Wikisource RfC Options

[Ottava]

I started an RfC to get some cross-wiki light on the isolated group at Wikisource.



If this is the wrong forum to post a message about it, then I apologize. There is no longer a visible thread on the matter, so I started this.

[Doc glasgow]

Wikisource is the toilet of Wikimedia.

It is full of utterly unsourced alleged quotations - it has no responsible quality control nor even theoretically adequate BLP response.

That it recruits the worst of admins surprises me not.

In this one instance, I'd agree with jimbo and simply delete the entire project as an educationally worthless moral hazard.

[thekohser]

It is full of utterly unsourced alleged quotations

Could you provide three examples, please?

[Doc glasgow]

It is full of utterly unsourced alleged quotations

Could you provide three examples, please?

Good grief - my bad!!

I misread "wikiquote" for "wikisource". So easily done, I mean one WMF toilet looks so much like another.


If you want examples of BLP problems on Wikisource, all you need to do is hit the random article function a couple of times.

Sorry for the mixup.

[thekohser]

Good grief - my bad!!

I misread "wikiquote" for "wikisource". So easily done, I mean one WMF toilet looks so much like another.


If you want examples of BLP problems on Wikisource, all you need to do is hit the random article function a couple of times.

Sorry for the mixup.

You know you did it again, right?

[Doc glasgow]

Good grief - my bad!!

I misread "wikiquote" for "wikisource". So easily done, I mean one WMF toilet looks so much like another.


If you want examples of BLP problems on Wikisource, all you need to do is hit the random article function a couple of times.

Sorry for the mixup.

You know you did it again, right?

I always go into the wrong toilet

[Detective]

I always go into the wrong toilet

I'm getting confused here. Isn't it Wikipedia that has all the disgusting porno articles? Isn't it Wikipedia where the good doctor is an admin? What is there in Wikiversity or Wiktionary or any of the other alleged toilets to match what the good doctor happily tolerates on Wikipedia?

[Ottava]

I always go into the wrong toilet

I'm getting confused here. Isn't it Wikipedia that has all the disgusting porno articles? Isn't it Wikipedia where the good doctor is an admin? What is there in Wikiversity or Wiktionary or any of the other alleged toilets to match what the good doctor happily tolerates on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia banned Poetlister and ensured that his socking harassment was not allowed to happen on that project.

Even with overwhelming evidence of abuse, the CUs at Wikisource knowingly helped and encouraged Poetlister to have a new account, run for adminship, and keep the other accounts used to harass people.

[Adrignola]

Even with overwhelming evidence of abuse, the CUs at Wikisource knowingly helped and encouraged Poetlister to have a new account, run for adminship, and keep the other accounts used to harass people.

Hypothetically, what if Poetlister were editing under a new name on another project where CUs were notified, no abuse was seen, enforcement of non-socking was performed through regular checks, and where actual positive contributions were being made? Would you hold it against CUs at that project if nothing malicious continued to occur, or do you feel they'd be obliged to "out" the user as soon as possible? What if it were a smaller project with no familiarity with the negative actions associated with the term "Poetlister"? Are you convinced that there is no possibility that this person could contribute constructively? Just curious what the limits are in your mind, for providing background to the RFC referenced as this thread's topic.

[Ottava]

Even with overwhelming evidence of abuse, the CUs at Wikisource knowingly helped and encouraged Poetlister to have a new account, run for adminship, and keep the other accounts used to harass people.

Hypothetically, what if Poetlister were editing under a new name on another project where CUs were notified, no abuse was seen, enforcement of non-socking was performed through regular checks, and where actual positive contributions were being made? Would you hold it against CUs at that project if nothing malicious continued to occur, or do you feel they'd be obliged to "out" the user as soon as possible? What if it were a smaller project with no familiarity with the negative actions associated with the term "Poetlister"? Are you convinced that there is no possibility that this person could contribute constructively? Just curious what the limits are in your mind, for providing background to the RFC referenced as this thread's topic.

Poetlister doesn't make positive contributions. It doesn't matter where on the WMF he is, he has spent over 4 years stalking various editors and seeks to get back onto en.wikipedia any way he can to help further get revenge on others.

The other projects are merely pawns to that end. This has been seen over and over, and he has stolen multiple real life identities to aid in that.

The guy belongs behind bars for his multiple identity thefts.



Edit for Somey:

Poetlister is not Amy Emberson.

Amy Emberson is a real person.

He is using a college email address with her name in it.

If that isn't identity theft, what is?

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 3rd January 2011, 9:04pm

[Somey]

Poetlister doesn't make positive contributions. It doesn't matter where on the WMF he is, he has spent over 4 years stalking various editors and seeks to get back onto en.wikipedia any way he can to help further get revenge on others.

The other projects are merely pawns to that end. This has been seen over and over, and he has stolen multiple real life identities to aid in that.

The guy belongs behind bars for his multiple identity thefts.

I fear you go too far, Mr. Ottava. The term "identity theft" doesn't at all describe what Mr. Poetguy was doing - "misappropriation of image," sure, but not "identity theft." (At best it might be grounds for a civil case, though I doubt it.) And of course you also used the word "stalking," which isn't an accurate description of what he was up to either.

I'm not saying he was a good guy or anything like that, and you're correct in that he's apparently trying to get back into en.wp in any way he can, but AFAIK he's fairly careful to avoid activities that are clearly and plainly illegal.

[Ottava]

Poetlister doesn't make positive contributions. It doesn't matter where on the WMF he is, he has spent over 4 years stalking various editors and seeks to get back onto en.wikipedia any way he can to help further get revenge on others.

The other projects are merely pawns to that end. This has been seen over and over, and he has stolen multiple real life identities to aid in that.

The guy belongs behind bars for his multiple identity thefts.

I fear you go too far, Mr. Ottava. The term "identity theft" doesn't at all describe what Mr. Poetguy was doing - "misappropriation of image," sure, but not "identity theft." (At best it might be grounds for a civil case, though I doubt it.) And of course you also used the word "stalking," which isn't an accurate description of what he was up to either.

I'm not saying he was a good guy or anything like that, and you're correct in that he's apparently trying to get back into en.wp in any way he can, but AFAIK he's fairly careful to avoid activities that are clearly and plainly illegal.

See my above edited message and the email I forwarded to you.

The individual is a real person and the email is real. Poetlister was passing him off as that person. What, do you want him trying to charge payments to their credit card too?

[lilburne]

The individual is a real person and the email is real. Poetlister was passing him off as that person. What, do you want him trying to charge payments to their credit card too?

I have an email under the name of lilburne, but lilburne died 350 years ago. I'm pretty sure that there are other lilburne's alive today today though. Is that identity theft? Of course it isn't. I have email addresses, a facebook account, a twitter account, a LJ account, under my primary pseudonym. In fact my primary pseudonym has accounts on all social networking sites. Identity theft?

[Ottava]

The individual is a real person and the email is real. Poetlister was passing him off as that person. What, do you want him trying to charge payments to their credit card too?

I have an email under the name of lilburne, but lilburne died 350 years ago. I'm pretty sure that there are other lilburne's alive today today though. Is that identity theft? Of course it isn't. I have email addresses, a facebook account, a twitter account, a LJ account, under my primary pseudonym. In fact my primary pseudonym has accounts on all social networking sites. Identity theft?

I said a real name and a real email address.

It was a university email address with someone who is registered at the university. This was not something he just made up on his own.

[lilburne]

It was a university email address with someone who is registered at the university. This was not something he just made up on his own.

If that is the case then all the response emails will be going to that email addy won't they, so either he owns that account, or that account holder is in cahoots.

PS I can get an email address set up at a University without any bother as I know a couple of sysadmins.
PPS I can also get a legitimate email address by registering as a distance learning student.