Elder Scrolls III: Amorrowind Options

[LamontStormstar]

Elder Scrolls III: Amorrowind

They made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...m_abuse/Amorrow




Now that's talking tough on the Internet! (below)

Now you march you and your friends on back to [[Talk:Elizabeth_Morgan]] where we are still having our nice little party.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20549516

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Thu 18th October 2007, 10:23pm

[blissyu2]

At least it gives the reader some idea of what he was actually like.

I am amazed, however, given what they say about other people, that they refuse to use the word "stalker" anywhere, as that is substantially why he was banned.

[LamontStormstar]

At least it gives the reader some idea of what he was actually like.

I am amazed, however, given what they say about other people, that they refuse to use the word "stalker" anywhere, as that is substantially why he was banned.

I always assumed he was like the personality of a male rapist in some online sex story crossed with George McFly in Back to the Future 1 before George got confidence.

But Amorrow sounds like some internet tough guy.

Well not saying stalker I guess is so not to get sued. They should say some code like "amber alert".

[everyking]

"Keeping track of him is considerably problematic in part because he is a software engineer by training, and has been known to use open proxies." In other words, it's stalemate; he can keep this stuff up as long as he wants. Has anybody tried talking to this guy? I think most people in this position--probably nearly all--would accept a simple offer to be allowed to edit as long as it's under one account and they strictly obey policy and avoid anyone they were previously in conflict with. Under such circumstances he would find it almost impossible to cause any harm, because he'd be carefully watched; it is virtually certain that he would be less harmful in that position than he is sneaking around with limitless socks and a bitter grudge. His recent alleged account apparently spent nearly all of its time doing helpful cleanup work. There are times when taking a hard line is just shooting yourself in the foot. And to me, the most tiresome thing of all is thinking of how extraordinarily heretical and blasphemous the above argument is.

[The Joy]

"Keeping track of him is considerably problematic in part because he is a software engineer by training, and has been known to use open proxies." In other words, it's stalemate; he can keep this stuff up as long as he wants. Has anybody tried talking to this guy? I think most people in this position--probably nearly all--would accept a simple offer to be allowed to edit as long as it's under one account and they strictly obey policy and avoid anyone they were previously in conflict with. Under such circumstances he would find it almost impossible to cause any harm, because he'd be carefully watched; it is virtually certain that he would be less harmful in that position than he is sneaking around with limitless socks and a bitter grudge. His recent alleged account apparently spent nearly all of its time doing helpful cleanup work. There are times when taking a hard line is just shooting yourself in the foot. And to me, the most tiresome thing of all is thinking of how extraordinarily heretical and blasphemous the above argument is.

Amorrow was stalking female Wikipedians. This forum even banned him for his behavior. He had a website cataloging his... uummm... "actions", I believe, but it has since been taken down.

[GlassBeadGame]

"Keeping track of him is considerably problematic in part because he is a software engineer by training, and has been known to use open proxies." In other words, it's stalemate; he can keep this stuff up as long as he wants. Has anybody tried talking to this guy? I think most people in this position--probably nearly all--would accept a simple offer to be allowed to edit as long as it's under one account and they strictly obey policy and avoid anyone they were previously in conflict with. Under such circumstances he would find it almost impossible to cause any harm, because he'd be carefully watched; it is virtually certain that he would be less harmful in that position than he is sneaking around with limitless socks and a bitter grudge. His recent alleged account apparently spent nearly all of its time doing helpful cleanup work. There are times when taking a hard line is just shooting yourself in the foot. And to me, the most tiresome thing of all is thinking of how extraordinarily heretical and blasphemous the above argument is.

Amorrow was stalking female Wikipedians. This forum even banned him for his behavior. He had a website cataloging his... uummm... "actions", I believe, but it has since been taken down.

If anyone had the address we could try to get it from the waybackmachine.

[everyking]

"Keeping track of him is considerably problematic in part because he is a software engineer by training, and has been known to use open proxies." In other words, it's stalemate; he can keep this stuff up as long as he wants. Has anybody tried talking to this guy? I think most people in this position--probably nearly all--would accept a simple offer to be allowed to edit as long as it's under one account and they strictly obey policy and avoid anyone they were previously in conflict with. Under such circumstances he would find it almost impossible to cause any harm, because he'd be carefully watched; it is virtually certain that he would be less harmful in that position than he is sneaking around with limitless socks and a bitter grudge. His recent alleged account apparently spent nearly all of its time doing helpful cleanup work. There are times when taking a hard line is just shooting yourself in the foot. And to me, the most tiresome thing of all is thinking of how extraordinarily heretical and blasphemous the above argument is.

Amorrow was stalking female Wikipedians. This forum even banned him for his behavior. He had a website cataloging his... uummm... "actions", I believe, but it has since been taken down.

I am well aware of his history. I was actually one of those who voted against banning him here. Whatever someone has done does not invalidate the need to cope with reality in a rational and effective way. Solutions are things that actually work.

[Somey]

Whatever someone has done does not invalidate the need to cope with reality in a rational and effective way. Solutions are things that actually work.

That assumes that a solution is possible under the current software and site policies, doesn't it? Assuming we're talking about Wikipedia, I don't see it, personally... If we're talking about this site, it isn't really a question of whether we allow him to post here again. Anyone can post here as long as they manage to stay within certain boundaries, which would obviously include any sort of advocacy of physical stalking. Amorrow could already be posting again here, for all we know. But either way, he was never interested in anyone of us - he was interested in SlimVirgin, Musical Linguist, Phaedriel, and Katefan0, ostensibly because they'd interfered with his WP content in some way.

If Wikipedia gave Amorrow what he (putatively) wants, which (apparently) is free reign over articles he writes about members of his own family, without any "meddling" from female WP administrators whatsoever, what would they actually gain? Two or three pieces of hagiography about members of Amorrow's family? Mind you, I don't think the guy was anything like the sort of demonic monster they've made him out to be, but I'm still not seeing any upside to trying to appease him, from their perspective.

[everyking]

Whatever someone has done does not invalidate the need to cope with reality in a rational and effective way. Solutions are things that actually work.

That assumes that a solution is possible under the current software and site policies, doesn't it? Assuming we're talking about Wikipedia, I don't see it, personally... If we're talking about this site, it isn't really a question of whether we allow him to post here again. Anyone can post here as long as they manage to stay within certain boundaries, which would obviously include any sort of advocacy of physical stalking. Amorrow could already be posting again here, for all we know. But either way, he was never interested in anyone of us - he was interested in SlimVirgin, Musical Linguist, Phaedriel, and Katefan0, ostensibly because they'd interfered with his WP content in some way.

If Wikipedia gave Amorrow what he (putatively) wants, which (apparently) is free reign over articles he writes about members of his own family, without any "meddling" from female WP administrators whatsoever, what would they actually gain? Two or three pieces of hagiography about members of Amorrow's family? Mind you, I don't think the guy was anything like the sort of demonic monster they've made him out to be, but I'm still not seeing any upside to trying to appease him, from their perspective.

If the recent alleged Amorrow sock was indeed his, that's proof he's been doing some constructive work on WP, so his editing can't be all bad. Any new content he wrote would be highly suspect due to his past tendencies, but would be carefully monitored by many editors and could therefore be correctly shaped. The main upside, though, is that by giving him the opportunity to engage constructively in the project again, all this mischief he's been up to could be ended (I'm presuming that he's been up to something bad recently that has got them sounding the alarm--if all he's been doing is constructive stuff, then that's even more reason to give him another chance). Perhaps if things had been handled more carefully the first time around, he would never have gotten into any offwiki harassment.

[blissyu2]

The issue is one of legal liability, not of whether or not they like him, or whether he is constructively editing.

Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) cannot allow any posts from someone who is suggesting illegal activities that they want to do. When he writes saying how he would like to hurt someone, or rape someone, or stalk someone, it must be deleted, and he must be banned, because if you don't do that then if that goes to court, then you can go to jail with them. And sure, so long as Amorrow never raped them, we are in the clear, but if he decides to rape them, then the people behind Wikipedia Review could go to jail too, and this site could be cut down. It is just not worth it.

Wikipedia could, feasibly, allow him to use a new account so long as he never did anything to put Wikipedia in legal jeapordy. The problem with that idea is that then once they know, or reasonably suspect, that it is him, then they must ban him, for the same reasons that they had to ban him in the first place. Furthermore, there is an argument that whilst his new posts might seem reasonable, they may have a secret code and be used to promote illegal activity. Why should Wikipedia have to sort through what he has written to determine if they could be used in a court case against them?

I mean just imagine that Amorrow rapes someone, and he goes to jail, and they say how did he know who they were, and he points to various articles that he's written on Wikipedia, which were code words for tracking them, and that Wikipedia knew it was him, and knew that was what he was doing, but allowed him to keep editing, and the articles to exist. There would be an argument that Wikipedia, through lack of action, were assisting in the crime.

Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't need to ban his sock puppets, perhaps they do. The only issue is whether they are in a legally dangerous position now.

As for whether they are constructive edits, that is not even the issue. Amorrow wasn't banned for being poorly behaved, he was banned for breaking the law. There is a world of difference.

This post has been edited by Somey: Sat 15th December 2007, 2:36am

[everyking]

The issue is one of legal liability, not of whether or not they like him, or whether he is constructively editing.

Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) cannot allow any posts from someone who is suggesting illegal activities that they want to do. When he writes saying how he would like to hurt someone, or rape someone, or stalk someone, it must be deleted, and he must be banned, because if you don't do that then if that goes to court, then you can go to jail with them. And sure, so long as Amorrow never raped them, we are in the clear, but if he decides to rape them, then the people behind Wikipedia Review could go to jail too, and this site could be cut down. It is just not worth it.

Wikipedia could, feasibly, allow him to use a new account so long as he never did anything to put Wikipedia in legal jeapordy. The problem with that idea is that then once they know, or reasonably suspect, that it is him, then they must ban him, for the same reasons that they had to ban him in the first place. Furthermore, there is an argument that whilst his new posts might seem reasonable, they may have a secret code and be used to promote illegal activity. Why should Wikipedia have to sort through what he has written to determine if they could be used in a court case against them?

I mean just imagine that Amorrow rapes someone, and he goes to jail, and they say how did he know who they were, and he points to various articles that he's written on Wikipedia, which were code words for tracking them, and that Wikipedia knew it was him, and knew that was what he was doing, but allowed him to keep editing, and the articles to exist. There would be an argument that Wikipedia, through lack of action, were assisting in the crime.

Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't need to ban his sock puppets, perhaps they do. The only issue is whether they are in a legally dangerous position now.

As for whether they are constructive edits, that is not even the issue. Amorrow wasn't banned for being poorly behaved, he was banned for breaking the law. There is a world of difference.

This seems a bit silly to me. Secret codes? If he does not say anything violent or threatening, then there shouldn't be a problem; if he does, then he should be banned. I don't think we can factor in an inscrutable "secret code". Encouraging good behavior and punishing the bad is blameless.

This post has been edited by Somey: Sat 15th December 2007, 2:36am

[Alison]

If the recent alleged Amorrow sock was indeed his, that's proof he's been doing some constructive work on WP, so his editing can't be all bad. Any new content he wrote would be highly suspect due to his past tendencies, but would be carefully monitored by many editors and could therefore be correctly shaped. The main upside, though, is that by giving him the opportunity to engage constructively in the project again, all this mischief he's been up to could be ended (I'm presuming that he's been up to something bad recently that has got them sounding the alarm--if all he's been doing is constructive stuff, then that's even more reason to give him another chance). Perhaps if things had been handled more carefully the first time around, he would never have gotten into any offwiki harassment.

Y'know, you're absolutely correct, Everyking. If only those wikipediots had treated him better from the get-go, he'd never have turned into the predatory stalker that he is. Quite right! Let's apologize, welcome him back with open arms and we'll forget all about the stalking and harassment that he was indulging in right up to yesterday.

Ugh!

[dtobias]

Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) cannot allow any posts from someone who is suggesting illegal activities that they want to do.

That seems like a stretch, when it comes to allowing contributions that are not themselves illegal. Does this mean that Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Oxford English Dictionary, or the New York Times op-ed page, wouldn't be allowed to publish submissions from somebody they knew to be a rapist, murderer, or other criminal or prospective criminal? Does the NFL have to purge its record books of anything pertaining to O.J. Simpson?

Solutions are things that actually work.

That's talking like an engineer... this kind of belief system was what projects like Wikipedia were founded on, but it seems to be a minority nowadays, as the politicians, fanatics, and social climbers / networkers have taken over.

[blissyu2]

Y'know, you're absolutely correct, Everyking. If only those wikipediots had treated him better from the get-go, he'd never have turned into the predatory stalker that he is. Quite right! Let's apologize, welcome him back with open arms and we'll forget all about the stalking and harassment that he was indulging in right up to yesterday.

Ugh!

Yeah, I don't think that Wikipedia can be held responsible for someone becoming a criminal, at least not in that sense. Whilst Wikipedia's code and such encourages stalking, the topic doesn't, hence the amount of stalking on Wikipedia is pretty darn small. The amount of cyberbullying on the other hand is tremendously high. I don't think that Wikipedia should be considered to be at fault for him becoming like he is. He likely did it himself.

[guy]

Does this mean that Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Oxford English Dictionary, or the New York Times op-ed page, wouldn't be allowed to publish submissions from somebody they knew to be a rapist, murderer, or other criminal or prospective criminal?

Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to the OED was an American (obviously) who had killed someone and been committed to a lunatic asylum.

Solutions are things that actually work.

What sort of viable solution doesn't work?

[everyking]

If the recent alleged Amorrow sock was indeed his, that's proof he's been doing some constructive work on WP, so his editing can't be all bad. Any new content he wrote would be highly suspect due to his past tendencies, but would be carefully monitored by many editors and could therefore be correctly shaped. The main upside, though, is that by giving him the opportunity to engage constructively in the project again, all this mischief he's been up to could be ended (I'm presuming that he's been up to something bad recently that has got them sounding the alarm--if all he's been doing is constructive stuff, then that's even more reason to give him another chance). Perhaps if things had been handled more carefully the first time around, he would never have gotten into any offwiki harassment.

Y'know, you're absolutely correct, Everyking. If only those wikipediots had treated him better from the get-go, he'd never have turned into the predatory stalker that he is. Quite right! Let's apologize, welcome him back with open arms and we'll forget all about the stalking and harassment that he was indulging in right up to yesterday.

Ugh!

Misrepresentation. I don't think he should we should apologize or "welcome him back with open arms". I don't remotely think Wikipedia is to blame for provoking his behavior, but I think we might have avoided this nevertheless by handling him a bit differently. I think it would be worth considering allowing him back on very strict terms, which would probably have to include an apology from him, with a lot of caution and on a provisional basis. I guess you are confirming that he is indeed still engaging in stalking and harassment. Well, I think my idea would be the best opportunity to solve that--of course, if he didn't respect the terms, or wouldn't agree to them in the first place, we'd go back to playing whack-a-mole and reverting his every word, and he would probably go back to stalking, so it's hard to see how anything could be lost or harmed by attempting such an arrangement. Failure would just mean returning to the status quo.

I myself was completely in favor of an absolute ban until just yesterday, when I read this long-term abuse report and did some careful thinking about how this should be handled if he is in fact still active--including what appear to be attempts to contribute constructively to the project--after all this time. I think people tend to think in sort of reflexive, dogmatic terms about this--Amorrow harassed people, so he should be banned for life, no matter how impractical and difficult it is to keep him out or how little benefit is actually coming from such measures--and I think it's worth looking at an option that might be emotionally less satisfying in terms of our ideas of justice, but ultimately more helpful to our contributors. Not that I have any hope of that actually happening, but I still think I ought to say what I think.

This post has been edited by everyking: Fri 19th October 2007, 8:35pm

[Alison]

I myself was completely in favor of an absolute ban until just yesterday, when I read this long-term abuse report and did some careful thinking about how this should be handled if he is in fact still active--including what appear to be attempts to contribute constructively to the project--after all this time. I think people tend to think in sort of reflexive, dogmatic terms about this--Amorrow harassed people, so he should be banned for life, no matter how impractical and difficult it is to keep him out or how little benefit is actually coming from such measures--and I think it's worth looking at an option that might be emotionally less satisfying in terms of our ideas of justice, but ultimately more helpful to our contributors. Not that I have any hope of that actually happening, but I still think I ought to say what I think.

Unfortunately, though, it's attitudes like this that enable the guy to abuse further as you're giving tacit approval. It's patently obvious that you've no idea as to what he's actually been doing. Plus ca changes ...

Yet more fuel for the idea that WR is a haven for stalkers and abusers. Be it true or be it not, comments like yours above just reinforce that.

That LTA report is junk, BTW.

[everyking]

I myself was completely in favor of an absolute ban until just yesterday, when I read this long-term abuse report and did some careful thinking about how this should be handled if he is in fact still active--including what appear to be attempts to contribute constructively to the project--after all this time. I think people tend to think in sort of reflexive, dogmatic terms about this--Amorrow harassed people, so he should be banned for life, no matter how impractical and difficult it is to keep him out or how little benefit is actually coming from such measures--and I think it's worth looking at an option that might be emotionally less satisfying in terms of our ideas of justice, but ultimately more helpful to our contributors. Not that I have any hope of that actually happening, but I still think I ought to say what I think.

Unfortunately, though, it's attitudes like this that enable the guy to abuse further as you're giving tacit approval. It's patently obvious that you've no idea as to what he's actually been doing. Plus ca changes ...

Yet more fuel for the idea that WR is a haven for stalkers and abusers. Be it true or be it not, comments like yours above just reinforce that.

That LTA report is junk, BTW.

Well, maybe I don't know what he's been doing. Some things may not have been publicly disclosed, and I can only made an assessment based on what I know. If things are even worse than what I have heard, then I would think he'd be in jail now. I find it incomprehensible that someone could consider my suggestion "tacit approval" of his reprehensible behavior. My suggestion is all about ending such behavior.

[blissyu2]

I guess that ultimately Wikipedia has no control over who "sneaks in". They can tag people as sock puppets as much as they like, and ban 100 people for every 1 that really is, and delete all of their contributions, and so forth, but in the end they are still going to sneak in. There is always going to be another cyber cafe, always another library, or friend, or ISP, let alone the various hacks you can use. Banning may ultimately seem rather fruitless.

And indeed in a broad sense if someone is contributing legitimately then there is no reason to punish them, as you can't prove for certain that someone is really someone else anyway. Treat them based on their actual actions not based on what you think they might secretly be doing.

And in the end the solution to the Amorrow situation is that the people concerned should seek to take real life action against him, not internet action. Banning him ultimately doesn't make any real difference. Wikipedia specifically, and all individuals harmed, should seek to take legal action against him.

Sadly, when I contacted Jimbo about this over a year ago, he was extremely reluctant to go down that route.

[everyking]

And in the end the solution to the Amorrow situation is that the people concerned should seek to take real life action against him, not internet action. Banning him ultimately doesn't make any real difference. Wikipedia specifically, and all individuals harmed, should seek to take legal action against him.

Absolutely, legal action seems appropriate, but if they aren't going to take it, or can't take it, I think there's an obligation to try something constructive rather than allow this situation to continue indefinitely. If they can't control what he does in real life, then banning him from Wikipedia does not solve the problem at all; a more realistic solution would be having him participate in WP on condition of, among other things, no real-life misconduct related to Wikipedians. In that way, you could use his Wikipedia participation as leverage, as a control mechanism.