On 5 Sep 2007 at 15:52:42 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If Vee knows not to take this too far that shouldn't be necessary. After our long thread about moderation you should know that many of us like to give members some leeway instead of crying for blood on the least minor offence.
Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia culture has evolved these days, there seems to be a large tendency to "cry for blood" all the time, and to conduct "troll hunts". There's an extremely vindictive, punitive attitude all around, and a belief that it's more important to protect the fragile egos of long-time Wikipedians than to try to be fair to newbies who may just be inept or frustrated rather than being the evil trolls they're often labeled as when they rub somebody the wrong way. Once somebody with some status on Wikipedia claims to be attacked, harrassed, stalked, or otherwise bothered by somebody with lesser status, it's all over for them... everybody else circles their wagons and has no interest in hearing the other side of the dispute (and there are *always* at least two sides to any dispute).
This list is perhaps a bit more of a tolerant zone than Wikipedia itself these days, but still sometimes sees similar behavior, though the ability to make somebody an "unperson" by deleting their posts before anybody can read them at least doesn't exist.
On 9/5/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia culture has evolved these days, there seems to be a large tendency to "cry for blood" all the time, and to conduct "troll hunts". There's an extremely vindictive, punitive attitude all around, and a belief that it's more important to protect the fragile egos of long-time Wikipedians than to try to be fair to newbies who may just be inept or frustrated rather than being the evil trolls they're often labeled as when they rub somebody the wrong way. Once somebody with some status on Wikipedia claims to be attacked, harrassed, stalked, or otherwise bothered by somebody with lesser status, it's all over for them... everybody else circles their wagons and has no interest in hearing the other side of the dispute (and there are *always* at least two sides to any dispute). -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
And voila! it's a sock puppet accusation, the safest of all accusations, and even if a checkuser is run that shows they're not the same IP, it can be concluded that they're in the same geographic region, or once used a similar IP, so it must be a sock puppet, and sock puppet accusations get permanent bans without community consensus and without the person being allowed to defend themselves.
Just another way check user is abused.
And it's making the community look rotten to the core.
KP
On 06/09/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And voila! it's a sock puppet accusation, the safest of all accusations, and even if a checkuser is run that shows they're not the same IP, it can be concluded that they're in the same geographic region, or once used a similar IP, so it must be a sock puppet, and sock puppet accusations get permanent bans without community consensus and without the person being allowed to defend themselves. Just another way check user is abused.
Checkuser is in practice only useful as corroborating evidence in cases of observed similar bad behaviour. It's the icing on the cake, not the substance.
If someone edits with two completely different editing profiles from the same IP, it looks just like two different people using the IP and the checker will pretty much always assume it to be such.
(Despite occasional howler monkeys on WP:ANI.)
- d.
On 9/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And voila! it's a sock puppet accusation, the safest of all accusations, and even if a checkuser is run that shows they're not the same IP, it can be concluded that they're in the same geographic region, or once used a similar IP, so it must be a sock puppet, and sock puppet accusations get permanent bans without community consensus and without the person being allowed to defend themselves. Just another way check user is abused.
Checkuser is in practice only useful as corroborating evidence in cases of observed similar bad behaviour. It's the icing on the cake, not the substance.
If someone edits with two completely different editing profiles from the same IP, it looks just like two different people using the IP and the checker will pretty much always assume it to be such.
(Despite occasional howler monkeys on WP:ANI.)
- d.
But if you want to get rid of someone, just make some edits that look like theirs, accuse them of sock puppetry, and, even if they're from different IPs, they'll be permanently banned without recourse as a sock puppet. I'm not web or computer savvy, and even I've come across this advice on how to get rid of an editor you don't like on Wikipedia. And it certainly appears to be how sock puppetry accusations on Wikipedia work--make one, and the editor is gone.
KP
On 07/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And voila! it's a sock puppet accusation, the safest of all accusations, and even if a checkuser is run that shows they're not the same IP, it can be concluded that they're in the same geographic region, or once used a similar IP, so it must be a sock puppet, and sock puppet accusations get permanent bans without community consensus and without the person being allowed to defend themselves. Just another way check user is abused.
Checkuser is in practice only useful as corroborating evidence in cases of observed similar bad behaviour. It's the icing on the cake, not the substance.
If someone edits with two completely different editing profiles from the same IP, it looks just like two different people using the IP and the checker will pretty much always assume it to be such.
(Despite occasional howler monkeys on WP:ANI.)
- d.
But if you want to get rid of someone, just make some edits that look like theirs, accuse them of sock puppetry, and, even if they're from different IPs, they'll be permanently banned without recourse as a sock puppet. I'm not web or computer savvy, and even I've come across this advice on how to get rid of an editor you don't like on Wikipedia. And it certainly appears to be how sock puppetry accusations on Wikipedia work--make one, and the editor is gone.
KP
A better understanding of the nature of honesty and deception would help.
See thread entitled, 'King snakes, milk snakes and viceroy butterflies: Honesty and deception'. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079819.html
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
There's an extremely vindictive, punitive attitude all around,
My imaginary dividing line...
and a belief that it's more important to protect the fragile egos of long-time Wikipedians than to try to be fair to newbies who may just be inept or frustrated rather than being the evil trolls they're often labeled as when they rub somebody the wrong way.
I think you're mixing up two points that *should* be very distinct. Not saying the latter is or isn't at all true, but it's somewhat drama-related and shouldn't obscure from far more serious issues, which your first point happens to touch on.
I could go into several examples, but to keep it simple (and redudancy-free, so I don't get *moderated* (see, this is on-topic as can be...)) I'll stick to one particular thing that has recently struck me as, well, somewhat strange:
Why (oh why) is the very important NPOV section (which newbies, as well as regulars in the trenches are often pointed to) WP:UNDUE called *UN*due weight? Why not *Due weight*? Why the forbidding tone? Could it be that some really enjoy employing negative language instead of being positive?
Telling another editor, newbie or not, that things must *not* be given *un*due weight strikes me as totally arbitrary in its negativeness. Shouldn't the tendency rather be to *help* others to see what is the most useful apporach and to *motivate* to give due weight to the relevant aspects and to describe them what is *best practice* instead of what is *bad* and *forbidden* etc?
I'm writing here because in my opinion, the two most misunderstood and most widely ignored and even misused sections of NPOV, WP:ASF and WP:DUE (both are redirects I recently created), should be carefully reworded for clarity and positiveness.
I figured since previous attempts at doing (undoable and imo unnecessary) complete rewrites of NPOV appear to have ended in what might be called <s>cl*st*rf*cks</s> group hugs, we might as well get over with it before anyone starts building up false hope for the better.
So I'd like to invite anyone to weigh in on the discussion at WT:NPOV. There's only drama if you want it to be there.
Adrian
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia culture has evolved these days, there seems to be a large tendency to "cry for blood" all the time, and to conduct "troll hunts". There's an extremely vindictive, punitive attitude all around, and a belief that it's more important to protect the fragile egos of long-time Wikipedians than to try to be fair to newbies who may just be inept or frustrated rather than being the evil trolls they're often labeled as when they rub somebody the wrong way. Once somebody with some status on Wikipedia claims to be attacked, harrassed, stalked, or otherwise bothered by somebody with lesser status, it's all over for them... everybody else circles their wagons and has no interest in hearing the other side of the dispute (and there are *always* at least two sides to any dispute).
Interesting that you should analyse this in terms of a person's status. Generally people who really do have status are secure in that status don't need to engage in this kind of behaviour. I think it mostly come from those who have a very limited and fragile view of Wikipedia. The transition from the limited scope of these people depends on being able to move from judging Wikipedia activity on the basis of rules to judging that activity on the basis of principles. For the rule-minded "Ignore all rules" is an outrage; for the principle minded it is an opportunity for developing new ideas.
This list is perhaps a bit more of a tolerant zone than Wikipedia itself these days, but still sometimes sees similar behavior, though the ability to make somebody an "unperson" by deleting their posts before anybody can read them at least doesn't exist.
I agree. Maybe its because we have a critical mass of experienced people who have an appreciation of these dynamics. We certainly have our share of hardliners, but there are enough other opinions here so that the hardliners can't draw the conclusion that silence is consent. This is not possible on Wikipedia itself. When a newbie is criticised there he is not in an easy position to question that criticism; he doesn't know whether the critic has been there five years or five days. In theory he could check that out, but that's unrealistic for a newbie who is just becoming familiar with basic wiki markup. If such a newbie is referred to rules, which are wikis themselves, he can't know about the background of that rule and the degree of support that it has in the community.
Ec