Comment by lukan

Comment by lukan 10 hours ago

To me those links you provided, indicate a lot, of what is wrong for me with wikipedia.

Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline.

I still don't really know it, it seems the scandal is, that he had a sockpuppet account? And there is only "private" evidence (meaning not public)?

"The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked."

So having a sockpuppet account is the reason for indefinite ban? Or that in combination with edits he made? Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic. And this is what prevented me since the beginning to participate in Wikipedia. I always got this impression. I made some edits here and there, but I think was mostly reverted/deleted/ignored - but no idea, I never felt like making the investment to really dive into it - and that seems required to contribute. Casual contribution seems pointless - and they likely miss out a lot through this.

"But the only reason you know about them is because Wikipedia openly fights them instead of covering them up."

So it seems good if wikipedia is more open - but from this story I just take "private evidence" with me and lots of questions about the whole process.

simonw 10 hours ago

"Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic."

Sometimes things are genuinely complicated. If you want to understand the hardest, most elaborate forms of Wikipedia community management you're going to need to work really hard at figuring out what's going on.

Community dynamics at this scale, and with this level of bad actors, are not something that can be explained in a few paragraphs.

Reply View 9 replies

Loic 10 hours ago

Thank you.
More and more, especially in engineering, I am in contact with people who just want everything to be easy to understand in TikTok length video clips or short posts.
Some things are hard to understand, dynamic systems especially, black or white answers do not exist.
(Sorry for the slightly off-topic/meta rant. This hit a nerve by me.)

Reply View | 4 replies
- lukan 10 hours ago
  
  Well, I believe things with serious consequences like banning someone permanently - should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  20after4 7 hours ago
  
  It's pretty straightforward but nothing on Wikipedia is really black-and-white. Most decisions are made through a consensus process. It's really quite different from what most people are used to.
  A good place to start for information about how user blocking is done would be the following links:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
  In this case I think that a sock puppet account can be trivially blocked without much process as long as it can be proved that it is operated by someone who is already blocked for some violation. The sock puppet is an attempt at evading the block that was placed on that user's other account.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  kurtreed2 2 hours ago
  
  That's right. Often due process is skipped even if the blocks turn out to be errors or collateral damages later. It's not going to be 100% perfect at all because stylometries can be obfuscated (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7345380/) and there are tools like VNC and residential proxy applications to evade IP-based tracing and detection.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  intended 5 hours ago
  
  You may believe your position is: > should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process
  but
  > Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline.
  > But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Which makes it clear (usually). But in wikipedia to understand a indefinite ban, I have to understand global wiki community dynamics first?
  your position aligns with someone who desires decision with serious consequences to be easy to understand.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
lukan 10 hours ago

Oh in general for sure, but my first (attempted?) edit for Wikipedia was 20 years ago so I am not a completely newb.
And this is kind of like a court decision.
But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Which makes it clear (usually). But in wikipedia to understand a indefinite ban, I have to understand global wiki community dynamics first? I am a bit reminded of Kafka - The Trial.

Reply View | 3 replies
- krisoft 8 hours ago
  
  > But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english.
  Thats not really true either. There is a lot to unpack to understand court cases. Just the hearsay rule and its exception would fill a book. Jurisdiction, double jeopardy, means rea, “reasonable man”, Brady disclosure, fruit of poisonous tree, presumption of regularity, habeas corpus, SLAP, reasonable doubt, writ of mandamus, motion to dismiss, motion to supress, motion for change of venue, motion in limine, amicus curiae, consideration. Just to unpack the latin terms makes your head spin, and then you will be caught out by some term with some seamingly easy to understand common meaning used in surprising ways.
  One can almost say it is a whole profession to understand what is going on in court. We could call them lawyers or something if we want to be fancy about it. And then turns out even those specialist further specialise in narrower areas.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  simonw 5 hours ago
  
  Right: and at least in the court system a whole lot of people are being paid a whole lot of money to help move that progress along.
  Almost all of Wikipedia's community administration is done by volunteers working for free!
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  croemer 3 hours ago
  
  Unavoidably, some of the administration is probably done by undisclosed paid editors who administer to gain goodwill as a defense against allegations of paid editing.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies