Newbies who don't act like newbies

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom mailing...

Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement...

Ron Ritzman

2 Dec 2007 2 Dec '07

3:54 a.m.

On 12/1/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

The problem is not the diagnosis that this was an experienced Wikipedia user; by his own admission, he was. The problem is assumption of bad faith. A lot of assumption of bad faith, liberally distributed.

And I've been guilty of that myself when I've seen AFD nominations on the first edit. Ever since Usenet was started in the late 70s, old timers lamented that newbies didn't [[RTFM]], didn't read FAQs, and made the same old mistakes over and over again and that experienced users were answering the same questions over and over again. Oh how nice it would be if newbies would step back and learn how things worked before diving in. (or as we like to call it "being bold") So when did this trend of suspecting editors who don't have a history of "newbie mistakes" of being potential troublemakers start? I can think of several good faith explanations for this... The "newbie" might be a long time anon editor who finally took common advice and registered an account. The "newbie" might have experience on other wikis. The "newbie" might have started out using his real meatspace name, which is common on some classic wikis such as Meatball but thought twice about it due to net.kooks who like to make trouble for people in real life.

Show replies by date

Todd Allen

2 Dec 2 Dec

9:01 a.m.

Ron Ritzman wrote:

...

On 12/1/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

Or the "newbie" may be a sock. But all the others are real possibilities too. The important part is to look for -actual- disruption. If someone's editing non-disruptively, and doing good work right when new, well, there's a very good chance that they're simply a conscientious person who bothered to RTFM, and in the absence of evidence otherwise, we should assume that is the case.

Anthony

1:32 p.m.

On Dec 2, 2007 4:01 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'd like to agree with this, and maybe I do, but to play devil's advocate, isn't the line between "disruption" and "good faith editing" rather thin, especially in the meta namespace? The lack of hierarchy and appeal to what's called "rough consensus" make it very easy for people to game the system and cause a lot of drama without doing something purely disruptive. If we assume someone is simply a conscientious person who bothered to RTFM, then we'll excuse them for inadvertently causing a little drama. But if they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet participating with the intention to cause drama, then the very same actions take on a whole different meaning. To quote the secret email: "So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior." I don't know, the issues are a lot more complicated than they seem at a glance.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

2:07 p.m.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:32:43 -0500, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

I don't know, the issues are a lot more complicated than they seem at a glance.

This, probably more than anything else said about the whole sorry business, is unarguably true. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

2:48 p.m.

I have twice been suspicious of new users surprising facility with our editing practises. Both times my suspicions were entirely unfounded. Just for the record, one of those times was in the case of User:Jamesday. My suspicions were understandably quite substantially allayed, when I found out that in his dayjob, Jamesday was a webmaster ;-). On 12/2/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:32:43 -0500, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

I don't know, the issues are a lot more complicated than they seem at a

glance. This, probably more than anything else said about the whole sorry business, is unarguably true. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Kwan Ting Chan

3:02 p.m.

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 08:32 -0500, Anthony wrote:

...

On Dec 2, 2007 4:01 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Then the correct action is as has been suggested in the past, one of increasing warning and sanction for continuing disruptive behaviour, or ban them outright through the correct process which is using Checkuser to confirm that it's a sockpuppet that's being used disruptively. What we need to cut out, before it get any worse, is banning of new users because they may become disruptive in the future, on shaky grounds that they already know the way of the land. We should be applauding those that actually RTFM as we often wish. As has been said, who cares if an account is a returning banned user / friend of WR / ...... At the end of the day, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. If the user is not disrupting that goal, then leave them be. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Anthony

3:41 p.m.

On Dec 2, 2007 10:02 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

...

What we need to cut out, before it get any worse, is banning of new users because they may become disruptive in the future, on shaky grounds that they already know the way of the land. We should be applauding those that actually RTFM as we often wish.

Other than this single block of !!, do you have any examples of when that has actually happened?

...

As has been said, who cares if an account is a returning banned user / friend of WR / ...... At the end of the day, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. If the user is not disrupting that goal, then leave them be.

I think intent goes a long away, at least in the meta namespace. Everyone who participated in the Durova arb com, which ultimately accomplished essentially nothing, wasted our time and disrupted the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Should we ban them all?

Andrew Gray

3:52 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On Dec 2, 2007 10:02 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

Other than this single block of !!, do you have any examples of when that has actually happened?

A long time ago, asked if I would run for arbcom, I suggested the best way to do it would be to ban 90% of the people complained about and 90% of people doing the complaining. There are times I begin to think I wasn't joking! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

David Gerard

4:18 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There's a reason why "to look at the behaviour of all parties" is a frequent "accept" note. - d.

Ray Saintonge

3 Dec 3 Dec

2:55 a.m.

Andrew Gray wrote:

...

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

That sounds like a campaign speech. :-) Ec

Kwan Ting Chan

2 Dec 2 Dec

4:04 p.m.

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 10:41 -0500, Anthony wrote:

...

On Dec 2, 2007 10:02 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

Other than this single block of !!, do you have any examples of when that has actually happened?

It's not the whole basis of the case, but have you looked at part of the reason given for the block and the refusal of the unblock request over this [[User:MatthewHoffman]] case Charles linked to? Summary on extending a 72 hours to indefinite : "...., it was decided he's probably a sock, due to knowledge of Wikipedia policy, edit summaries, ...., etc." First response in AN/I regarding announcement of the block : "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites. ..."

...

Yes, intent was implicit in what I mean. If you think "Everyone who participated in the Durova arb com" was disrupting the goal of the project, then your definition is much much wider than mine. KTC p.s. If you think we should ban them all, does that include everyone who has taken part in the discussion on this mailing list over this, including you? ;-) -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Anthony

4:21 p.m.

On Dec 2, 2007 11:04 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

...

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 10:41 -0500, Anthony wrote:

On Dec 2, 2007 10:02 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

Other than this single block of !!, do you have any examples of when that has actually happened?

It's not the whole basis of the case, but have you looked at part of the reason given for the block and the refusal of the unblock request over this [[User:MatthewHoffman]] case Charles linked to?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting that people were banning users *solely* because they know the way of the land. The example you gave was a user who made nothing but disruptive edits from the very beginning.

...

Eh, whatever. It'd probably be a good thing to force me to be more productive with my time.

Ron Ritzman

4:36 p.m.

On 12/2/07, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:

...

As has been said, who cares if an account is a returning banned user / friend of WR

Just wild speculation on my part but some time in the past, somebody read a post over "there" by one of "them" bragging about how he had control of several WP admin accounts. Later on, an admin assumed to be one of "them" did something "bad". (unblocked some proxies or something) So the hunt was on for "them" with the goal of keeping them away from admin bits. Suspects were those who didn't follow the typical editing pattern of starting out as an enthusiastic but clueless editor tripping over policy and wikicode.

Todd Allen

4:43 p.m.

Anthony wrote:

...

On Dec 2, 2007 4:01 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We don't even need to presume socking, in that case. If they are a conscientious person who bothered to RTFM, we can hold them just as responsible for bad behavior as we would a more experienced editor. (There is the question from there of whether we should hold more experienced editors responsible for bad behavior more quickly and more severely, but that's off the topic of this thread...)

Anthony

5:04 p.m.

On Dec 2, 2007 11:43 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

What constitutes "bad behavior" is dependent in part on whether or not you're socking. According to arb com less than 24 hours ago, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." While maybe that is an overbroad statement, I still think it's valid in at least some situations.

...

(There is the question from there of whether we should hold more experienced editors responsible for bad behavior more quickly and more severely, but that's off the topic of this thread...)

That too.

Andrew Gray

5:08 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

No, that's entirely fair. It is, however, valid to say that *alternate* accounts can be used in internal discussions, so long as your use of them does not turn into sockpuppetry - in other words, keep them seperate and don't have them work on the same topics or in the same discussions and you're fine. The trick is remembering that alternate accounts can become sockpuppets, but aren't automatically such, and the community has a long history of recognising that. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

geni

5:49 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the like simply because I got to that page while using that account and don't feel like switching browsers. -- geni

Kwan Ting Chan

6:23 p.m.

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 17:49 +0000, geni wrote:

...

On 02/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: It is, however, valid to say that *alternate* accounts can be used in internal discussions, so long as your use of them does not turn into sockpuppetry - in other words, keep them seperate and don't have them work on the same topics or in the same discussions and you're fine. .....

Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the like simply because I got to that page while using that account and don't feel like switching browsers.

Take away the the "in other words ..." part, and your problem is solved. i.e. Use the definition for sockpuppetry, especially the part of "voting and other shows of support". KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Todd Allen

8:33 p.m.

geni wrote:

...

On 02/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 02/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the like simply because I got to that page while using that account and don't feel like switching browsers.

I don't think a publicly-declared alternate account is the same as a sockpuppet. I have one alternate account (for use on public terminals where I don't want to use my admin account and password) which is clearly marked as being me. I don't think anyone could reasonably object if I were on a public terminal and wished to use that account in project discussions. The main problematic issue is socks like Privatemusings, where an editor might use them to keep a controversial viewpoint secret. I support prohibiting that-the community should know where a given editor stands, and use of a bunch of different accounts in projectspace prevents that.

David Gerard

9:49 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the like simply because I got to that page while using that account and don't feel like switching browsers.

Nah. Geni and Genisock2 are openly the same person, so if you don't vote twice or whatever you're fine. (And if you do the reasonable first assumption would be that it was a mistake on your part, rather than malice.) - d.

Andrew Gray

10:57 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the like simply because I got to that page while using that account and don't feel like switching browsers.

Indeed. Simply having "sock" in the title doesn't mean that whatever you do is sockpuppetry! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Guy Chapman aka JzG

11:40 a.m.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:54:31 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So when did this trend of suspecting editors who don't have a history of "newbie mistakes" of being potential troublemakers start? I can think of several good faith explanations for this...

Probably around the time that Jonathan Barber started socking, but when Judd Bagley upped the stakes it got a bit worse. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Andrew Gray

1:14 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Ever since Usenet was started in the late 70s, old timers lamented that newbies didn't [[RTFM]], didn't read FAQs, and made the same old mistakes over and over again and that experienced users were answering the same questions over and over again. Oh how nice it would be if newbies would step back and learn how things worked before diving in. (or as we like to call it "being bold") So when did this trend of suspecting editors who don't have a history of "newbie mistakes" of being potential troublemakers start? I can think of several good faith explanations for this...

(...) My second or third edit - certainly the same evening I started! - was to AFD an article (or VFD, as it was then). It wasn't any of those reasons - just a realisation that this ought to be deleted, and a willingness to spend half an hour reading up on how to do it. Don't rule out competence! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Zoney

3 Dec 3 Dec

3:59 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So when did this trend of suspecting editors who don't have a history of "newbie mistakes" of being potential troublemakers start? I can think of several good faith explanations for this...

I don't know when it started, but it shouldn't ever have caught on. We are approaching a state where it's becoming more and more difficult for new editors to become part of the "community". I have firsthand accounts from a growing number of real-life acquaintances who have had bad experiences editing Wikipedia for the first time. They have had perfectly legitimate edits reverted in some cases even by bots, they have had articles listed for deletion on the same day as creation, before the original editor is even finished adding detail and sources. I have not time to go chasing up these incidents, and in any case, experience over the last couple years has pretty much set me in the mindset that really I'm just wasting my time and efforts to even try defend things against those who despite great persistence, are misguided (even just through not being familiar with a subject area, and assuming something is nonsense). Wikipedia has lost its way. I can't see it returning to it either. Nevermind the fact that a lot of process was pretty flawed even in the "good old days". Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

6025

days inactive

6026

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

23 comments

11 participants

tags (0)

participants (11)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
David Gerard
geni
Guy Chapman aka JzG
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Kwan Ting Chan
Ray Saintonge
Ron Ritzman
Todd Allen
Zoney