After months of people asking me on IRC, in mail on my Talkpage etc. if I would please please please contribute again to nl.wikipedia I decided to give it a try and started redoing some Thai provinces. Since I had stopped editting last year no-one had any interest in those articles. The only edits besides mine are "pimp my article edits" like cats and replacing the texts without any information adding! On average 50 edits like this per article! And no knowledge added!
Within 2 hours I was mobbed by 3 users, with whom I have had conflicts previously and who stalk me on talkpages, who feel that the appearance of an article is more important than what is in it. I have a number of fans on nl.wikipedia who take turns in following me everywhere, or do groupattacks. This is why I decided to stop contributing knowledge in october last year as it was of no use. These people are in no way interested in the subjects I write about, but are more interested in attacking and harassing me and stopping me from contributing. Sadly enough I can only edit if I edit under another name. I have been requested multiple times by users on IRC to start editing under another wikinick. It is said that this has to be.
The conflict resulted in a block which saw one of those 3 blocked for 1 hour and me for 3 days. This was later adjusted to me for 6 hours which was doubled again when I editted through TOR to protest the double standards.
After this I was and still am so sickened by the way wikipedia and ALL wikimedia projects have become that I decided to stop editting on April 10th.
Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.
I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend themselves don't they?
And now comes worst.
I was "sentenced" to a monthlong block for editting through proxies. But no one told me I was sentenced! Someone who disagreed with the block mailed me. 2 weeks after THE BLOCK.
This is a really odd procedure.
You trial someone without giving him a DEFENCE and you sentence him but don't tell him of the sentence!
Waerth
2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
Within 2 hours I was mobbed by 3 users, with whom I have had conflicts previously and who stalk me on talkpages, who feel that the appearance of an article is more important than what is in it. I have a number of fans on nl.wikipedia who take turns in following me everywhere, or do groupattacks. This is why I decided to stop contributing knowledge in october last year as it was of no use. These people are in no way interested in the subjects I write about, but are more interested in attacking and harassing me and stopping me from contributing. Sadly enough I can only edit if I edit under another name. I have been requested multiple times by users on IRC to start editing under another wikinick. It is said that this has to be.
What Waerth does not tell you is that the "attacking and harassing" consisted of nothing more than removing some very non-standard layout that Waerth had put on the article. Wikipedia is a community project, and Waerth should not be surprised if the articles he writes are adapted so that they are more similar in style to the rest of Wikipedia.
After this I was and still am so sickened by the way wikipedia and ALL wikimedia projects have become that I decided to stop editting on April 10th.
Well, you had stopped editing before as well. And if this is sickening you, then I am not surprised that you are sickened very often on Wikipedia.
Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.
I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend themselves don't they?
Well, protest if you want. But above you yourself admit that you used proxies to edit while you were blocked. That's what you were blocked for, so I don't see how you would have successfully defended yourself against that.
Today I got an email from someone telling me I am now blocked for a month! It seemed that while I was away a procedure against me was started.
I was not heard on anything, nor was I asked to give my view of anything that had happened! If you try someone someone gets a chance to defend themselves don't they?
Well, protest if you want. But above you yourself admit that you used proxies to edit while you were blocked. That's what you were blocked for, so I don't see how you would have successfully defended yourself against that.
That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a "process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had obviously responded.
I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.
Trying someone without giving them a defence Andre, while giving the other party an opportunity to respond ...... and then not even informing the tried person of his or her sentence???????
Andre you are intelligent enough to know that no matter how I had defended myself you should have given me the right to a defence. And you should at least have had the politeness of informing me of your decision.
This is on par with a firingsquad in a bananarepublic.
Waerth
2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a "process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had obviously responded.
No, they weren't asked. Apparently they found it by themselves.
I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.
That's true, that was a mistake on our side.
Andre Engels wrote:
2007/5/7, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
That's not the point. You or another arbcommember should have told me a "process" was started. As it stands, NO ARBCOMMEMBER informed me. No Arbcommember asked me for my side. The other party was asked as they had obviously responded.
No, they weren't asked. Apparently they found it by themselves.
Well I can read clearly in other cases that people WERE ASKED to give their view to the arbcom (See Torero's talkpage for example) How can a judge judge without hearing the accused parties? The nl-arbcom would fit in perfectly will within the neighbouring country to Thailand, where people are tried without a hearing and locked up.
I was not told of the outcome not on my talkpage nor in Mail.
That's true, that was a mistake on our side.
I hope you learn from that mistake and find a way to correct past errors.
You have my mailadress
Waerth
Andre you are intelligent enough to know that no matter how I had defended myself you should have given me the right to a defence.
No, that's often not the case. This is a common misconception.
As I understand the case, you were blocked for repeatedly using proxy accounts. When these were blocked, you opened another proxy account. You cannot claim that you were unaware of the infraction. The creation of a new account demonstrates that you were fully aware of what was going on.
This is on par with a firingsquad in a bananarepublic.
No, it's on par with a parking ticket.
If you get a parking ticket and fail to respond, you'll be considered guilty by default and fined. This is true even if you claim you were unaware of the fine (the "wind blew it off" non-defence), but it seems clear from my readings here that you couldn't even claim that in this case.
It's simply the way the system works. Minor crimes that have little effect on the guilty (like a small fine) can be considerably "more wrong" than major ones that have major effects on the guilty (like jail time). You've likely heard the statement that "it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to jail", but in the case of minor infractions the reverse is true. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way it is.
And let's face it, the punishement in this case is hardly limiting you. A month ban on an account you clearly stated you no longer wanted to use anyway? I wish I had such problems.
What Waerth does not tell you is that the "attacking and harassing"
This is always the case in my experience. I've seen edit wars over changes in grammar.
That said, I have been repeatedly upset by the "invisibility" of the process. For a project that claims to be about sharing information, the way the arbcom decisions are made without any publically available information being posted. That discredits the wiki, IMHO.
For instance, I recently came across a perma-ban on a use whom I had past "dealings" with. Try as I might, I was unable to find out any information on what had happened to precipitate the ban. I wrote to the banning user, and the person that started the process, and was given the runaround for days. I still don't know precisely what happened.
Is it really too much to require a CLEAR explaination of what the events were to be posted on the userpage in question? I think this should be policy.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Find the best places on campus to get take out, study & unwind http://www.liveu.ca/explore.aspx
Hoi,
Is it really too much to require a CLEAR explaination of what the events were to be posted on the userpage in question? I think this should be policy.
+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take responsibility for what they say/decide.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take responsibility for what they say/decide.
What really chuffed me in this particular case is that when I asked what had led to the ban, the people involved started asking questions about _my_ motives, like I was some sort of spy or something.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
Hoi,
Well, our motives are clear: we want to know, and that's it. Once we know maybe we will be happy about what we just knew, maybe not; yet until we do not know we are unhappy by default.
I'm not discussing anyone's power to make decisions; I simply think people must take responsibility on how they use such a power. I'm positive there are passages in a discussion that require to be private, that is always the case with any Committee. Yet once a decision is made it must be public and it must have a CLEAR public explanation.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Maury Markowitz Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:18 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked
+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take responsibility for what they say/decide.
What really chuffed me in this particular case is that when I asked what had
led to the ban, the people involved started asking questions about _my_ motives, like I was some sort of spy or something.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx
Well, our motives are clear: we want to know, and that's it. Once we know maybe we will be happy about what we just knew, maybe not; yet until we do not know we are unhappy by default.
Exactly.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Loca...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org