Kww, Uses revision deletion for censorship Options

[Abd]

I'm been running action research on how a blocked editor who is perceived as uncooperative is handled. I'm coming across excessive use of blocking, etc., technically incorrect, but that's common Wikipedia bullshit, nothing worth getting excited about with each incident, I'm just documenting this for long-term analysis.

However, I have seen one serious action that should properly raise immediate concern.

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse clearly prohibits, as a matter of policy, the use of the revision deletion tool for anything but serious problems in history. Block and ban enforcement, per se, are not in the list of situations allowing the use or RevDel.

Discussion of this tool, over implementing it, clearly disallowed its usage for ordinary ban enforcement. See also Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples on this.

Kww, responding to a pair of self-reverted edits to Talk:Cold fusion, revision-deleted them in addition to blocking the IP. The sole reason given was "ban evasion." Contributions for the IP that made that edit show nothing, of course, because those were the only two edits. (One edit and one self-reversion).

I made those edits, and documented them immediately on a page that is tracking self-reverted edits and showing how the community responds to them. It would defeat my purpose if these edits were intrinsically disruptive. Any admin can verify that they were not such.

The block and ban enforcement here, though revision deletion, is purely punitive and does not protect the wiki in any way, it simply hides what is going on. It hasn't stopped me from editing at all, not even a hiccup. The only difference is that I'm now keeping copies of my edits as well.

Note: I don't mind this action, personally, the loss of the text is minor, though irritating. (Only because this was a very unexpected response.) If this stands, I will repeat the behavior elsewhere, seeing if revision deletion continues to be used, documenting it, because I know what the community thinks about this, when its consciousness is raised. I've used self-reversion to develop community consensus for the unban of a user who was highly controversial, much more than I.... Individual admins thought it was disruptive and eventually tried to stop it, but ... the involved WMF community rejected, in the end, those administrators, not the user and me.

I consider the information being developed useful, and intend -- and am prepared -- to continue far beyond the level of response that has been shown so far, should the admin community continue to escalate. Anyone who would like to follow this can watch the page linked above, and comment is welcome there on the Talk page. Yes, from those who oppose what I'm doing as well as those who might support it. Want me to stop, convince me that it's harmful. That probably won't be easy, but you could try. I'll listen.

The "admin community" is not a coherent group, which is part of the problem. Under some conditions, its collective behavior becomes the behavior of the worst and least qualified members, but the whole community is responsible for what it allows.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse clearly prohibits, as a matter of policy, the use of the revision deletion tool for anything but serious problems in history. Block and ban enforcement, per se, are not in the list of situations allowing the use or RevDel.

Discussion of this tool, over implementing it, clearly disallowed its usage for ordinary ban enforcement. See also Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples on this.

Kww, responding to a pair of self-reverted edits to Talk:Cold fusion, revision-deleted them in addition to blocking the IP. The sole reason given was "ban evasion." Contributions for the IP that made that edit show nothing, of course, because those were the only two edits. (One edit and one self-reversion).

Interesting. Kww's amusing misuse of this tool has hardly been limited to Abd's edits. According to this log, he has deleted numerous revisions in the past for the purpose of punishing block evasion. As a matter of fact, he hasn't performed a single "revision deletion" in the name of one of the actual criteria since October 8, 2010. There was, however, a farcical episode in February in which Kww pegged Gtommy17 (T-C-L-K-R-D) as a "duck." Kww proceeded to block him, to delete the pages he had created, and to both revert and "revision delete" his edits; at that point, a checkuser pointed out that the "sock" was in fact completely innocent, forcing Kww to go back and undo every one of his actions (many of which had probably removed accurate information).

This all seems as though it requires great effort on Kww's part. Once the edits are reverted, what does hiding the edits accomplish? Even if one accepts Wikipedia's ban-upholding policy, this sort of thing is plain overkill. This guy needs a new hobby.

[Abd]

This all seems as though it requires great effort on Kww's part. Once the edits are reverted, what does hiding the edits accomplish? Even if one accepts Wikipedia's ban-upholding policy, this sort of thing is plain overkill. This guy needs a new hobby.

WP admins can generally do whatever they please, as long as they don't poke another admin.

Few have the inclination to challenge someone like Kww. Fewer and fewer. There were concerns that RevDel would be used this way, but, we were assured, no, strictly against policy.

Policy means nothing if it is not enforced. So, who enforces it? ArbComm is way, way too cumbersome. Only an awakened community could do it. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just testing self-reversion for bans. RevDel, of course, if applied automatically, would make self-reversion useless. Some might like that.

Unless, perhaps, they think for a few seconds. What will I do if I don't self-revert per ban? Easy: traditional, covert socking.

Raul654 made himself seem totally needed for a long time, because he was the only one, a checkuser, who could deal with Scibaby. Wait! He created the Scibaby affair in the first place, by abusively blocking him.

Oh. Well, thank God he's gone! Nobody else would dare to do something like that, right?

Oh.

The trick I really like is the "Ban "Abd" from all IP edit summaries. There are section headers in articles on WP with "Abd" in them. They cannot now be edited with the automatic edit summary by an IP editor.... I'm sure they consider that a minor loss compared with Stopping The Evil Abd from writing "self revert per ban of Abd."

That must really have made them uncomfortable. Now, I'll just write, "self-revert per ban of He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned." Cool, eh?

Or I won't self-revert at all, or, I'll use socks. I'm tired of going barefoot.

[EricBarbour]

Directly from Gtommy17's talkpage:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gtommy17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason: per discussion

Accept reason: Cleared by technical examination (checkuser). You will note that most of your edits have been removed, and articles you created have been deleted. I will take care of restoring them over the next few days. Sorry for the confusion. —Kww(talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

If Wikipedia had been a profit-making company, Kww would probably have been fired.
It functions more like a dysfunctional government agency than that, so raging incompetence is usually tolerated.

Usually, screw-ups like this are not documented in the database, because an admin or Arbcom would
oversight it. But this has happened before--more often than anyone knows.

[Malleus]

Usually, screw-ups like this are not documented in the database, because an admin or Arbcom would
oversight it. But this has happened before--more often than anyone knows.

There's obviously a serious problem with the fact that administrators are allowed to hide the record of their actions, but an even more serious problem with the clowns who thought that was a good idea.

[Sololol]

If Wikipedia had been a profit-making company, Kww would probably have been fired.
It functions more like a dysfunctional government agency than that, so raging incompetence is usually tolerated.

Usually, screw-ups like this are not documented in the database, because an admin or Arbcom would
oversight it. But this has happened before--more often than anyone knows.

It's enlightening to see the labyrinthine and impotent policies Wikipedia allows to govern its crew of volunteers; if you ran anything else this way, corporation or pirate ship, you'd be defunct. What get's these guys caught? Running afoul of other admins or just the whims of the politburo?

A bi-annual decimation would be more effective, just summon the random ten percent down to the WP:LUBYANKA for a meeting.

[Abd]

Rd232 took the issue to AN (permanent link), and it ended up as an RfC.

I commented at AN, and Timotheus Canens reverted the comment with no explanatory comment.

The RfC, at this point, is sitting on an excellent suggestion by FT2, clarifying the policy, in exactly the direction that I understood the policy to already be, ruling out the kind of block evasion revision deletion that Kww and TC were proposing under IAR.

[melloden]

I commented at AN, and Timotheus Canens reverted the comment with no explanatory comment.

I think the relevant policy is "don't feed the trolls". But that's assuming you're troll.

[Abd]

I commented at AN, and Timotheus Canens reverted the comment with no explanatory comment.

I think the relevant policy is "don't feed the trolls". But that's assuming you're troll.

Right. However, T. Canens is simply flopping about, he clearly doesn't know what to do.

I didn't self-revert. Self-reversion may attract more attention, it's unusual, people may be more likely to look at the edit and decide if it's worth doing anything about. In this case, I was substantially mentioned and my alleged motives described in the AN report. In the past, I'd often see such edits left. But removing the edit was certainly within his right; however, he should have made an edit summary of "rv block evasion" or something like that.

Surely this is minor; I simply mentioned it. The RevDel and Range blocks are more serious issues, because they cause collateral damage. Blocking any IP for testing the edit filter is pretty dicey, too. He blocked a legitimate editor who had logged out to test the filter. The guy had a legitimate motive for doing that. He was not acting on my behalf. And then Sanstein denied the unblock, obviously not looking at the request with any care.

Yeah, what I'm doing is disruptive, it can easily seem, but it's really only revealing a major cause of continued and enhanced disruption: administrative over-reaction. I'm just a tiny piece of the flood.

For non-self-reverted edits, RBI makes complete sense. I'm arguing that self-reverted edits deserve better treatment, basically no response as long as they don't fall into RevDel territory.

(But socking and reverting a self-reverted edit back in would be gaming, the offense would be sock puppetry, plus ban violation from the clandestine sock edit.)

[SB_Johnny]

I commented at AN, and Timotheus Canens reverted the comment with no explanatory comment.

I think the relevant policy is "don't feed the trolls". But that's assuming you're troll.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[Abd]

I commented at AN, and Timotheus Canens reverted the comment with no explanatory comment.

I think the relevant policy is "don't feed the trolls". But that's assuming you're troll.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

Aw, shucks, SBJ, save the applause for after they clarify the RevDel policy. Looks like it's going very well.

I found that I could argue for months that an admin was abusive, to no avail, and to everyone's irritation, but if I presented myself as a target, the admin demonstrated it, so clearly that it couldn't be missed. Then they were irritated with me because I'd obviously been a troll, "tempting" their otherwise very nice admin into being a monster, so, since some were going to be irritated with me either way, I'm better off as a troll. Efficient, way efficient.

Tricky, it can be. Depends on the target I present. What I'm trying to do -- I may not always succeed -- is to only present cooperative, helpful edits, in every way except that they offend the "Must Ban Entirely, No Matter What" faction. These edits are not targeted at any individual, not calculated to incite any particular admin to action, the admins self-select. I attracted Kww and Timotheus Canens, specifically on the RevDel issue. It might be noticed that almost all enforcement has come from them.

Perfect, RevDel is exactly what the community wanted to address. Those two were violating policy, and not just with me.

Range blocks may come next, I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. There is also possible abuse of the Edit Filter, I'm less clear about that. Certainly some errors were exposed.

(But wikis don't or shouldn't demand perfect response. Rather, what's important is the ability to recover from and fix errors.)

Wikipedia has this thing: the overall effective behavior of the community can take on the character of the worst, most deranged segments of the community, and it can be difficult to bring to consciousness.

[Abd]

Wow! It's the Bigger Dick contest.

Scott MacDonald is arguing Old School. I.e., WP:IAR, which means that the policies and guidelines (and "community consensus") not only may be set aside because of the specific requirements of a specific situation, but, in fact, that they should be.

Kww is arguing for Da Rules. And that Kww's job is to tell Scott MacDonald what those rules are, and to threaten him with consequences if he doesn't comply.

And then Scott tosses the principle of recusal in the trash. Which, in fact, he's got a case for, BLP policy. He blocked Kww. He's got a basis: emergency situation, massive changes being made (apparently) without consensus on the specifics, and actual harm can be done; in his defense, I assume, he'll assert that the block was for 3 hours to allow some discussion.

SarekOfVulcan unblocked. Can't even wait three hours. "I get really jittery, man!" (The request.)

AN discussion. Sigh.

I obviously haven't been paying attention. Pending Changes was one possible hope for Wikipedia, properly done. I'm too bored by Wikipedia to figure out what happened to it.

Looks to me like ArbComm is going to accept the case. If ArbComm were sane, I'd bet on Scott, who took a principled position and advanced it with the action necessary. It's not like he indeffed Kww! And he took everything to AN for consultation. But I also know that ArbComm will frequently shoot the messenger. It looks like they will decide more or less what Scott wanted: careful process, not just mass removal of flagged revisions. They are already ordering an injunction. But they they may shoot him for pointing out, very effectively, the situation. Kww's behavior was atrocious (lots of people, even agreeing with his position, have pointed that out.)

(Had Scott not confronted this, with actions, it would have been done, over, moot, with no ability to address it, and mass protection would have been opposed, my guess. What the situation really could show is the utility of Pending Changes for critical articles like BLPs. Maybe I need to look at that RfC. WTF happened?)

Wow! As if we didn't know it, Kww et al don't know how to read. The closure of Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 was not as they have claimed and assumed, it did not set a tight deadline for all PC protection to be removed, there was an explicit exception, and it covers the situation that Scott was addressing.

This was really beautiful. Kww, in the discussion, actually argued against the part of the close that made exceptions. He thinks that all that a closer does is to determine "consensus." That's rule- and vote- oriented. Elsewhere, it was noted that Newyorkbrad had extended the "deadline." That part of what a closer does, interpret a decision on-going, it's why a closer can undelete an article based on new argument, for example. Closers actually decide and can therefore undecide! That's why Kww constantly referred to the "consensus" in justifying his actions, not the actual close, which was in contradiction to his position.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[The Joy]

Wow! It's the Bigger Dick contest.

(IMG:http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd41/ositodallas214/1schwartz2.jpg)

[thekohser]

Somewhere in that melee, Guy Macon said:

The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles.

I think we can all live with that!

[Abd]

Aw, this is long. If I cared enough, if I wanted to create some effect, I'd boil it down. I don't, so I won't. Understand, folks, that I don't WP:DGAF, so tl;dr, for me, is just stupid irrelevancy. Who cares if you read it? My favorite response is where a user quotes the entire thing, then adds at the bottom, tl;dr. So if you didn't read it, why did you quote it? If you receive a photo of a pile of dogshit, do you forward it to your friends, saying, "I didn't examine this."? For that matter, if some obsessed idiot emails you a tome on something that interests you not at all, do you forward it to everyone on a mailing list, saying "I didn't read this."?

Forward it, comment on it, explain it, if you find value worthy of sharing with others. I write for those who find value, not for the rest. Any questions?

Somewhere in that melee, Guy Macon said:

The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles.

I think we can all live with that!

Very funny.

He meant to say, of course, "PC." He's misrepresented the result of the RfC.

I'm amazed at how few in the core understand how wiki process works! "Consensus" cannot make decisions unless there is some sort of automated mechanism, which is very much a bad idea. Rather, closers make decisions, basing them on arguments and some idea of consensus. In theory -- and I've seen it in practice -- a closer can make a decision that is contrary to the expressed !votes by a large margin, and the closer's decision stands until and unless it is reversed. In the RfC, Newyorkbrad was quite careful to note that application of the decision was not universal, that pending changes might remain for some articles. And a discussion specifically on the BLP question started and has not been completed.

There was, then, no closed consensus that PC was to be removed from "all" articles. Further, the wiki concept, as was implemented and as it worked (obviously with varying degrees of success) for years, does not make decisions from "rules," it makes them ad-hoc, according to the ongoing judgment of individuals. There are then "rules" about wheel-warring, about dispute resolution process, etc., but in every case, the distributed executive power always has discretion.

The only body in Wikipedia that makes decisions by vote is ArbComm, and those decisions have no coercive power, in fact, they are judicial decisions, and administrators ("executives") could, in theory, ignore them. (And they often do, without consequence.) Especially they can ignore them by not implementing them, no administrator is required to act, ArbComm cannot enjoin action, but only prohibit action, in practice. And then the enforcement of that prohibition is a matter of discretion.

Indeed, the haphazard and ad-hoc nature of enforcement of policies and decisions is part of the Wikipedia problem. What I saw, first with regard to the bans of others, and only later in my own case, was that once a ban existed, if there was any vagueness about the meaning, administrators would interpret it in various ways. Those who saw an action as harmless and not a "substantial violation" would ignore it. And those with an axe to grind would interpret it as a violation, and would block, and so a block log would be built up showing "violations," which then would establish, to a widening circle, that the user was "disruptive." One can see, examining my block log, that the same administrators showed up again and again. It only takes a handful out of the many hundreds of active administrators to have a devastating effect.

That is, the ad-hoc process favors ever-stricter and narrower interpretation of rules and decisions. To give a possible example of an alternative, consider the Request Custodian Action process I suggested for Wikiversity: there is a request page, which is never used to discuss the action; all that happens on that page is a request is filed, and a neutral administrator -- representing to the community that he or she has no bias in the matter, or disclosing bias, under some conditions -- "takes the case." The custodian then would act, if action is obvious, or search for or receive evidence and argument, on their talk page or other appropriate page, with affected parties being notified. The custodian would then decide and act, and report that. Consider what WP ANI would look like if this had been done on WP!

(You could actually watch the page without clogging up your watchlist!)

Instead, we have what amounts to Wikipedia 911, but with debate. Imagine calling emergency services and having to argue your case! No, they are dispatchers, they send an officer to investigate (if it's a police matter), ASAP. The officer makes an ad hoc decision for the welfare of the community. The officer has no power to punish or even to decide equity, beyond immediate possession, for example, and those decisions are not binding, they are temporary. It's up to the courts to make binding decisions, later, upon deliberation, if they are needed.

Wikipedia theory, as explained in the policies and guidelines, is often excellent. It is practice that falls short, and even discussing this on-wiki is almost impossible. That's what can be done at Wikiversity. The only danger there is that it turns into a get-even grievance forum, which can't be tolerated. I'm using Wikiversity to document my Adventures in Ban Evasion, but not to attack any administrator, which is beside the point. I'm critical here, that's a different thing. There, I reported that Kww and Timotheus Canens used revision deletion to hide edits merely because they were from me and were ban violations or block evasion. That's just a fact.

If I abuse Wikiversity with any of my edits there, they can be removed, but it certainly is not my intention. The reporting page has been proposed for deletion, but that's unlikely to succeed unless something changes drastically.

Wikiversity is one of the few WMF wikis that unblocked Thekohser, delinking the account in order to render the global lock ineffective. From Thekohser's point of view, I think, it was a political move, for him to cooperate with what it took, politically, to make the unblock effort successful. But for me and for Wikiversity, it was a stand for academic freedom. That freedom is not absolute, as I noted during the 2010 Hand Of God intervention, Wikiversity must consider, indeed, "cross-wiki issues." Hence using Wikiversity as a "staging ground" to organize "response testing," -- which is what was alleged -- would be beyond the pale.

A university course could study patterns involved in robbery and police response, but for the course to run some "test robberies" would be illegal and would be stopped. However, if a robber provided data on his adventures, so to speak, it could certainly be considered and studied, compared with police records, etc.

Of course, an editor making constructive or at worst harmless edits is hardly robbery. Even if it involves "trespassing." It's more accurately civil disobedience, and society is always ambivalent about that, often praising it in the end, even as it punishes it in the short term.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[carbuncle]

Instead, we have what amounts to Wikipedia 911, but with debate. Imagine calling emergency services and having to argue your case!

Policing the WP way:
If you require the emergency assistance of the police, it is usually best to call an officer directly. Pick an officer who is sympathetic to your point of view, or you risk getting either getting arrested or having your emergency ignored. If the officer declines to respond to your emergency, call a different officer. Keep calling until you run out of sympathetic officers or give up.

As an alternative (if you are unlucky enough to have a WP record; do not know any sympathetic officers; or are new in town), you must call the local call-in radio show. Other listeners will call in to comment on your emergency. If any officers are listening, they may respond. Or not.

Best of luck with your emergency, and remember, your call is important to us...

[Abd]

Policing the WP way:
If you require the emergency assistance of the police, it is usually best to call an officer directly. Pick an officer who is sympathetic to your point of view, or you risk getting either getting arrested or having your emergency ignored. If the officer declines to respond to your emergency, call a different officer. Keep calling until you run out of sympathetic officers or give up.

As an alternative (if you are unlucky enough to have a WP record; do not know any sympathetic officers; or are new in town), you must call the local call-in radio show. Other listeners will call in to comment on your emergency. If any officers are listening, they may respond. Or not.

Best of luck with your emergency, and remember, your call is important to us...

Yeah, what I said. Nice, carbuncle. You are not exaggerating at all!

My understanding is that the editor who created Administrators noticeboard/Incidents later regretted it. Actually, the creation wasn't the problem, it was that it was allowed to become more than a noticeboard, a collection of "notices," and became a debate forum. It should have had, from the beginning, clerks who would keep it free of debate. It would just be a dispatch point. The point should be that it would be easy to watch, there would be very little traffic, just a handful of edits per incident, including archiving, the discussion would all take place elsewhere, typically on the Talk page of an admin taking a case. (That admin would have discretion to set up DR process.)

When I've set up a true noticeboard page, I've created a dummy talk page that points to a subpage, so that discussion, if it starts, doesn't trigger the watchlist for the noticeboard. This kind of thinking about process efficiency has been missing, and inefficient process is easily corrupted, it requires constant vigilance, not just attention to exceptions. Abuse, hidden in the avalanche, becomes invisible.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[melloden]

[quote name='carbuncle' date='Sun 22nd May 2011, 5:58pm' post='275448']
[quote name='Abd' post='275445' date='Sun 22nd May 2011, 5:32pm']
Instead, we have what amounts to Wikipedia 911, but with debate. Imagine calling emergency services and having to argue your case! [/quote]

There've been horror stories about that.

[Michaeldsuarez]

In September, Kww failed to gain CheckUser rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...intments/CU/Kww

Now Kww wants to become an Arbitrator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Candidates/Kww

[that one guy]

In September, Kww failed to gain CheckUser rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...intments/CU/Kww

Now Kww wants to become an Arbitrator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Candidates/Kww

I smell power grab. No really, fails to get OS/CU then decides to run for the one thing where you'll always get OS/CU if elected. Bleh.