Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: The Joy

Administration: Lashes (L)earned from my Wikipedia Years

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/13/983226/-Administration:-Lashes-%28L%29earned-from-my-Wikipedia-Years?via=user

Some interesting points there. I'm glad to see Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still kicking.

Edit: Could a mod change "Dairy" to "Diary?"

Posted by: EricBarbour

Ouch:

Looks good to me. Now, if only some of those wiki-flakes would read it.


Sure enough, he and that idiot Jalwikip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ormulum#Sources in 2007 over inline cites. And more rulebook-throwers showed up in 2010.

Posted by: The Joy

There's always been tension between the technical Wikipedians and the content Wikipedians. As long as things are properly cited, it shouldn't matter in what form.

Posted by: chrisoff

Have to admit that Geogre's statement about the rise of IRC uses is right. Gone is transparency. Everything happens on one IRC or another, not visible to most editors.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The lack of transparency isn't the real problem, it's the lack of accountability. Wikipedia has a plethora of segregated communication channels, and is horribly siloed. This appears to be by design, probably because in such an environment a great deal of power can be obtained by brokering community knowledge, and so those who have thereby acquired power are loath to allow change. The IRC channels are merely one symptom of this broader issue.

Geogre's ranting is misdirected; he is mainly annoyed that he failed in his quest for power and recognition, and is mainly bitching about the aspects of Wikipedia that thwarted him in that regard. He simply did not have enough time to spend all of it in the sort of information brokering that is the path to power on Wikipedia, probably because he has something of a life. His "solutions" would, in many cases, not actually have improved Wikipedia; they would merely make it serve his interests better. That said, some of his ideas were indeed good; I was very fond of his "pure wiki deletion" concept, for example.

There are some good comments in his blog, but he's still a long way off from letting go.

Posted by: chrisoff

Lack of transparency = lack of accountability.

Bad enough that people have non real world user names, often changed and/or with the signature changed, and with sockpuppets galore, playing elaborate games with names, but on IRC they do the same thing: change "handles", signature's etc.

IRC decisions are not transparent decisions, often made by a small group of editors who happened to be on that IRC, and no one is held accountable for them when these conversations have effects on the wiki.

Posted by: Ottava

Anyone else wondering why Sue Gardner (connected to the Daily Kos) would allow for a disgrace admin that used a sock puppet to help him harass other people and game the consensus system at Wikipedia for over two years to write about admin related matters?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.

Posted by: Ottava

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Utgard_Loki&user2=Geogre&namespace=0&namespace=1&namespace=2&namespace=3&namespace=4&namespace=5

109 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
110 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
115 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5 2/2 [1, 2]
116 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Needham 2/2 [1, 2]
117 Wikipedia:Featured article review/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
118 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
119 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) 2/2 [1, 2]
120 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12 2/2 [1, 2]
121 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities 2/2 [1, 2]
122 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 2/2 [1, 2]
123 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker 2/2 [1, 2]
124 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
125 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
126 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II 2/2 [1, 2]

Article edits duplicated can be explained as coincidence or vandalism. These, however, are discussion based and show Utgard Loki in many discussions acting as a different person from Geogre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_3#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior

One of many places where evidence that the Geogre/Utgard Loki dual discussing crossed the line.


He also used the two accounts to tag team John Carter, a highly respected admin, in addition to using the two accounts to try and have me banned multiple times, have pages of mine deleted, etc.


Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Are you speaking here as an Arbitrator who had substantial evidence of Geogre's socking, tag teaming, following after people and insulting them simultaneously on two names, etc?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I adhere to my views as posted on-wiki two years ago when the motions concerning Geogre were voted on. Going into them again at length here is unlikely to be productive in any context, and especially not in a discussion with you.

Posted by: Ottava

Yes, you made it clear: sock puppetry is acceptable when you like the person. Just like you were involved in getting Unitanode to move to his 8th sock account when knowing that 3 of the accounts were used at the same time, in the same discussion, and that he "restarted" 4 times before right as multiple people were putting him up for ban/block discussions.

How is this acting like a responsible Arbitrator by encouraging bad behavior by people who use sock puppets to destroy consensus and personally attack people in really nasty ways?



By the way, I like how you completely http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AUtgard+Loki who made it clear that it was abuse and that it is nonsense to claim otherwise.

Anyone who sees http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=305234096#Statement_from_Durova statement from Durova can easily see that you are full of it if you dare try to say Geogre acted appropriately. He was one of the worst of the worst, and the bad thing is that you probably helped him get a new name like you did Unitanode.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=305234096#Statement_from_Thatcher, you seemed to think that Geogre clearly abused multiple accounts. Do you think NYBrad is speaking properly on the matter?


By the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=304969560#Geogre states: "Geogre is indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly. Geogre is strongly admonished for sockpuppeting and his actions related thereto."

Such a statement makes it clear that you cannot claim Geogre didn't abuse sock puppets to harass people.

Posted by: Vigilant

And yet, strangely enough, you are incontrovertibly worse than Geogre by the standards of Wikipedia. You are permabanned on multiple projects. You are reviled even here at WR. You are the permanent pile of poo on the wikipedia lawn.

Congratulations!

Posted by: mbz1

It is funny how socks or alternative accounts of the same user refer to each other in the third person.

For example here George editing as Utgard Loki says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=221464547 I wonder, if under "every other user" he meant his other socks

and here Gwen Gale (T-C-L-K-R-D) deletes the only surviving talk's page history of Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) stating that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss/a4#Wikipedia:Avoid_personal_remarks
except Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) redirects to Gwen Gale (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and the user who requested the deletion is the same user who thought this had been done years ago, and the same user, who made this deletion.
OK, maybe she made a mistake, except she http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss/a5 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss/a7, and so on.


Why not to say instead "I deleted the only surviving records of my talk page history because
I requested them to be deleted."

Posted by: No one of consequence

I can't judge the "properness" of any other person's opinion. My own opinion is that people should not be dicks, whether with one or multiple accounts.

Posted by: Ottava

I'm not talking about his opinion. I'm talking about his characterization of my pointing out that Geogre abused multiple accounts to harass people while as an admin (NYB: "This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.")

Is it a gross exaggeration of me to say that?

I mean, afterall, the socks were used to put up pages of mine for deletion because he didn't like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte_v._Faulkner (originally called Swift's printers) nor my working on the Drapier's Letter page, then was involved with both names when Bishonen proposed to indef me and Unitanode also proposed the same.

He did the same thing to Durova, to John Carter, and to others, so it wasn't just me. The actions spanned from 2007 until mid 2009.

What part of my comments suggest that my claim that he was abusive were exaggerations?

Posted by: No one of consequence

Sure you are. You want me to judge whether Brad's opinion of you is fair. That's a slightly different question than I thought I was answering, but my answer is the same. I won't pass judgement on Brad's opinion of you (or of your opinion of him, for that matter).

If I thought I had all the answers, I would have run for Arbcom and would now be telling people how to run things on WP (or more likely, disagreeing with others on Arbcom who have the opposite view and consequently not accomplishing anything at all). I hope I have finally outgrown my adolescent judgmental phase. I probably still judge people privately in my mind -- who doesn't -- although I try not to. In this case I respectfully decline to offer a judgment on whether Brad's opinion of your opinion of Geogre's actions, or Brad's opinion of your opinion of Brad's opinion of Geogre's actions, or whatever else you are asking, is fair or unfair.

Posted by: Ottava

No. I'm asking you for -your- opinion of -my- opinion. Not Brad's. Ultimately, the two views of my opinion could be compared to each other.

But yes, the ArbCom ruling made it clear that Geogre was desysopped for abuse of socks, and that Coren originally blocked Utgard Loki for a lot of evidence of abuse. Bishonen also had multiple RfCs involving her knowledge of his abuse, which suggests that Geogre's abuse was so bad that others with knowledge were contributing to the badness.

Such an individual should not be given a podium to declare what good admining is because his experience involved him using sock puppets to not only stack the deck but to attack his opposition in an unfair way.

We all know I utterly despise sock puppets and think that they are one of the worst possible things that the Wiki has to deal with. If we got rid of the sock puppets, I would be confident that over 50% of the problems would vanish or become easier to deal with.