Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 86
- kołdry
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:24 am
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Trustee
- Posts: 14103
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I couldn't have written it better myself. Well said. Beeblebrox, please act as professional as on-wiki in your capacity as an arbitrator.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:22 pmSophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:57 pmYour hypocrisy is quite staggering.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:22 pmSophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
STFU, Eric.
You are the poster child for hypocrisy here.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
There's no bad guy and girl in this situation. It's simple feedback about the unexpectedly out-of-character responses you gave. Arguing and even further escalating is not what people expect from an arb, the beneficial action both to you and us would be to understand the complaint and let it be forgotten.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:22 pmSophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
How is one to understand a complaint that the complainer refuses to define in any meaningful way, and where their reasons for refusing to do so keep changing? Such techniques reek of bullshit, and I don't care if your name is Sophie or Jimbo or anything else, I don't have a lot of patience for people who throw bullshit at others and then play the victim when called out on it.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
<snip>
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Speaking only for myself, I understand that it's frustrating and (to some degree) unfair. Even on a relatively small-time site like this, admins have to put up with a lot of stuff like that and I, for one, can sympathize. But the word "bullshit" implies that this is an implausible scenario, and it's really not an implausible scenario. Most people who get pissed off at admin actions on WP still want to maintain the viability of their WP accounts, and the fear of retaliation and/or escalation makes them extremely reluctant to give any details about specific incidents or disputes they were involved in.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:47 pmHow is one to understand a complaint that the complainer refuses to define in any meaningful way, and where their reasons for refusing to do so keep changing? Such techniques reek of bullshit, and I don't care if your name is Sophie or Jimbo or anything else, I don't have a lot of patience for people who throw bullshit at others and then play the victim when called out on it.
But if and when you do find out what they did to get banned (or whatever), it often turns out that they were doing something they thought was useful, one particular admin decided it wasn't and told them to stop in a rude or brusque sort of way, they objected, and that was that — and now the person despises all admins, because the other admins did nothing (or not enough) to stop the first guy. From your perspective this is irrational, and it may well be "objectively" irrational, but of course the problem with Wikipedia is that you can't pre-screen for rationality.
Still, this allows you to assume that the person is extrapolating a general negative tendency (on the part of admins) from a single personal experience, and that's an advantage, but logically speaking it doesn't really allow you to dismiss the notion of the general tendency itself. On a site like this, that's not such a problem, and sometimes we can even admit to such tendencies and most people will at least appreciate that we're admitting to... something. But of course on Wikipedia the stakes are way, waaay higher, and there are far more admins.
-
- Trustee
- Posts: 14103
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Compare Sophie's probable path on Wikipedia to your path and then you will understand why I'm asking you to politely de-escalate. So far, you're doing the opposite, and as one other poster remarked, you could just move on from Sophie's remarks and let yours be forgotten. Try that instead.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:22 pmSophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
- Wikipedia User: Tarc
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Well, hell, if you're gonna let him back, maybe I'll appeal too.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:37 amIf I'm reading your block log correctly and this is you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... type=block then you would not be eligible for an appeal to arbcom. You can do it the easy way on your talk page if you're serious. 14 years is a long time and I actually wouldn't be surprised if your appeal was accepted.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Not impossible, but you'd need to write a very compelling appeal. I wasn't on the committee in 2015 (and was deliberately ignoring what it was doing) so I don't know exactly what this was about, but harassment is a hot-button issue that won't be easy to overcome, plus whatever these other "serious policy violations" were.Arbcom wrote:
For continued serious breaches of policy, including off-wiki harassment, Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
The precipitating event (which we covered in this thread, registration required, sorry) was that he posted something mean about User:Masem (T-C-L) on Twitter, but before that he'd engaged in an "experiment" (lasting about three months or so) during which he pretended to be a black dude.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:39 am...I don't know exactly what this was about, but harassment is a hot-button issue that won't be easy to overcome, plus whatever these other "serious policy violations" were.
I mean, we can laugh about it now...
-
- Critic
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 8:07 am
- Wikipedia User: Worm That Turned
- Actual Name: Dave Craven
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I think Beeblebrox is being a bit unfair in giving the impression that anyone could make a return, especially members of this forum. He's probably correct that given the right appeal, most people could clear the hurdle of persuading 8 out of 15 people who barely spend any time on the "shop floor"
However, it's not just that group that has to be persuaded. We do consult, be it the community by voting in public (or historically simply a community consultation) - or sometimes the Checkusers / functionaries as a group.... The fact is, if there is one person who holds a grudge against you who turns up, they can be very persuasive - and you don't get a right of reply.
Yes, I'm aware it's not fair. Appeals are stacked against the appellant. And No, I won't be putting in the herculean effort to get that changed for 3 reasons.
1) the stakes are too low. Wikipedia is just a website when all is said and done - there are far more important things to worry about
2) to have reached the "Arbcom appeal" eligibility, the appellant has crossed a line somewhere. If you haven't but are still eligible, the committee unblocks without rigmarole.
3) there are... other ways back. I am a strong advocate of a "quiet return" - where an individual comes back under the radar without the behaviours that got them in such a mess in the first place. I have user essay on the subject and it has been discussed here before.
I will generally make a bit more effort finding a solution for those people who edit under their real name, but I think that explains my stance generally.
However, it's not just that group that has to be persuaded. We do consult, be it the community by voting in public (or historically simply a community consultation) - or sometimes the Checkusers / functionaries as a group.... The fact is, if there is one person who holds a grudge against you who turns up, they can be very persuasive - and you don't get a right of reply.
Yes, I'm aware it's not fair. Appeals are stacked against the appellant. And No, I won't be putting in the herculean effort to get that changed for 3 reasons.
1) the stakes are too low. Wikipedia is just a website when all is said and done - there are far more important things to worry about
2) to have reached the "Arbcom appeal" eligibility, the appellant has crossed a line somewhere. If you haven't but are still eligible, the committee unblocks without rigmarole.
3) there are... other ways back. I am a strong advocate of a "quiet return" - where an individual comes back under the radar without the behaviours that got them in such a mess in the first place. I have user essay on the subject and it has been discussed here before.
I will generally make a bit more effort finding a solution for those people who edit under their real name, but I think that explains my stance generally.
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Do me next!
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
It's an opportunity to demonstrate worm's seriousness.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Critic
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 8:07 am
- Wikipedia User: Worm That Turned
- Actual Name: Dave Craven
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There are certain members of this forum - Vigilant, I include you in this number - who stand a snowball's chance in hell of returning in their current form. There are too many hurdles to overcome.
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I appreciate your honesty.turnedworm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:24 amPerhaps I wasn't clear enough. There are certain members of this forum - Vigilant, I include you in this number - who stand a snowball's chance in hell of returning in their current form. There are too many hurdles to overcome.
Given that it's been 14 years and that I was blocked out of process in the first place, doesn't it seem like the rules might be counter productive?
Doesn't it seem like a more formal and less subjective formulation of governance might be a better approach?
Does 100 angry chimps at ANI seem like the best approach to handling problems?
en.wp usually gets a chance to do the right thing. They just so rarely take it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Critic
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 8:07 am
- Wikipedia User: Worm That Turned
- Actual Name: Dave Craven
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
It's not been 14 years though, as you have been active here, and that would be taken into account.Vigilant wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:00 pmI appreciate your honesty.
Given that it's been 14 years and that I was blocked out of process in the first place, doesn't it seem like the rules might be counter productive?
Doesn't it seem like a more formal and less subjective formulation of governance might be a better approach?
Does 100 angry chimps at ANI seem like the best approach to handling problems?
en.wp usually gets a chance to do the right thing. They just so rarely take it.
I don't actually know the circumstances of your original block, or indeed your on-wiki username. I don't bother with researching individuals, I go by the debate that they are willing to provide in the location they provide it.
But to the general point, bans on Wikipedia are farcical. They are made by a tiny subset of the active community. De facto bans (where no one was willing to unblock) and this new 3 strike ban, moreso.
That's not to say that those subjected to bans should be unbanned. You'll probably find that most banned individuals would do better away from Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, so would most unbanned individuals.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Mods: Can we adopt that as the Board motto?turnedworm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:02 pmmost banned individuals would do better away from Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, so would most unbanned individuals.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I certainly didn't mean to imply it would be easy, but in Vig's case it wouldn't even be arbcom because it isn't the sort of block we review. A regular unblock request could be posted at any time to be reviewed by any admin. That being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.
Tarc's case is far more involved and clearly within the committees remit. But again, not sure if he's serious, plus it seems related to gamergate, which is not an area I'm keen to get involved in again without a very compelling reason.
Tarc's case is far more involved and clearly within the committees remit. But again, not sure if he's serious, plus it seems related to gamergate, which is not an area I'm keen to get involved in again without a very compelling reason.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vigilant~enwiki
I'm not sure I still have the pw.
I think this could be interesting.
Sadly, Vigilant is also taken.
I'll make a new account that is incontrovertibly me and announce such both here and there and let's just see what happens...
I'm not sure I still have the pw.
I think this could be interesting.
Sadly, Vigilant is also taken.
I'll make a new account that is incontrovertibly me and announce such both here and there and let's just see what happens...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Maybe this is just my opinion, but the desire for vindication seems to last a lot longer than the desire for revenge, and sometimes even longer that the desire for supermodel Bella Hadid. So... don't be too surprised if he follows up on this.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:48 pmThat being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Do you not think that, given his very public and prolonged vilification of anyone who goes back to Wikipedia, he is being just a tad hypocritical?Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:56 amMaybe this is just my opinion, but the desire for vindication seems to last a lot longer than the desire for revenge, and sometimes even longer that the desire for supermodel Bella Hadid. So... don't be too surprised if he follows up on this.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:48 pmThat being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Hmmm... The short answer would probably be "yes," but you'd have to qualify it by pointing out that every case is different, and at the time, he had a pretty good case. Obviously it was a long time ago, so many of our members won't remember what it was like, but back then the admins were tight — and it was fairly common for some random "cabalist" administrator to just show up and ban someone on the basis of WP:NOTHERE or some other recently-made-up rule, with no discussion, no review, no nothing. Appeals were almost always denied, if not simply ignored. Over the years that mode of admin behavior has been soundly rejected, to the point where they pretty much can't get away with it now — but of course they haven't gone back and said "oops, we're sorry" to the people who got a raw deal because of it.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:08 amDo you not think that, given his very public and prolonged vilification of anyone who goes back to Wikipedia, he is being just a tad hypocritical?
Like Mr. Turnedworm says, his subsequent ongoing criticism of WP (not to mention the often-coarse way he criticizes it) practically guarantees that he won't be allowed back in, but at the same time, you have to admit that he at least doesn't spend much time obsessing over the circumstances of that ban here, the way some others (cough, cough Kumioko cough) have done.
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
It's an exercise, don't overthink it.
Wouldn't that be funny though?
Corbett banned, Vigilant unbanned...
I can taste the tears already.
Wouldn't that be funny though?
Corbett banned, Vigilant unbanned...
I can taste the tears already.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Unilateral de-facto bans were a common thing back then? Around which years do you put that period when it was common and when did this change?Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:50 amObviously it was a long time ago, so many of our members won't remember what it was like, but back then the admins were tight — and it was fairly common for some random "cabalist" administrator to just show up and ban someone on the basis of WP:NOTHERE or some other recently-made-up rule, with no discussion, no review, no nothing. Appeals were almost always denied, if not simply ignored. Over the years that mode of admin behavior has been soundly rejected, to the point where they pretty much can't get away with it now — but of course they haven't gone back and said "oops, we're sorry" to the people who got a raw deal because of it.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
It coincided with the "explosive growth phase" from the latter half of 2004 through the latter half of 2007. I'd like to say it changed because Wikipedia Review become more widely-read, and I do think that public exposure/scrutiny had a lot to do with it, but there were really a number of factors involved and criticism sites (if not actual critics) were just one of them. A lot of people were really put off by the way Daniel Brandt was treated, for example, though it didn't seem that way at the time; that's really what led to the BLP policy, and while the BLP policy never did go far enough, it did help that it applied to user space too.
This also coincided with the rise of pure soclal-media sites (i.e., Facebook), which finally gave them something significant to feel superior to, and it was also in 2007 that Wikipedia entered the Alexa Top Ten. Once the stakes started rising that high, I suspect some of the people whose behavior had been unconstrained before started to realize they couldn't keep doing what they'd been doing without consequences, or at least not without being noticed. And who knows, maybe a few of them were just getting tired of it.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Thanks for the recollection. Do you think the new movement target of diversity and civility will give another boost to the visibility of such decisions and behavior - good or bad, does not matter -, in two words: to transparency and accountability?Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:00 amIt coincided with the "explosive growth phase" from the latter half of 2004 through the latter half of 2007. I'd like to say it changed because Wikipedia Review become more widely-read, and I do think that public exposure/scrutiny had a lot to do with it, but there were really a number of factors involved and criticism sites (if not actual critics) were just one of them. A lot of people were really put off by the way Daniel Brandt was treated, for example, though it didn't seem that way at the time; that's really what led to the BLP policy, and while the BLP policy never did go far enough, it did help that it applied to user space too.
This also coincided with the rise of pure soclal-media sites (i.e., Facebook), which finally gave them something significant to feel superior to, and it was also in 2007 that Wikipedia entered the Alexa Top Ten. Once the stakes started rising that high, I suspect some of the people whose behavior had been unconstrained before started to realize they couldn't keep doing what they'd been doing without consequences, or at least not without being noticed. And who knows, maybe a few of them were just getting tired of it.
This question is also addressed to the arbitrators present.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9969
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I guess nobody can predict the future, but if they do somehow manage to increase user diversity during the next decade, it's probably fair to assume that conventional wisdom should apply — more women will improve internal relations, more ethnicities will upset internal relations. And as we've seen, when really serious ethnic conflicts are translated into disputes between WP users, it puts a lot of pressure on the admins to understand the nature of those conflicts, which is hard for anyone. The temptation to just say "a pox on both your houses" is enormous, but sometimes that just doubles the amount of criticism they get from the people affected.Osborne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:33 amThanks for the recollection. Do you think the new movement target of diversity and civility will give another boost to the visibility of such decisions and behavior - good or bad, does not matter -, in two words: to transparency and accountability?
This question is also addressed to the arbitrators present.
I'm bloviating a bit here, but I suspect the visibility of the admins (and their decisions) is already about as high as it's likely to get — because as we've also seen, journalists don't like explaining (much less researching) the complex backgrounds of Wikipedia disputes. So if that visibility really is crucial to how they behave, then I doubt their behavior will get much better than it is now.
Meanwhile, it obviously helps a lot that they have Wikipedias for lots of different languages, since that causes users to "self-separate," but of course that's less of an advantage on the English WP because so many people around the world are fluent in English, and en.wiki is much bigger than the others. So the en.wiki admins will disproportionately be affected by increased ethnic diversity, if it ever happens.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying increased ethnic diversity is bad in general, just that it's likely to lead to increasing problems for the admins.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
What is needed is to have a lot more admins who are active and competent. That's a tall order, especially the competence. As we've seen recently, good candidates can struggle at RfA because what the community seems to be looking for in an admin candidate isn't necessarily well correlated with what we might regard as competence.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Last time I checked there were more than a thousand admins, but only 3000 very active editors (those who determine policies and outcomes of disputes).Poetlister wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:01 amWhat is needed is to have a lot more admins who are active and competent. That's a tall order, especially the competence. As we've seen recently, good candidates can struggle at RfA because what the community seems to be looking for in an admin candidate isn't necessarily well correlated with what we might regard as competence.
This imho is a manifestation of the insider culture: those who reached the edit count to become admin without getting into trouble with the wrong persons are made exempt of the rules for life and free to abuse those who are unknown, such as new users.
I think your emphasis is on more admins should be "competent", not that we need more admins. I'm stunned at the lack of knowledge, understanding and proper application of policies by those who attained elevated rights.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:16 am
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
But is he wrong?Vigilant wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:24 pmEric Corbett wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:57 pmYour hypocrisy is quite staggering.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:22 pmSophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.Zoloft wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 amBeeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:26 amWhat the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.Sophie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:21 pmReally cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?
STFU, Eric.
You are the poster child for hypocrisy here.
-
- Nice Scum
- Posts: 3063
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Most of the time yes.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31850
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Behold, Eric Corbett, a chav on the lash, cast rudely from wikipedia and cursed to purgatory... a comedy in seven parts.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
That's why I said "active and competent". If all the existing good admins (including ones who have lost the bit through inactivity) could be persuaded to be really active, that would be a vast improvement. (Getting rid of a few less good ones would also help of course.)
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Before I agreed with you I'd like to have a clearer idea of what it is you think that Wikipedia administrators ought to be doing. The common janitorial reference suggests that they're there to move pages around,, clean up afterwards, delete stuff that really shouldn't be there, and things like that. But too many take it upon themselves to block editors for stupid reasons like using words they don't understand, such as "sycophantic". Removing the ability for administrators to block other editors would be a major step in the right direction.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:58 pmThat's why I said "active and competent". If all the existing good admins (including ones who have lost the bit through inactivity) could be persuaded to be really active, that would be a vast improvement. (Getting rid of a few less good ones would also help of course.)
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
The main function of an admin should be to make editing easier for those who are really there to build an encyclopaedia, by helping novices, resolving disputes and getting rid of troublemakers.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:07 pmBefore I agreed with you I'd like to have a clearer idea of what it is you think that Wikipedia administrators ought to be doing. The common janitorial reference suggests that they're there to move pages around,, clean up afterwards, delete stuff that really shouldn't be there, and things like that. But too many take it upon themselves to block editors for stupid reasons like using words they don't understand, such as "sycophantic". Removing the ability for administrators to block other editors would be a major step in the right direction.
Someone needs to be able to block editors when necessary, but good people will know when it is and is not necessary. I have suggested unbundling admin rights, so there could be a separate "blocker" category of editors. However, even if that were to happen there would doubtless be people who acquired both admin and blocker rights eventually, just at there are people who are at least two of bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser (and all people with any of those rights are admins).
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
That's not entirely true. For some time there Xeno (T-C-L) was a 'crat but not an admin. He only took the tools back after being elected to arbcom, technically making him the first non-admin to ever be elected to the committee.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
So in the entire history of Wikipedia you have only one counter example?
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Someone does indeed need to block editors when necessary, but that's not a janitorial role.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:27 pmSomeone needs to be able to block editors when necessary, but good people will know when it is and is not necessary. I have suggested unbundling admin rights, so there could be a separate "blocker" category of editors. However, even if that were to happen there would doubtless be people who acquired both admin and blocker rights eventually, just at there are people who are at least two of bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser (and all people with any of those rights are admins).
I'm not sure a "blocker" category of user is the right way to go though, sounds too much like a nightclub bouncer. A better idea I think would be to have two classes of administrators, ones who can block and ones who can't without applying for that right via a mini RfA. Same applies to other user rights lazily handed out by the developers, such as template editor.
In other words, the "bottom" level of administrator does the basic janitorial tasks only, which would satisfy the WMF's insistence on an RfA for the right to see deleted content.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
There should be two EXCLUSIVE classes (no two hats for the same person), as Eric suggests. How I would distinguish these roles:Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:52 pmI'm not sure a "blocker" category of user is the right way to go though, sounds too much like a nightclub bouncer. A better idea I think would be to have two classes of administrators, ones who can block and ones who can't without applying for that right via a mini RfA. Same applies to other user rights lazily handed out by the developers, such as template editor.
One role who gets the tools for mass-editing, revert, page protection and 2 kinds of damage-mitigating blocks:
* vandals with <100 good edits (these come en masse), whose recent edits were reverted
* temporary 1-day/1-week block for egregious behavior, only on the affected page / namespace (if many pages)
This is practically the current admin role without the abused blocking rights, but retaining the tool for damage-mitigation.
The other role is "Dispute resolver", who's trained in some kind of dispute resolution process such as mediation or arbitration,
tasked with - well - resolving disputes and - if deemed necessary by at least 3 dispute resolvers - having the capability to enact up to one year long blocks.
The agreement must be the outcome of a proper process that evaluates the issues and possible resolutions.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2066
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
- Actual Name: Eric Corbett
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Too sensible ever to be adopted, and I like your idea about the classes being exclusive.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
I'm not convinced that the two classes should be exclusive, any more than say checkuser and oversighter should be exclusive. However, that's broadly what I have in mind. The idea that every privilege however trivial, like say rollbacker (easily duplicated with a gadget), should require the equivalent of an RfA sounds like overkill. It would choke up the system. And something like template editor should be decided by people competent to assess that person's ability to perform such a technical function; a mob rule popularity contest would scarcely be sensible there.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
The RfA process is already a populist meat-grinder, hardly about the merits of the candidates: the stakes of a for-life, partially above-the-rules position are too high.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:28 amThe idea that every privilege however trivial, like say rollbacker (easily duplicated with a gadget), should require the equivalent of an RfA sounds like overkill. It would choke up the system.
Adminship (and rollback usage, etc.) should be instead reviewed annually in a process that's purpose is feedback to the admin, not a requirement to keep the tools.
Editors who know the reviewed admin are asked to share their experiences - good and bad - and the admin is required to address the complaints either with actions in-situ - that is satisfactory to more parties than the original action (fix the problem in other terms) - and/or by promising to improve future actions. These promises serve as a reference for next year's review.
If the administrator is not open to considering the complaints and the complainant finds this a serious issue, then an admin re-RfA should be started with one of the already discussed processes that require a certain number of signatures to start a standard RfA vote. Should that RfA vote fail, the editor can run RfA again a year later.
I see the underpinnings of such a system in the last round of the Movement Strategy proposals. How that will be implemented, is to be seen though.
Absolutely. Generally, there should be semi-formal groups for certain responsibilities, transparently declared and accountable. This is also something hinted at in the proposals. I note that there are groups in the communities that make such decisions, however, these are ad-hoc, undeclared and unaccountable, mostly serving personal acquaintances and personal benefits, not the community's, the encyclopedia's and the wider movement's purposes and needs.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:28 amAnd something like template editor should be decided by people competent to assess that person's ability to perform such a technical function; a mob rule popularity contest would scarcely be sensible there.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting
Undoubtedly admins should be reviewed regularly, and I think that on Wikisource there are annual reviews. Considering how much larger WP is, annual reviews there would take quite a lot of time. Maybe there shoud be a review after one year, and after that every three years would do. I see no point in doing it for rollbackers, given how trivial that permission is.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche