Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one. Not to digress, but in fairness to the folks active on Wikiquote, I don't think that WQ User:Cato had been identified as Poetlister at the time he was made a checkuser there. thanks Steven, it matches my remembrance. Cato was not identified as such, and after that his right was suspended and unanimously revoked in decision of the community. We had extremely strong suspicions, but the reasons some en:wq people gave for ignoring them was that they wouldn't be told what to do by en:wp. For the record, EnWP checkusers / arbcom, at least some of them denied to give EnWQ admins the evidence of Poetlister's sockpuppetry, specially how they identified Poetlister with Rancorn. It was not just of results of project autonomy but rather demanding blind trust and obeying of English Wikipedia privileged users. If they behaved as if they were overloads of all projects, their opinions couldn't be heard with respect from the rest of the global community. Cheers, 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. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 problematic. Especially since in many of these cases, the most damning information is sensitive and cannot be shared publicly. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 and responses across dozens of projects for users that are clearly problematic. Especially since in many of these cases, the most damning information is sensitive and cannot be shared publicly. Ryan Kaldari Hi, I'm User:Querulous! I and my two sockpuppets are the only admins on obscure.wikipedia.org, obscurer.wikiquote.org and obscurest.wiktionary.org. Me and my other heads have decided, after serious contemplation, that User:Kaldari is a reprehensible individual who needs to be off our projects. We hope you will take these three projects' opinions with the same seriousness you would a ban on en:wp, or we won't take en:wp's seriously. As such, we will be welcoming User:Poetlister until User:Kaldari is banninated from the island in a conclusive and terminal manner. In the best of good faith! - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 information and responses across dozens of projects for users that are clearly problematic. Especially since in many of these cases, the most damning information is sensitive and cannot be shared publicly. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Well, I was here about a year ago with a story how I was blocked in Russian Wikiversity for 6 months with zero edit count just before its founder did not like that in a blog, I called him a dilettant, and he decided it is a grave offence. (Thanks to the intervention by Milos, at that point the block was lifted, and now I do not have an account over there, and he can not block me again - the guy is still an admin over there, in a community of 5 votes). Two more such Russian Wikiversities, and I can suddenly find myself globally blocked. To me, it does not make sense. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 sense in wasting hundreds of manhours trying to coordinate information and responses across dozens of projects for users that are clearly problematic. Especially since in many of these cases, the most damning information is sensitive and cannot be shared publicly. Ryan Kaldari Hi, I'm User:Querulous! I and my two sockpuppets are the only admins on obscure.wikipedia.org, obscurer.wikiquote.org and obscurest.wiktionary.org. Me and my other heads have decided, after serious contemplation, that User:Kaldari is a reprehensible individual who needs to be off our projects. We hope you will take these three projects' opinions with the same seriousness you would a ban on en:wp, or we won't take en:wp's seriously. As such, we will be welcoming User:Poetlister until User:Kaldari is banninated from the island in a conclusive and terminal manner. In the best of good faith! The stewards need to be wary of this scenario. One way to address this is to use the same threshold used for CU/OS on projects without an arbcom. i.e. stewards would only count project bans which consist of agreement of 25 local users. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 the question is how to deal with them. People who damage others, who have a track record of damage done. Are we willing to tolerate them? Should we tolerate them? Is it necessary to have the same pain inflicted by the same person time and again? For me it does not take a study. I do not believe that a study will be universally accepted. Because as always there are people with a different opinion, people who like to throw their weight around as a matter of principle. Thanks, GerardM On 5 June 2011 00:24, Jason donovan jdoe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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. Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? Isn't this more or less what Mz McBride said earlier quoting you. However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. Let's hope the board can commission another study and then make the hard decision to leave it to the community. Jason ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 post. It contained detail that should not be put onto an open mailing list. My proposal in short was that the stewards are involved and the conduit for such a proposal to the Foundation, and that it could go through any of the discussion points that you identified. It does not circumvent stewards, and is not top-down; it is the close with a great big THE END. Stewards are limited in powers due to the ability for local projects to override. There has to be someone make the call on what is ultimately right for WMF. There will always be persons who come and try to avoid blocks, and a ruling from WMF basically means 'no more wriggle room'. Where someone is cyberstalking, close to the line on fraud/identity theft, there has to be authority in a ruling. Regards, Andrew On 4 Jun 2011 at 10:42, MZMcBride wrote: 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 and at a policy level, not as operational issues. This is a due diligence matter. 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. I realize that in the past, certain system administrators or Jimmy have done this, but as far as I'm aware, the Wikimedia Foundation (as an organization) has not and does not get involved in cases like this for a reason. As Phoebe noted, there have been some efforts at Meta-Wiki (more recently than I thought, actually) to address this. I'd like to see the community give it a good-faith try (or two) to solve this without intervention before seeking top-down involvement. That isn't to say that the two bodies need to be completely separate. One procedure for a global ban committee could be to direct the Wikimedia Foundation to declare particular people as completely unwelcome, or something like that. But I haven't seen too much to suggest that the community can't solve this, only that they haven't yet. Regarding independent projects, a local admin is going to do what a local admin is going to do, no matter whether it's stewards or the Wikimedia Foundation telling them otherwise. That can be handled on a case-by-case basis as appropriate. Honestly, there are other seemingly intractable problems that the community has faced and the response from seeking Wikimedia Foundation help hasn't been great. Controversial content comes to mind. A long study that ended in a report that said well, yeah, lots and lots of penises on Commons! I don't really want to see a repeat of that dynamic again. If there are technical or legal aspects to this problem that the Wikimedia Foundation can put resources toward, let's figure out what those are and make it happen. But the community really needs to take charge here, if at all possible. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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 post. It contained detail that should not be put onto an open mailing list. My proposal in short was that the stewards are involved and the conduit for such a proposal to the Foundation, and that it could go through any of the discussion points that you identified. It does not circumvent stewards, and is not top-down; it is the close with a great big THE END. Stewards are limited in powers due to the ability for local projects to override. There has to be someone make the call on what is ultimately right for WMF. There will always be persons who come and try to avoid blocks, and a ruling from WMF basically means 'no more wriggle room'. Where someone is cyberstalking, close to the line on fraud/identity theft, there has to be authority in a ruling. Regards, Andrew On 4 Jun 2011 at 10:42, MZMcBride wrote: 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 and at a policy level, not as operational issues. This is a due diligence matter. 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. I realize that in the past, certain system administrators or Jimmy have done this, but as far as I'm aware, the Wikimedia Foundation (as an organization) has not and does not get involved in cases like this for a reason. As Phoebe noted, there have been some efforts at Meta-Wiki (more recently than I thought, actually) to address this. I'd like to see the community give it a good-faith try (or two) to solve this without intervention before seeking top-down involvement. That isn't to say that the two bodies need to be completely separate. One procedure for a global ban committee could be to direct the Wikimedia Foundation to declare particular people as completely unwelcome, or something like that. But I haven't seen too much to suggest that the community can't solve this, only that they haven't yet. Regarding independent projects, a local admin is going to do what a local admin is going to do, no matter whether it's stewards or the Wikimedia Foundation telling them otherwise. That can be handled on a case-by-case basis as appropriate. Honestly, there are other seemingly intractable problems that the community has faced and the response from seeking Wikimedia Foundation help hasn't been great. Controversial content comes to mind. A long study that ended in a report that said well, yeah, lots and lots of penises on Commons! I don't really want to see a repeat of that dynamic again. If there are technical or legal aspects to this problem that the Wikimedia Foundation can put resources toward, let's figure out what those are and make it happen. But the community really needs to take charge here, if at all possible. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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 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 I entirely agree. Unfortunately, there is apparently no mechanism for this to be handled and announced. Even in an extreme case like this, the Foundation are playing Pontius Pilate, and any attempt to create a cross-community mechanism will meet demands of what specific problem are you trying to fix and, before consenting to any mechanism, everyone on every project will demand to know all the details in the name of open decision making. There is nothing other than an open list to allow cross-community decision making, and no other way of doing it. Honestly, this needs to be the job of the service provider, because there is no other responsible way of doing this. (And that's over to you Sue.) Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? As far as I know, no, not really. It's not a Wikimedia Foundation issue, it's more of Wikimedia community (Meta-Wiki) issue. Someone needs to propose a global banning policy and then get (global community) consensus to enact and enforce such a policy. Once there's a reasonable level of consensus/support, the Wikimedia stewards can enact global locks on problematic accounts. Most of the technical infrastructure seems to be in place already, in some form. A bit more info is available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_locks#Global_locks. As noted on the page at Meta-Wiki, I suppose one area where the Wikimedia Foundation could help is assigning resources to implement global blocking (currently there's only global locking). More info about that is available here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15294. MZMcBride MZM, 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 and at a policy level, not as operational issues. This is a due diligence matter. Regards, Andrew ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 and at a policy level, not as operational issues. This is a due diligence matter. 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. I realize that in the past, certain system administrators or Jimmy have done this, but as far as I'm aware, the Wikimedia Foundation (as an organization) has not and does not get involved in cases like this for a reason. As Phoebe noted, there have been some efforts at Meta-Wiki (more recently than I thought, actually) to address this. I'd like to see the community give it a good-faith try (or two) to solve this without intervention before seeking top-down involvement. That isn't to say that the two bodies need to be completely separate. One procedure for a global ban committee could be to direct the Wikimedia Foundation to declare particular people as completely unwelcome, or something like that. But I haven't seen too much to suggest that the community can't solve this, only that they haven't yet. Regarding independent projects, a local admin is going to do what a local admin is going to do, no matter whether it's stewards or the Wikimedia Foundation telling them otherwise. That can be handled on a case-by-case basis as appropriate. Honestly, there are other seemingly intractable problems that the community has faced and the response from seeking Wikimedia Foundation help hasn't been great. Controversial content comes to mind. A long study that ended in a report that said well, yeah, lots and lots of penises on Commons! I don't really want to see a repeat of that dynamic again. If there are technical or legal aspects to this problem that the Wikimedia Foundation can put resources toward, let's figure out what those are and make it happen. But the community really needs to take charge here, if at all possible. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 appreciate your concerns about not crossing the streams, but there's plenty of things on the wikis the foundation already uses its powers to control. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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 Would it be any good if the attention of en.wv community has been drawn to this tread? Or are they expected to know/not care? Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 are custodians of. I appreciate your concerns about not crossing the streams, but there's plenty of things on the wikis the foundation already uses its powers to control. MZMcBride wrote: One procedure for a global ban committee could be to direct the Wikimedia Foundation to declare particular people as completely unwelcome, or something like that. My view is that the Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the community. I completely agree regarding the server (property) usage, but I still think having that kind of directive come from the community (via the Wikimedia Foundation, as necessary) is ideal. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 determine who can and can't use the servers they are custodians of. Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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. Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? Isn't this more or less what Mz McBride said earlier quoting you. However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. Let's hope the board can commission another study and then make the hard decision to leave it to the community. Jason ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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. Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. -- phoebe These are all good questions, and I think that it's healthy to be careful about this. With that said, we ban (block) people by the unfortunate hundreds a day on en.wikipedia, ban (community ban) them once every few weeks, ban (arbcom ban) once every few months. We ban (BANNINATE- Poetlister grade) less than once a year. I would be appalled if anyone tried to escalate any of the normal bans we do to the Foundation for global action. But in the very rare special cases... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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. Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. -- phoebe These are all good questions, and I think that it's healthy to be careful about this. With that said, we ban (block) people by the unfortunate hundreds a day on en.wikipedia, ban (community ban) them once every few weeks, ban (arbcom ban) once every few months. We ban (BANNINATE- Poetlister grade) less than once a year. I would be appalled if anyone tried to escalate any of the normal bans we do to the Foundation for global action. But in the very rare special cases... There seems to be a confusion here between a block and a ban. Knowing the difference used to be (if it is not still) an important question on an RfA. Blocks are commonplace, for very many more reasons than bans occur, simply because a ban is directed towards either gross and continued behaviour, which may be laid at the door of an individual person, whereas blocks are temporary and do not necessarily prevent an editor creating a new account, even if a single editor is identifiable. SUL has arguably made editors' actions more visible across WMF projects, but to be honest, any savvy vandal would be well able to evade scrutiny. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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, harassment, identity theft, acquiring checkuser and crat status on various projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Even old Greg is not banned everywhere anymore - see http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Thekohser His account was globally locked at one point on word of Jimbo, but it was decided that this was out of order and that individual projects should be free to decide for themselves. A few (including en.wikinews) have unblocked him after some discussion. I am somewhat shocked at Poetlister though, that was a truly monumental case of deception and abuse, probably the worst ever seen on our projects. But if the Wikiversity community wants to let him continue editing, I suppose it's their funeral. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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, 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, harassment, identity theft, acquiring checkuser and crat status on various projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Even old Greg is not banned everywhere anymore - see http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Thekohser His account was globally locked at one point on word of Jimbo, but it was decided that this was out of order and that individual projects should be free to decide for themselves. A few (including en.wikinews) have unblocked him after some discussion. I am somewhat shocked at Poetlister though, that was a truly monumental case of deception and abuse, probably the worst ever seen on our projects. But if the Wikiversity community wants to let him continue editing, I suppose it's their funeral. Pete / the wub ___ The attitude that every project decides for itself and sinks or swims by its wisdom, is fine up to a point. However, there is a point where the continued presence of a user will serve to bring all the projects into disrepute. Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at Wikiversity. When the press print Despite his earlier activities and being banned, Wikipedia's masters knowing allowed him to continue on sister projects they will not observe the internal self-determination. The reputation of projects stands or falls together. To take it to extremes, does someone banned for criminal activities get to edit any other project unless that project wises up? There should be a basis for saying once banned independently from three projects, you don't get to use a forth. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-- 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 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 projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Glad you pointed out Thekohser. I will point out that despite the use of a global lock on the account (not vandalism/spam only [1]) several projects have detached the local account from the global one through a double rename by bureaucrats [2]. Projects do value their independence and will detach accounts globally locked by stewards in cases where their ability to make their own decisions has been infringed. Wikiversity has done this for several users globally locked. No policy prohibits it. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_lock#Global_locks [2] http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1user=thekohser ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 he was applying for advanced permissions on a project is particularly concerning and I would not be averse to Foundation-level intervention at this time. Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.comwrote: -- 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 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 projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Glad you pointed out Thekohser. I will point out that despite the use of a global lock on the account (not vandalism/spam only [1]) several projects have detached the local account from the global one through a double rename by bureaucrats [2]. Projects do value their independence and will detach accounts globally locked by stewards in cases where their ability to make their own decisions has been infringed. Wikiversity has done this for several users globally locked. No policy prohibits it. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_lock#Global_locks [2] http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1user=thekohser ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 he was applying for advanced permissions on a project is particularly concerning and I would not be averse to Foundation-level intervention at this time. 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 WQ User:Cato had been identified as Poetlister at the time he was made a checkuser there. Newyorkbrad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 fairness to the folks active on Wikiquote, I don't think that WQ User:Cato had been identified as Poetlister at the time he was made a checkuser there. We had extremely strong suspicions, but the reasons some en:wq people gave for ignoring them was that they wouldn't be told what to do by en:wp. 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. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 by certain users (which often include non-public information). I have heard from users active in projects other than English Wikipedia that the Enwp practice of suggesting that their community-banned editors spend six months contributing to another project has had negative effects on other projects. I can certainly see why this has created a sense that other projects were being used as a dumping ground for people deemed unsuitable for the Enwp community. This philosophy is slowly abating on our project (in recent years, the closest an Arbitration Committee statement has come is saying that contributions to other projects will be considered in future ban/block reviews), but it's not entirely dissipated. Sister projects should not be considered informal rehabilitation facilities for problem users. On the other hand, it probably has not really occurred to other projects that the SUL process has enabled users banned on some projects to continue to create problems without leaving a publicly visible trail of activity. These problems can range from inappropriate use of the Email this user feature to resumption of activities on the project where they've been banned because they've been allowed to create a new account name on the alternate project, with many other permutations along the way. It's often difficult to figure out who to share the background information with on various projects, because of cultural differences (for example, different rules for checkusers), and because public revelation of some of the information may repeat the harm that was caused by the banned user in the first place. 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 at least two serious deficiencies: 1) Some projects explicitly rejected the community ban after extensive discussion; 2) Any meta-discussion of the community ban would be inevitably dominated by the English Wikipedia users (and thus may be unacceptable for those projects which rejected the community ban). Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 support that happening? As far as I know, no, not really. It's not a Wikimedia Foundation issue, it's more of Wikimedia community (Meta-Wiki) issue. Someone needs to propose a global banning policy and then get (global community) consensus to enact and enforce such a policy. Once there's a reasonable level of consensus/support, the Wikimedia stewards can enact global locks on problematic accounts. Most of the technical infrastructure seems to be in place already, in some form. A bit more info is available here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_locks#Global_locks. As noted on the page at Meta-Wiki, I suppose one area where the Wikimedia Foundation could help is assigning resources to implement global blocking (currently there's only global locking). More info about that is available here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15294. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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, 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? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Sue, The first thing you could do is simply decree that the user known as poetlister is not welcome on any project controlled by the Foundation. This would be a precedent, but one in fairly unique circumstances (I'm sure Newyorkbrad is a better place to update you on them that I am. But I have no doubt you'll agree the need for a ban.) Then, if people don't like the precedent of a decree, charge the communities to develop an agreeable mechanism with appropriate checks and balances, to handle any future cases - with the caveat that there must be some provision that can global ban people such as this. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? At bottom there is a policy issue involving autonomy of separate projects. The downside is stove-piping, see the English Wikipedia article: Stovepipe (organisation) Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 handle)? There seem to be a number of _institutional_ failures that allow certain dedicated, willing people to be able to manipulate the system. A number of forums across the wikiverse have promoted this user to administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, etc. That's generally a sign that the user is doing good work. If those systems are broken, I'd suggest focusing time and energy on fixing them. The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane. If the door is unlocked, you don't imprison every person who tries to open it, you lock it (and then imprison those who break in). MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - 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 handle)? The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane. If the door is unlocked, you don't imprison every person who tries to open it, you lock it (and then imprison those who break in). MZMcBride You don't need a witch-hunt when the witch is there wearing a pointy hat and holding a broomstick. Nor is it responsible to let people who are unquestionably dangerous, and have abused and manipulated Wikimedia and Wikimedians, run about because over in this particular corner they've not killed anyone *yet*. Good users simply deserve better. This user is a persistent and unreformable menace, and there's no problem with saying NO. I take the point that creating a security state will not work - but that doesn't mean we open the jails. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins can't handle)? It would not be unrealistic to suggest that those few elements of the english wikipedia admin community who are aware of their wikiversity colleges don't hold them in the highest regard. There seem to be a number of _institutional_ failures that allow certain dedicated, willing people to be able to manipulate the system. A number of forums across the wikiverse have promoted this user to administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, etc. That's generally a sign that the user is doing good work. If those systems are broken, I'd suggest focusing time and energy on fixing them. There is no practical way to impact another projects RFA process (with the possible exception of commons and meta). It tends to be an area where projects like to make their independence clear. The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane. If the door is unlocked, you don't imprison every person who tries to open it, you lock it (and then imprison those who break in). Stopping it is always impossible. Zee aim is to reduce it. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 10:38, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: -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, 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? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Sue, The first thing you could do is simply decree that the user known as poetlister is not welcome on any project controlled by the Foundation. This would be a precedent, but one in fairly unique circumstances (I'm sure Newyorkbrad is a better place to update you on them that I am. But I have no doubt you'll agree the need for a ban.) Then, if people don't like the precedent of a decree, charge the communities to develop an agreeable mechanism with appropriate checks and balances, to handle any future cases - with the caveat that there must be some provision that can global ban people such as this. Scott 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 many editors might welcome it, but it's not our appropriate role and lots of editors would oppose it on principle for that reason. And it doesn't scale. So whether or not it's the right thing to do, it wouldn't work. Having said that, the current situation seems pretty bad to me. I'm not talking specifically about Poetlister, who I don't know much about, but I've certainly seen a number of situations in which a bad actor is banned from one wiki and reinvents himself on a smaller wiki and continues to cause problems (as well as other variations on that theme). IMO this is a known vulnerability of the small wikis. But it's complicated, right. Because the small wikis obviously are autonomous. And yet, all the wikis are interdependent, and their choices affect each other. I am wondering if the Wikimedia Foundation could facilitate or support some kind of multiple-wiki convening (virtual or F2F) to help editors share information and work towards policy on this. And yes, there is also the technical piece of work that MZMcBride mentioned. Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 many editors might welcome it, but it's not our appropriate role and lots of editors would oppose it on principle for that reason. And it doesn't scale. So whether or not it's the right thing to do, it wouldn't work. I'm a bit puzzled by this stance. It may be the case that the Foundation does not see its role as removing someone from the community (whether at the level of an individual project or the Wikimedia movement as a whole); but, insofar as the Foundation functions not only as a non-profit organization leading a community movement, but also as a service provider (which happens to provide hosting for the various individual projects), it seems perfectly reasonable for it to prohibit certain individuals from making use of those services, whether or not this correlates to ejection from the movement in principle. In other words, it's proper for the Foundation to determine that someone is not permitted to post material on Foundation-operated sites, independently of any other determination. Scaling may indeed be a problem; but it's one that only needs to be tackled after we determine that this is a role the Foundation can (and should) play in principle. In practical terms, I doubt that the extremely small number of users engaged in real-world-impacting misconduct (as Poetlister has) would strain the Foundation's resources, particularly given the recent addition of staff members to liaison with the community. Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? 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 information. (The data belongs to the WMF and therefore access to it can be controlled by the WMF.) It is possible that this could extend as far as use of the email this user feature for editors who have been shown to abuse it, because those non-public emails travel through the WMF servers. Again the WMF has the right to decree whether or not this is appropriate use of WMF equipment. Neither of these issues are project-specific; they are global in scope. I tend to agree with Kirill Lokshin about the ability of the WMF as a service provider to restrict access to its property in a general sense, for the very small number of individuals who have repeatedly abused their access across several projects, or more directly by affecting Wikimedians by taking wiki-disputes into other areas; my estimate would be that we're probably talking fewer than a dozen people altogether over the past 10 years who might meet this level of abuse. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 information. (The data belongs to the WMF and therefore access to it can be controlled by the WMF.) It is possible that this could extend as far as use of the email this user feature for editors who have been shown to abuse it, because those non-public emails travel through the WMF servers. Again the WMF has the right to decree whether or not this is appropriate use of WMF equipment. Neither of these issues are project-specific; they are global in scope. I tend to agree with Kirill Lokshin about the ability of the WMF as a service provider to restrict access to its property in a general sense, for the very small number of individuals who have repeatedly abused their access across several projects, or more directly by affecting Wikimedians by taking wiki-disputes into other areas; my estimate would be that we're probably talking fewer than a dozen people altogether over the past 10 years who might meet this level of abuse. Thanks Risker and everybody else. I'm going to need to duck out of this conversation -- I'm going into a long meeting. But so you know: we're talking about this here at the Foundation, and about the related issue of trolls/stalkers. Basically: how should bad actors be handled, and what are the Foundation's responsibilities and most useful role. This discussion is helpful, and if it continues, please know that a number of us here are paying attention :-) Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 problems on either the global or the multiple-project level. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? I tend to agree with Kirill Lokshin about the ability of the WMF as a service provider to restrict access to its property in a general sense, for the very small number of individuals who have repeatedly abused their access across several projects, or more directly by affecting Wikimedians by taking wiki-disputes into other areas; my estimate would be that we're probably talking fewer than a dozen people altogether over the past 10 years who might meet this level of abuse. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has variously (certainly in 2005-7 a couple of times) approached the Foundation about having WMF formally ban individuals from access to its online resources, modelled on the letters that shoplifters often get sent (at least in the UK), informing them that they are banned for life from the private property notwithstanding any public inducements to enter (or, in our world, use or interact with the services), and that failure to comply will result in action up to and including private prosecution for trespass. The bar would have to be seriously high for it to be worth our while (and just because the letter has been issued doesn't mean they magically go away), but in certain cases I think we should consider it. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 certain class of contributor that one shouldn't want to recruit. The fact that a project doesn't independently act against him (given what we know about his MO) tends to bring the competence of that project's independent leadership into valid question. Sometimes when one part of the community is this lacking in judgement, the rest of the family conspiring to put them right is no bad thing. 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. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l- boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter Sent: 03 June 2011 18:05 To: Wikimedia Foundation 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 at least two serious deficiencies: 1) Some projects explicitly rejected the community ban after extensive discussion; 2) Any meta-discussion of the community ban would be inevitably dominated by the English Wikipedia users (and thus may be unacceptable for those projects which rejected the community ban). Cheers Yaroslav These should be surmountable. First the grounds for a global ban ought to be limited. Where users have engaged in activity which goes beyond trolling and disruption towards illegality, or the type of harassment that has real-life consequences, or endangers vulnerable people, then a global hard ban should be considered - which overrides any local agreements to the contrary. In cases where the user has simply disrupted two or more projects then a presumptive ban would be more appropriate - that is the user cannot participate in any further community without specific local consent. (That stops the dumping problem.) What you need is a mechanism so that one local community, when banning a user who meets the criteria, can refer the case to a cross-project review group for a global decision. This group needs to be loaded so that en.wp cannot dominate - and that other projects can have confidence that this is the case. It might simply be a conclave of stewards, or it could be a group with each member nominated by a different project. Scott 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 process that can be used -- with care, but also without requiring debate about *process* for every case. It helps everyone if there are agreed-upon minimum standards for behavior and a process for review of problems. More specifically, I think Scott's suggestions above make a lot of sense. The stewards do seem like the most obvious global group to enact such review. There was a lot of discussion about this (and related mechanisms for dispute resolution) last year among the stewards after Wikimania, and there's a proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Dispute_resolution_committee; perhaps people who know more about this idea can weigh in, and we can build on it. Also somewhat related, I have been working on and off over the last few months (with help from a few folks) to collect information about harassment policies from across the projects, to see if there's any community consensus about what to do about this kind of bad behavior; see the list here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_policies (I'd love some help with this, too!) It might also be a useful exercise to collect and analyze other kinds of bad actor guidelines from many projects, to see if there's any global consensus currently on what our minimum standards for behavior are. This could have a lot of useful cross-project application, including perhaps developing grounds for global hard-banning that would gain consensus. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 a problematic editor shows up there. It isn't surprising that an unloved project could be viewed as messed up. If you really want to ban this account over there, surely you can just run for adminship and wait a week. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 his checkuser status? He tried really hard to. Enough of us knew damn well who he was, thankfully. 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. I fully appreciate that - and individual wikis are frequently enough on crack (en:wp being no exception at all). But when someone is obnoxious enough to rate a global ban, I really don't think WMF-hosted wikis should get a local option on that. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 much the same discussion concerning widely-banned trolls using Wikiversity as a base around March last year. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 Wikipedia tomorrow I reckon it would not take long to get installed at another project and become admin (hell, it only took me 9 months to con you lot on en.wiki :-P) and maybe beyond. It's not a fault of the smaller projects - but any pretty active contributor is likely to advance further and faster than on English Wikipedia. The solution to this is actually simple, but non-trivial - *go do some work on the smaller projects.* I realise this is not the *easiest *approach, but I am (slwly) doing my bit on Wikibooks and I think everyone could find something to interest them, if only for a while. If we (English Wikipedia editors) took a moment to go contribute a few pages to some of the smaller Wiki's and take part in some of the discussions that might find a lot more favour there. And then when a disruptive editor of this scale appears we wouldn't have to be navigating the minefield of global bans (and communities getting people around them), but just have a quick personal word with some of the admins there... Just a thought... I do also support the idea of working on a formal global ban process. On the other hand; the independence of the individual wiki's is crucial, so any such ban process works only as far as projects will accept it. Tom On 3 June 2011 21:47, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: 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 a problematic editor shows up there. It isn't surprising that an unloved project could be viewed as messed up. If you really want to ban this account over there, surely you can just run for adminship and wait a week. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 good idea. Please argument that position David. Has this person abused his checkuser status? He tried really hard to. Enough of us knew damn well who he was, thankfully. Oh? You knew who he was and didn't inform anyone? Don't rewrite history. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Is there anyone active on Wikiversity that hasn't been banned from every other project? It seems to be turning into a regular Mos Eisley cantina. Ryan Kaldari On 6/3/11 8:40 AM, Newyorkbrad 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 he was applying for advanced permissions on a project is particularly concerning and I would not be averse to Foundation-level intervention at this time. Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.comwrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Scott MacDonalddoc.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 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 projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Glad you pointed out Thekohser. I will point out that despite the use of a global lock on the account (not vandalism/spam only [1]) several projects have detached the local account from the global one through a double rename by bureaucrats [2]. Projects do value their independence and will detach accounts globally locked by stewards in cases where their ability to make their own decisions has been infringed. Wikiversity has done this for several users globally locked. No policy prohibits it. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_lock#Global_locks [2] http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1user=thekohser ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 David. Has this person abused his checkuser status? He tried really hard to. Enough of us knew damn well who he was, thankfully. 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! no, just confused. how were you telling the arbs on a mailing list that didn't exist at the time Cato was checkuser. 2008: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Poetlister_and_Cato 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_1#New_mailing_list_structure -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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, so clarification of how you have information that leads you to claim I'm rewriting history would be interesting to hear. Where did you get the differing information you're claiming? I assume you didn't benefit from a violation of the privacy poiicy. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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, 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, so clarification of how you have information that leads you to claim I'm rewriting history would be interesting to hear. Where did you get the differing information you're claiming? I assume you didn't benefit from a violation of the privacy poiicy. - d. David, John, It would be good to discuss here: a) global banning b) poetlister b) Wikiversity's shortcomings (probably in that order of importance) Could you take the squabble about history somewhere else? ;) Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 the submission of identifying information? -Dan Same way as normal, I suppose - pretend to be a real person that isn't you, using their identifying information. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 the submission of identifying information? By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's not the case here.) Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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. How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not require the submission of identifying information? By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's not the case here.) 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 life identity theft is bad. From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:USERNAME#Real_names Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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 the submission of identifying information? By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's not the case here.) Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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? By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's not the case here.) 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 life identity theft is bad. From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:USERNAME#Real_names Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name. And arguably the action falls under disruptive editing practices, which are a blockable offense anyway (wasting administrator time with a bad-faith attempt to disrupt the project). Except, if you don't know that this is happening, what do you do then? It seems perfectly reasonable to block under existing policies when the offender is being obvious and the offense is clear, but what happens when some random anon puts up their own personal information on their userpage. Are we going to run an inquisition on them to see if they are who they say they are (I'm not referring to cases where it is obvious or a cursory investigation would reveal it)? At what point does the threat that a person might use information gathered from an off-wiki act of identity theft precipitate on-wiki action? We talk about driving off new editors with scary sockpuppet investigations and warning templates and such -- this line of discussion to me seems like it may well have a chilling effect on editors who want to identify themselves in good faith, for whatever reason. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the actual history to know if I'm being helpful with this line of inquiry so if I'm totally off base, please let me know (actually it was interesting to read the history from David and John's posts, for what that's worth.) -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 checkuser, so they did also have access to personally identifiable information. Only the WMF can know whether the identity provided was fraudulent or not, and if they destroyed all records like they say they do, even they cant know. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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 life identity theft is bad. Woah Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!! Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it creates. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 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 English Language Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad. Woah Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!! Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it creates. they are only allegations until proven in a real world court. and that has not happened. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 that does not require the submission of identifying information? By voluntarily submitting stolen information, of course. The fact that Wikipedia (or Wikiversity) does not require that I provide my real name to participate would not make it any more acceptable if I were to claim that I was Dan Rosenthal and put pictures of you on my user page to prove it. (You'd be correct if the project actually prohibited the submission of identifying information, rather than merely not requiring it; but that's not the case here.) Well, I'm certainly not going to miss a chance to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog. If your name turned out to not be Kirill Lokshin, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me or almost anyone else. What you're describing (broadly) reminds me more of Essjay than Poetlister, though, for what it's worth. I'm not saying that this type of behavior is desirable or acceptable, but getting back to the point (which should be actionable behavior), http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Poetlister doesn't seem very inaccurate or deceptive to me in its current form. Put me in the still failing to see a problem that needs solving column. If Poetlister is engaging in identity theft, by all means, tell the local authorities. If he's committing any kind of crime, tell them, for that matter. But at the moment, he seems to be updating a Bible bibliography on a free content ... whatever it is that Wikiversity is (open educational resource?). Where's the beef? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 process that can be used -- with care, but also without requiring debate about *process* for every case. It helps everyone if there are agreed-upon minimum standards for behavior and a process for review of problems. More specifically, I think Scott's suggestions above make a lot of sense. Jumping off of this conversation, and trying to push the conversation to on-wiki ;-), I've created a page on Meta with a set of open questions... https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Global_bans Please edit boldly! I also wanted to say that I think the views expressed by Yaroslav and Strainu earlier about participation from people who aren't English Wikipedians need to be on the top of our priority list for discussions like these. Steven ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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, 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 clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad. Woah Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!! Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it creates. they are only allegations until proven in a real world court. and that has not happened. -- John Vandenberg Utterly irrelevant. Poetlister (or Mr Baxter, or whatever) pretended to be a woman - and used pictures of a real person of his acquaintance, without her permission - and this screwed up assume good faith and there's only allegations approach meant that we disbelieved the complaints made to us on behalf of the person concerned. That's on top of the socking, harassment, and lies he told the community. It looks like you are not recalling or aquatinted with the facts here. No, they have not been tested in a court of law but they remain clear and logical conclusions from evidence (and if I recall) the admissions of the individual concerned. Please let's stop making excuses for this. I suspect others will be in a better position to fill you in than I am. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 of the details cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate level of detail I would be happy to venture an opinion. But precluding that, you are asking the views of a group of people who probably do not have a full (or event partial) view of the facts of this case... for which you are asking for a global response And you are then wondering why they question this issue! I think there is no question is cases such as this; lay the details plainly, and screw any pussy footing around the details. If this individual has a history that means BAD THINGS will happen, I feel details will sway more than allusions. Tom On 4 June 2011 00:36, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: -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, 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 clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad. Woah Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!! Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it creates. they are only allegations until proven in a real world court. and that has not happened. -- John Vandenberg Utterly irrelevant. Poetlister (or Mr Baxter, or whatever) pretended to be a woman - and used pictures of a real person of his acquaintance, without her permission - and this screwed up assume good faith and there's only allegations approach meant that we disbelieved the complaints made to us on behalf of the person concerned. That's on top of the socking, harassment, and lies he told the community. It looks like you are not recalling or aquatinted with the facts here. No, they have not been tested in a court of law but they remain clear and logical conclusions from evidence (and if I recall) the admissions of the individual concerned. Please let's stop making excuses for this. I suspect others will be in a better position to fill you in than I am. Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 of the details cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate level of detail I would be happy to venture an opinion. But precluding that, you are asking the views of a group of people who probably do not have a full (or event partial) view of the facts of this case... for which you are asking for a global response And you are then wondering why they question this issue! I think there is no question is cases such as this; lay the details plainly, and screw any pussy footing around the details. If this individual has a history that means BAD THINGS will happen, I feel details will sway more than allusions. Tom We know Poetlister's meatspace identity. Are you demanding that we repeat that? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 his on-wiki activities. I've tried, and need a better intro. Tom On 4 June 2011 01:20, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 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 of the details cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate level of detail I would be happy to venture an opinion. But precluding that, you are asking the views of a group of people who probably do not have a full (or event partial) view of the facts of this case... for which you are asking for a global response And you are then wondering why they question this issue! I think there is no question is cases such as this; lay the details plainly, and screw any pussy footing around the details. If this individual has a history that means BAD THINGS will happen, I feel details will sway more than allusions. Tom We know Poetlister's meatspace identity. Are you demanding that we repeat that? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
-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! 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 Far be it from me to point anyone to the Register, but this is the best record I can find. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/prin t.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-15/Poetlis ter Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
The Register seems to be the only forum that is prepared to expose the gross injustice meted out to me as [[en:wp:User:Rodhullandemu]], so, sorry, if I need to take that route, it's a lot cheaper than employing Max Clifford. I have nothing to hide here. Best of luck with dealing with that, but in the absence of anyone prepared to negotiate, I have no alternative. Hope you all feel happy with that. Regards, Scott MacDonald 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! 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 Far be it from me to point anyone to the Register, but this is the best record I can find. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/prin t.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-15/Poetlis ter Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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) On 4 June 2011 01:54, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.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! 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 Far be it from me to point anyone to the Register, but this is the best record I can find. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/prin t.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-15/Poetlis ter Scott ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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 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...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
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 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. Thomas, lack of communication wasn't really the issue. Even after the abuse was widely known, the ArbCom unblocked him. The truth is that we had an extreme empathy failure as a community for the people who were being attacked, accompanied by a bending over backwards to assume good faith of the troublemaker. This happens much less than it used to, but it does still happen. Poetlister was extremely good at exploiting that tendency. That's the long and short of it. The one good thing that could come of it is that we recognize in future when we're doing it again, but that will only happen if we remember and discuss it, and try to heal the divisions he caused or made worse. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
