Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------
<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------
<<<Slimmy>>> Both the first and second editor were affected by this. The first abandoned the checked accounts because Lar is not trusted.
<<Luna>> Lar is not trusted? Why not? By whom? ...
<David Gerard>Indeed. Casual slander is not a robust method of policy formation.
-----------------------------
<David Katz>SlimVirgin has abusively sockpuppeted before - as Sweet Blue Water if my memory is correct - a sock which she tag teamed with on articles and used to vote twice in some instances. I don't think she's in a position to get self righteous that anyone would think she might be sockpuppeting again, particularly as she's never apologized or explained the SWB sock.
----------------------------
And for the grand finale, from Larry himself;
Sarah:
I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.
> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,
Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.
> or the second
As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.
> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.
You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.
> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.
I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.
Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.
Larry Pieniazek
Full Version: SlimVirgin's melt down on the WikiEN-l
Quite frankly, Jayjg's is what disgusts me the most. Attacking someone via their spouse? How low-handed do you have to go?
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife - she did not need to be brought into this - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...indpost&p=94062
Jayjg hasn't embellished the truth. In fact, he's leaving out some details to save what little face Lar has left.
Jayjg hasn't embellished the truth. In fact, he's leaving out some details to save what little face Lar has left.
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:36am) 
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife - she did not need to be brought into this - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...indpost&p=94062
Jayjg hasn't embellished the truth. In fact, he's leaving out some details to save what little face Lar has left.
I'd say Lar has plenty of face. Jay's intervention was sadly typical, in that it was a fairly inoccuous thing (his wife!), but phrased most accusingly. How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
Do you not consider leaking checkuser information to be a heinous act? This is nothing new for Lar.
Try and put yourself in Slimvirgin's shoes here. You've had your privacy invaded for no good reason, then had that private information spread around to third parties who have no involvement. I hate to admit it, but this is one of the few times where the callous bitch is unequivocally in the right.
Try and put yourself in Slimvirgin's shoes here. You've had your privacy invaded for no good reason, then had that private information spread around to third parties who have no involvement. I hate to admit it, but this is one of the few times where the callous bitch is unequivocally in the right.
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:36am)
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife…
Hate to pry, but…who's Lar's wife?
He has it on his userpage, it's not private User:Espousequecido
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
I don't feel I'm immune, but I do feel there should be a presumption
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:41am)
Do you not consider leaking checkuser information to be a heinous act? This is nothing new for Lar.
Try and put yourself in Slimvirgin's shoes here. You've had your privacy invaded for no good reason, then had that private information spread around to third parties who have no involvement. I hate to admit it, but this is one of the few times where the callous bitch is unequivocally in the right.
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
I was wondering that too. But whatever the reason that piece of info got out I especially agree with the last statement. SV is losing credability so fast its not funny.
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 20th July 2008, 4:09am)
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
Everyking, you really must stop this business of saying things that I have no choice but to agree with.QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:25am)
How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:38am)
QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:25am)
How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
There might have been some discussion of his appointment in the old arbcom-l archives, which I downloaded when I was appointed, but I can't find those files now (they're probably on my old laptop, which died two years ago) and I rather doubt I'd be allowed to download them again now.
QUOTE
But (I believe) all ArbCom members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list
Surely Sarah knows better than that.
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
[...]
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway.
[...]
Sarah
It looks to me that Wikitumnus was ElinorD's sock, who actually has not abandoned her account,
When Macken79 on March 8 2008 asked on Wikitumnus' talk page whose sock she was, the Wikitumnus account quit editing. ElinorD also stopped editing, but then returned April 7.
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 20th July 2008, 2:09am)
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
Good point, most people don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick.
Howabout a log where registered users can look up to see if they were CU'd? It would only give results for that registered user. Just knowing that a service like this exists will make the CU's behave differently.
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 20th July 2008, 2:06pm)
QUOTE
But (I believe) all ArbCom members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list
Surely Sarah knows better than that.
I, for one, was never a checkuser, though I am sure I would have been granted the status if I'd asked for it. A list of all the checkusers is available on-wiki.
so has a CU ever been run to show the SV is not Crum?
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:40am)
so has a CU ever been run to show the SV is not Crum?
SlimVirgin is NOT Crum, for the thousandth time. When Wikiabuse was up I had numerous amounts of very private information brought to my attention, plus someone had posted a volume of very, very private information to a page there, which I quickly deleted (it might have been Kato from Wikipedia Review that posted it, but I forget now). Remember, I had a strict "no outing" policy on Wikiabuse before the site got basically ripped to shreds by everyone's various agendas--it was supposed to be strictly a catalog of Wikipedia policy violations by admins, before I pulled the site and erased the database.
Anyway, between that posting of very private info on Slim and Crum, and Kato's analysis of it, it was strongly implied that Slim and Crum were not one and the same. Because I got very, very sick of the days of people trying to sneak in the private information, I checkusered Slim and Crum, who both had posted on Wikiabuse. They both had posted from several IPs, which were obviously NOT open proxies at the time. Kato had also posted his conclusion based on the posted/leaked information *BEFORE* I had a chance to pull it off the site--it had lasted a couple hours, and was not home at the time.
Kato's conclusion (if you don't trust me, and Kato has ****NO**** love lost for either Slim or Crum, consider this) was that Slim and Crum were not the same person. I posted my thoughts on the Checkuser--with no private information--and my conclusion plus the leaked evidence was the same. They're absolutely not the same unless they somehow totally hoodwinked two people who reviewed some very juicy stuff, plus my own review of CU and raw access logs, because I got sick of the constant Slimcrumvirgin chatter and wanted to see one way or the other. They're not the same person and didn't even appear to be operating from the same time zone, let alone COUNTRY.
Please, don't bother asking for the info. You're not getting it, and I don't have the IPs/other stuff anymore anyway and saved none of it.
Slim is not Crum as of everything I saw mid-2007. They're obviously just really close and either watch the same pages, or maybe chatter over IM or something. That is not the end of the world, and ZOMG people are FRIENDS!!!!1!!
Out of anything people can possibly complain about, that is utterly the most singularly trivial stuff.
i dont think they were the same person at the start.
but from editing activity, i believe they could have an arrangement where SV can use Crums account when needed. Which appears to be very often.
and once someone knows they're a "made" man/woman on WP and are above CU scrutiny, oh boy, then they can just do what they want. that's not good.
i would guess that SV has been allowed as a professional wikivictim to use a proxy. she's socked before (SweetBlueWater, Sunsplash) and will sock again if allowed to use proxy or allowed to have immunity from CU.
but from editing activity, i believe they could have an arrangement where SV can use Crums account when needed. Which appears to be very often.
and once someone knows they're a "made" man/woman on WP and are above CU scrutiny, oh boy, then they can just do what they want. that's not good.
i would guess that SV has been allowed as a professional wikivictim to use a proxy. she's socked before (SweetBlueWater, Sunsplash) and will sock again if allowed to use proxy or allowed to have immunity from CU.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:01am)
i would guess that SV has been allowed as a professional wikivictim to use a proxy.
And if she or anyone posts from a closed proxy, to hide their geolocation, I don't believe that's against the rules. For example, if a valid/unbanned editor happens to edit only from a closed or sealed IP somewhere, to obscure their home or work location from the WMF or Checkusers, to my knowledge thats fine. As long as it's not an "open" proxy.
[quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' date='Sat 19th July 2008, 9:50pm' post='115168']
Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------
<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------
All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?
Seems to me there are some people outraged here over checkuser being used without a judge signing off on it, as though they view it as being like a wiretap or warrant (nevermind acid comments on recent US law in dealing with "terrorism"). however, I think what these people forgot is that Checkusers ARE the equivalent of such judges on WP, if any there be. That's the point of making only a few people checkusers. Wikipedia has no mechanism for one sysop or group of sysops preventing "abuse" of search functions by another, by pre-approving them so that there is a two-party sign-off. If they wanted that, they should have set up such a system. Looks like they forgot
In that case, sooooo sorry, but that's what you-all asked for. Slimey, you never complained about the system when you were the one gaming it.
Slimey might (or might not) be "comforted" to know that the real world of search-warrants actually looks frighteningly like Wikipedia, albeit with a few nods toward the pretense of independent oversight. In point of fact, there are certain judges in any system who will sign just about any warrant request put before them, few or not questions asked. The cops know who these judges are. So, any warrant anybody wants to serve, usually gets served. The process for real vetting of these things happens much later at the trial, and a judge may throw out results of a search he/she doesn't like. Victims of property-damaging fruitless searches MIGHT (after much hassle) recover some small monetary compensation for repairs, but otherwise it's just assumed by the courts that cops and judges act on good faith. AGF, mo-fo. The judge signing off on the "bad" warrant is essentially never penalized (it hardly matters how screwy or badly framed, or in error, or free of good faith it is) nor are the cops penalized (except for having their case weakened by loss of evidence). So, search warrants are almost universally abused in the event, even in societies with due process and oversight on using them.
So, get used to it.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power). 
Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------
<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------
All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?
Seems to me there are some people outraged here over checkuser being used without a judge signing off on it, as though they view it as being like a wiretap or warrant (nevermind acid comments on recent US law in dealing with "terrorism"). however, I think what these people forgot is that Checkusers ARE the equivalent of such judges on WP, if any there be. That's the point of making only a few people checkusers. Wikipedia has no mechanism for one sysop or group of sysops preventing "abuse" of search functions by another, by pre-approving them so that there is a two-party sign-off. If they wanted that, they should have set up such a system. Looks like they forgot
In that case, sooooo sorry, but that's what you-all asked for. Slimey, you never complained about the system when you were the one gaming it.Slimey might (or might not) be "comforted" to know that the real world of search-warrants actually looks frighteningly like Wikipedia, albeit with a few nods toward the pretense of independent oversight. In point of fact, there are certain judges in any system who will sign just about any warrant request put before them, few or not questions asked. The cops know who these judges are. So, any warrant anybody wants to serve, usually gets served. The process for real vetting of these things happens much later at the trial, and a judge may throw out results of a search he/she doesn't like. Victims of property-damaging fruitless searches MIGHT (after much hassle) recover some small monetary compensation for repairs, but otherwise it's just assumed by the courts that cops and judges act on good faith. AGF, mo-fo. The judge signing off on the "bad" warrant is essentially never penalized (it hardly matters how screwy or badly framed, or in error, or free of good faith it is) nor are the cops penalized (except for having their case weakened by loss of evidence). So, search warrants are almost universally abused in the event, even in societies with due process and oversight on using them.
So, get used to it.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power).
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:50pm)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:50am)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Ah, but can or should you be able to alter or counterfeit your license plate?
You know what the real problem with open proxies is, and why Wikipedia hasn't simply initiated a hunt to automatically find and ban them all? In some repressive countries, such as recently China (don't know if it's that way just now before the Olympics, but it can change overnight in any case) you cannot edit WP except by proxy server. The blockers knew that taking out such sites would effective end all WP access by anybody in those countries.
Thus, if you want to proxy-sock on WP, it's not a matter of finding a proxy-- it's just a matter of finding the RIGHT proxy. And do try to edit on some human rights violation in China articles.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 11:47am)
All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?
The fact that Checkuser is governed by WMF's Privacy Policy and not a mere "community" rule ought to make it subject to something analogous to a warrant. Although you are correct that warrant requests are approved with little scrutiny by some judges, and cops do judge shop, they are still subject to review by other judges and remedies can be given to those subjected to wrongly granted warrants.
Perhaps SlimVirgin realizes that and it explains why she goes about trying to manufacture her own little "war on terror" to weaken the protection afforded by the Privacy Policy.
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:13am)
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
Yes, if you're a nameuser you can in theory contact somebody with oversight, to have that info removed (and of course that's the first thing that anybody who gets oversight does for him/herself and anybody they care about, just as soon as they can), BUT the fact is that so many people screw up and post as IP-users without meaning to, that not enough oversighter time in the world exists to clean up this mess. Many a socker has been caught that way, if they don't have oversight themselves, or a nice friend with oversight. The "friends-with-oversight" is just one more way in which insiders get to break the rules more, on WP.
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:47pm)
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power).
I beg to differ. Anyone clued in on surveillance powers knows darn well that they get used to coerce and push around. Unless strong controls are enacted.
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:53pm)
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:01pm)
i dont think they were the same person at the start. but from editing activity, i believe they could have an arrangement where SV can use Crums account when needed. Which appears to be very often.
I think this 1000-word Slimvirgin essay below qualifies as a hystronic rant™. Easily. If I were in the room, standing behind her, I'd use my hand and make puppet mocking talk motions.
QUOTE
I don't feel I'm immune, but I do feel there should be a presumption
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
She's unravelling....
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:06pm)
She's unravelling....
(removed image)
Look. I think by now it is no secret that SlimVirgin and I do not see eye to eye on all possible topics.
But how exactly does posting an image of the wicked witch of the west directly below "she's unraveling" which in turn is directly below a post of hers on the mailing list... how exactly does that help matters?
Doing stuff like that contributes to a rather nasty climate here and I don't condone it. Not in the slightest. Rather, I find it quite reprehensible. There's no call for it regardless of WHAT you think anyone did. No call for such harassment. Doing so strengthens the hand of those who marginalise ALL input here.
Speak truth to power, for the truth shall set you free.
But wicked witch pictures? No. Certainly not in my name at any rate. You are free to say whatever you wish but you can also expect to get called on it from time to time...
I think I'm in the black as far as Slim is concerned.
The picture was not posted in your name.
The picture was not posted in your name.
Right to the top! you go, girrrl.
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l misinformed?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* english wikipedia
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l misinformed?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* english wikipedia
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
i agree with Patrick Byrne (imagine that!) on his old classmate's situation...I find no pleasure and no further point in taking any joy or any victory in directly causing SlimV any distress.
I merely ask those on WP who have taken the damsel in distress routine too far on too many occasions:
1) Cla68 is one of your best editors, best problem resolutionists, and most level-headed adults. SlimVirgin fucked him over terribly for, as Johnny Cash would say, just to see his RFA die. WP, apologise to Cla68 on behalf of SV, let his RFA proceed and tell SV and her ever shrinking circle to give it a rest.
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin. WP - some of your best editors make your worst admins, and vice versa. Look at Jimbo. Couldn't edit his way out of a wet paper sack. Runs your wiki. LOL.
3) Declare that the following editors should also have deadminned for the same reasons SV should be"
Crum
Jayjg
JzG
They have no business being admins. POV warriors yes, admins no.
4) Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.
I merely ask those on WP who have taken the damsel in distress routine too far on too many occasions:
1) Cla68 is one of your best editors, best problem resolutionists, and most level-headed adults. SlimVirgin fucked him over terribly for, as Johnny Cash would say, just to see his RFA die. WP, apologise to Cla68 on behalf of SV, let his RFA proceed and tell SV and her ever shrinking circle to give it a rest.
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin. WP - some of your best editors make your worst admins, and vice versa. Look at Jimbo. Couldn't edit his way out of a wet paper sack. Runs your wiki. LOL.
3) Declare that the following editors should also have deadminned for the same reasons SV should be"
Crum
Jayjg
JzG
They have no business being admins. POV warriors yes, admins no.
4) Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:53pm)
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I would thought someone entrusted with confidential information should keep it confidential i.e. to themselves or within the organizational hierarchy mallarkey (I mean no disrespect to Lar by so saying, that's just what I would have thought.)
um, how about a case where a Checkuser's wife(s) sockpuppets on WP? Should he be under obligation to do use his CUship for good, or turn the other cheek (eww!)?
not specifically talking about any polygamists that ironically banned Utah from WP, but if the shoe fits...
not specifically talking about any polygamists that ironically banned Utah from WP, but if the shoe fits...
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:26pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:53pm)
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I would thought someone entrusted with confidential information should keep it confidential i.e. to themselves or within the organizational hierarchy mallarkey (I mean no disrespect to Lar by so saying, that's just what I would have thought.)
Generally that is the case. Or if not, and the person is the type who just can't keep anything from the better half, they should warn the world. Example: In the Manhattan project, the scientists were not supposed to tell their wives (and overwhelmingly the partners were wives in the world of science of 1944) anything about The Bomb. And mostly they didn't. So the wives did non-secret jobs at Los Alamos, or stayed at home tending kids (of which there were lots and lots, since there wasn't much else to do). Those scientists who absolutely had to tell wives about work got clearance to do so: E.O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron and head of the U separation project, got Top Clearance for his wife, even though she wasn't a scientist at all. And because the brass had to have Lawrence, they cleared the wife.
As for Lar, the worst thing isn't that he told his wife; the worst thing is now that he has pulled this boner and given Slimey a rope to grab onto, he feels obligated to stick up for Slimey vs the WR. The problem is that SV really as a bad as her rep, so this behavior from Lar really does qualify for an "Ewwww" from me. Yuk.
And if you'd like to see difs for SV's badness, there are a couple of hundred collected by Cla68 and many in the ongoing ArbCom, and they're just as nasty as I've remembered from what I've seen of SV in action personally. More on that in another message. Apparently Lar hasn't been reading evidence. I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that is his problem. Otherwise, he's just another schlub who can't admit a screw-up, and is now among the compromised. At least as regards this matter.
Gee, it's so nice to be able to say anything I want about WP and its politics without getting blocked by some boob for "incivility" in the process of WP:SPADE.
Hey, WP wonks!
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:21pm)
Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.
I want a truth and reconciliation process with FM and his lackeys.
I may never get to reconciliation, but I am serious about getting to the truth about FM and his odd band of sycophants.
There is a lot more to FM's corruption than just using Odd nature / Blogger Skip as a sock puppet.
A hell of a lot more.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:52pm)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
I'm glad to see you're thinking along the lines of what it means to inadvertently empower someone by deliberately disempowering them.
The most powerful figures in human history had less than zero political power.
What they had was ingenuity, creativeness, and innovativeness.
I have no idea how SlimVirgin ranks in terms of those traits, but I'm guessing she's no slouch.
Having said that, I think the drama would be more interesting if she were de-adminned, just to discover what gambits she devises when she's out of Machiavellian-type power.
After all, the English Wikipedia is obviously like some rough beast slouching its way toward Bedlam.
Are we there, Yeats?
Some Rough Knuckle-Dragging Beast
Slouching Toward Bedlam
Some Rough Knuckle-Dragging Beast
Slouching Toward Bedlam
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 21st July 2008, 12:52pm)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
His third proposal was to desysop those guys too, or something along those lines. I can't say it's a bad idea.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:51pm)
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
There's a good way around that log-out problem. When I started at WP, the site used a different default skin than it does now. Later, they switched the default, but because I preferred the old one, I stuck with it--and that means that whenever I'm logged out, there's a different skin, making it obvious to me that I need to log in.
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 21st July 2008, 3:52am)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as this.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
I agree with Piperdown that SV's work as an editor appears, to the extent that I've read it (I'm really just thinking of Brown dog affair here), to be quite good, but I share your doubts about whether she could ever be a net-positive, even without adminship, due to the way she treats others.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:51pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:13am)
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
Yes, if you're a nameuser you can in theory contact somebody with oversight, to have that info removed (and of course that's the first thing that anybody who gets oversight does for him/herself and anybody they care about, just as soon as they can), BUT the fact is that so many people screw up and post as IP-users without meaning to, that not enough oversighter time in the world exists to clean up this mess. Many a socker has been caught that way, if they don't have oversight themselves, or a nice friend with oversight. The "friends-with-oversight" is just one more way in which insiders get to break the rules more, on WP.
The "log you off" only works when you have a dedicated ip addy through your ISP. Gmail accounts, and in the UK Tiscali (which is the one I use), allocate you the first free addy - possibly from a batch based on location, likely not - available when you log in. I was checking an ip the other day with GEOLOCATE from the tools, and was interested to note that the site also provided me with the stats for my ip - which was London, and that is 300 miles from where I edit. I could edit an article as an ip and log off, log in and edit under my username, then log off and edit again as an ip and all ip's would be different - and given the popularity of Tiscali in the UK (top 5 if not 3) there would be no obvious ip link between the three posts.
Moderator's Note: Moved this to the SlimVirgin sub-forum.
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:20pm)
Right to the top! you go, girrrl.
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l misinformed?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* english wikipedia
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
Missed some ... thanks for the PM...
* A metric buttload of email boxes
* At least one ombudsmen
* sympathetic arbcom members (ok, this one is just a guess)
* WP:CHECKUSER
thatcher & slimmy.
imagine that.
both still have a lot to answer for in the 2006-2008 Weiss Affair.
imagine that.
both still have a lot to answer for in the 2006-2008 Weiss Affair.
QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Mon 21st July 2008, 5:27pm)
QUOTE
Although this probably a futile request, can we avoid unnecessary drama-raising pile-on statements from the peanut gallery? Very few people actually know what is going on here; uninformed commentary is likely to unhelpful in addressing the situation.
"exactly the situation we have here" whaw! 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
.....
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
....
Sarah
Is Slimmy really saying that making a CU on an account is "exactly" like blocking the account?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
.....
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
....
Sarah
Is Slimmy really saying that making a CU on an account is "exactly" like blocking the account?
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Mon 21st July 2008, 10:34am)
"exactly the situation we have here" whaw!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094603.html
QUOTE
.....
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
....
Sarah
Is Slimmy really saying that making a CU on an account is "exactly" like blocking the account?
Apparently. In both cases you're completely immobilized. In one case, by hysterical, groundless, freefloating paranoic fear
.... and in the other, because your computer won't work on the damn site any more. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.