I would rather not post the information on this list, but I am having repeated problems with an editor who appears not to be who and what they claim to be. Namely, they aggressively write articles with bad information, uploaded pictures they claimed they had permission to upload, and were using a sock account to get their good articles promoted. The sock issue has been resolved by their denying it, but discontinuing the practice of voting their articles up. The pictures were challenged for copyright, the editor said they were trying to contact the copyright holder who had given them permission to upload them, but couldn't contact the copyright holder on one, it was deleted, then did nothing on the other challenged images. The editor includes inaccurate information from technical sources, then gets the articles promoted to good article. I am beginning to delist them, but I am rather concerned about the quantity and level of inaccurate information, and I just don't have time to monitor this editor, and check all their information. The editor claims to be a physicist but is posting geological information that any physicist (even associates degree) should know was incorrectly quoted, as it involved rates of materials deformation. I'm beginning to think there is much more information that should be checked that is posted by this editor. What should I do? How should I go about this considering how littel time I have? None. Let's leave the editor's name off the mailing list for now, but please offer me some general solutions and approaches that are easy for a time-stressed editor. Thanks. KP
KP wrote:
I would rather not post the information on this list, but I am having repeated problems with an editor who appears not to be who and what they claim to be.... What should I do? How should I go about this considering how littel time I have? None. Let's leave the editor's name off the mailing list for now, but please offer me some general solutions and approaches...
Unless there's some exceptional circumstance you're not mentioning, there's no reason not to mention the name of this editor or the articles you're worried about. That way, you get more eyes and hands helping, solving your problem. (If you refuse to provide the name, based on some vague, unstated reason, you run the risk of appearing not to be who *you* claim to be!)
I'm not "refusing" to provide the name. I would like to understand the situation from a general standpoint. The Wikipedia community has a tendency not to deal with generalities. I would like to know how I should approach the situation in the future, or what I should have done differently, rather than discussing the particulars of this one situation. If we start with names and posts the conversation will degenerate into a discussion of this specific incident--which I can and will get on the Wikipedia articles of concern.
This is not Wikipedia, but a mailing list discussing Wikipedia. In spite of accusations of refusal (good grief), I use my user name on this list and anyone in here can go and review my edit summary and find out all the specifics they want. But my post is not about the specifics, it's about the generalities, and it relates to recent discussions on this list.
So, can we discuss how this issue should, in general, be approached by Wikipedia editors, as it may be more common than the one news worthy incidenct led me to believe, and the issue remains, how to handle this situation when problems arise for Wikipedia because of it.
Also, if we want to discuss specific editors, let's include them in the discussion by having that discussion on their talk page.
Signed, the evil refuser who is not really KP Botany, KP
On 4/20/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
KP wrote:
I would rather not post the information on this list, but I am having repeated problems with an editor who appears not to be who and what they claim to be.... What should I do? How should I go about this considering how littel time I
have?
None. Let's leave the editor's name off the mailing list for now, but please offer me some general solutions and approaches...
Unless there's some exceptional circumstance you're not mentioning, there's no reason not to mention the name of this editor or the articles you're worried about. That way, you get more eyes and hands helping, solving your problem. (If you refuse to provide the name, based on some vague, unstated reason, you run the risk of appearing not to be who *you* claim to be!)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not "refusing" to provide the name. I would like to understand the situation from a general standpoint. The Wikipedia community has a tendency not to deal with generalities. I would like to know how I should approach the situation in the future, or what I should have done differently, rather than discussing the particulars of this one situation.
Well generally grinding away on the copyright issue untill the person cracks can be an effective approach.
KP wrote:
I'm not "refusing" to provide the name. I would like to understand the situation from a general standpoint. The Wikipedia community has a tendency not to deal with generalities... If we start with names and posts the conversation will degenerate into a discussion of this specific incident...
Okay, fair enough. (I've done the same, for the same reason. And "refuse" was too strong; I should have said "decline".)
At the end of the day, though, pretty much Wikipedia's only real defense mechanism against a determined, persistent vandal (or other anticonstructuve editor) is determined persistence on the side of righteousness and truth. There's no silver bullet; we just need to make sure the good guys substantially outnumber the bad guys, and that the bad work stays visible so it can be fixed.
I see I posted to the wrong list, but I suppose it applies to all Wiki areas. I don't think it's a matter of righteousness or bad intent, though. Just carelessness and an overly eager point scoring goal.
KP
On 4/20/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
KP wrote:
I'm not "refusing" to provide the name. I would like to understand the situation from a general standpoint. The Wikipedia community has a tendency not to deal with generalities... If we start with names and posts the conversation will degenerate into a discussion of this specific incident...
Okay, fair enough. (I've done the same, for the same reason. And "refuse" was too strong; I should have said "decline".)
At the end of the day, though, pretty much Wikipedia's only real defense mechanism against a determined, persistent vandal (or other anticonstructuve editor) is determined persistence on the side of righteousness and truth. There's no silver bullet; we just need to make sure the good guys substantially outnumber the bad guys, and that the bad work stays visible so it can be fixed.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l