Following the recent discussions here and on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Poetlister
SJ
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:38 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 17:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
of en:wp by letting
This doesn't have to be complicated. How about 3 strikes, you're out? Get
banned from 3 projects and you automatically qualify for a global ban.
There's no sense in wasting hundreds of manhours trying to coordinate
information and responses across dozens of projects for users that are
clearly
On 10 June 2011 21:05, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This doesn't have to be complicated. How about 3 strikes, you're out? Get
banned from 3 projects and you automatically qualify for a global ban.
There's no sense in wasting hundreds of manhours trying to coordinate
information
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:05:22 -0700, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This doesn't have to be complicated. How about 3 strikes, you're out?
Get
banned from 3 projects and you automatically qualify for a global ban.
There's no sense in wasting hundreds of manhours trying to coordinate
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:13 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2011 21:05, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This doesn't have to be complicated. How about 3 strikes, you're out? Get
banned from 3 projects and you automatically qualify for a global ban.
There's no
Hoi,
Studies are expensive, often a time waster. They provide some kind of
legitimacy and is asked for when you do not really want to accept a verdict
from someone else. The board has a function and it CAN make decisions. The
issue here is that exceptionally there are people who are poisonous and
I also believe that there are special cases where there should be a policy
decision made
by the body that has the responsibility for due diligence, with legal authority
and a
legal basis. To that end I specifically addressed the why (with detail) and a
how
(possible) to Sue in a separate
Hi Andrew! Can you put the proposal on meta without including the
details about the case?
cheers,
Phoebe
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Billinghurst billinghu...@gmail.com wrote:
I also believe that there are special cases where there should be a policy
decision made
by the body that has the
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad
Sent: 04 June 2011 03:28
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
I second everything
On 3 Jun 2011 at 13:34, MZMcBride wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Billinghurst wrote:
I disagree, this needs to be a decision by the WMF, not by stewards. Some
sites are 'independent', and this is a matter that needs to have no wriggle
room, and hence be a definitive statement. It is simply a case that the
worst of the worst need to be managed from the top
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they
are custodians of.
I
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 22:28:28 -0400, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@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
David Gerard wrote:
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
They certainly can
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:30 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia
Foundation
involved
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
involved in
George Herbert wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft, acquiring
checkuser and crat status on various
On 3 June 2011 09:17, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies,
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe
Sent: 03 June 2011 13:14
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 09:17
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:17:54 +0100
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
What does it take for a global ban?
Do
Foundation Mailing List'
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:17:54 +0100
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch,
aka
British Civil servant with various
On 3 June 2011 16:40, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
months ago
Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
- d.
Not to digress, but in fairness to the folks active on Wikiquote, I don't
think that
On 3 June 2011 17:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
Not to digress, but in
I think that one of the biggest barriers to the implementation and
enforcement of global bans are past history, a lack of understanding of the
forced interdependence of projects through the SUL process, and difficulties
in finding ways to share information about the seriousness of problems
created
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Risker/Anne
I see your reasoning, but I also see at least two serious deficiencies:
1) Some projects explicitly rejected
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening?
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:11
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 10:00
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to support that
Scott MacDonald wrote:
The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins can't
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they
problematic in
some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins
can't
handle)?
The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and
wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane. If the
On 3 June 2011 18:43, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Scott MacDonald wrote:
The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
some way
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global
banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Responding to Scott, and also MZMcBride earlier... I don't think the
Wikimedia Foundation could successfully make decrees to permanently
ban editors from all projects. It might be the right solution in some
cases, and
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
On 3 June 2011 11:22, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Sue, the one thing that comes to mind is that the Foundation does have the
right to restrict access to private or non-public information and can decree
that a specific individual is banned from any position that permits access
to such
On 3 June 2011 19:22, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of users who have created serious
I personally think project independence is a sine qua non condition
for recruiting a certain class of contributors (for instance,
academia). We have enough conspiracy theories without the foundation
enforcing another rule over the head of the communities.
Strainu
Yeah, but there is a
Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
I too would like to see the development of a process for global
banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Risker/Anne
I see your reasoning, but I also see
Scott MacDonald wrote:
I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Projects, like children, need love. Wikiversity _only_ gets attention when
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a good idea.
Please argument that position David. Has this person abused
On 3 June 2011 21:25, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Note that we had pretty
This is somewhat off-topic but..
Whilst that is a somewhat glib view of the smaller projects :P it's not
entirely inaccurate.
By virtue of being smaller and starved of editors it is a lot easier to gain
permissions at those projects. In fact, if one of us (established editors)
was banned from
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a
On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh? You knew who he was and didn't inform anyone?
Yes, and we were telling the arbs on the functionaries list.
Don't rewrite history.
You seem stressed. Assume good faith!
- d.
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch,
aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft, acquiring
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Please argument that position
On 3 June 2011 22:23, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
no, just confused. how were you telling the arbs on a mailing list
that didn't exist at the time Cato was checkuser.
Ah, that would indeed have been the arbcom list at the time, yes.
I note you weren't an arbitrator at the time,
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 03 June 2011 22:28
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 22:23
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require the submission of identifying information?
-Dan
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
-Dan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
Cato (=Poetlister) was a
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all
the same reasons that real
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
Wikipedia is
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad to see this discussion made more general -- beyond this
particular case, and towards the general process for how and when we
can (and should) globally ban someone. I also think that we need to
have a clear
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg
Sent: 04 June 2011 00:10
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On Sat, Jun 4
] Global ban - poetlister?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
taking on some other real life person's identity
On 4 June 2011 01:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million threads of information
about his on-wiki activities. I've tried, and need a better intro.
Tom
On 4 June 2011 01:20, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Not at all
Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at
all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million threads of
information about
] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at
all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million
On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@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
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
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
... 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
75 matches
Mail list logo
