Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ryulong is getting hidden CheckUser data. Example: Ionas68224
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > Ryulong
LamontStormstar
I wrote this before I noticed jdrand here was Ionas68224 and don't want to rewrite it (I added the last paragraph after, though). I don't highlight the userinfo on people much.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ionas68224

Hmmm this guy had been an IP vandal and then starts editing normally as Ionas68224. He also had experience on Simple Wikipedia. Ionas68224 goes to Ryulong's RFA, then gets banned a week for linking to Wikipedia Review. Ionas68224 didn't know it. While banned, Ionas68224 comes back under two accounts. He also sends angry emails to some admins full of cuss words. Somehow checkuser data is leaked to Ryulong who tags them as sock. Ionas68224 is pretty much protesting against admins where he'd normally get banned for life. I think the only reason Ionas68224 isn't banned for life or at least having a ban extended for socking is because he says he's 11 years old and people believe it. I guess they don't care if someone criticizing them seems 11 as they assume there's no credibility so no worries.

The userpage seems convincing. Here's his original http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148679156

I like this part:

QUOTE

A Con$ervative is one of the biggest idiots in the Divided $tate$ of Amerikkka. They hate other people that do not have their ideas. Conservatives also do not know that the word Internet has no plural, and they also pronounce the word nucular ['nu.kj?.l?r] (NOO-kye-ler) instead of 'nu.kli.?]. They also hate LGBT's, and their supporters. Con$ervative$ are known for Doing þingf Olde ftyle and not appreciating other cultures and women. All they do is play around in their $9000 Ver$ace $uit$ planning wars and saying they are defending the spirit of Jesus. They want the U$A to be a capitali$t $uperpower. The conservatives stick their autocratic nose up, and dismiss libertarians as immoral. They are the epitome of imbeciles. They want to take over the world with war and government. This explains conservatives:

Imbecile

The Conservative News Network also known as CNN, The Man, the Capitalist News Network or the Capitalist Olds Network (CON), is a propaganda vehicle disguised as news. CNN is known for its conservative Republican bias, as its name states, being anglocentric, and critcising Michael Moore. It was founded in 1980 by propagandist and media mass producer Ted Turner as a vehicle for secretly and constantly expressing the views of the autocrat-in-chief, George W. Bush, calling it news. Repeating old, pointless stories, repeating pointless old stories, in different. Ways, in ways differently, using newspeakpol.Itical correctness, and suppressing personal freedom. Are all things that CNN is known for

History

CNN Cnn cNN is Is iS known for this -- repetition. They repeat the $ame SamE $Ame $tories, the same ways, over and over and over and over again. The Con$ervative New$ Network is known for only reporting what they want to hear, mindless wars and violence, unverifiablle infformation, and mmispelings. They once spelled the word "touched" "toched". In other words, they' re stupid. They are also known for supporting The Man in any case possible way, and thus being The Man themselves. The CNN reports war after war after killing after killing, when the killings aren't new at all. Instead of just reporting the war, they are paid to support war and pretend to be happy when the subject is money. They are a government supporter group, and a mix of right-wing, conservative corruption, entertainment, and olds. They also criticise Michael Moore, who might be the Messiah, or just be the best political figure in the world. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)




This quote above is sheer cuteness. jdrand doesn't talk like this here, though.
LamontStormstar
Oh man Ryulong is just being a bully here

04:57, 10 August 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Ionas68224/Sig" (Please do not create signature templates...)
Joseph100
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 10th August 2007, 12:51am) *

Oh man Ryulong is just being a bully here

04:57, 10 August 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Ionas68224/Sig" (Please do not create signature templates...)


What to you expect from a Narcissistic personality suffering from megalomania whose whole life is wrapped in the wikipedian power trip.
jch
I thought it was "generally known" that wikipedia administrators can ask checkusers for results on irc in private?
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(jch @ Sun 12th August 2007, 2:55pm) *

I thought it was "generally known" that wikipedia administrators can ask checkusers for results on irc in private?


Given the hundreds of admins who have quit WP or have become completely disaffected how hard can it be to infiltrate and log the admin IRC channel? Idle and log for a couple of weeks should return a good number WMF Privacy Policy violations. I would think WR would be happy to post these logs.
jch
So you want hundreds of megabytes of logs about power rangers articles, dirty jokes, and links to webcomics? The blatant rule and Privacy Policy violations are likely to be in private query, as the administrators there aren't going to be a homogeneous group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149444172

Apparently Ryulong asked checkuser Jpgordon on his talkpage instead.
No one of consequence
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 12th August 2007, 9:45pm) *

QUOTE(jch @ Sun 12th August 2007, 2:55pm) *

I thought it was "generally known" that wikipedia administrators can ask checkusers for results on irc in private?


Given the hundreds of admins who have quit WP or have become completely disaffected how hard can it be to infiltrate and log the admin IRC channel? Idle and log for a couple of weeks should return a good number WMF Privacy Policy violations. I would think WR would be happy to post these logs.


I have never seen checkuser results discussed in the open channel except for simple yes/no answers.
blissyu2
I'll repeat my broken record here. CheckUser shouldn't exist. All admins should be able to see all IPs of all editors. That's what happens everywhere else. No more problems then. None of this would be an issue. This is only an issue because of Jimbo's concern for privacy, which went to such an extreme that it created less privacy and a severe lack of transparency with false accusations galore. Ergo it wouldn't even be an issue to ask for CheckUser, except that CheckUser is an uber secret thing.
LamontStormstar
How's having a dozen people with checkuser create less privacy than all admins seeing your IP?
blissyu2
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 17th August 2007, 1:10am) *

How's having a dozen people with checkuser create less privacy than all admins seeing your IP?


If all admins could see IPs, which is what happens on Wikipedia Review (shock! horror!), on every web forum, every mud, talker, IRC, web site, with precious few exceptions, then admins can see it, they know who are sock puppets, they know who are not, and while people can still sneak in (having one proxy per sock puppet) its a lot easier to catch them. All admins know, so admins can openly discuss things. It keeps it private because they can do that behind closed doors, but you get enough people checking that you aren't going to make too many mistakes.

On the other hand, say that 99% of admins can't see IPs, and only a select few (1%) can see them, and only using this special tool called CheckUser, which is far less reliable than simply having admins being able to see things. They get an awful lot of false positives, and furthermore miss a lot, even with CheckUser. So they discuss things publicly. So long as the people with CheckUser access are foolproof, things are all fine, except that they are humans and make mistakes, and furthermore a number of them are corrupt, and they do things that they shouldn't be doing on purpose. So people go around and openly discuss things. They need to do it so that other admins, who don't have CheckUser access, can find things out. There's secrecy. There's lack of openness. And then there is openness in all the wrong ways.

As with most of Wikipedia's rules, the problem is that they allow people to abuse the rules.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.