Assume bad faith, for banned users.

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to reboot...

Re: [WikiEN-l] Meta-discussion:...

Flameviper Velifang

15 Nov 2007 15 Nov '07

11:24 a.m.

Well, I've been following the recent firethread of [Wikien-l] Featured Editors. And I have to say, I'm rather interested in the discussion. It seems that everyone's talking about banned users lately, and also that I am one myself. So I'd like to say a few words about my situation. I created an account circa May 2005. At the time, I was something of an immature asshole. I freely admit to having done stupid, impulsive things, although at the time they seemed mature. I remained somewhat immature for a while. I'd like to think that I've grown up somewhat from then to now, although my judgement is clouded due to the fact that I'm judging myself. So I'll probably look back at my posts to this mailing list, in forums, etc in a couple years and say to myself "Good Lord, what a douchebag!" But I digress once more. I was banned indefinitely once. Removed. Banned for other reasons. Removed. This bullshit continues for about a year (2 years? 3, even?). And so, on 22 September 2006, I was unblocked. At this point (although my memory is fuzzy), I was mostly like I am today. However, since I had a history of asshattery, I was pretty closely watched. Very closely. After a gigantic shitstorm (I seem to cause a lot of those ;_;), I was blocked again. So I edited with an alternate account. Consensus formed to unblock my main account, and so it was unblocked. A day after I finally got a fresh start and things were looking up, Jpgordon did a checkuser and then blocked both accounts indefinitely. So now I'm back in the bottomless pit where all banned users are kept. And this is a bad thing indeed. Now, I recently read this on the mailing list.

...

Not all banned user edits are bad ones-- they're smart enough to make good ones from time to time, just to mix it up.

This disturbs me. Why? Because it is the most garishly obvious assumption of bad faith which is possible. It assumes that since someone is banned, they must have been a mortal enemy to the project since the day they joined and that their only intent is to destroy. Is it possible, perhaps, that a good editor did something bad IN ADDITION to his good editing, and was banned for that? Hell no. At least not in the world of Trolls. And I'm not trying to destroy the Project. Honestly, I'm not. I just want another chance. A chance to edit Wikipedia, a chance to do something good. A chance to champion the causes of the other users who got fucked by the system, a chance to show everyone that I can do good. I don't know why I have to be banned still. It makes me sad that there are thousands of things to do and causes to represent, and that there are blocked users who I can't support because of a bureaucratic trainwreck and a long history of shit. And I know this will garner responses of "you're a troll and doing this on purpose to get attention", and "rules are rules". If I wanted attention, I wouldn't waste 3 years of my life trying to edit an encyclopedia. I'd annoy people in real life, which is far more satisfying. Remember WP:IAR? Does that apply only to sysops and the puppetmasters of bureaucracy who can do whatever they want, at any time, without being punished? I'm sick of jumping through hoops. I just want a chance. I won't let you down. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

Show replies by date

Thomas Dalton

15 Nov 15 Nov

12:19 p.m.

Banned users have been banned for a reason. That reason makes the assumption of bad faith valid. The policy of "Assume Good Faith" says: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The fact that they've been indefinitely banned *is* strong evidence to the contrary.

William Pietri

12:46 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

I think it depends on how you mean that. Even when dealing with people acting in an obviously dangerous or harmful way, I think it is worth treating them as if they were good people temporarily doing something wrong, either because of good intentions gone wrong or temporary insanity. There are a lot of reasons for treating bad actors that way. One big one is that most people are very reactive. If you treat them in a way that they perceive as friendly, sympathetic, and respectful, they are much more likely to respond in kind. Another reason is that a lot of people like fighting: if you don't fight with them, they'll eventually go find somebody else to scrap with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal firmly and strongly with people behaving badly. But you can still do that with love and respect, the same way you can firmly handle a toddler having a screaming fit. So if you're saying we should assume that banned people will probably continue to misbehave, I'm all for that. Leopards rarely change their spots, and the same goes for WP:TIGERS. But a number of our banned contributors aren't banned because they actually mean ill. Some mean well, but define "well" differently. Some have trouble doing good when they mean well. And some are just troubled. None of that is bad faith. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

David Gerard

1:27 p.m.

On 15/11/2007, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:

...

So if you're saying we should assume that banned people will probably continue to misbehave, I'm all for that. Leopards rarely change their spots, and the same goes for WP:TIGERS. But a number of our banned contributors aren't banned because they actually mean ill. Some mean well, but define "well" differently. Some have trouble doing good when they mean well. And some are just troubled. None of that is bad faith.

Indeed not. "Assume good faith" can make a lot more sense when you realise that other phrasings are "Don't assume malice when stupidity will suffice" or "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because rogues sometimes rest." - d.

Thomas Dalton

2:07 p.m.

...

Even when dealing with people acting in an obviously dangerous or harmful way, I think it is worth treating them as if they were good people temporarily doing something wrong, either because of good intentions gone wrong or temporary insanity. There are a lot of reasons for treating bad actors that way. One big one is that most people are very reactive. If you treat them in a way that they perceive as friendly, sympathetic, and respectful, they are much more likely to respond in kind. Another reason is that a lot of people like fighting: if you don't fight with them, they'll eventually go find somebody else to scrap with.

That's why we only use bans as a last resort. If it has reached the point of someone being banned then it means treating them in such a manner has failed and we've had to resort to stronger methods. Assuming good faith for people that have had a little trouble in the past (a handful of short blocks, perhaps) is a good thing, but if they've been indefinitely banned, then they've already had every second chance they deserve.

Ray Saintonge

2:43 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

Your attempted redefinition assumes that once a person has been proven to act in bad faith in a particular set of circumstances he will act in bad faith for everything that he does in the future. In your scheme there is never any redemption. For people who are being punished to "teach them a lesson" it assumes that the lesson will never be learned, even after they have done their full time. Ec

David Gerard

2:50 p.m.

On 15/11/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

> Banned users have been banned for a reason. That reason makes the > assumption of bad faith valid. The policy of "Assume Good Faith" says: > "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people > who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." > The fact that they've been indefinitely banned *is* strong evidence to > the contrary.

...

Yes. Redemption must always be available. (I'm not sure what would make me think Amorrow being allowed back on would be a good idea ... but there must be something.) - d.

Thomas Dalton

2:53 p.m.

...

Firstly, I'm not redefining anything. Secondly, we don't punish people to teach them a lesson, bans (and blocks) are preventative, they are there to stop people doing more damage. Thirdly, there is a possibility for redemption, there just needs to be strong evidence that they've changed their ways. Just as strong evidence of bad faith can overcome an assumption of good faith, strong evidence of good faith can overcome an assumption of bad faith.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

16 Nov 16 Nov

2:06 a.m.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:53:06 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Amen to that. If a banned user considers they are ready now to contribute in a way that is not going to cause friction, they can appeal the ban to ArbCom. Something tells me that the ones who use sockpuppets and launch offsite attacks and harassment are not at that stage yet, but we seem to be trying to define our response to the latter by reference to the former. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

William Pietri

9:48 a.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

If a banned user considers they are ready now to contribute in a way that is not going to cause friction, they can appeal the ban to ArbCom.

It seems like part of the problem here is a chicken-and-egg issue. It's hard for banned but possibly reformed people to prove that they have changed because they can't do anything on-wiki. And the cost of giving an umpteenth chance is generally outweighed by any potential benefit. Is there some sort of off-wiki work people could to do demonstrate good faith in a way that is little burden to us? For example, could we ask people to build an external web page with sources for 100 unsourced articles as a way of proving that they are serious and worthy of consideration for another chance? Currently, the only way people get unbanned is through pleading, which means we get a lot of pleading. I'd love to channel that energy into something more productive. Or at least something quieter. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

9:59 a.m.

Quoting William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>om>:

...

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

If a banned user considers they are ready now to contribute in a way that is not going to cause friction, they can appeal the ban to ArbCom.

There's one obvious way- do good work on another Wikimedia project for a few months. I've made this comment to a number of banned users, but so far none (to my knowledge) has done it. If we can see that someone works out ok in another Wikimedia project I'd be much more inclined to consider unbanning them. Now, different projects have different goals and community types, so this wouldn't work perfectly. For example if someone's issue was say repeated insisting on certain types of original research be included in articles (such as with Awbrey), then the user doing original reporting at Wikinews isn't the best demonstration that they could work with us. So it has limits. But as a basic rule of thumb, it might work (contrast for example Jason Gastrich who after being banned from the English Wikipedia proceeded to try to spam meta and the Spanish Wikipedia as well).

Josh Gordon

10:06 a.m.

On Nov 16, 2007 9:59 AM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

There's one obvious way- do good work on another Wikimedia project for a few months. I've made this comment to a number of banned users, but so far none (to my knowledge) has done it.

Y'know, other Josh, that's a real easy and obvious idea. Which is why it didn't occur to me (well, that, and that I don't spend a lot of time on other Wikimedia projects.) -- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

Ray Saintonge

3:47 p.m.

joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:

...

Quoting William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>om>:

I'm glad to see people making constructive suggestions. Other projects are smaller. The people there tend to be friendlier and more willing to talk They are also often starving for new blood. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

10:28 a.m.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:48:53 -0800, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:

...

It would be interesting to try it. Allow them back under a parole, for example. I'd have suggested Rob Smith, but he seems to have blotted his copybook. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Steve Bennett

18 Nov 18 Nov

7:43 p.m.

On 11/16/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The fact that they've been indefinitely banned *is* strong evidence to the contrary.

And conversely, when assuming bad faith: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who are banned are trying to hurt the project, not help it." Which leaves open the possibility (and necessity) of strong evidence being provided. So obviously we have to leave the door open a crack, or we'd never allow anyone a chance to prove themselves. But we don't owe them any favours. Steve

Luna

9:11 p.m.

There's an easy way to get another chance: come back on a new pseudonym, and avoid whatever problematic behaviors and areas that led to your being blocked/banned in the first place -- or, even avoid anything that might lead people to realize you're the same person. If your editing is beneficial to the project, and avoids old prowling grounds, it's probably unlikely that anybody will make the link between your new account and your old one(s). If you want to help, just come in, lay low, and help out. If, on the other hand, you come back and keep causing problems, or repeatedly use socks to demand redemption, somebody's likely to make the connection, and another block will probably result. Repeatedly mashing your head is certainly a popular method, but what I've personally seen in community after community suggests it's not very likely to work, on the web. Better to just start a new identity and build a better reputation from scratch. That's my opinion, anyway. -Luna

Steve Bennett

9:55 p.m.

On 11/19/07, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

If, on the other hand, you come back and keep causing problems, or repeatedly use socks to demand redemption, somebody's likely to make the connection, and another block will probably result. Repeatedly mashing your head is certainly a popular method, but what I've personally seen in community after community suggests it's not very likely to work, on the web. Better to just start a new identity and build a better reputation from scratch.

Agreed. And more to the point, if you come back and act like a drama queen on wikien-l, you're not helping your cause. Moral of the story: If you really want to help, just help. Don't bitch about how no one will let you help. Steve

Guy Chapman aka JzG

19 Nov 19 Nov

3:59 a.m.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:55:24 +1100, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Moral of the story: If you really want to help, just help. Don't bitch about how no one will let you help.

We should put that on one of the policy pages. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Skyring

12:19 p.m.

On Nov 16, 2007 6:24 AM, Flameviper Velifang <theflameysnake(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

So I edited with an alternate account. Consensus formed to unblock my main account, and so it was unblocked. A day after I finally got a fresh start and things were looking up, Jpgordon did a checkuser and then blocked both accounts indefinitely. So now I'm back in the bottomless pit where all banned users are kept.

Don't look to find justice in Wikipedia. It's nice if it happens, but don't expect it. Just create a new account and avoid behaviour that will get you noticed by those who hated you under the old name. They'll eventually go and find someone else to persecute. Alternatively, if you're bent on disruption, then expect to be disrupted. See my first point above. -- Peter in Canberra

Ray Saintonge

5:14 p.m.

Skyring wrote:

...

On Nov 16, 2007 6:24 AM, Flameviper Velifang wrote:

I think that this is a perfectly sane approach, but it seems that some people are determined to uncover sockpuppets, against whom they will apply the letter of the law. I still prefer to look on sockpuppetry as a secondary offence. If there is nothing offensive from the new account there should be no need to check it, and its accidental discovery should carry no consequences, even from an otherwise banned user. Admittedly, the banned user may have a congenital disability for playing nice, and he would thus make himself obvious. Ec

Steve Summit

5:35 p.m.

Ec wrote:

...

Right. It seems to me that in this sort of case, aggressively rooting out the "benign" sockpuppets would require an abuse of the tools. Aren't you supposed to have probable cause before using Checkuser on an account?

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

5:44 p.m.

Quoting Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>om>:

...

Ec wrote:

Except people do. If anything the burden for checkuser is too high. No one is really trying to root out sockpuppets to this extent. If someone makes a sock and does the same stuff that got them banned people notice. It isn't like say Awbrey or a Benapgar went and edited articles on agriculture. The socks always edit the same topics pushing the same things.

Steve Summit

5:51 p.m.

Joshua Zelinsky wrote:

...

Quoting Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>om>:

Ec wrote:

If there is nothing offensive from the new account there should be no need to check it,

Except people do. ... The socks always edit the same topics pushing the same things.

Okay. Then that isn't the "nothing offensive from the new account" case that Ec and I were talking about.

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

5:54 p.m.

Quoting Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>om>:

...

Joshua Zelinsky wrote:

Quoting Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>om>:

Ec wrote:

If there is nothing offensive from the new account there should be no need to check it,

Except people do. ... The socks always edit the same topics pushing the same things.

Okay. Then that isn't the "nothing offensive from the new account" case that Ec and I were talking about.

Ok, question: Do you have an example of a new sock where nothing offensive occurred from the sock and people picked out the sock for blocking? (I'm not counting cases where the sock was picked up by an inadvertent checkuser or anything similar).

Skyring

6:39 p.m.

On Nov 20, 2007 12:14 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Skyring wrote:

On Nov 16, 2007 6:24 AM, Flameviper Velifang wrote: >

Don't look to find justice in Wikipedia. It's nice if it happens, but

don't

expect it. Just create a new account and avoid behaviour that will get you noticed

those who hated you under the old name. They'll eventually go and find someone else to persecute. Alternatively, if you're bent on disruption, then expect to be

disrupted.

See my first point above.

If a banned user creates a sock and devotes himself to making useful edits, without rekindling the fires of disruption, then how does it benefit the project to tracking him down and kicking him off? That sort of thing merely causes frustration, unpleasantness, and more disruption. -- Peter in Canberra

Steve Bennett

7:29 p.m.

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

If a banned user creates a sock and devotes himself to making useful edits,

Is there not a distinction between "second account" and "sockpuppet"? IMHO, a second account used only for editing is not a sockpuppet - that term only applies when the second account is used in !voting, discussions etc. There's no (iirc, could be wrong) real prohibition on having multiple accounts that just quietly edit away, if they're not used for deception. Steve

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

7:35 p.m.

Quoting Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If a banned user creates a sock and devotes himself to making useful edits,

No, a banned user is banned as a user, not as a username. This is for obvious reasons. We don't want to have to separately go through and decide as a community to ban Amorrow or Awbrey whenever they make a new sock. Having multiple accounts that quietly edit is not prohibited by policy. Having any account as a banned user is unacceptable and if they are editing in a way that it is obviously the same person as the banned person then the rule makes sense. If the person isn't editing disruptively one will almost certainly not be able to tell that it is the same person.

Thomas Dalton

20 Nov 20 Nov

3:01 a.m.

...

Which is why, as far as I know, it doesn't happen. It's always been the case that a banned user can come back with a new account and as long as no-one can tell they're the same person, there is no problem. The only way someone could tell is by illegal checkusers - do you have evidence of checkuser abuse?

Guy Chapman aka JzG

4:27 a.m.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:01:33 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The only way someone could tell is by illegal checkusers - do you have evidence of checkuser abuse?

Illegal? I think not. Wikipedia is a private project, CheckUser is legally allowed as much or as little as we want to use it. We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Skyring

8:28 a.m.

On Nov 20, 2007 11:27 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser.

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser. In some cases, CheckUser would be a hindrance to this ability. My point is that such zealous and overzealous behaviour harms the project by removing a source of good edits, and by creating needless disruption. Are we writing an encyclopaedia, or are we playing ego games? -- Peter in Canberra

Ron Ritzman

9:38 a.m.

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser.

Yes, it's called the "duck test" and it works when said socks go back to doing the same things that got them banned in the first place. Don't do those things and nobody has any reason to suspect you of being a sock.

Skyring

6:12 p.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 4:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser.

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks. But of course, admins are never fallible, and my cunning and forethought knew no bounds. -- Peter in Canberra

David Gerard

6:21 p.m.

On 21/11/2007, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks.

This didn't stop your sockpuppeting at the time, as I recall. - d.

Skyring

6:28 p.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 1:21 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 21/11/2007, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks.

This didn't stop your sockpuppeting at the time, as I recall.

Well, I had a different agenda in those days, one I heartily regret now. You, as I recall, were pretty good at spotting me, but far less likely to run around spluttering in outrage than some. -- Peter in Canberra

David Gerard

6:41 p.m.

On 21/11/2007, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Well, I had a different agenda in those days, one I heartily regret now.

And that is of course the key point of "everyone is redeemable" :-) And do please keep up the good work. - d.

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

6:25 p.m.

Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Nov 21, 2007 4:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser.

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks.

Give us examples. It is all very nice to claim that this has occurred but we need to see examples.

David Gerard

6:28 p.m.

On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Give us examples. It is all very nice to claim that this has occurred but we need to see examples.

JB196 has frequently claimed that of 500 banned usernames, four weren't his socks after all, thus proving ... something. - d.

Skyring

6:34 p.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 1:25 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Nov 21, 2007 4:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock

without

benefit of CheckUser.

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks.

Give us examples. It is all very nice to claim that this has occurred but we need to see examples.

You don't *need* anything of the sort. I'm not going to bring up details of the uncomfortable past. If you really *want* to see examples, then Wikipedia is an open book and a bit of research will provide all you desire. -- Peter in Canberra

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

6:46 p.m.

Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Nov 21, 2007 1:25 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Nov 21, 2007 4:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock

without

> benefit of CheckUser. Yes, it's called the "duck test" and it works when said socks go back to doing the same things that got them banned in the first place. Don't do those things and nobody has any reason to suspect you of being a sock.

I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors were permanently banned for apparently being my socks.

Give us examples. It is all very nice to claim that this has occurred but we need to see examples.

If you have examples then you might as well save the time and give them to us. I have other things to do than to look through millions of edits to look for a claimed example of this problem when you could easily point one out. The burden of proof is one you to show an example.

Skyring

21 Nov 21 Nov

9:46 a.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 1:46 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Nov 21, 2007 1:25 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote: > Quoting Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>om>: > > I was actually thinking of a couple of cases where innocent editors

were

> > permanently banned for apparently being my socks. > > Give us examples. It is all very nice to claim that this has occurred

but

we need to see examples.

You don't *need* anything of the sort. I'm not going to bring up details

the uncomfortable past. If you really *want* to see examples, then

Wikipedia

is an open book and a bit of research will provide all you desire.

I appreciate your point, but one thing I'm not going to do is refight old battles, this time from the other side. We all have better things to do. -- Peter in Canberra

Skyring

20 Nov 20 Nov

6:25 p.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 4:38 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/20/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser.

Another point here, one that you've apparently missed, is that, bad behaviour aside, one doesn't always need CheckUser to work out if two usernames are the same person. Just as the timbre, pitch, accent, word choice and so on will mark out a particular speaker, it is hard to mask one's online patterns. Leo Marks tells of being able to work out whether Morse Code operators were genuine SOE agents or not, even when they were merely sending encrypted code-groups. They had a distinctive "fist" and other little tell-tale signs. Some people are more aware of nuances and patterns than others, of course, and the ham-fisted are represented in the admin ranks at the same propoirtion as in the general editor population, it seems. -- Peter in Canberra

Guy Chapman aka JzG

2:07 p.m.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:28:10 +1100, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or > to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing > illegal about CheckUser.

...

Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser. In some cases, CheckUser would be a hindrance to this ability.

...

My point is that such zealous and overzealous behaviour harms the project by removing a source of good edits, and by creating needless disruption. Are we writing an encyclopaedia, or are we playing ego games?

Seems we're looking at a different project, and maybe a different definition of ego games. See, for example, this article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sign_relation&action=history See how many different individuals you think are at work here. * Yolanda Zilwaukee * DoubleBlue * Closedmouth * Buchanan's Navy Sec * Doubtentry * VOCØ * Wolf of the Steppes * Fallopius Manque * Bare In Mind * Education Is The Basis Of Law And Order * Preveiling Opinion Of Dominant Opinion Group * REBBUØ * RABBUØ * DEBBUØ * REBBU This article, by the way, is not the worst hit. If you really want me to waste a CheckUser's time then I guess I don't mind asking, but really it's not that hard. The talk page of Yolanda Zilwaukee might as well have been signed with the author's real name, as anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with this particular banned user will attest. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Thomas Dalton

8:43 a.m.

On 20/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:01:33 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The only way someone could tell is by illegal checkusers - do you have evidence of checkuser abuse?

I meant illegal under the relevant polices, not any national laws. I'll try to use more precise language in future, sorry.

Guy Chapman aka JzG

2:10 p.m.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:43:18 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I meant illegal under the relevant polices, not any national laws. I'll try to use more precise language in future, sorry.

Sure. Just trying to be clear here. And the policies for CheckUser say they don't reveal private information, but CheckUsers are necessarily given pretty wide discretion in what they run and when. I'd hazard a guess that most CheckUser requests never go near the RFCU page. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

David Gerard

2:54 p.m.

On 20/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

You'd be correct. RFCU is strictly optional. (It was originally created to get noise off the checkusers' talk pages and put requests somewhere they could be ignored ...) - d.

Ray Saintonge

11:13 p.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:01:33 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The only way someone could tell is by illegal checkusers - do you have evidence of checkuser abuse?

That's just playing with the word "illegal". Wikipedia's rules fall within the realm of private law, so within that context abusive use could be illegal. Legality does not need to be limited to matters of compliance with government laws. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

21 Nov 21 Nov

6:22 a.m.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:01 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser.

Begging the question, of course. "Abusive?" Where? What on earth is wrong with a private project using log data to track down determined abusers? Or indeed to exonerate problematic but separate individuals? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Wily D

7:44 a.m.

On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:01 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser.

Realistically, one could construe the checkuser policy as a sort of contract between Wikipedia and the editors - so any use outside of the policy (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy) could be reasonably called abusive and a breach of contract. At least one checkuser has admitted to abusing the position in the past, I'm not sure why you'd assume that other incidents don't exist. WilyD

Guy Chapman aka JzG

8:07 a.m.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:44:43 -0500, "Wily D" <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm more troubled by the casual assumption that abuse is routine. I don't see any evidence to support that. Obviously where humans are concerned there is potential for error and abuse, but the checkusers we have seem to be decent and honest. I don't see any credible evidence that the tool is being used outside policy right now. Policy says: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position). Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy. Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Wily D

8:15 a.m.

On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:44:43 -0500, "Wily D" <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure that anyone's suggesting abuse is *routine*. I will suggest it's most likely "fairly" to "quite" scarce, although I cannot verify this myself. All that you or I know is that it can and has happened, and almost certainly will in the future at some point or another. Reviewing the list I don't see any indication that anyone believes it's "routine". Did I miss something? Cheers WilyD

Guy Chapman aka JzG

8:54 a.m.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:03 -0500, "Wily D" <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I must be missing something. Why are we even having this discussion if there is no evidence of present abuse, and no contention of likely abuse outside of the normal range of human fallibility? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Wily D

9:10 a.m.

On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:03 -0500, "Wily D" <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You objected to an offhand comment about illegal checkusers being the only way to detect nonabusive socks, saying checkusers could never be illegal, and there was some discussion about whether this is true, because it seems that it may be possible, given the terms and conditions of use and our checkuser policy (at least, a violation of contract). You also object to the casual assumption that checkuser abuse is routine, although I'm not sure anyone made that assumption. Since the comment was directed at me, I inferred you meant *I* assumed this, so I felt it was probably appropriate to clarify that I don't think checkuser abuse is routine, I would guess that's its quite uncommon, although obviously I have no knowledge of the situation beyond my ability to say that checkuser has never been used abusively towards myself. It is a seperate interesting question: "How often do we expect checkuser abuse?" but I really have no answers to that. Cheers WilyD

Josh Gordon

9:13 a.m.

On Nov 21, 2007 8:54 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

...

I must be missing something. Why are we even having this discussion if there is no evidence of present abuse, and no contention of likely abuse outside of the normal range of human fallibility?

Well, the tread was started by a little boy who was sockpuppeteering (among other things) and got caught, and when he managed to get unblocked, I checkusered him again to see if he was still doing it, and lo and behold, he was not only doing it, he was doing it to support his own plea for unblocking. He seemed to think this was an "out of the blue checkuser", when in reality it was a rightful assumption of his own bad faith being proven correct. -- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

Guy Chapman aka JzG

9:42 a.m.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:13:47 -0800, "Josh Gordon" <user.jpgordon(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Ah yes. All becomes clear :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Ray Saintonge

1:19 p.m.

Wily D wrote:

...

I think that's fair comment, and I also recognize that much of the Checkuser activity must go on behind the scenes. The fact that most of the usage is not transparent magnifies the importance of the incidents of abuse. If the checkusers are seen as too defensive of these occasional abuses the general population draws the conclusion that where there's smoke there's fire. Even if the checkuser was right it is often better _not_ to defend the action. The perception of justice is as important as the justice itself, and in an essentially secret process the perception is all the public has. There is a need to fairly address public perceptions with credence and without drama; there is no need to be seen as always right. The effect may be that the occasional bad guy gets away. That's not a problem. If they really are as bad as you believe them to be, they will not disappoint you by failing to provide future opportunities. Ec

David Gerard

9:05 a.m.

On 21/11/2007, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

reasonably called abusive and a breach of contract. At least one checkuser has admitted to abusing the position in the past, I'm not sure why you'd assume that other incidents don't exist.

Which checkuser was that? (With a link to the admission, please.) - d.

Ray Saintonge

11:02 a.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:13:01, Ray Saintonge wrote:

We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser.

This touchiness makes your response sound like an admission of guilt. If you had read my response correctly you would have known that I wasn't saying anything about specific abuse. It was about the use of the word "illegal", and how "abusive use" of any law, public or private, is "illegal". Whether or not anyone has in fact been abusive was not a part of of that comment. Ec

Guy Chapman aka JzG

12:49 p.m.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:02:57 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

This touchiness makes your response sound like an admission of guilt.

Not hardly. I am not a CheckUser, never was. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

David Gerard

20 Nov 20 Nov

3:13 a.m.

On 20/11/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Admittedly, the banned user may have a congenital disability for playing nice, and he would thus make himself obvious.

FWIW, pretty much all checkuser investigations of such are because someone is doing something obnoxious. When checkuser shows a strong match between two accounts where one is ill-behaved and the other is well-behaved, this is indistinguishable from a bad editor and a good editor sharing a connection; and so the second situation is assumed, i.e. that it is in fact two people. So: find yourself repeatedly uncovered and reblocked? *Stop doing that then.* (I'm amazed at first thought on how difficult it is to get this point across. OTOH, as I've noted, the key characteristic of chronically banned users is an inability to behave well.) I mean, Skyring made himself quite unpopular for a long time, but is now back and contributing okay without grossly offending people or getting himself blocked. So it's hardly impossible. - d. - d.

Todd Allen

9:45 a.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

On 20/11/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Admittedly, the banned user may have a congenital disability for playing nice, and he would thus make himself obvious.

I've tried to make this point too. If a previously banned user comes back around and plays nice, makes good edits, etc., etc., etc., no one will even -think- to check if they're the same as the abusive asshole that got banned a year ago. If you're getting reported to SSP or checkuser requests, it's because, well, you're behaving like someone who was blocked or banned. Even if you're -not- them, chances are you're walking down the same road they did anyway.

6037

days inactive

6043

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

59 comments

15 participants

tags (0)

participants (15)

David Gerard
Flameviper Velifang
Guy Chapman aka JzG
Josh Gordon
joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu
Luna
Ray Saintonge
Ron Ritzman
Skyring
Steve Bennett
Steve Summit
Thomas Dalton
Todd Allen
William Pietri
Wily D