Firstly, I'd like to say hello all - as a first time poster, and an 'only just figured out how the mailing list works' person. Although saying I've figured it out may be going too far.
My reading of the culture here is that it's pretty much ok to dive straight into comment - which is what I shall do. Sincere apologies if my Ps and Qs are not sufficiently minded. I'll try and learn pretty fast.
I feel the oft-noted decline in civility on the wiki has led to some extremism in admin. behaviour, and I am of the opinion that a parallel stream to the ArbCom, some kind of ethics committee / forum might be a good idea. That's the bigger picture thought, now some specifics;
It may be repetitive but I absolutely stand by all of my contributions to the wiki, which absolutely are in good faith. I thank the various users who have said nice things about me - I can now represent myself better on this list.
In terms of gauging community consensus, Guy was self evidently wrong to indef-block me - the decision was rightfully overturned pretty quickly. Where do I feel ethics come in?
I trusted guy with a user history, directly traceable back to my identity fairly easily, and practically begged him not to abuse this trust, and to keep that information confidential.
He shared that information with many users.
This is unethical.
(and incidentally, it both upset and angered me hugely)
Now a couple of further corrections, the need for which concerns me also;
(quoting Matt).....
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007. He had a dozen or so edits in 2005 and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the Essjay affair among others. His encyclopedia-space editing is only about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small handful of articles. Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
Many thanks,
PM.
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
I think it would need to address the problem of editors who run five or six sockpuppets to be querulous in apparent tones of sweetness and light.
- d.
On Nov 14, 2007 2:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
I think it would need to address the problem of editors who run five or six sockpuppets to be querulous in apparent tones of sweetness and light.
- d.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Are we now objecting to concerns raised in tones of sweetness and light? That appears to be counterproductive to any efforts to increase civility and collegiality.
(snipped from another email) Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics committee would say to such a charge.
I would imagine that the complaints would likely be more relevant if they came from the real owners of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets. Of course, I have no opinion on the blocks - the other accounts may have been equally disruptive - but I would imagine that mentioning the excessive blocking isn't particularly a source of pride. If account Y has been blocked for reason X, it matters if reason X is not correct, even if account Y could have been blocked for reason Z with a little more investigation.
RR
On Nov 14, 2007 2:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor
ethical committee?
I think it would need to address the problem of editors who run five or six sockpuppets to be querulous in apparent tones of sweetness and light.
- d.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Are we now objecting to concerns raised in tones of sweetness and light? That appears to be counterproductive to any efforts to increase civility and collegiality.
RR
Some folks who make a lot of trouble do so very politely, even sweetly.
Fred
Are we now objecting to concerns raised in tones of sweetness and light? That appears to be counterproductive to any efforts to increase civility and collegiality.
RR
Some folks who make a lot of trouble do so very politely, even sweetly.
Fred
If it's a politely raised concern--- what makes you think it's trouble?
Far too often the standard for "What is Trouble?" has been:
1. I personally disagree with an editor's opinion.
and
2. This editor sounds similar to one of the Banned Enemies of the Project that I really hate.
----
That guideline may give the right answers on on a few issues-- ones that are so "out there" that no reasonable editor can have a good-faith concern.
But in cases like the Essjay controversy or the BADSITES controversy, it's resulted in huge numbers of false positives-- where goodfaith editors with good faith beliefs are falsely accused of conspiring with, agreeing with, or otherwise likened to near-criminal harassers. And that's a prob.
Alec
On Nov 13, 2007 7:38 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
(after quoting me) This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
It's possible that I mistook one of your later socks for your first account; that's the problem with running a herd of them.
-Matt
On 14/11/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 7:38 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
It's possible that I mistook one of your later socks for your first account; that's the problem with running a herd of them.
Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics committee would say to such a charge.
- d.
Ethics is good, but if a user makes as much trouble as you did, and continue to do, it is unrealistic to think your "wikignome" account would remain confidential. We needed to know if you were a trusted administrator, or some other trusted user. It's part of your wikikarma. Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something you might do on a MUD.
Fred
Firstly, I'd like to say hello all - as a first time poster, and an 'only just figured out how the mailing list works' person. Although saying I've figured it out may be going too far.
My reading of the culture here is that it's pretty much ok to dive straight into comment - which is what I shall do. Sincere apologies if my Ps and Qs are not sufficiently minded. I'll try and learn pretty fast.
I feel the oft-noted decline in civility on the wiki has led to some extremism in admin. behaviour, and I am of the opinion that a parallel stream to the ArbCom, some kind of ethics committee / forum might be a good idea. That's the bigger picture thought, now some specifics;
It may be repetitive but I absolutely stand by all of my contributions to the wiki, which absolutely are in good faith. I thank the various users who have said nice things about me - I can now represent myself better on this list.
In terms of gauging community consensus, Guy was self evidently wrong to indef-block me - the decision was rightfully overturned pretty quickly. Where do I feel ethics come in?
I trusted guy with a user history, directly traceable back to my identity fairly easily, and practically begged him not to abuse this trust, and to keep that information confidential.
He shared that information with many users.
This is unethical.
(and incidentally, it both upset and angered me hugely)
Now a couple of further corrections, the need for which concerns me also;
(quoting Matt).....
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007. He had a dozen or so edits in 2005 and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the Essjay affair among others. His encyclopedia-space editing is only about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small handful of articles. Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
Many thanks,
PM.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What is this ethical committee supposed to do? If it finds editors being unethical, does it admonish them in private? Name and shame in public? Block or ban? And which standard of ethics is operated? Christian ethics, or western secular humanist ethics? What about Islam or Hinduism?
As you may see I don't think this has been thought out. "Hard cases make bad law".
Generally, ethics is the responsibility of the arbitration committee. The standards they are expected to use are Wikipedia policy and common sense. There are issues, and invading someone's privacy is certainly a major issue.
Checkuser abuses of privacy are handled by the Ombudsman Commission
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_committee
Fred
What is this ethical committee supposed to do? If it finds editors being unethical, does it admonish them in private? Name and shame in public? Block or ban? And which standard of ethics is operated? Christian ethics, or western secular humanist ethics? What about Islam or Hinduism?
As you may see I don't think this has been thought out. "Hard cases make bad law".
-- Sam Blacketer London E15
That is why, given all the "hard cases" we deal with, we do not make or conform to precedent.
Fred
PM did not "make trouble" or cause drama to the extent that the aggressive response to his activites caused drama. I believe that should be said, and, even if you and others believe it to be untrue, I think you must realise that large numbers of good faith users think that. And I see absolutely no reason why a 'trusted' user should be extended extra courtesy if they are causing drama, as is implied (otherwise, why would you need to discover whether the original account was 'trusted'?). I believe that is precisely the point that some people are upset about, perhaps because we all have different sets of people we 'trust'.
RR
On Nov 14, 2007 2:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Ethics is good, but if a user makes as much trouble as you did, and continue to do, it is unrealistic to think your "wikignome" account would remain confidential. We needed to know if you were a trusted administrator, or some other trusted user.
Fred
I feel the oft-noted decline in civility on the wiki has led to some extremism in admin. behaviour, and I am of the opinion that a parallel stream to the ArbCom, some kind of ethics committee / forum might be a good idea. That's the bigger picture thought, now some specifics;
It may be repetitive but I absolutely stand by all of my contributions to the wiki, which absolutely are in good faith. I thank the various users who have said nice things about me - I can now represent myself better on this list.
In terms of gauging community consensus, Guy was self evidently wrong to indef-block me - the decision was rightfully overturned pretty quickly. Where do I feel ethics come in?
I trusted guy with a user history, directly traceable back to my identity fairly easily, and practically begged him not to abuse this trust, and to keep that information confidential.
He shared that information with many users.
This is unethical.
(and incidentally, it both upset and angered me hugely)
Now a couple of further corrections, the need for which concerns me also;
(quoting Matt).....
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007. He had a dozen or so edits in 2005 and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the Essjay affair among others. His encyclopedia-space editing is only about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small handful of articles. Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
Many thanks,
PM.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l