we block people doing good work?
So in this case one of the accounts that pointed to him is now in use by the user requesting Abigor to get blocked. There are a bunch of account creations that are never clearly linked to the user. Its linked by Abigor was on Wikimania so he have done the actions. And after that we decided to TELL all communities where he was active that he is a danger.
So tell me, why doesn't get this user the change to start over like many others did. Many people have more accounts, or old accounts and why don't do they get blocked and most off all why do we keep hunting him down when there is clear proof that he is doing good work (a.k.a barnstars). Where do we draw the line between protecting a community or scaring people off?
Ed

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

Martijn Hoekstra
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eddy Paine <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
> First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it
> very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to
> write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user
> but there are more users like this.
> I understand that its needed for people to block users when the
> encyclopedia or the project is in danger, but where do will place the
> border? I think destroying people or behaving against people like I will
> describe below is also endangering the project. We should all remember that
> we are humans and not robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I am
> sure that there was behavior that was totally wrong, but the way the whole
> international community decided to handle it was wrong also.
> First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe
> that its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working
> together with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to
> use new accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as socks
> neither are old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy in place
> that says that people are free to leave the project or abandon a username
> and continue with a new name. This I guess is for protecting the project
> and protecting the people that work on it.
> Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former
> Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the Dutch
> Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user. (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before
> you all click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is
> now almost two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong
> please point me to that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all
> "don't waste our time".
> In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this
> "sockmaster" needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on
> that list we see the following:
> Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
> did bot editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki •
> CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block •
> SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib (talk
> • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by meta
> communety en en.wiki communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm
> abigor... Its points to my abigor account and its created to protect my own
> account. Execpt for the rename edits, it didn't edit at all.Huib (old)
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Did a rename request to
> get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
> old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that
> oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old
> account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
> did bot editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
> (renamed from Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L
> Laurens (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account
> created for my uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with
> information about me as photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for
> the userpage and information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with a
> link.WikiLinkBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock
> its a bot. Only editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed, the
> dutch admins didn't want to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V from
> Meta.
> Now go to the policy:
> Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and
> Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy
> accounts used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib
> (old) Sterkbak SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts
> without overlapping edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some
> accounts doesn't have edits at all but where only there to redirect.
> WikiLinkBot is intresting cause its now in use by a other user. This user
> is also the source for the blocking on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would
> have placed personal attacks against this user and now the user is having
> that accounts. Very intresting don't you think.
> Then we get a bunch of accounts:
> Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this
> users. I strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing
> something out and say "hey it was you". But the account where I want to
> speak about is Delay. We have the policy that says that you can start right
> over with a new account. But still a Foundation employee confirms a link
> between the Delay Account and the Abigor account something CU didn't do at
> start. So we have a policy, but the policy doesn't work for some people?
> The coolest thing here is that we block him for disrupting a project. Or
> disrupting multiple projects, but every account used on the Wikipedia did
> get a barnstar for good work. Since when do we give vandals barnstars? Or
> since when do we block people doing good work?
> So in this case one of the accounts that pointed to him is now in use by
> the user requesting Abigor to get blocked. There are a bunch of account
> creations that are never clearly linked to the user. Its linked by Abigor
> was on Wikimania so he have done the actions. And after that we decided to
> TELL all communities where he was active that he is a danger.
> So tell me, why doesn't get this user the change to start over like many
> others did. Many people have more accounts, or old accounts and why don't
> do they get blocked and most off all why do we keep hunting him down when
> there is clear proof that he is doing good work (a.k.a barnstars). Where do
> we draw the line between protecting a community or scaring people off?
> Ed
>
>
>
From my experience with Abigor on the various mailinglists, I would say
that Abigor probably has the best intentions with the project. Therefore
enabling him to edit should be the premise.

This is the first time I actually looked in to this issue, though it has
come up plenty on the mailinglist, and I come to the following conclusions:

* He has shown he is willing to violate the privacy of others under
circumstances
* He has shown he is willing to personally attack others under circumstances
* He has shown he is willing to violate copyright
* He has shown he is willing to abuse a position of trust to further his
own opinions or positions on wiki
* He has shown he is willing to attempt to deceive the community in an
attempt to get away with the above
* He has shown a general tendency to not get the point and either
continuing disruptive behaviour or finding new was to behave disruptively
* He has shown to be vindictive and willing to damage the project(s), not
to mention his fellow editors when he is angry
* He has shown us and told us that when he is angry he will lash out, even
if he doesn't mean it, which doesn't bode well for the future
* He has exhausted most any community members willingness to discuss things
by deception and rule lawyering
* He has proven to be unfit to be a member of the editing community

I don't care if we have policy about this or how it's worded or whether or
not there is wiggle room there: Abigor the person is not welcome to edit,
should not edit, and should be blocked under any account. That's a bloody
shame, because he seems to have the best intentions.

I strongly suggest dropping the suggestion that Abigor the person should be
welcome to edit, as I suspect that the more arguments people will come
forward with the more painful to him it will be, and I can't conceive any
positive outcome for him in this discussion.






> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

Eddy Paine
Martijn, I think the main source of the problems here is that we have a users that wants to share the knowledge, share his edits and got locked out and will start doing or trying things so he can edit again. This can be strange behavior. Sure, people will not like it.I am sure that every user can use his temper and doing personal attacks. A personal attack is easy to do, hard to forgot and even harder to forgive. But then there is a discussion between two people from two sides.Copyright violations ARE a problem. But I didn't see any violations in the logs. If there are I strongly believe he should be blocked. Copyright violations can lead to legal costs and people don't donate for that. But again, I don't see logs about that.He is now blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for what? 4 years? In between he has been a administrator on many projects and a good member of them. So I don't believe that he is unfit to work on a project. People voted him to be administrator, or doing work for the movement by handling mailing-list and blogs. So the question here is why can he work on projects for years without problems and got unfit for the WHOLE community on request by one or two projects. We got 700 projects?
Ed    
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

Billinghurst
In reply to this post by Eddy Paine
[I am purposefully leaving out the previous content.]

There are times and spaces where the most honourable of people fail to get
along, and while it is unfortunate and/or as inconvenient as it may be, it
is what it is.  There are some communities where people are unable to or
fail to identify boundaries, and/or fail to be able act within the
boundaries expected by a community. That is not to judge either set of
parties, it is just about incompatibilities, and separation is a
well-founded means of risk management, especially from a little corner of
the world that is wiki-editing. Sometimes with separation, and growth and
development of the community and the individual, there is the ability for a
future reconciliation.  Being right is not necessarily helpful, and vice
versa.

Mailing to such public forum as you did may help you to understand
something, however, I am not sure that it is particularly helpful. It is
clear that you don't have an understanding of the matter in its history or
its context, and rather than learning by the old-fashioned means of
trawling through the data, and reflection, jumping up in the centre of a
publicly archived, and widely distributed forum shows a level of naivety,
and simplicity in the approach. There are simply some acts that should not
be undertaken while standing up in front of a group of people.

... or there is the old saying of "let sleeping dogs, lie"

Regards, Billinghurst

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

MZMcBride-2
billinghurst wrote:
>... or there is the old saying of "let sleeping dogs, lie"

Heh, you seem to be in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" territory here.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Eddy Paine
Some of this e-mail is incomprehensible to me, so I am unable to form a
valid opinion. This may also apply to other readers. Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddy Paine" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:22 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human


> Hello,
> First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it
> very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to
> write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user
> but there are more users like this.
> I understand that its needed for people to block users when the
> encyclopedia or the project is in danger, but where do will place the
> border? I think destroying people or behaving against people like I will
> describe below is also endangering the project. We should all remember
> that we are humans and not robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I
> am sure that there was behavior that was totally wrong, but the way the
> whole international community decided to handle it was wrong also.
> First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe
> that its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working
> together with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to
> use new accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as
> socks neither are old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy
> in place that says that people are free to leave the project or abandon a
> username and continue with a new name. This I guess is for protecting the
> project and protecting the people that work on it.
> Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former
> Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the
> Dutch Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user.
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before
> you all click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is
> now almost two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong
> please point me to that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all
> "don't waste our time".
> In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this
> "sockmaster" needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on
> that list we see the following:
> Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
> did bot editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki •
> CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block •
> SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by
> meta communety en en.wiki communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm
> abigor... Its points to my abigor account and its created to protect my
> own account. Execpt for the rename edits, it didn't edit at all.Huib (old)
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Did a rename request to
> get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
> old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that
> oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old
> account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot
> (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
> did bot editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
> (renamed from Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L
> Laurens (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account
> created for my uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with
> information about me as photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for
> the userpage and information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with
> a link.WikiLinkBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No
> sock its a bot. Only editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed,
> the dutch admins didn't want to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V
> from Meta.
> Now go to the policy:
> Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and
> Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy
> accounts used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib
> (old) Sterkbak SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts
> without overlapping edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some
> accounts doesn't have edits at all but where only there to redirect.
> WikiLinkBot is intresting cause its now in use by a other user. This user
> is also the source for the blocking on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would
> have placed personal attacks against this user and now the user is having
> that accounts. Very intresting don't you think.
> Then we get a bunch of accounts:
> Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this
> users. I strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing
> something out and say "hey it was you". But the account where I want to
> speak about is Delay. We have the policy that says that you can start
> right over with a new account. But still a Foundation employee confirms a
> link between the Delay Account and the Abigor account something CU didn't
> do at start. So we have a policy, but the policy doesn't work for some
> people?
> The coolest thing here is that we block him for disrupting a project. Or
> disrupting multiple projects, but every account used on the Wikipedia did
> get a barnstar for good work. Since when do we give vandals barnstars? Or
> since when do we block people doing good work?
> So in this case one of the accounts that pointed to him is now in use by
> the user requesting Abigor to get blocked. There are a bunch of account
> creations that are never clearly linked to the user. Its linked by Abigor
> was on Wikimania so he have done the actions. And after that we decided to
> TELL all communities where he was active that he is a danger.
> So tell me, why doesn't get this user the change to start over like many
> others did. Many people have more accounts, or old accounts and why don't
> do they get blocked and most off all why do we keep hunting him down when
> there is clear proof that he is doing good work (a.k.a barnstars). Where
> do we draw the line between protecting a community or scaring people off?
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l