On 10 Nov 2007 at 16:37:33 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Fact is, I am getting just a little bit tired of the fact that some people give a very strong appearance of extending a greater assumption of good faith towards the likes of Bagley and Barber than they do towards those of us who work to protect the project form the pernicious influence of such people.
And Senator McCarthy, I'm sure, was tired of the fact that some people seemed to be extending more assumptions of good faith towards the communists than towards those like the Senator who worked to protect the country from their pernicious influence. Nevertheless, even if it caused one to be categorized as a communist sympathizer for saying so (and even if many of the people saying so *were* in fact sympathizers of communist ideology), it was in fact true that the actions taken by the likes of the Senator in the name of protecting the American system against communism were in fact undermining some important things about the American system such as freedom to hold and express opinions.
Which does not change the fact that I do believe, and I am perfectly happy to stand up and be counted on this, that active participation on Wikipedia Review, as it is *right now*, is fundamentally incompatible with being a good Wikipedian.
And I believe that the whole Alkivar business proves this.
I looked over some of the pages in that case, and saw no mention of Wikipedia Review except where you brought it up yourself.
Nobody else has to agree with this, it's not a proposed policy, but it is a statement of how I feel about that site *right now* based on what its prominent members are doing *right now*.
You have a right to your own feelings, as do I to mine, and I hope nobody has to live in fear of any "banhammer" for holding them.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:06:33 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fact is, I am getting just a little bit tired of the fact that some people give a very strong appearance of extending a greater assumption of good faith towards the likes of Bagley and Barber than they do towards those of us who work to protect the project form the pernicious influence of such people.
And Senator McCarthy, I'm sure, was tired of the fact that some people seemed to be extending more assumptions of good faith towards the communists than towards those like the Senator who worked to protect the country from their pernicious influence.
And that's your honest opinion, is it? That by blocking determined abusers who have shown time and again that they will stop at nothing to get their way, we are engaging in McCarthyite witch hunts?
Sorry, no.
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
In Awbrey's case, the final straw was attempts to write policy pages on "expert editors" so as to allow him to continue to add original research to the article over which he has obsessed ever since he arrived. And he was kicked from this list for the same reason.
The policy in respect of banned editors is, and always has been, block on sight. And for very good reasons.
Jon Awbrey absolutely is not a Paul Robeson.
Which does not change the fact that I do believe, and I am perfectly happy to stand up and be counted on this, that active participation on Wikipedia Review, as it is *right now*, is fundamentally incompatible with being a good Wikipedian. And I believe that the whole Alkivar business proves this.
I looked over some of the pages in that case, and saw no mention of Wikipedia Review except where you brought it up yourself.
Don't be naive, Dan.
Nobody else has to agree with this, it's not a proposed policy, but it is a statement of how I feel about that site *right now* based on what its prominent members are doing *right now*.
You have a right to your own feelings, as do I to mine, and I hope nobody has to live in fear of any "banhammer" for holding them.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
I doubt that.
In Awbrey's case, the final straw was attempts to write policy pages on "expert editors" so as to allow him to continue to add original research to the article over which he has obsessed ever since he arrived.
What is so dangerous about s.o. trying to write a new policy? Did you write on a policy before? If it's crap, it will end in /dev/null anyway.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
I doubt that.
Amorrow JB196 Daniel Brandt
All left editing for a long time after it became evident that they were utterly unable to work within policy.
So it seems your doubts are ill-founded.
In Awbrey's case, the final straw was attempts to write policy pages on "expert editors" so as to allow him to continue to add original research to the article over which he has obsessed ever since he arrived.
What is so dangerous about s.o. trying to write a new policy? Did you write on a policy before? If it's crap, it will end in /dev/null anyway.
What is wrong is that in Awbrey's case it prolonged still further the tedious business of trying to get him to stop inserting original research.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
Raphael, I remember you from the Mohammed cartoons argument. You are not stupid, but I believe you are naive. Your post indicates a profound lack of understanding of the people we're discussing and their past history. If you want it all then I guess we can take it offline, because I'm guessing most people here know the back story well enough.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
I doubt that.
Amorrow JB196 Daniel Brandt
All left editing for a long time after it became evident that they were utterly unable to work within policy.
So it seems your doubts are ill-founded.
What I doubt is the "only" in your initial claim.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Raphael, I remember you from the Mohammed cartoons argument. You are not stupid, but I believe you are naive.
You seemed to be a nice guy. :-b
Your post indicates a profound lack of understanding of the people we're discussing and their past history. If you want it all then I guess we can take it offline, because I'm guessing most people here know the back story well enough.
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:28:54 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
What I doubt is the "only" in your initial claim.
Then you can rest assured. Even people who are 100% troublemakers with virtually nothing else to their name are still editing happily right now.
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Don't be silly. You don't need to be able to do a CheckUser in order to understand how it works, and why.
Your post indicates a profound lack of understanding of the people we're discussing and their past history. If you want it all then I guess we can take it offline, because I'm guessing most people here know the back story well enough.
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 Raphael Wegman
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
What does his being in jail have to do with Wikipedia?
For most us, these sordid details about someone's personal life carry no interest whatsoever. This kind of gossip only serves to make the atmosphere even poisonous.
Most of us cannot be bothered to follow the detailed activities of Amorrow or Wikipedia Review or whoever else happens to be bullies' flavour of the day. At least we realize that if these guys are such pigs we would do well not get down in the muck and wallow with them. When the combatants from both sides are so thoroughly covered in mud, how can anybody tell the good guys from the bad guys. All we can see is an alliance of mud.
So for those of us who sit here on the mailing list admitting to no small laziness in our distaste for the tedium of the "offending" sites, or the endless arbitration debates draw our views from the tone of what is submitted here. Do we choose the zero-tolerant rights-fighter who must have his vision of justice satisfied, or do we incline to whom we perceive to be looking for accommodations that will save face for everyone?
Surely when we read, "are you aware that ... was jailed." the person named must smile and know that he has found a kindred spirit.
Ec
Quoting Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 Raphael Wegman
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
What does his being in jail have to do with Wikipedia?
For most us, these sordid details about someone's personal life carry no interest whatsoever. This kind of gossip only serves to make the atmosphere even poisonous.
Most of us cannot be bothered to follow the detailed activities of Amorrow or Wikipedia Review or whoever else happens to be bullies' flavour of the day. At least we realize that if these guys are such pigs we would do well not get down in the muck and wallow with them. When the combatants from both sides are so thoroughly covered in mud, how can anybody tell the good guys from the bad guys. All we can see is an alliance of mud.
So for those of us who sit here on the mailing list admitting to no small laziness in our distaste for the tedium of the "offending" sites, or the endless arbitration debates draw our views from the tone of what is submitted here. Do we choose the zero-tolerant rights-fighter who must have his vision of justice satisfied, or do we incline to whom we perceive to be looking for accommodations that will save face for everyone?
Surely when we read, "are you aware that ... was jailed." the person named must smile and know that he has found a kindred spirit.
Ec
I believe you are missing Guy's point. The point about how distasteful and disgusting the main opponents of Wikipedia in WR are. The point is that Amorrow, Brandt and others have gone and continue to go to do whatever it will take to destroy Wikipedia and that they are willing to harm people in the process. Frankly, if you think that "sides are so thoroughly covered in mud, how can anybody tell the good guys from the bad guys" you haven't been paying much attention. The best analogy I can think of is that if at your superficial glance both are covered in mud, further inspection will show that Brandt, Bagley, Amorrow etc. are covered in feces.
The bottom line is that Guy and others are not claiming that we should stoop to their level. Indeed, quite the opposite, they are merely defending the encyclopedia. To see these as the same requires either ignorance of the situation or grotesque levels of moral relativism.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:53:54 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
What does his being in jail have to do with Wikipedia?
Are you really that naive? Wikipedia is riddled with kooks, but Morrow was banned because he's a *dangerous* kook.
Right now he's apparently stalking a prominent female chess player.
And he's still actively using sockpuppets on Wikipedia to harass people. Real, live people.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 Raphael Wegman
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
What does his being in jail have to do with Wikipedia?
For most us, these sordid details about someone's personal life carry no interest whatsoever. This kind of gossip only serves to make the atmosphere even poisonous.
It would have been more useful for JzG to have specified what he was jailed for, but I believe it was for stalking and harassment. More to the point, I believe he has been known to stalk Wikipedia editors (real-life stalking, not the wiki-stalking that shows up on AN/I). This is *not* the sort of person who you want on Wikipedia.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:19:36 -0800, "Mark Wagner" carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been more useful for JzG to have specified what he was jailed for, but I believe it was for stalking and harassment. More to the point, I believe he has been known to stalk Wikipedia editors (real-life stalking, not the wiki-stalking that shows up on AN/I). This is *not* the sort of person who you want on Wikipedia.
I think it was David Gerard who characterised Morrow as "remarkably unwelcome". He is very, very banned. Quite likely the most thoroughly banned user on the project.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 09:50:50PM +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:28:54 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
What I doubt is the "only" in your initial claim.
Then you can rest assured. Even people who are 100% troublemakers with virtually nothing else to their name are still editing happily right now.
I'm worried about the people who get banned, when the only "trouble" they make is sharing the POV of a known troublemaker.
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Don't be silly. You don't need to be able to do a CheckUser in order to understand how it works, and why.
IIRC not every "sock" is verified with a CheckUser. Some get blocked for being "obvious" sock-puppets.
br
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:49:35 +0100, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
I'm worried about the people who get banned, when the only "trouble" they make is sharing the POV of a known troublemaker.
Name one?
IIRC not every "sock" is verified with a CheckUser. Some get blocked for being "obvious" sock-puppets.
That would be the "duck test" (WP:DUCK). But actually quite a few that are not listed as checkuser validated are in fact checkusered; the admin channel on irc usually has one or more checkusers hanging out who will do a sanity check without the need to "bring a shrubbery" if there is a good reason.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
I doubt that.
Amorrow JB196 Daniel Brandt
All left editing for a long time after it became evident that they were utterly unable to work within policy.
So it seems your doubts are ill-founded.
What I doubt is the "only" in your initial claim.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Are you saying that you don't trust the people we have doing checkuser? Or that you don't trust Durova and others who are good at picking up subtle signals of socks? The first case, my response is going to be close to "well, too bad. The rest of the community trusts them. If you disagree you need a good reason"- the second case simply doesn't hold water because Durova, Guy and others are always willing to email trusted users their evidence. On multiple occasions I've asked to see copies of Durova's evidence in this sort of situation, and I've always been satisfied. I'm not the only one. The ArbCom itself is capable when necessary of judging the evidence. There are more than enough checks, balances and oversight that it is far closer to science than witchcraft (to use an analogy, just because a random person can't understand the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem doesn't make the proof witchcraft).
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:41:21PM -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Are you saying that you don't trust the people we have doing checkuser? Or that you don't trust Durova and others who are good at picking up subtle signals of socks? The first case, my response is going to be close to "well, too bad. The rest of the community trusts them. If you disagree you need a good reason"- the second case simply doesn't hold water because Durova, Guy and others are always willing to email trusted users their evidence.
What are those "other methods"? According to WP:SOCK "similarities in interests and editing style" might help to detect sockpuppets. If this is the case, how can we make sure, that we do not block different editors, who happen to share the same POV? Does it matter at all since we might call them as well meatpuppets? How do we prevent admins from blocking not a vandal but a certain POV?
Quoting Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:41:21PM -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Are you saying that you don't trust the people we have doing checkuser? Or that you don't trust Durova and others who are good at picking up subtle signals of socks? The first case, my response is going to be close to "well, too bad. The rest of the community trusts them. If you disagree you need a good reason"- the second case simply doesn't hold water because Durova, Guy and others are always willing to email trusted users their evidence.
What are those "other methods"? According to WP:SOCK "similarities in interests and editing style" might help to detect sockpuppets. If this is the case, how can we make sure, that we do not block different editors, who happen to share the same POV? Does it matter at all since we might call them as well meatpuppets? How do we prevent admins from blocking not a vandal but a certain POV?
For an example of what this sort of evidence can look like see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_ang... This isn't an ideal example since it is linking an IP address to someone outside Wikipedia and I didn't know as much about this sort of thing way back in March of 2006 as I know now. And I'm certainly not as good as picking up subtle cues as Durova is. As is I hope apparent in this particular case, the editing patterns extended not just from POV but from a unique intersection of interests as well as some linguistic quirks.
Furthermore, even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what? In order for a POV to look similar to a blocked editor it generally needs to be extreme and with no caring for NPOV. So even if such blocks were occasionally occurring we aren't losing much. Consider for example, some socks of Jason Gastrich we've blocked. At least one of those I think wasn't a Gastrich sock, but it was interested in pretty close to the same thing; spamming and promoting Louisiana Baptist University and whitewashing the article. We didn't lose much for blocking it. Note incidentally, that this isn't the sort of evidence we are talking about above- that sort is almost never wrong.
And I've love to discuss this in more detail but I'm not going to do it over an open list. There's no need to give these people any more help.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu schrieb:
Furthermore, even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what? In order for a POV to look similar to a blocked editor it generally needs to be extreme and with no caring for NPOV. So even if such blocks were occasionally occurring we aren't losing much.
What is an *extreme* POV very much depends on your own POV. People should get banned, if they are either harassing people, violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia. I strongly oppose admins, who block editors for having a specific POV. For NPOV we actually /need/ editors with different POVs as long as they can adept to a cooperative writing. Wikipedia would lose a lot of perspectives, if only editors with "genuine commitment to follow consensus" (majority view?) are welcome.
br
Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu schrieb:
Furthermore, even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what? In order for a POV to look similar to a blocked editor it generally needs to be extreme and with no caring for NPOV. So even if such blocks were occasionally occurring we aren't losing much.
What is an *extreme* POV very much depends on your own POV. People should get banned, if they are either harassing people, violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia. I strongly oppose admins, who block editors for having a specific POV. For NPOV we actually /need/ editors with different POVs as long as they can adept to a cooperative writing. Wikipedia would lose a lot of perspectives, if only editors with "genuine commitment to follow consensus" (majority view?) are welcome.
Up to a point. It is a popular misconception that all POVs can function on Wikipedia. There's not much we can do if someone thinks that nothing matters but spreading the TRUTH about how Republicans/Democrats/Communists/Capitalists/Israelis/Palestinians/Zionists/Pacifists/Rosicrucians/Shriners/Atheists /Grandmothers/Gerbils are evil. Certain classes of POVs don't lend themselves to writing a neutral encyclopedia. Not surprisingly, those POVs are generally extreme POVs (there occasion where moderates have the same attitude about their moderate positions but for some reason that seems to come up more rarely).
On 12/11/2007, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
What is an *extreme* POV very much depends on your own POV. People should get banned, if they are either harassing people, violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia. I strongly oppose admins, who block editors for having a specific POV. For NPOV we actually /need/ editors with different POVs as long as they can adept to a cooperative writing. Wikipedia would lose a lot of perspectives, if only editors with "genuine commitment to follow consensus" (majority view?) are welcome.
I notice that you've been starting from an a priori assumption of bad faith and adding theoretical considerations, whereas those answering you are giving specific examples you're failing to take in.
- d.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:30:04 +0100, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
What are those "other methods"?
Some of them are not going to be discussed openly. They are known well enough to the people who are working the cases. It's best not to tell some people how they tip their hands.
Guy (JzG)