User:Collect/Concerns

(This short essay is based upon material from a userpage on an actual editor, part of which is quoted verbatim at the end)

==='''Kindly note that absolutely no editor is named, and this essay is an attack on the practices covered here. Any material which refers to anyone in any disparaging way whatever is from that editor's pages, and does not in any way, shape, manner or form represent my positions at all. Again -- this is material from another person entirely. Thanks! '''===

In one case I posted on an editors talk page ''calling an editor as "snake" Is a direct personal attack. I ask you to redact all such attacks by you as being against a collgelial environment on Wikipedia'' The response was: No.

The editor's post was: ...and I hope you figure a way out of this mess without having to grovel at the feet of snakes. and later At the risk of retaliation, the only snake I meant is Collect. From an editor who writes effusively of "civility" of course!

WP has no real safeguards against sockpuppets.

The editor lays out a plan for an undetectable sockpuppet, and so indeed it is.

Such "alternate personas" were around a quarter century ago, and people learned then how to recognize them. The user could even be logged in the same time as two different users -- which only requites that he have a second computer -- and even appear to be at different locations, because long-distance phoning is possible. "Anonymizers" are not needed, in fact they are less able to hide who you are since they show you are hiding something.

WP is not able to handle such cases except in one instance. And even then it is generally ignored. When the "friends" come out to work together.

Victims ignorant of this system are quite vulnerable.

The editor says one should have a group of "friends" launch a co-ordinated attack on a person -- first accusing him of sock-puppetry himself and using one frend as the official accuser. Add as many disparate accusations as possible to keep the victim off-balance.

The editor then says to start an RfC on the person to be attacked. Examine his edits for any sign of argument with anyone, and notify every one of those he has ever hasd a dispute with. Make sure your "friends" all enter in at the start, and all agree that the person is bad. After enough negative stuff is on the page, that real users entering in will assume there is a basis for them. Even those reading afterwards will assume "where there is smoke, there is fire" even if the accusations have no real basis. Anyone who states that "the emperor has no clothes" can be attacked as "biassed" in order to make them be on the defensive.

The aim of such actions is to drive the person off of WP.

"Checkuser" can not detect such activity. It is not "pixie dust." What does work in finding such "friends" is using tools which show where their edits intersect. Most users will have few user talk page intersections, to be sure, possibly one or two other than the user's own pages, per thousand edits. When one finds ten such intersections; or more, and not a corespondingly high number of article intersections (ruling out the possibility the two just share common interests) then the evidence is clear that the editors have some sort of relationship.

Actual material from the editor's plan
''Ask allies via e-mail what makes them mad, read old content disputes to see when and why they got mad, etc. When you get them to say something they shouldn't, report them to WP:ANI. Then you could e-mail an ally admin, who is not involved with the dispute, to ban them (problem is that there are only conservative admins and few liberal ones).''

'' 1: If the problem is with a particular editor, call a RfC. This is the last step towards an Arbcom. The danger with an RfC is that your behavior can go on trial too. E-mail you allies about the RfC, again, making sure they comment fast and first. RfCs sometimes can make your "enemy" leave wikipedia--end of problem. DANGEROUS SUGGESTION 2: If the RfC does not solve the problem, call an Arbcom, either on the disputed page or on the person. The danger with an Arbcom is just like the danger of a RfC, your behavior can go on trial too. '''Plan on spending a lot of time going through the editors history with a fine tooth comb. Again, to repeat, e-mail you allies about the Arbcom making sure they comment fast and first, setting the tone of the Arbcom.'''

The above is a direct quote, and does not in any way represent my position ---

And does such use of email and the like go on?
"And yes, IIII, has in the past used email to solicit help. (In the past, I've received several, myself.) So I have no doubt that this continues. - JJJJ 06:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "

"IIII has been sending me emails during this case asking me to ghost post stuff for him While I dislike AAAA, I want to see him go down legitimately; as such, I refuse to cooperate with IIII. IIII, if you want things posted, do it yourself. You're a party to the case, not me... KKKK (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

The editor ("IIII") not only stated his methods, others have now commented on him placing his methods into practice.