On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eddy Paine <blogginged(a)outlook.com> wrote:
Hello,
First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it
very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to
write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user
but there are more users like this.
I understand that its needed for people to block users when the
encyclopedia or the project is in danger, but where do will place the
border? I think destroying people or behaving against people like I will
describe below is also endangering the project. We should all remember that
we are humans and not robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I am
sure that there was behavior that was totally wrong, but the way the whole
international community decided to handle it was wrong also.
First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe
that its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working
together with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to
use new accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as socks
neither are old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy in place
that says that people are free to leave the project or abandon a username
and continue with a new name. This I guess is for protecting the project
and protecting the people that work on it.
Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former
Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the Dutch
Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user. (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before
you all click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is
now almost two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong
please point me to that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all
"don't waste our time".
In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this
"sockmaster" needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on
that list we see the following:
Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot
(talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
did bot editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki •
CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block •
SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib (talk
• contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by meta
communety en en.wiki communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm
abigor... Its points to my abigor account and its created to protect my own
account. Execpt for the rename edits, it didn't edit at all.Huib (old)
(talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Did a rename request to
get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that
oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old
account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot
(talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only
did bot editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA)
(renamed from Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L
Laurens (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account
created for my uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with
information about me as photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for
the userpage and information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with a
link.WikiLinkBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock
its a bot. Only editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed, the
dutch admins didn't want to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V from
Meta.
Now go to the policy:
Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and
Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy
accounts used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib
(old) Sterkbak SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts
without overlapping edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some
accounts doesn't have edits at all but where only there to redirect.
WikiLinkBot is intresting cause its now in use by a other user. This user
is also the source for the blocking on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would
have placed personal attacks against this user and now the user is having
that accounts. Very intresting don't you think.
Then we get a bunch of accounts:
Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this
users. I strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing
something out and say "hey it was you". But the account where I want to
speak about is Delay. We have the policy that says that you can start right
over with a new account. But still a Foundation employee confirms a link
between the Delay Account and the Abigor account something CU didn't do at
start. So we have a policy, but the policy doesn't work for some people?
The coolest thing here is that we block him for disrupting a project. Or
disrupting multiple projects, but every account used on the Wikipedia did
get a barnstar for good work. Since when do we give vandals barnstars? Or
since when do we block people doing good work?
So in this case one of the accounts that pointed to him is now in use by
the user requesting Abigor to get blocked. There are a bunch of account
creations that are never clearly linked to the user. Its linked by Abigor
was on Wikimania so he have done the actions. And after that we decided to
TELL all communities where he was active that he is a danger.
So tell me, why doesn't get this user the change to start over like many
others did. Many people have more accounts, or old accounts and why don't
do they get blocked and most off all why do we keep hunting him down when
there is clear proof that he is doing good work (a.k.a barnstars). Where do
we draw the line between protecting a community or scaring people off?
Ed
From my experience with Abigor on the various mailinglists, I would say
that Abigor
probably has the best intentions with the project. Therefore
enabling him to edit should be the premise.
This is the first time I actually looked in to this issue, though it has
come up plenty on the mailinglist, and I come to the following conclusions:
* He has shown he is willing to violate the privacy of others under
circumstances
* He has shown he is willing to personally attack others under circumstances
* He has shown he is willing to violate copyright
* He has shown he is willing to abuse a position of trust to further his
own opinions or positions on wiki
* He has shown he is willing to attempt to deceive the community in an
attempt to get away with the above
* He has shown a general tendency to not get the point and either
continuing disruptive behaviour or finding new was to behave disruptively
* He has shown to be vindictive and willing to damage the project(s), not
to mention his fellow editors when he is angry
* He has shown us and told us that when he is angry he will lash out, even
if he doesn't mean it, which doesn't bode well for the future
* He has exhausted most any community members willingness to discuss things
by deception and rule lawyering
* He has proven to be unfit to be a member of the editing community
I don't care if we have policy about this or how it's worded or whether or
not there is wiggle room there: Abigor the person is not welcome to edit,
should not edit, and should be blocked under any account. That's a bloody
shame, because he seems to have the best intentions.
I strongly suggest dropping the suggestion that Abigor the person should be
welcome to edit, as I suspect that the more arguments people will come
forward with the more painful to him it will be, and I can't conceive any
positive outcome for him in this discussion.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l