The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
Abd
post Wed 13th July 2011, 3:19pm
Post #41


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Giano @ Wed 13th July 2011, 3:44am) *
I could not agree with you more. I don't think any of us around at that time could beleive just what we were reading or that those assuming authority over us were beleiving what they were reading and then acting on it. This incident was a monumantal turning point, but now, reading their deliberations on the matter is almost as incredible - they had no shame or remorse just an unseemly scurry to bury the matter - as they are currently doing on Wikipediat it its resurgence now. I'm unsure quite how far the change has gone. They still have the secret list and deal with matters (the mentally ill and the criminally insane and perverted) for wich they are totally unqualified. It's about thimequalified professionals were employed to deal with such people and the arbcom confined themselves to "on-wiki" disputes. Having said that, I expect certain arbs would attempt to have me declared insane and carted away. They are quite unbeleivable in the way they behave.

Giacomo
The mob -- which includes all of us from time to time -- has a knee-jerk habit of finding convenient scapegoats. Durova was just doing what many have done, before and since, serving the "community" as she thought of it.

The sin of "cooperating with a banned user" remains firmly ensconced as a piece of mud to toss.

Administrators still waste their time rooting out "socks" who are doing no harm, and damage the community by over-reaction. That's part of what I've been demonstrating. The concept of "sock puppetry" originally referred only to the creation of multiple personas to create an impression of multiple supports for someone with an isolated opinion. It becomes an attempt to exclude people entirely from the table, not even allowing indirect, moderated participation. As a mailing list administrator, I occasionally found it necessary to put a user on moderation. I never found it necessary to ban the person, but if I had, and a list member decided, reasonably, to forward a message from the person to the list, on their own responsibility, it would be fine. If not fine, I might moderate that member, that's all.

And I always consulted the whole list when I did something like putting someone on moderation. I was list admin as a servant of the community, not as a controller.

The WMF has the money to fund professional dispute resolution facilitation, if nothing else (i.e., professionals could set up process that would work), but it has no priority, it doesn't even seem to be realized that it's necessary.

Giano, they are quite believable. They are ordinary human beings, doing what ordinary human beings do when unrestrained by customs and process that facilitates true dispute resolution. I've seen it again and again: volunteer organizations, where people believe they are doing "good," can be the most cut-throat setups imaginable, people will do things they wouldn't do for money.... or, at least, if they are doing it for money, then you know how to satisfy them, it's predictable!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 14th July 2011, 12:28am
Post #42


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 13th July 2011, 3:19pm) *

QUOTE(Giano @ Wed 13th July 2011, 3:44am) *
I could not agree with you more. I don't think any of us around at that time could beleive just what we were reading or that those assuming authority over us were beleiving what they were reading and then acting on it. This incident was a monumantal turning point, but now, reading their deliberations on the matter is almost as incredible - they had no shame or remorse just an unseemly scurry to bury the matter - as they are currently doing on Wikipediat it its resurgence now. I'm unsure quite how far the change has gone. They still have the secret list and deal with matters (the mentally ill and the criminally insane and perverted) for wich they are totally unqualified. It's about thimequalified professionals were employed to deal with such people and the arbcom confined themselves to "on-wiki" disputes. Having said that, I expect certain arbs would attempt to have me declared insane and carted away. They are quite unbeleivable in the way they behave.

Giacomo
The mob -- which includes all of us from time to time -- has a knee-jerk habit of finding convenient scapegoats. Durova was just doing what many have done, before and since, serving the "community" as she thought of it.


The other members of the CyberStalking and Investigations email lists did, for the most part, run for cover when the story broke and left her twisting in the wind. JzG was one of the few who admitted his involvement in the lists and tried to defend what was going on with them. Most of the rest refused to answer when asked if they were a member of those lists. Note, for example, that Will Beback did not respond when I asked him if he was on the list.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Thu 14th July 2011, 5:04am
Post #43


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



Wait, so who was !!'s old account? Why was that redacted?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 14th July 2011, 5:24am
Post #44


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 14th July 2011, 12:04am) *

Wait, so who was !!'s old account? Why was that redacted?

We had a request claiming that the name "linked him" to his secret real-life identity, and the person in question wasn't particularly onerous, odiferous, or otherwise objectionable, so I figured ehh, why not. I don't believe it was essential to the thread, at least - they were accurate in saying he was a long-term, high-edit-volume WP'er, which is really all that mattered. (It's not like there's a shortage of them...)

Personally I thought the name was fairly generic-looking and I couldn't really see how it could have been a clue for anybody, but who knows - we get all kinds of stories around here!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spp
post Sat 16th July 2011, 3:16am
Post #45


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 17th Nov 2009, 2:16pm
Member No.: 15,416

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I remember this as the start of me winding down my stay at WP. The fact that they kept repeating that it was "just 75 minutes" shows they didn't get it.

It wasn't the 75 minutes. It was the fact that it happened in the first place to someone who didn't do ANYTHING BUT IMPROVE THE DAMN PROJECT.

If !! did something to deserve it, but this pre-crime shit is orwellian at best, fucking insane at...Wikipedia SOP.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sun 17th July 2011, 5:44pm
Post #46


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(spp @ Fri 15th July 2011, 11:16pm) *
I remember this as the start of me winding down my stay at WP. The fact that they kept repeating that it was "just 75 minutes" shows they didn't get it.
Sure. But there are lots of things they don't get.
QUOTE
It wasn't the 75 minutes. It was the fact that it happened in the first place to someone who didn't do ANYTHING BUT IMPROVE THE DAMN PROJECT.
Happens all the time, spp, when socking is suspected. I've been demonstrating it. Once a user is identified as "disruptive," it doesn't matter if their actual edits are not disruptive, the very fact that they are editing as a sock is considered "disruptive."

Durova was doing something widely approved, examining edits for evidence of socking. She screwed up, for sure. However, anyone who works on the project intensively will make mistakes.

And any experienced users should know that being blocked for 75 minutes is no big deal.

No, this was being used by someone with a big axe to grind.
QUOTE
If !! did something to deserve it, but this pre-crime shit is orwellian at best, fucking insane at...Wikipedia SOP.
That's Wikipedia, indeed, the technical term for it you've accurately used: "fucking insane."

But it seemed like a good idea at the time. The problem was that the "good idea" got written in stone, effectively, so that it couldn't grow and adapt, it got locked into dysfunction. Durova certainly didn't cause that!

Nor did the "secret mailing list" cause that. Who caused that?

Better question to ask would be, "What caused that?" Structure.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Sun 17th July 2011, 5:54pm
Post #47


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Durova was enamored of her position as head of the wiki defenders clique.

It validated that she does *something* worthwhile with her life. The SEO stuff just doesn't cut it. Bottom of the barrel tech job.

Her ducklings gathered round while the wizened^Whardened veteran conveyed what she knew in hushed whispers. "The sockpuppets are coming... they're everywhere..."

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anna
post Mon 1st August 2011, 2:11am
Post #48


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu 16th Jun 2011, 3:47pm
Member No.: 57,500



What the hell?

If I understand correctly, at least some of these people are arguing that sending unwanted e-mails, on a topic of legitimate interest (or arguably legitimate interest, in any case), qualifies as harassment, regardless of whether or not said unwanted e-mails contain threats of violence, blackmail, sexual content, racism, sexism, ableism, or anything like that?

Well, by that standard, a lot of petition websites are enabling mass harassment!

Down with petition sites!

Erm, wait, what?

Seriously, this is what e-mail filters are for. So you don't have to read the unwanted e-mail. And it you can't figure out how to set that up, there's always the old-fashioned method of deleting things unopened. Not to mention, a lot of people keep different e-mail accounts for different purposes so they can keep their communications with friends separate from their communications with people who aren't necessarily friends.

Thanks for reminding me why I prefer to write open letters when communicating with people I don't know personally, especially when discussing anything vaguely resembling a controversial topic. It's a lot harder to falsely accuse someone of "harassment", "stalking", or whatever, when the letter is out on a blog, or somewhere public, for the whole world to see.

Open letters forever!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 5 17, 7:21am