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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
carbuncle
post Thu 17th September 2009, 6:13pm
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list.
QUOTE
Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed.

I am not sure what to do about this archive. I will forward it to the Arbcom and I could provide it to any administrator I trust. I would not give it to nonadmins (including Russavia himself) or anybody else (unless the authors give me permissions) as it contain a significant amount of personal information that might be abused. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 17th September 2009, 6:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Thu 17th September 2009, 6:21pm
Post #2


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



And the plot thickens. Some Wikipedians are dropping bricks from their bums today, I bet.

Someone grab the popcorn. This, my friends, should be a good show. popcorn.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MBisanz
post Thu 17th September 2009, 8:06pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun 13th Apr 2008, 6:00am
Member No.: 5,693

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at least a colorable claim to the allegations: WP:AC/N#Eastern European mailing list.

This post has been edited by MBisanz: Thu 17th September 2009, 8:08pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nja247
post Thu 17th September 2009, 8:21pm
Post #4


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 12:00pm
Member No.: 13,118



I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 17th September 2009, 8:51pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Here is the full disclosure:

Wikipedia is a multi-player role-playing game, disguised as an encyclopedia. Anyone who seems shocked or disturbed when this truth is empirically revealed has either lost the game or is feigning their shock or distress.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Thu 17th September 2009, 9:02pm
Post #6


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Nja247 @ Thu 17th September 2009, 4:21pm) *

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Thu 17th September 2009, 9:09pm
Post #7


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:02pm) *

QUOTE(Nja247 @ Thu 17th September 2009, 4:21pm) *

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.

If there really are 3000 emails it would be pretty impractical to release a redacted copy and not make any mistakes. If this ends up being the evidence used for permanent desyopping and sanctions, I would like to see disclosure and discussion of redacted examples as part of Arbcom's formal decision.

Folks shouldn't hold their breath, though. This could take a while.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 17th September 2009, 9:18pm
Post #8


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:02pm) *

QUOTE(Nja247 @ Thu 17th September 2009, 4:21pm) *

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 17th September 2009, 9:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Thu 17th September 2009, 9:20pm
Post #9


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Thu 17th September 2009, 5:09pm) *

If there really are 3000 emails it would be pretty impractical to release a redacted copy and not make any mistakes. If this ends up being the evidence used for permanent desyopping and sanctions, I would like to see disclosure and discussion of redacted examples as part of Arbcom's formal decision.

Folks shouldn't hold their breath, though. This could take a while.

No, no. Not the whole archive. I mean certain emails. The most damning. This way the community knows what went on.

Releasing them all would be... well, it reminds me of when Kelly Martin was releasing early ArbCom-l emails individually. I forget who it was, but someone described it best as "intensely boring." It would probably be much like that to go through them all.

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 17th September 2009, 5:18pm) *

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

Are you one of the accused? If not, your AGF is staggering.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 17th September 2009, 9:50pm
Post #10


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:20pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 17th September 2009, 5:18pm) *

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

Are you one of the accused? If not, your AGF is staggering.


I'm practising up for my RFA. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 17th September 2009, 10:16pm
Post #11


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

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



So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Fri 18th September 2009, 1:09am
Post #12


Postmaster
*******

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 17th September 2009, 10:16pm) *

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?


The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 18th September 2009, 1:10am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 18th September 2009, 1:18am
Post #13


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:09pm) *
The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Backslashforwardslash
post Fri 18th September 2009, 1:53am
Post #14


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 16th Sep 2009, 3:28pm
Member No.: 13,838

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th September 2009, 8:16am) *

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia?


He's Australian, but that doesn't mean he hasn't got Russian heritage.

This post has been edited by Backslashforwardslash: Fri 18th September 2009, 1:54am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Fri 18th September 2009, 2:25am
Post #15


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:18pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:09pm) *
The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

Yes, we get it. Game. Gangs. Players. MMPORG. Leveling up. We got it, Moulton. We got it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Fri 18th September 2009, 5:22am
Post #16


Postmaster
*******

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



A case has been opened.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nevo
post Fri 18th September 2009, 5:48am
Post #17


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri 24th Aug 2007, 8:48pm
Member No.: 2,678



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 17th September 2009, 4:16pm) *

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

Oh, common! Russians got the whole state behind them with internet brigades and Historical Truth commissions funded by the Kremlin. If someone needed that badly to gang up against them, there was a reason why they couldn't be dealt with otherwise.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 18th September 2009, 9:10am
Post #18


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponents have gained infamy
for idiotic editwarring over articles related to Russia and the Baltics.

Digwuren can claim this mess as his very own. A lousy Arbcom decision, if I did say so myself.

(Oddly, WR people thought Piotrus was a good guy, earlier this year. A guy
pushing a pro-Polish POV, in apparent violation of WP rules, is a good guy? Really?)

As Everyking said 2 years ago:
QUOTE
East European political articles, particularly regarding the Soviet era, are infested with extreme nationalism, Russophobia, and history distorted to the point of comedy. The worst ones I've seen pertain to the Baltic states. From what I've seen, it is not a case of warring POVs nearly so much as it is one POV exercising almost absolute control.


This makes one wonder: are there other mailing lists that assholes use to
secretly coordinate slimy attacks on their WP opponents??.........
golly, isn't this familiar sounding???.......... evilgrin.gif


(And I notice they were talking about the mailing list contents being posted online
somewhere, openly readable by all. Wonder where. Yeah, I'm a sickie.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 18th September 2009, 9:14am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Fri 18th September 2009, 11:20am
Post #19


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,148
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 18th September 2009, 9:10am) *

FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponents have gained infamy
for idiotic editwarring over articles related to Russia and the Baltics.

Digwuren can claim this mess as his very own. A lousy Arbcom decision, if I did say so myself.

(Oddly, WR people thought Piotrus was a good guy, earlier this year. A guy
pushing a pro-Polish POV, in apparent violation of WP rules, is a good guy? Really?)

As Everyking said 2 years ago:
QUOTE
East European political articles, particularly regarding the Soviet era, are infested with extreme nationalism, Russophobia, and history distorted to the point of comedy. The worst ones I've seen pertain to the Baltic states. From what I've seen, it is not a case of warring POVs nearly so much as it is one POV exercising almost absolute control.


This makes one wonder: are there other mailing lists that assholes use to
secretly coordinate slimy attacks on their WP opponents??.........
golly, isn't this familiar sounding???.......... evilgrin.gif


(And I notice they were talking about the mailing list contents being posted online
somewhere, openly readable by all. Wonder where. Yeah, I'm a sickie.)

You mean, an attack like this?
Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MBisanz
post Fri 18th September 2009, 2:06pm
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun 13th Apr 2008, 6:00am
Member No.: 5,693

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 17th September 2009, 11:16pm) *

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

This is one of the long running trends I have seen. Basically there is an unreasonable editor pushing a POV or some other wiki-crime. But the other side facing them wants so complete a POV victory and lacks the range of skills of debate required to show the POV pusher is wrong, that they resort to the heavy handed tactics documented in so many cases (Cold Fusion, WMC-Abd, JzG-Abd, Homeopathy, etc).

I would imagine 90% of the people in this forum are closer to "the house's" view of Scientology than the COFS' view of its own religion, but objected to the way in which "the house" handled the cases over the years.

So I would not be surprised at all to learn that Russavia has an extreme POV or that he is pushing a POV. Just that his opposition couldn't articulate it to the satisfaction of the community and turned to these alleged mailing list shenanigans to accomplish the same result.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

13 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: 19th 9 14, 7:50pm