Hi. I hope it is ok to raise this issue on this mailing list.
From my recent observations, the current situation on Wikipedia often seems
to be that as soon a user expresses any concern over an indef block, they are immediately accused of being a meatpuppet (on AN/I or similar) and in many cases, blocked themselves. After a recent incident, I have been told about a number of similar cases. Had it not been for the fact that I've been a wikipedia editor for over four years, I suspect I too would have been blocked on the assumption of being a meatpuppet. I saw some recent posts on this mailing list where the question was asked "do meatpuppets exist"? I'm pretty much of the opinion that the term itself ought to be avoided, as it seems all too easily be used to refer to a group of editors who share a view.
There are various policies on Wikipedia that deal with sockpuppets, but these seem to have changed over time to include meatpuppets, and it seems to have become largely ignored as to what the policy said at the point that it became policy.
The same seems to apply to WP:DUCK. This was originally brought in as WP:SPADE to allow people to call a spade a spade, i.e. to say that something is what it is. It was at this point it became policy. Then it somehow got linked (hijacked?) to become WP:DUCK, which seems to now be used to state that something must be a duck if it shares a few attributes with a duck. WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE seem to me to be hugely different arguments. WP:SPADE is about stating facts, whereas WP:DUCK seems to be about making often wild accusations based on correlations.
In case an example is needed to back up my above observations, below is a link of where I was concerned that WP:DUCK and accusations of meatpuppetry were getting out of hand, and that supervision instead of blocking may have been more appropriate:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Regards, R E Broadley
I don't think the situation you describe (indef block, protest by someone else, meatpuppet block) really happens all that often. The accusation might fly because the noticeboards attract people who have no idea what they're talking about, but the important point is whether such accusations lead to action on the part of an administrator.
My sense is that there are few administrators who will confirm meatpuppetry based on a block protest, and then block the supposed meatpuppet account on that basis alone. The particular revision you linked to doesn't show an admin taking action, can you point to a different instance?
Nathan
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:10 AM, R E Broadley <rebroad+wikimedia.org@ gmail.com> wrote:
Hi. I hope it is ok to raise this issue on this mailing list.
From my recent observations, the current situation on Wikipedia often seems to be that as soon a user expresses any concern over an indef block, they are immediately accused of being a meatpuppet (on AN/I or similar) and in many cases, blocked themselves. After a recent incident, I have been told about a number of similar cases. Had it not been for the fact that I've been a wikipedia editor for over four years, I suspect I too would have been blocked on the assumption of being a meatpuppet. I saw some recent posts on this mailing list where the question was asked "do meatpuppets exist"? I'm pretty much of the opinion that the term itself ought to be avoided, as it seems all too easily be used to refer to a group of editors who share a view.
There are various policies on Wikipedia that deal with sockpuppets, but these seem to have changed over time to include meatpuppets, and it seems to have become largely ignored as to what the policy said at the point that it became policy.
The same seems to apply to WP:DUCK. This was originally brought in as WP:SPADE to allow people to call a spade a spade, i.e. to say that something is what it is. It was at this point it became policy. Then it somehow got linked (hijacked?) to become WP:DUCK, which seems to now be used to state that something must be a duck if it shares a few attributes with a duck. WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE seem to me to be hugely different arguments. WP:SPADE is about stating facts, whereas WP:DUCK seems to be about making often wild accusations based on correlations.
In case an example is needed to back up my above observations, below is a link of where I was concerned that WP:DUCK and accusations of meatpuppetry were getting out of hand, and that supervision instead of blocking may have been more appropriate:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=252571853#Why_is_User:ImNotObama_blocked.3F
Regards, R E Broadley _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The only situations I can remember where a non-checkuser instablock for block complaints were used was when the complaining account had been newly created and immediately shows up on ANI with a sophisticated, policy aware objection to the block.
Some blockees have done that - and CU, if used, confirms readily and consistently.
If there are exceptions going on then they should be scrutinized. Other established users should not be getting in trouble for reasonably objecting to or questioning blocks.
More case specifics would be appreciated.
-george
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the situation you describe (indef block, protest by someone else, meatpuppet block) really happens all that often. The accusation might fly because the noticeboards attract people who have no idea what they're talking about, but the important point is whether such accusations lead to action on the part of an administrator.
My sense is that there are few administrators who will confirm meatpuppetry based on a block protest, and then block the supposed meatpuppet account on that basis alone. The particular revision you linked to doesn't show an admin taking action, can you point to a different instance?
Nathan
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:10 AM, R E Broadley <rebroad+wikimedia.org@ gmail.com> wrote:
Hi. I hope it is ok to raise this issue on this mailing list.
From my recent observations, the current situation on Wikipedia often seems to be that as soon a user expresses any concern over an indef block, they are immediately accused of being a meatpuppet (on AN/I or similar) and in many cases, blocked themselves. After a recent incident, I have been told about a number of similar cases. Had it not been for the fact that I've been a wikipedia editor for over four years, I suspect I too would have been blocked on the assumption of being a meatpuppet. I saw some recent posts on this mailing list where the question was asked "do meatpuppets exist"? I'm pretty much of the opinion that the term itself ought to be avoided, as it seems all too easily be used to refer to a group of editors who share a view.
There are various policies on Wikipedia that deal with sockpuppets, but these seem to have changed over time to include meatpuppets, and it seems to have become largely ignored as to what the policy said at the point that it became policy.
The same seems to apply to WP:DUCK. This was originally brought in as WP:SPADE to allow people to call a spade a spade, i.e. to say that something is what it is. It was at this point it became policy. Then it somehow got linked (hijacked?) to become WP:DUCK, which seems to now be used to state that something must be a duck if it shares a few attributes with a duck. WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE seem to me to be hugely different arguments. WP:SPADE is about stating facts, whereas WP:DUCK seems to be about making often wild accusations based on correlations.
In case an example is needed to back up my above observations, below is a link of where I was concerned that WP:DUCK and accusations of meatpuppetry were getting out of hand, and that supervision instead of blocking may have been more appropriate:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=252571853#Why_is_User:ImNotObama_blocked.3F
Regards, R E Broadley _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The meatpuppet supposition is wrong. In order to get a meatpuppet (and I do not think very many people work as any kind of puppet), first you hav to state your case to someone who is not an administrator and get them to side with you. In the simple case, you would submit your edit to them via e-mail and say: Would you do this for me? (Why should I?) A lot of wikipedians don't read their e-mail. Supposing someone to be a puppet goes against the assumption of good faith. It's like assuming that someone set up a bot account to mask submissions from anyone.
Blocked users are supervised. They get to pick their supervisor.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
The meatpuppet supposition is wrong. In order to get a meatpuppet (and I do not think very many people work as any kind of puppet), first you hav to state your case to someone who is not an administrator and get them to side with you. In the simple case, you would submit your edit to them via e-mail and say: Would you do this for me? (Why should I?) A lot of wikipedians don't read their e-mail. Supposing someone to be a puppet goes against the assumption of good faith. It's like assuming that someone set up a bot account to mask submissions from anyone.
Most meatpuppetry that seems real is a matter of getting RL personal friends to edit on one's behalf.
Some Wikipedia editors / admins seem to describe people who are here as a result of offsite canvassing to be "meatpuppets", but I'm not sure that that is an appropriate use of the term.
Sockpuppetry is much, much more common than the former case.
-Matt