proposed rule

The purpose of the forum, the rules, who the moderators are, and other information.
Post Reply
Proabivouac
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

proposed rule

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:17 am

I propose the simple rule that if someone holds advanced permissions (administrator and up) on a Wikimedia-owned site, that person can and should be identified. I don't want to say "doxxed" because to some this term suggests an unwarranted level of intrusion. But a name, location and profession is always defensible. It's true that permissions status doesn't cover all cases in which people should be identified, "User:Mantanmoreland" being one of many obvius examples, but it would be a good start towards legalizing meaningful criticism of Wikipedia. I'm not conviced that there is any example of a Wikiland administrator who should remain anonymous.

The reason Somey and McGomi's Wikipedia Review was unwilling to codify this as such is because a number of these wikibigshots, such as Lar, Krimpet and the defrocked sockpuppeteer administrator Homeontherange, were their friends and allies in various en.wp power struggles. In most instances they allowed reporting to proceed unhindered, but the flipside of their success was that the part one wasn't allowed to discuss slowly but surely became the most important part.

Even so, it was practically far superior to the censorship regimes of today's "criticism" sites – is "cuckticism" a word? – for which the first "pillar" may as well be, "Do No Harm To Wikimedia."

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Flip Flopped » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:16 pm

I'm not against it, but I defer to Auggie and The Joy/The End/The Sorrow. If this doesn't work, why not use Twitter to identify these admins?

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Auggie » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:19 pm

I think we're doing ok without identifying Wikipedians' real names, and honestly I don't want the hassle.

Proabivouac
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:49 pm

Flip Flopped wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:16 pm
I'm not against it, but I defer to Auggie and The Joy/The End/The Sorrow. If this doesn't work, why not use Twitter to identify these admins?
I don't have anyone to identify right now, too busy with other stuff. More that the site would be a much more interesting read if we can get some action flowing. Of course we can't wave a magic wand and make original research appear from nowhere, but not pledging to diligently suppress it would be a start.
Auggie wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:19 pm
I think we're doing ok without identifying Wikipedians' real names, and honestly I don't want the hassle.
I think we're looking at the ceiling, honestly. The great majority of successful criticism threads have revolved around the drama of involuntary disclosures, because the nature of their system is such that this is a massive recurring and systemic vulnerability, and the answers are often quite lulzworthy. As it is, we can't make news or even effectively cover it from here. You can get people hanging out here and checking in from time to time, but that's about it (and even that's looking kind of iffy with certain thread-killing posters around here.)

The Devil's Advocate ban thread was a massive disappointment. Almost everyone clicking on it will have been hoping to see the spilling of some actual beans. Enough of those and readers will give up because there's no drama. People who say "if it bleeds it leads" understand what they're talking about. Only drama sustains interest.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by EarlStatler » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am

@Pro, doxxing is a atomic weapon, The End is right. And yes, if I Doxx the lady who doxxed me on Wikipedia-NL it gives a enormous drama, because it's the person's fear. (Wat u niet wilt wat u geschied, doe dat ook een ander niet, Moira!)
But is it right and fair? I don't think so, although temptation is enormous. Why? Because I will hit this person much, much harder in her personal life than she did me. And, also because I am a gentleman, it seems not fair to me. And because I am almost sure it is illegal.
In general is Wikipedia breaking the European privacy laws, and in particular WP-NL, and not only MoiraMoira alone, but by many other users too.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Flip Flopped » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:37 pm

Nice gourds avatar, Graaf/Earl.

Proabivouac
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:11 am

EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
And because I am almost sure it is illegal.
So if the new Dutch prime minister calls himself User:Dookieface, no Dutch journalist is allowed to mention his real name and background? I doubt that very much.
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
But is it right and fair? I don't think so, although temptation is enormous. Why? Because I will hit this person much, much harder in her personal life than she did me. And, also because I am a gentleman, it seems not fair to me.
Based upon this passage alone, I think you don't have anything. And will continue to believe that until you prove me wrong. Is "she" even a she? It's about 50-50 in wikiland. If she outed you as you claim, it would be ridiculous for you to think that to out her would be unfair or ungentlemanly. It's simpler to assume that you haven't done the work needed to provide an identification.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by EarlStatler » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:09 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:11 am
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
And because I am almost sure it is illegal.
So if the new Dutch prime minister calls himself User:Dookieface, no Dutch journalist is allowed to mention his real name and background? I doubt that very much.
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
But is it right and fair? I don't think so, although temptation is enormous. Why? Because I will hit this person much, much harder in her personal life than she did me. And, also because I am a gentleman, it seems not fair to me.
Based upon this passage alone, I think you don't have anything. And will continue to believe that until you prove me wrong. Is "she" even a she? It's about 50-50 in wikiland. If she outed you as you claim, it would be ridiculous for you to think that to out her would be unfair or ungentlemanly. It's simpler to assume that you haven't done the work needed to provide an identification.
Based on this reaction I am now complete sure your only goal is to make a chaos out of this board, and to provoke. Best, Graaf Statler.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by Flip Flopped » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:54 pm

EarlStatler wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:09 am
Proabivouac wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:11 am
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
And because I am almost sure it is illegal.
So if the new Dutch prime minister calls himself User:Dookieface, no Dutch journalist is allowed to mention his real name and background? I doubt that very much.
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am
But is it right and fair? I don't think so, although temptation is enormous. Why? Because I will hit this person much, much harder in her personal life than she did me. And, also because I am a gentleman, it seems not fair to me.
Based upon this passage alone, I think you don't have anything. And will continue to believe that until you prove me wrong. Is "she" even a she? It's about 50-50 in wikiland. If she outed you as you claim, it would be ridiculous for you to think that to out her would be unfair or ungentlemanly. It's simpler to assume that you haven't done the work needed to provide an identification.
Based on this reaction I am now complete sure your only goal is to make a chaos out of this board, and to provoke. Best, Graaf Statler.
Proab has acted like this for many years, Graaf. He tries to get information out of everyone. In some ways this is an important service to WP criticism even if it does get up your nose. I'm sure you know who Moira is in real life and that you are doing the decent thing by not dragging her real name into online drama.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: proposed rule

Post by EarlStatler » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:29 am

Flip Flopped wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:37 pm
Nice gourds avatar, Graaf/Earl.
Yeh, someone was selling them in a field beside the road, and I had my camera with me. It's the time of the year, and it was a sunny day.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest