Nicholas ([info]nwhyte) wrote,
@ 2007-07-24 16:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:wikipedia

Wikipedia disgraces itself
[info]sammymorse has been blocked from editing WikiPedia, accused of being a "sock-puppet" on, as far as I can tell, no evidence at all, and certainly without following WikiPedia's own due procedures. My own evidence, from having known the guy for thirteen years, is that he is very far from being a figment of anyone's imagination. However, when [info]burkesworks attempted to point this out to WikiPedia, guess what? He got blocked as well.

It's all very well having an open system for adding to the compilation of human knowledge, but this sort of harassment and bullying should not be part of WikiPedia's style and it is disgraceful that the safeguards appear to be inadequate.

I will happily risk my own editing privileges if that is necessary to get [info]sammymorse off the hook, but I shouldn't even be in the position of having to make that calculation.


(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]hfnuala
2007-07-24 03:47 pm UTC (link)
WTF is that homosexual agenda thing? Have you read the Making Light threads on wikipedia? It put me off ever attempting to do any content provision at all. It appears the system is being gamed by power hungry agressive trolls, sadly.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nwhyte
2007-07-24 06:12 pm UTC (link)
I have no doubt that there are people on WikiPedia who try and game the system in order to promote gay rights; I have no doubt that there are people (probably more people) who try the opposite. I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate that [info]sammymorse is part of a grand conspiracy, as the WikiPedia user in question asserts; although it's fairly clear where his opinions lie, his Wiki edits have been pretty moderate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]martin_wisse
2007-07-24 06:45 pm UTC (link)
The guy all het up (to coin a phrase) about "the homosexual agenda" is himself a kook, as a look at his user page history shows.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdigital
2007-07-24 06:57 pm UTC (link)
I pointed him in the direction of Conservapedia.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jdigital
2007-07-24 04:05 pm UTC (link)
Wikipedia administrators aren't flawless. They are, after all, volunteers like anyone else who edits Wikipedia.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nwhyte
2007-07-24 04:08 pm UTC (link)
Sure, but the system ought not to penalise people who appeal unjust decisions!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdigital
2007-07-24 05:24 pm UTC (link)
The likely case seems to be that an admin banned him by accident, hasn't been around in a while to read his messages, and another admin kept banning any IP he posted from to complain, since technically that's ban evasion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nwhyte
2007-07-24 06:04 pm UTC (link)
Do you think it is a good thing that the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions, in the way you have just described?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdigital
2007-07-24 06:49 pm UTC (link)
It seems to be the case that the second fellow was only caught in an IP ban laid for the first one. I could be wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nwhyte
2007-07-24 06:54 pm UTC (link)
I appreciate (and I'm sure [info]sammymorse does as well) the fact that you have now risked your own editing privileges by weighing in on the discussion boards yourself; but the fact remains that the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-07-24 08:02 pm UTC (link)
> the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions

move along, nothing to see here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]matgb
2007-07-25 09:07 am UTC (link)
technically that's ban evasion

Technically, yes, but to have nowhere to go to to appeal a ban, no coherent system for dealing with it? That makes the LJ Abuse team look open and professional in comparison.

If a site that you invest effort in bans you for an unfounded accusation, then if that site is to have the respect of the community it supposedly builds,t here needs to be a clear appeals/investigation process, and the person banned needs to be able to state their side. Anything else is damaging the very purpose of the project—it's this sort of thing that puts me off getting an account.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]antonia_tiger
2007-07-25 08:51 am UTC (link)
I think the problems arise from a combination of the structure of Wikipedia Policy, and the way in which a minority of admins use Policy.

There is no structure. I've tried finding specifics, from an admin's citation of a policy page, and become lost in a tangle of interlinked pages that never use the words the admin used as a label for his reason.

I hesitate to call that malice on the admin's part, but when I asked for a more specific pointer: silence.

It is, I think, too easy to conjure up a plausible phrase to justify an action, and get away with a vague handwave to Policy.

And any admin who thinks that there is a global one-to-one mapping between person and IP address--who believes that two people using the same IP-address are the same person--is simply not competent to decide on accusations of sock-puppetry.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]theweaselking
2007-07-25 02:45 pm UTC (link)
It wasn't a 1-1 thing. It was a wikipedia admin with a dozen admitted sockpuppet accounts, and who apparently edited from his work connection sometimes.

Which is the same work connection that [info]sammymorse uses, implying that they're the same person.

And the admin who blocked him checked that, nothing else, and didn't document any of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…