SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left. And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink, too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering it.
The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at another contributor has always been rather high, but it has reached a new high of late.
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences to me if I just leave it alone.
It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+ word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).
He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours. No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I have done wrong in this.
And yet I feel embattled.
I'm labeled the bad guy.
This is not an environment conducive to collaboration, and I am reminded of what Yogi Berra said: "If people want to stay away from the ballpark, you can't make them."
For those unfamiliar with Yogi-isms, this translates to thousands of potential contributors simply staying away from Wikipedia.
Not because it's hard to edit, but because it's hard to defend the edit.
Not because it's hard to discuss topic "whatever", but because it's hard to endure the name-calling, humiliation and accusation on [[talk:whatever]].
Perhaps I've been too bold in trying to take matters into my own hands. So be it. I'm a dinosaur, I'm not scaling with the project.
Okay. Fine. I'll do whatever I'm told. Ask mav: if I'm told what to do, I do it.
So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
Ed Poor (in exile)
On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Don't panic.
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
Fred,
Since you are both a member of the arbitration committee and a lawyer - have you thought about implementing a kind of summary judgment (with rule 11 type sanctions for those that bring a case in bad faith even) ruling for this situation: i.e. just having a 10-0 or 9-1 quick ruling. I know that failure to hear a complaint is that type of situation, but it fails to provide the accused with any kind of way to feel like things are ok. A "we are tossing this for cause" type ruling would be much better.
Jim
We do need to look at what happened. We have the same problem Ed has, a lengthy and confusing complaint. Our practice is to assume good faith and try to figure out if there was anything to it. We may have an automatic reaction but Ed good, FuelWagon bad is no good.
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Jim wrote:
On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Don't panic.
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
Fred,
Since you are both a member of the arbitration committee and a lawyer - have you thought about implementing a kind of summary judgment (with rule 11 type sanctions for those that bring a case in bad faith even) ruling for this situation: i.e. just having a 10-0 or 9-1 quick ruling. I know that failure to hear a complaint is that type of situation, but it fails to provide the accused with any kind of way to feel like things are ok. A "we are tossing this for cause" type ruling would be much better.
Jim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We do need to look at what happened. We have the same problem Ed has, a lengthy and confusing complaint. Our practice is to assume good faith and try to figure out if there was anything to it.
I understand that - I am not saying to not be careful - I know that the committee is and am glad that they are. However, after looking at what Fuelwagon has written, and assuming that the facts (not the lengthy persuasive arguments - but the actual changes and actions by Ed and Fuelwagon) that he has cited, the arbcomm could determine if there is a pattern that warrants even a closer look from the arb committee, and, if not, rule against him immediately without Ed having to respond.
We may have
an automatic reaction but Ed good, FuelWagon bad is no good.
I agree, but I do think that: Ed: exciteable with occasional mistakes but well intentioned, FuelWagon: (don't know him well enough to summarize), evaluating the person's credibility based on prior experience before the arbcom or in mediation is not bad.
Jim
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at another contributor has always been rather high, but it has reached a new high of late.
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences to me if I just leave it alone.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
Carbonite
On 12/2/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527... including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah
On 12/3/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah
Makeing new policy over a single case is a bad idea. What happened to the old wikistalking proposal BTW?
-- geni
On 12/3/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527... including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah
Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate, without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I should make it.
Cormac
On 12/3/05, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate, without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I should make it.
Cormac, I agree with the idea of the arbitration committee being allowed to be more pro-active, though it becomes a question of extra workload, and I doubt they would want any. This is why I was thinking of an extra group of editors set up specifically to deal with trolling and harassment as an extension of the arbcom, reporting to them and operating under their jurisdiction: a subcommittee. But the point you make is dead right: FuelWagon will turn the arbcom case into another platform for his harassment, which he did with the two RfCs. On the upside, it'll be concentrated on one spot instead of being spread throughout the project, but it would be good if there were a way of dealing with it that didn't involve all the nonsense being reproduced yet again.
Sarah
We are talking about some kind of summary procedure in this case. Any suggestions? Also, although FuelWagon has harassed me some. I haven't really followed what else he has been doing. Could there be some short summaries at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor (Make a statement).
Fred
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:01 AM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/05, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate, without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I should make it.
Cormac, I agree with the idea of the arbitration committee being allowed to be more pro-active, though it becomes a question of extra workload, and I doubt they would want any. This is why I was thinking of an extra group of editors set up specifically to deal with trolling and harassment as an extension of the arbcom, reporting to them and operating under their jurisdiction: a subcommittee. But the point you make is dead right: FuelWagon will turn the arbcom case into another platform for his harassment, which he did with the two RfCs. On the upside, it'll be concentrated on one spot instead of being spread throughout the project, but it would be good if there were a way of dealing with it that didn't involve all the nonsense being reproduced yet again.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/3/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We are talking about some kind of summary procedure in this case. Any suggestions? Also, although FuelWagon has harassed me some. I haven't really followed what else he has been doing. Could there be some short summaries at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor (Make a statement).
Fred, do you mean people should make a very short statement about his behavior without a lot of diffs and details?
Sarah
This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing.
It is only that general familiarity which could support proactive or summary action.
Often the first we hear about someone is when it shows up on Requests for arbitration and we are truly clueless about what is going on. We don't want the endless pile of evidence we are usually presented with (No one could actually read it all). What we need is a few examples which nicely illustrate the problem. This is not too much to ask for. You are writers. You are editors.
Fred
On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:49 AM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate, without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I should make it.
Cormac
Please place some, but not a whole lot, of evidence on the evidence page
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence
I don't think "all the allegations will have to be responded to"
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:41 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I
couldn't face going through all the diffs
and having the whole thing repeated yet again.
The Arbcom - "a circus?" You must be joking. Maybe if they... well... who listens to Me anymore? (Me Me Me).
I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing
to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've
also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Yes, the great founder can't go around making everybody feel better. "It hurts right here..."
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon
has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold >court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the >allegations will have to be responded to.
Its funny how, in contrast with my Arbcom ("you broke the rules!") Ed's violations require "defending" and so forth. Ed's famous ((soothing vibe)) is indeed something to behold, but wouldn't things work out better if the Arbcom could be trusted to actually review its cases and debate each point openly? Theres a little AGF missing I suppose...
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee
of
experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify
when a user >is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee >the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of >increasing length for each instance of it. I
know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
No, this is wrong. Sorry you feel stressed out SV, but thats the way it goes. Take it with a grain of salt, as they say. Go on a wikibreak -- take a wikicruise. WPh will still be here when we're all dead and gone. Etc.
With the mandatory consoling out of the way, I have to say its funny how the real "drawback" of cabalism (according cabalists presumably) is the "accusations of cabalism," and not the cabalism itself... and the distance such represents from the Open Model (i.e. the "lets see if this works" philosophy which built wikipedia up to begin with. Sure, theres the GFDL and a strongly egalitarian ethos too...).
But I liked Fred's idea of having official prosecutors and defenders represent each case in some clear terms. Prosecutors will take complaints and sort evidence, etc. And defenders will challenge the Arbcom to hold some perspective in the application of 'da rulz.' Of course, those positions would not be paid positions either... ("but Ive spellchecked every article for the correct use of 'i before e'..." ). In anycase, Slim, you seem to be another one on the boat for [[WP:DRR|overhauling the dispute resolution process in some general way shape or form]].
True, Wikipedia 'is a project to create a free encyclopedia and not a free internet democracy,' but IMHO authoritarian measures have usually proven themselves to be mistakes. Of course, theres some tinkering going on as we speak (you can hear it if you listen closely). Question as always is: will the tinkering break the machine?
Stevertigo
:''The user name above is incorrect for [[who cares?|technical reasons]]. The correct title is stevertigo.''
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon
HIMSELF conceded
was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself
hauled before the
arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned
Jayjg's ArbCom candidate
question page into his own personal battleground.
FuelWagon's
"questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of
diffs and are filled with
endless rhetorical statements. However, this
doesn't even begin to compare
with the 16 section response to his RfC a while
back: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527...
including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527... including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah
Good day Sarah
When I read your report, I have the feeling to read what I have been seeing happening hundred of times. Which is not good news :-( But I fear it is part of the game.
What really strikes me in what you explain is this :
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
And I think this is actually the worse point. The "victim" thinking he is alone (or nearly alone) in the boat, knowing that most people consider there is no smoke without fire, and as a result, the victim behaving in a less relaxed fashion... which will further fuel comments from those happy to tickle conflicts. A rolling ball...
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Maybe the problem is not so much the trouble makers; maybe the problem is that editors fail to show support to victims at the *right* time.
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Or because they fear being accused of being part of a cabal, "meatpuppets", etc.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Or because they fear being accused of being part of a cabal, "meatpuppets", etc.
The lack of time argument is probably the strongest. The output from the mailing lists is huge. When a particular communication begins with A complaining about B's behaviour the delete button looks very attractive, especially if the complaint involves a long-winded rant.
If I want to fairly consider FuelWagon's actions, I need to consider how long it's going to take me to get up to speed on what's been happening. How much unpleasant nonsense will I need to wade through to get at the truth.
Ec
Having been the victim of stalking myself I feel the utmost sympathy for Ed and SlimVirgin. Wikipedia needs to take seriously the fact that there are Wikistalkers out there who are driving users away. Two users I have immense respect for have left in the last week because of personal experiences. This is a growing problem which Wikipedia needs to face up to.
Thom
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's "questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527... including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah
Good day Sarah
When I read your report, I have the feeling to read what I have been seeing happening hundred of times. Which is not good news :-( But I fear it is part of the game.
What really strikes me in what you explain is this :
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
And I think this is actually the worse point. The "victim" thinking he is alone (or nearly alone) in the boat, knowing that most people consider there is no smoke without fire, and as a result, the victim behaving in a less relaxed fashion... which will further fuel comments from those happy to tickle conflicts. A rolling ball...
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Maybe the problem is not so much the trouble makers; maybe the problem is that editors fail to show support to victims at the *right* time.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo!
On 12/5/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Hello Anthere, I agree with you very much, and I'd like to try to come up with a solution. Following on from Steve Rubenstein's idea yesterday, I'm thinking it might be good to have a page where people can go to report harassment, and where editors can sign up if they're willing to be part of a fast-response team. Like bullying of any kind, the best thing is to nip it in the bud before the behavior becomes entrenched and before, as you say, the victim starts responding in a way that might make things worse.
There are two difficulties. First, we need to come up with a working definition of "harassment". Often, editors who are subject to admin action claim they're being harassed, and editors whose contributions are being closely watched because of editing problems often feel the same. There's a page about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment that describes some of the behavior, but I'd like to write something about the effect it can have on the victim.
Secondly, I want to avoid pages that are made available to support victims turning into platforms for more attacks by the perpetrators, who may turn up to defend themselves in a way that in fact causes more grief. I know that the person who was following me around turned every query and every objection to his behavior into another opportunity to write a several-thousand-word essay repeating all his allegations. So the team of editors who sign up to help victims would have to be able to tell the difference between a genuine defense and an excuse for further attack.
For both these reasons, it may take some time to get it right, but I'll let you know if I make progress, and thank you for your input, Anthere.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave).
Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
Hello Anthere, I agree with you very much, and I'd like to try to come up with a solution. Following on from Steve Rubenstein's idea yesterday, I'm thinking it might be good to have a page where people can go to report harassment, and where editors can sign up if they're willing to be part of a fast-response team. Like bullying of any kind, the best thing is to nip it in the bud before the behavior becomes entrenched and before, as you say, the victim starts responding in a way that might make things worse.
There are two difficulties. First, we need to come up with a working definition of "harassment". Often, editors who are subject to admin action claim they're being harassed, and editors whose contributions are being closely watched because of editing problems often feel the same. There's a page about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment that describes some of the behavior, but I'd like to write something about the effect it can have on the victim.
Secondly, I want to avoid pages that are made available to support victims turning into platforms for more attacks by the perpetrators, who may turn up to defend themselves in a way that in fact causes more grief. I know that the person who was following me around turned every query and every objection to his behavior into another opportunity to write a several-thousand-word essay repeating all his allegations. So the team of editors who sign up to help victims would have to be able to tell the difference between a genuine defense and an excuse for further attack.
For both these reasons, it may take some time to get it right, but I'll let you know if I make progress, and thank you for your input, Anthere.
Sarah
Thanks, I hope it gets better. One suggestion. Unless I am wrong, the only page on which some one can rather easily remove comments from another without backfiring (being called a censor for example)... is one of his subpages, in particular talk page. On a community page, it is far too easy for a harasser to get support and get a voice, and turn the support page in yet another harassing page. On one of your subpage, you may protect yourself better and remove the crap with far less troubles.
Ant
On 12/5/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One suggestion. Unless I am wrong, the only page on which some one can rather easily remove comments from another without backfiring (being called a censor for example)... is one of his subpages, in particular talk page. On a community page, it is far too easy for a harasser to get support and get a voice, and turn the support page in yet another harassing page. On one of your subpage, you may protect yourself better and remove the crap with far less troubles.
Very good idea.
Sarah
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left. And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink, too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering it.
The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at another contributor has always been rather high, but it has reached a new high of late.
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences to me if I just leave it alone.
It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+ word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).
He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours. No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I have done wrong in this.
Ive said it before and I will say it again. Admins need more authority to enforce all our policies. But, and this is important, they should get other admins to do the enforcement in cases that will likely be challenged. This is especially important when admins are involved in edit disputes; the involved admin should not enforce policy on their opponents unless the enforcement was for something that would generally be considered to be obvious vandalism. The admin noticeboard is a good place to bring cases like this to the attention of other admins. But those other admins will not do anything unless they feel they have the authority to do so.
Im sick of the high turnover of good contributors too. We need to fix that if we want to encourage a productive work environment. This bullshit has got to stop so we can concentrate on creating the worlds best encyclopedia. Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more. Crackpots, POV pushers, and trolls are not welcome.
-- mav
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 12/2/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm sick of the high turnover of good contributors too. We need to fix that if we want to encourage a productive work environment. This bullshit has got to stop so we can concentrate on creating the world's best encyclopedia. Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more. Crackpots, POV pushers, and trolls are not welcome.
And it does get tiring. Perhaps -- and only perhaps -- we have modeled our "judicial" system too much on systems which are intentionally meticulous; too much on an ideal society than on an internet encyclopedia. There are some similarities, but the differences are fairly broad -- the maximum penalty we can enforce is prohibition from participation, pretty minor in the scale of life. The overriding goal is NOT to make sure every dog has their day and that everybody gets a "fair trial", but smooth moving of the site. I hate to say that it is our primary goal to keep the trains running on time, but we're talking about a website here, not Italy. Tilting the balance of "good faith" in favor of 1. long-standing and valued contributors with good editing records, and 2. towards a goal of expedited speed in decisions (with the possibility of appeal, of course) rather than comprehensiveness in assessment, might be a good thing.
What are the consequences? Both systems have a possibility of failure. Both could potentially drive away good editors. However the retention of long-term editors might be more afforded in the latter system, and that might be a goal worth pursuing in and of itself.
FF
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left. And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink, too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering it.
You are highly experienced in the curative effects of Wiki-vacations.
The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at another contributor has always been rather high, but it has reached a new high of late.
Wiping does not remove the asshole nor inhibit its normal productive activities.
It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+ word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).
When rants significantly exceed the limit delete everything in the argument after the 500th word, even if the 500th is in mid sentence.
He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours. No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I have done wrong in this.
And yet I feel embattled.
I'm labeled the bad guy.
I've known that for nearly four years, but I'm still willing to read your side of the story. ;-)
This is not an environment conducive to collaboration, and I am reminded of what Yogi Berra said: "If people want to stay away from the ballpark, you can't make them."
For those unfamiliar with Yogi-isms, this translates to thousands of potential contributors simply staying away from Wikipedia.
Not because it's hard to edit, but because it's hard to defend the edit.
Not because it's hard to discuss topic "whatever", but because it's hard to endure the name-calling, humiliation and accusation on [[talk:whatever]].
Perhaps I've been too bold in trying to take matters into my own hands. So be it. I'm a dinosaur, I'm not scaling with the project.
Some might say that diinosaurs had scales to protect them.
Okay. Fine. I'll do whatever I'm told. Ask mav: if I'm told what to do, I do it.
It's a tough environment for a person with that temperament.
So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
I don't know FuelWagon, and after reading your introduction I don't think that I want to know him, I can only speak in genralities.
Sometimes I feel that overly agressive admins are as much a part of the problem as the miscreants that they are trying to deal with. They antagonize rather than heal. Their reactions only inspire a further round of reaction from the offender, and it escalates from there. If someone persists in acting anti-socially after a *patient* effort to bring him into a culture of civility, swift and decisive action may be necessary. With mature approaches from the admins this should be rare.
The other thing that needs to be repaired is the fiction that quick fixes are good for the pedia. It's not rocket surgery to see that some kind of deletion is at the heart of many of these disputes. What difference does it make if a problem article is deleted to-day in the midst of an uproar, or next month when everyone has forgotten about it? The eventualists among us know that it will happen when its meant to happen; we've been around here long enough to know that from experience.
Ec