[Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?

[Thomas Morton]

I am being a bit of a "jerk" over this, because I do know some of the
details (enough to support any global ban).

But the *point *I am trying to get across is this; Scott posted to this *
public* list asking why a global ban was not on the table for this guy, and
why projects were sidestepping any attempt at a global lock.

And the answer is twofold; firstly it is an assertion of independence. But
mostly it seems to be due to a lack of clear communication between projects
as to what abuse has occurred that merits such strong response. We need to
detail that abuse in a dispassionate and public way for all of the projects
to note and understand. I doubt anyone would really support the guy were all
of the detail revealed in one place.

Saying "this guy is bad news" is true, but without detail on why that is the
case you will always find a project that pushes back.

If the stewards or an office action can deal with this then great. But I
doubt that will even stick long term in such a case.

Tom

On 4 June 2011 03:28, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I second everything that Risker has said.
>
> I am not convinced that further public discussion of this situation is
> really going to do anything other than feed Poetlister's ego, and create
> exactly the bitterness and divisiveness in the community, or communities,
> that it seems to be one of his aims to create.  My view is that if we can't
> come to a consensus quickly on this matter, it ought to just be handled and
> announced, either by one or more stewards or by the Office acting as such.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then
> > > there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP
> > with
> > > him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless
> there
> > is
> > > anything more, the response seems kosher...
> > >
> > > Except other comments indicate this is not the extent of it.
> > >
> > > Here is the problem; the el'reg article is a load of rubbish, of little
> > > information in relation to *why this person is bad news for the whole
> of
> > > WMF. *My inclination on these matters is, generally, to be harsh and
> get
> > > rid
> > > of them. But you're making it very difficult with the vague and
> > meaningless
> > > responses to make me, personally, come out and support such an action.
> > >
> > > No offence, but.. any of his on-wiki or within-WMF activities should be
> > > fine
> > > for public knowledge, and I fail to see why the wider majority should
> be
> > > asked to comment or support these actions without running over the
> basic
> > > details.
> > >
> > > In case my point isn't obvious *that *is why global bans are probably
> > > seeing
> > > so much resistance. Secretive shit.
> > >
> > > Yes, I am pushing hard here. But this sort of discussion should not be
> > > taken
> > > lightly; *what sort of activity requires a global ban*?
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > (p.s. the signpost link doesn't work for me - if that addresses my
> above
> > > issues then apologies)
> > >
> > >
> > What the Register article doesn't go into as much is the harm that this
> > group of sockpuppets did on English Wikipedia and in other projects.
>  They
> > have been used to change the outcome of multiple discussions, including
> > deletion discussions and requests for adminship.  The Runcorn
> > (administrator) account unblocked known harmful proxies, softblocked
> them,
> > and then the sockpuppets used them.  He has continued to manage to
> persuade
> > various administrators and other advanced privilege users on various
> > projects that he has reformed, but because of the negative connotations
> > associated with his former username(s), he needs a new, secret account to
> > contribute, thus creating further sockpuppets that have the patina of
> > protection from respected community members. He has used those "new"
> > accounts to SUL to various projects and send harassing and otherwise
> > inappropriate emails to other users. (We had to go through and block
> email
> > on all of the English Wikipedia accounts we're aware of because they were
> > originally blocked before that feature was enabled.) He has promised his
> > protectors that he will never run for adminship, and then does so,
> forcing
> > his protectors to either come clean about what his previous identities
> are
> > (thus harming the reputation of the protectors) or keeping quiet
> (creating
> > a
> > time bomb for the project). We will never know what information he gained
> > or
> > how he used it when he had checkuser access; his deception in this area
> is
> > one of the reasons that the WMF is looking at ways to retain the personal
> > information submitted by "identified" users. His off-wiki activities have
> > focused on harming the personal reputations of various "enemies" on
> > Wikipedia and the other projects. As recently as the beginning of this
> > year,
> > he was still emailing users and insisting that this is all a terrible
> > misunderstanding, and that the accounts really are just a group of girls
> > who
> > know each other and are all separate individuals.
> >
> > In other words, the initial harm was significant, and the deception has
> > continued unabated to this day.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>