WMF Global Ban Policy

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12229
kołdry
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:11 pm

Triptych wrote:
Zoloft wrote:But sniping a few choice members over a period of the next 90 days? Quite possible. The indicator on that one is Poetlister. No current danger or harm, old case. Still nuclear-banned.
Oh that's true isn't it? They dug him from the dusty archives. WTF? And Poetlister is well-behaved here.
Yes, WMF are playing with a new toy. I'm fairly sure they do also want to saturate the list with all sorts of sinners so that being listed up is not equated with being Pedo Bear approved, which might be legally problematic...

Listing Mr. Kohs for no real reason would be about par for the course for the way that those people operate. And as soon as they can figure out a way to off the symbolic sinner Eric Corbett, they will...

RfB

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:33 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:Odds that Corbett gets hit with one of these San Fran Bans (I like that, by the way) in 2015: 12%

Odds that I get hit: 37%
Decently set odds. I'd definitely take Corbett Gone for a fiver if someone was really paying 8-1.

You at 2.75-1? That's a scarier proposition. I'd probably lay another five on that outcome.

RfB
Money is better on the double. If they San Fran ban Eric, they'll almost certainly SF ban Greg before hand. That's a single fiver at 20-1, with the same risk to you as the 8-1. Of course a real bookie would only offer odds on "next to ban".
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:40 am

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:You at 2.75-1? That's a scarier proposition. I'd probably lay another five on that outcome.
Problem is, I can influence the outcome of that one. I'd just need to take a selfie of me putting a hedgehog in Tretikov's mailbox, and bam, I'm San Fran Banned.
If you do, please, please, please make it a cheese sandwich.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3152
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by DanMurphy » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:44 am

Someone said "hedgehog" and I like this, so:

Image

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:11 am

Randy from Boise wrote:They don't need a community or a consensus or a stated rationale; they just need to have their own employees at WMF Legal back them up and to do it.
Yes, but you're not addressing the insanity of them stepping in now, and banning Eric, when the community-driven process seems to have worked nicely. Our patience with him is exhausted. Many spent a great deal of political capital seeing him through that last fracas. Should Eric break his commitment, most of his supporters and all of his more level-headed supporters - the opinion leaders - will, with sadness, back a very lengthy ban. And that will happen at ANI, not ArbCom.

If the foundation steps in before that process has played out, it would be lunacy.

Jimbo's "Kill the pig! Kill the pig!" ranting is very disappointing and just shows how out of the loop he really is. I'm sure he still thinks Eric is a misogynist.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:22 am

thekohser wrote:Odds that Corbett gets hit with one of these San Fran Bans (I like that, by the way) in 2015: 12%

Odds that I get hit: 37%
I agree with your 37% but would put Eric at 0.1%.

User avatar
auriental
Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:20 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by auriental » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:25 am

Triptych wrote:Oh that's true isn't it? They dug him from the dusty archives. WTF? And Poetlister is well-behaved here.
Dare I say because he is treated with at least a modicum of civility here—as opposed to hung without trial (in the other place)?
:deadhorse:
The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we presently imagine we own. -- H. G. Wells

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:33 pm

Of course, a WMF ban is supposed to stop you using any site, so you can't take refuge in the Scots Wikipedia or even Wiktionary, ArbCom of course can only ban you from English Wikipedia.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12229
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:53 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:Odds that Corbett gets hit with one of these San Fran Bans (I like that, by the way) in 2015: 12%

Odds that I get hit: 37%
Decently set odds. I'd definitely take Corbett Gone for a fiver if someone was really paying 8-1.

You at 2.75-1? That's a scarier proposition. I'd probably lay another five on that outcome.

RfB
Money is better on the double. If they San Fran ban Eric, they'll almost certainly SF ban Greg before hand. That's a single fiver at 20-1, with the same risk to you as the 8-1. Of course a real bookie would only offer odds on "next to ban".
That does seem to be easy money, doesn't it?

To lose money on Greg on a "Next To Ban" proposition, I'd need something like 10 to 1.

RfB

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:02 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:Odds that Corbett gets hit with one of these San Fran Bans (I like that, by the way) in 2015: 12%

Odds that I get hit: 37%
Decently set odds. I'd definitely take Corbett Gone for a fiver if someone was really paying 8-1.

You at 2.75-1? That's a scarier proposition. I'd probably lay another five on that outcome.

RfB
Money is better on the double. If they San Fran ban Eric, they'll almost certainly SF ban Greg before hand. That's a single fiver at 20-1, with the same risk to you as the 8-1. Of course a real bookie would only offer odds on "next to ban".
That does seem to be easy money, doesn't it?

To lose money on Greg on a "Next To Ban" proposition, I'd need something like 10 to 1.

RfB
I'm tempted (but not going to) offer that. I find it unlikely that legal would approve a San Fran ban for Greg.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:20 am

Notvelty wrote:I'm tempted (but not going to) offer that. I find it unlikely that legal would approve a San Fran ban for Greg.
+1
This is not a signature.

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by eagle » Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:21 am

Since the Kohster stopped editing Wikipedia a long time ago, he would have to be judged under the Terms of Service in effect at that time, as he has never agreed to any of the subsequent amendments.

WMF can only amend the terms of service prospectively, not retroactively. So, I can't see any grounds to add Mr. Kohs to the Global Ban List. Thanks,

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:20 am

eagle wrote:Since the Kohster stopped editing Wikipedia a long time ago, he would have to be judged under the Terms of Service in effect at that time, as he has never agreed to any of the subsequent amendments.

WMF can only amend the terms of service prospectively, not retroactively. So, I can't see any grounds to add Mr. Kohs to the Global Ban List. Thanks,
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Poetlister » Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:10 pm

thekohser wrote:
eagle wrote:Since the Kohster stopped editing Wikipedia a long time ago, he would have to be judged under the Terms of Service in effect at that time, as he has never agreed to any of the subsequent amendments.

WMF can only amend the terms of service prospectively, not retroactively. So, I can't see any grounds to add Mr. Kohs to the Global Ban List. Thanks,
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
I quite agree.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by eagle » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:23 am

Suppose that Wikipedia editor X makes an edit that complies with the literal wording of the Terms of Service as it existed on the date of the edit. If editor X stops editing, and then the WMF amends the Terms of Service to outlaw the type of edit that X had made, the Terms of Service have not been violated because the Terms of Service is a contract and editor X has not agreed to that amended contract by clicking through the edit window. So editor X could not be globally banned for violating the Terms of Service.

I realize that this principle is hard to apply on a website where almost everyone is editing under an assumed name or IP address. It makes disciplinary action based on off-wiki conduct very difficult. It makes amending the Terms of Service a very tricky process.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:36 am

eagle wrote:Suppose that Wikipedia editor X makes an edit that complies with the literal wording of the Terms of Service as it existed on the date of the edit. If editor X stops editing, and then the WMF amends the Terms of Service to outlaw the type of edit that X had made, the Terms of Service have not been violated because the Terms of Service is a contract and editor X has not agreed to that amended contract by clicking through the edit window. So editor X could not be globally banned for violating the Terms of Service.

I realize that this principle is hard to apply on a website where almost everyone is editing under an assumed name or IP address. It makes disciplinary action based on off-wiki conduct very difficult. It makes amending the Terms of Service a very tricky process.
And nobody really cares, because in reality the WMF can ban anyone it wants for anything it wants at any time, legalistic twaddle such as the foregoing notwithstanding.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:59 pm

Certainly in English law, there is no contract because there is no consideration. If the WMF says "please make this donation and in exchange we guarantee that you have the right to edit", that is a contract, but I can't imagine that even the WMF is that enough to say that.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
MoldyHay
Critic
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:51 pm
Wikipedia User: many different IPs

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by MoldyHay » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:45 am

Poetlister wrote:Certainly in English law, there is no contract because there is no consideration. If the WMF says "please make this donation and in exchange we guarantee that you have the right to edit", that is a contract, but I can't imagine that even the WMF is that enough to say that.
They said the exact opposite during the Merkey ArbCom case, IIRC, in response to some of his stupidity.
UPE on behalf of Big Popcorn :popcorn:

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31762
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:01 am

MoldyHay wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Certainly in English law, there is no contract because there is no consideration. If the WMF says "please make this donation and in exchange we guarantee that you have the right to edit", that is a contract, but I can't imagine that even the WMF is that enough to say that.
They said the exact opposite during the Merkey ArbCom case, IIRC, in response to some of his stupidity.
Another veteran...
Welcome, brother.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Triptych
Retired
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:35 am
Wikipedia User: it's alliterative

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Triptych » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:24 pm

Vigilant wrote:
MoldyHay wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Certainly in English law, there is no contract because there is no consideration. If the WMF says "please make this donation and in exchange we guarantee that you have the right to edit", that is a contract, but I can't imagine that even the WMF is that enough to say that.
They said the exact opposite during the Merkey ArbCom case, IIRC, in response to some of his stupidity.
Another veteran...
Welcome, brother.
In the case of administrators, I've often thought that they get non-monetary consideration in that they are granted power over others. Face it, the majority of those types love to block other people. So they do some administrative stuff for the WMF in order to get the accesses to go after those that annoy them. And stalk them with checkuser and so forth. Enjoyment. Non-monetary compensation. "I'll sweep the floor if you let me in to Disneyland."
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:26 pm

Triptych wrote:In the case of administrators, I've often thought that they get non-monetary consideration in that they are granted power over others. Face it, the majority of those types love to block other people. So they do some administrative stuff for the WMF in order to get the accesses to go after those that annoy them. And stalk them with checkuser and so forth. Enjoyment. Non-monetary compensation. "I'll sweep the floor if you let me in to Disneyland."
Generally correct, until the move to San Francisco, when the WMF started hiring the "truly faithful" as actual employees. I've been wondering if this is a major reason why the administrative "corps" has gotten so corrupt and abusive lately. Because they smell a buck to finally be made from all that volunteer work. Also, most of the admins who only wrote content have given up, leaving patrollers, bot drivers and crazies. The shit we're observing now will probably get worse in the coming years.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12229
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:43 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Triptych wrote:In the case of administrators, I've often thought that they get non-monetary consideration in that they are granted power over others. Face it, the majority of those types love to block other people. So they do some administrative stuff for the WMF in order to get the accesses to go after those that annoy them. And stalk them with checkuser and so forth. Enjoyment. Non-monetary compensation. "I'll sweep the floor if you let me in to Disneyland."
Generally correct, until the move to San Francisco, when the WMF started hiring the "truly faithful" as actual employees. I've been wondering if this is a major reason why the administrative "corps" has gotten so corrupt and abusive lately. Because they smell a buck to finally be made from all that volunteer work. Also, most of the admins who only wrote content have given up, leaving patrollers, bot drivers and crazies. The shit we're observing now will probably get worse in the coming years.
There is an interesting discussion here but it's not germane to this thread: what are the long-term trends in the editing behavior of those with the toolbox?

I think you are right that the content-writing Admins are fewer and farther between... I believe, however, that to some extent this is a byproduct of a growing recognition that content writing and patrolling are complementary-but-dissimilar activities on Wikipedia, and that those whose primary activity is writing or copyediting have little real need for the toolbox and aren't seeking it. Moreover, sometimes those who do seek it aren't being given it, for lack of demonstrating a "need" which does not actually exist.

My own belief has long been that the most liberating thing for a content writer to do is raise a rigid middle digit to the notion that "Adminship is promotion" and RFA is a necessary part of the validation process. At the same time, it is fine to acknowledge that it is a needed thing for the patroller types as an enforcement mechanism. Admins are not the enemy, I have learned over the course of years...

The number of times I have found myself wishing I had tools can be counted on one hand: during the Norton case, and maybe three or four times when I couldn't make a page move because the software stopped me from doing so. Adminship really is "no big deal" if you are a content person with no intention of ever blocking anybody for anything...

The bottom line is this: Administrators aren't getting "more patrollery," they are more patrollery because content writers are staying away, or being kept away. I don't think this has anything to do with the bloated DDD money teats on the San Francisco WMF sow...

RfB

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Hex » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:17 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Adminship really is "no big deal" if you are a content person with no intention of ever blocking anybody for anything...
That describes my experience of having access to the toolbox perfectly. On the few occasions where I did use the block function it was as a last resort (obvious vandals and the like) and I always found it fairly distasteful to do. Apart from that, it was just a bunch of useful stuff that made editing easier.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4782
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by tarantino » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:41 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Having spent some time reading over the Commons opt-out debate on this new San Fran Ban process, comments were made to the effect that while there is no way to opt out of WMF's Terms of Service, their bans can be subverted if nobody reports those socking around the ban. It's not like WMF has the will to monitor such things themselves... It was pointed out that there are many people who don't like Russavia and that there would probably be no shortage of hall monitors in that specific case.

The point is interesting, however — WMF is going to need the assistance of collaborators from within the various projects to report suspected violators of the San Fran Bans. And collaborators are vulnerable to retaliation.

Essentially, WMF is hoping to unilaterally legislate and judge without establishing its own police force...
The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:56 pm

tarantino wrote:... Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
:rotfl:

jesus, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the guy, being so addicted to the place. Hope he gets it out of his system soon and moves on to bitcoin trading or something.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3152
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by DanMurphy » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:08 am

Ross McPherson wrote:@Hex

Here is a question for you (and a chance for me to see if I am on your ignore list):

If you find blocking distasteful, why aren't you using your admin powers to unblock the victims of your less sensitive 'peers'? I should add that I have no personal stake in this as I have put Wikipedia at the very top of my own ignore list.

@Zoloft

I think this question is relevant as it could shed some light on the blocking culture.
He quit in disgust last August.

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:17 am

tarantino wrote:The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
How long will this game of whack-a-mole last? How much time and money is the WMF willing to devote towards keeping Russavia off Wikimedia? They'll stop eventually. They'll either give up or go to court, and I doubt that they'll go to court over something like this, especially given that Russavia lives outside of the US.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12229
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:16 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
tarantino wrote:The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
How long will this game of whack-a-mole last? How much time and money is the WMF willing to devote towards keeping Russavia off Wikimedia? They'll stop eventually. They'll either give up or go to court, and I doubt that they'll go to court over something like this, especially given that Russavia lives outside of the US.
Whac-a-Mole is inevitable as long as Wikipedia refuses to require verified registration and sign-in-to-edit — a status quo favored by a huge majority of participants, it seems. The benefits of anonymity that accrue with the Anyone Can Edit thang have value to them... So, in answer to your question: this will go on indefinitely.

Russavia is both a very productive and useful contributor and the King of Trolls. It's interesting to see how his case turns out... I suspect Commons will gain a new contributor of airplane photos called Norman from Nizhnyi Novgorod (T-C-L) in about three months' time...

RfB

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:25 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
tarantino wrote:... Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
:rotfl:

jesus, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the guy, being so addicted to the place. Hope he gets it out of his system soon and moves on to bitcoin trading or something.
Never, EVER feel sorry for Scott. He won't reciprocate because he's a sociopath. If someone died in front of him in the street, he'd probably walk around the corpse, muttering "'ere now don't mess on my shoes".

He IS Wikipedia.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Anroth » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:29 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
tarantino wrote:The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
How long will this game of whack-a-mole last? How much time and money is the WMF willing to devote towards keeping Russavia off Wikimedia? They'll stop eventually. They'll either give up or go to court, and I doubt that they'll go to court over something like this, especially given that Russavia lives outside of the US.
Shame he doesnt live in the UK, we are happy to deport people who break stupid laws in other countries...

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:19 am

tarantino wrote:Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
I suppose Jimbo would call for the deletion of all such uploads by a globally banned user.

Well, except maybe for this one.

And this one.

And maybe this one can stay.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Cedric
Habitué
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:01 am
Wikipedia User: Edeans
Wikipedia Review Member: Cedric
Actual Name: Eddie Singleton
Location: God's Ain Country

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Cedric » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:15 am

EricBarbour wrote:Generally correct, until the move to San Francisco, when the WMF started hiring the "truly faithful" as actual employees. I've been wondering if this is a major reason why the administrative "corps" has gotten so corrupt and abusive lately. Because they smell a buck to finally be made from all that volunteer work. Also, most of the admins who only wrote content have given up, leaving patrollers, bot drivers and crazies. The shit we're observing now will probably get worse in the coming years.
DING! DING! DING!

The Day is Hastening. :D

User avatar
Ross McPherson
Gregarious
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Ross McPherson » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:47 am

DanMurphy wrote:
Ross McPherson wrote:@Hex

Here is a question for you (and a chance for me to see if I am on your ignore list):

If you find blocking distasteful, why aren't you using your admin powers to unblock the victims of your less sensitive 'peers'? I should add that I have no personal stake in this as I have put Wikipedia at the very top of my own ignore list.

@Zoloft

I think this question is relevant as it could shed some light on the blocking culture.
He quit in disgust last August.
He has rocketed to near top of my hero list.

If he had hung onto his buttons long enough to do some damage, he would have moved right to the top. Too many Wikipedians go too quietly. Out of respect for the dream, I guess. Yes the honourable thing to do is put a pistol to your own mouth and politely blow your brains out.

Otherwise nothing so much became him at Wikipedia as his manner of leaving it.

Well done Hex! :always:
Thoroughly impartial

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Hex » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:52 am

Aw, thank you Image
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:33 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
tarantino wrote:The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
How long will this game of whack-a-mole last? How much time and money is the WMF willing to devote towards keeping Russavia off Wikimedia? They'll stop eventually. They'll either give up or go to court, and I doubt that they'll go to court over something like this, especially given that Russavia lives outside of the US.
Just to clarify: The three "they's" in my post refers to the WMF.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 14073
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
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:51 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:
tarantino wrote:The wmf are monitoring such things themselves.

Russavia did manage to get in over 900 edits yesterday, though.
How long will this game of whack-a-mole last? How much time and money is the WMF willing to devote towards keeping Russavia off Wikimedia? They'll stop eventually. They'll either give up or go to court, and I doubt that they'll go to court over something like this, especially given that Russavia lives outside of the US.
Just to clarify: The three "they's" in my post refers to the WMF.
Although it would be hilarious if Russavia managed to open a case against the WMF in Australia.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:05 pm

Zoloft wrote:Although it would be hilarious if Russavia managed to open a case against the WMF in Australia.
He could certainly sue the Australia chapter as agents of WMF. If nothing else, it would of course lead to WMF disowning them in five minutes flat.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 14073
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
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Zoloft » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:52 am

Scrubbed away off-topic posts. :sparkles:
:sparkles:

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31762
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:52 pm

So, noted Ferret botherer Eric Corbett has been given some nasty conditions that require him not to insult, belittle other editors... oh the horror.

He does what he does because he has no ability to control his mouth/fingers when he drinks at night.

Sandstein slapped him recently for doing what Eric does.
18:18, 25 January 2015 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Arbitration enforcement: GGTF topic ban violation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ic_Corbett)
What do we expect?
Contrition? Learning?
Of course not...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 212158.htm

So he goes and calls Jimbo, indirectly of course to amp up the drama god, a toxic personality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =644622979
WP is a venomous environment led by a toxic personality. Is there anything more that needs to be said? Eric Corbett 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
with the edit summary
Revision as of 23:26, 28 January 2015 (edit) (undo)
Eric Corbett (talk | contribs)
(→‎Mailing lists and conspiracies: the fish rots from the head)
I believe that violates his ARBCOM restrictions.

Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 14073
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
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:02 pm

Eric is not a psychopath. Even from your quoted article:
"Psychopathic offenders are different from regular criminals in many ways. Regular criminals are hyper-responsive to threat, quick-tempered and aggressive, while psychopaths have a very low response to threats, are cold, and their [aggression] is premeditated," added Dr. Nigel Blackwood, who is affiliated with King's College London.
You're think more Russavia for that diagnosis.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31762
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:24 pm

Zoloft wrote:Eric is not a psychopath. Even from your quoted article:
"Psychopathic offenders are different from regular criminals in many ways. Regular criminals are hyper-responsive to threat, quick-tempered and aggressive, while psychopaths have a very low response to threats, are cold, and their [aggression] is premeditated," added Dr. Nigel Blackwood, who is affiliated with King's College London.
You're think more Russavia for that diagnosis.
Rarely are things cut and dried.
Continuums defined by a Gaussian curve are more prevalent in the messy real world.

You have to admit he exhibits strongly for some of the indicators.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Anroth » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:58 pm

Please, hes just an aggressive drunk. Dont waste time overthinking him.

Since he has no control he will sooner or later be banned for all time, no doubt with a large dose of the drama he loves.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31762
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:52 pm

Russavia aka Scott Bibby making a comeback on commons!!

Not so fast there, pardner.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... :Meidmanna

Some choice bits around Ashley van Haeften and Abd
To clarify, I am immensely relieved that Fae is taking trouble to avoid personally spreading misinformation about me (it was your cuddly friend Russavia who took up the mantle of casting unfounded allegations of anti-LGBT-bias in my direction). By personal I mean your attack above and below on Jee. If anyone needs to know what Fae is up to, one only has to look at what he's accusing others of. Misinformation is your middle name. Your initial post in this thread (which opened with a request for admin response to sockpuppet evading a block) is to claim we have no expectation that admins should take responsibility for dealing with that block evasion. This is not true. Our policy requires it, in as much as anything can be required of volunteers. Misinformation. You then claim that blocking this sockpuppet block-evader by a Commons admin would require a change to Commons policy. This is not true. Our policy permits admins to block any account or IP used to evade another block. Misinformation. You then, twice now, try to make us believe Jee's claim of bullying and threats is untrustworthy, or that Jee has a "track record". I can find one situation where Jee appears to have misjudged the evidence when under attack and concluded you broke some rules to obtain information -- which you then ridiculously, farcically even, escalated into a supposed allegation of criminal activity requiring an immediate WMF global ban for breach of the site terms-of-use. That was hardly your finest hour. It is this that I regard as personal unpleasantness. And deeply ironic when it is plain to see your purpose on this Admin notice board is to spread misinformation about policy or community feelings wrt Russavia's block. I don't actually disbelieve your personal experience of Russavia. But it's irrelevant to this noticeboard. "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked.". That's all that should have been said. And the response to INeverCry's block should have been "thank-you for doing your job". -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also fundamentally oppose that Abd be involved in drafting any proposals for the simple reason that I would rather stick forks in my eyes than be required to read any more of his voluminous drivel. This is a user who took essentially no in interest in Commons prior to the recent round of WMF global blocks. This comes as no surprise as Abd is banned from Wikipedia and engaged in persistent sockpuppetry which led to a permanent site ban. See Arbcom discussion. During that discussion a global ban was suggested. User:MastCell noted "Abd clearly has a great deal of prose of which he needs to unburden himself on a daily basis, and it doesn't seem to matter to him whether anyone is actually listening. So Wikiversity is actually sort of a good fit.". It is with regret I note that he's moved to Commons. This is bad news because his ban on Wikipedia notes: "Abd has been a disruptive presence on this wiki for several years now. This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes ". Ring any bells? -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a straight talking kinda guy, which I much prefer to the underhand + feign innocence approach taken by some. Both of you fill the community notice boards with lectures and "questions" on Commons/WMF/Policy/Admins that sound superficially like a voice of authority and experience but when examined turn out to be ignorant and misleading. At least your misinformation is generally short and to the point, whereas Abd can fill screenfulls of the stuff. I'd like an environment where users who conduct behaviour serious enough that a WMF global block becomes necessary are dealt with and the block enforced. Where unnecessary and pointless drama is not continually provoked (He ain't coming back; deal with it). Your cuddly friend, according to Abd, socks heavily, taunts and trolls checkusers, which doesn't to me sound like a complimentary statement, but carry on telling us how lovable he is if you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Jim » Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:45 am

Heh. I'd seen that.

I like Colin - he has common sense, and is willing to debunk the trolls. I guess my main reservation is that he gives them too much oxygen.

By that I mean that Ashley/Abd are at the stage where they can get few people to be taken in by this nonsense now, and so it's probably best to initially see if each of these transparent attempts to bang the same old drum actually gains any traction. If it doesn't, it should just be allowed to fade away. Only if anyone who matters seems to be taking it seriously is it necessary to slap it down.

A huge part of the point for them is to keep these dying grudges visible, and by reacting to each and every one it is perpetuated. He should try "ignore" first.

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:37 pm

Vigilant wrote:Russavia aka Scott Bibby making a comeback on commons!!

Not so fast there, pardner.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=154095860#user:Meidmanna

Some choice bits around Ashley van Haeften and Abd
I've been trying to avoid speaking about Fae ever since Russavia's account was locked, but Colin is being circled by pro-Russavia sharks such as Nick and Fae is trying to manipulate people with a fake sob story (permalink), so I offered him advice and invited him here. I was concerned that without such advice, he'll end up blocked by the the pro-Russavia / pro-Fae mob.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Jim » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:45 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:I've been trying to avoid speaking about Fae ever since Russavia's account was locked, but Colin is being circled by pro-Russavia sharks such as Nick and Fae is trying to manipulate people with a fake sob story (permalink), so I offered him advice and invited him here. I was concerned that without such advice, he'll end up blocked by the the pro-Russavia / pro-Fae mob.
Thanks Michael, that's a good gesture.

User avatar
Michaeldsuarez
Habitué
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Location: New York, New York

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Michaeldsuarez » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:46 pm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#You.27ve_a_mail.21 (permalink)

The person who had me banned from enwiki over an off-wiki incident is now saying that off-wiki incidents don't matter, and he doesn't even recall the events of the Ironholds case correctly. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a Commons community discussion about Ironhold's IRC antics (if there was, then Ironholds wasn't told about it), so he must be talking about the enwiki case. Also, if off-wiki incidents don't matter to Fae, then why doesn't he ask ArbCom to unban me?

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:20 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Also, if off-wiki incidents don't matter to Fae, then why doesn't he ask ArbCom to unban me?
Because, like Jimbo, he is frequently inconsistent?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31762
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:27 pm

Ashley van Haeften aka Fae is the next target for a SanFranBan.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Lukeno94
Gregarious
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:34 pm
Wikipedia User: Lukeno94

Re: WMF Global Ban Policy

Unread post by Lukeno94 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:39 pm

Vigilant wrote:Ashley van Haeften aka Fae is the next target for a SanFranBan.
And that day can't come soon enough. It'd be nice if they took out some of the enablers on Commons as well.

Post Reply