In a message dated 7/20/2008 8:43:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakquill(a)gmail.com writes:
And this would be the opposite extreme. But I am not suggesting this.
For what it's worth, your car or your dog is likely not independently
verifiable in reliable sources?>>
--------------------
The real trick here is "third-party, secondary..."
What you paid for your house, when you renewed your driver's license, where
you last voted, are all independently verifiable in reliable sources. If our
policy stopped there we could write it. However we also require that
details about your biographed, be so interesting as to have already been reported
by someone other than these primary sources, and then in a third-party
publication (not one owned or paid for by yourself the author, or by yourself the
subject).
That's why this example fails our policy.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Charlotte Webb wrote:
>> On 7/19/08, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No, in fact only privacy policy breaches can be brought to the
>>> Ombudsman committee. There is no process, as I understand it, for
>>> dealing with checkuser misuse...
>>
>> Sucks, doesn't it?
>>
>> ?C.W.
> This is incorrect. Checkuser misuse can be brought to the ombudsman.
>
> - --
> Best,
> Jon
>
> [User:NonvocalScream]
[Sigh] Let's try this again. The privacy policy covers *release* of
non-public information. Complaints that someone peeped when they
shouldn't have do not involve the privacy policy so long as the
information is never released. After lengthy discussion on the
checkuser mailing list, the current ombudsman commission came to the
conclusion that they did not have jurisdiction over complaints that
did not involve actual release of information. In part, this is due
to their inability to properly assess different community standards of
privacy; the privacy expectations on some wikis are much stricter than
others, due to cultural differences. The ombudsman commission is a
Foundation-level body and deals with the Privacy Policy as it applies
to all wikis. Since the privacy policy discusses *release* of
information as opposed to just checking, the ombudsman commission have
decided to interpret their mandate in this narrow way.
Certainly, abuse of checkuser is possible; it is possible that
checkuser is abused for political reasons, to gain leverage in content
disputes, or for any other nefarious reason you can think of. On
enwiki, since arbcom grants checkuser, arbcom has jurisdiction (*and I
think a responsibility) to investigate complaints of misuse.
Certainly Arbcom censured Jayjg for his checkuser-related disclosures
involving CharlotteWeb, even though the case did not involve the
ombudsman (because the disclosure that she used Tor did not disclose
any private information such as her real IP address or location).
The dispute between Lar and SlimVirgin has aspects of both, but as far
as I know, neither the ombudsman commission nor arbcom has actually
received a formal complaint.
Thatcher
First of all, tl;dr.
Secondly, of the bits that I could pick up, the following
insupportable assumptions stand out:
a) "the request was made by a known troublemaker makes things even
worse": It is perhaps time that you realised that Mackan79 is "known"
to be exactly as much of a "troublemaker" as you or Crum275, in that
s/he edits in similarly difficult areas. I don't think checkusers
should determine the usefulness of a suggested check on the basis of
whether they agree with the on-wiki POV of the person requesting it. I
believe this is something that other people hold to be true as well.
b)"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." Do you have any basis for this assumption?
And if so, can you please explain why, given the extensive agreement
that you and Crum turn up to support each other on undiscussed reverts
unwholesomely often, that checkusers should not be on the look-out for
abuse?
c)I believe that I have been told often by various people that private
requests to checkusers are often carried out, even when there is no
direct evidence of the possibility of abusive sockpuppetry. I
understand that I myself have been checkusered for that reason. Can we
be clear that this is what you are referring to? If not, I see this
entire thing as a waste of time.
RR
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/19/08, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2008/7/19 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>:
>> > > There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar
>> > > checked.
>> >
>> > Your accounts? Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
>> > (I ask this while reminding all here that several admins have been
>> > caught severely sockpuppeting and then deadminned.)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Sarah
>>
In a message dated 7/19/2008 11:01:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
"Wikipedia minus what quality control it manages to have" does not
sound like an attractive alternative to me, nor something I would use
in place of Wikipedia, but right to fork is inherent in all free
projects.>>
-------------------------
Doesn't sound like a meaningful way to describe it (and I know you're
quoting, i.e. that its not you stating that).
I'd think it would be "Wikipedia minus what quANtity control it manages to
have".
That is, its Wikipedia without Notability, without Self, without COI, maybe
without OR as well.
Personally I have no idea why we care that Porn stars must be in at least
six films or whatever it is, before they can have an article. Why not have an
article on every single walk-on character from the television show Bewitched?
Why should we care about stubbiness? I've never really understood that,
but hey, I don't have to agree with every policy and guideline in order to
abide by them.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Hard to say more in public.
Thatcher
Jpgordon wrote
>In what way is it an ethical violation to reveal the reason for a check?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <
thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/19/08, David Katz <dkatz2001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that
> she
> >> could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run.
> Instead, it
> >> appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
> >
> > You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped
> > off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar
> > checked. That is allowed under the policy.
> >
In a message dated 7/19/2008 9:24:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
The name 'Tetsusaiga' is a mistranslation from the original Japanese name
for
the sword. InuYasha's sword is actually known as the 'Tessaiga' in Japanese
but due to an error when translating the series from Japanese to English, it
became the Tetsusaiga. The smaller version of the hiragana character "tsu"
()
was mistaken for the larger version of the hiragana character "tsu" (). So,
instead of doubling the consonant "s" in the name, a "tsu" was inserted into
the name, thus giving us 'Tetsusaiga'. By the time Viz discovered the error,
it was decided that it was too late to change the name back to the
original.>>>
---------------
But the entire above is disputed, and when sources were requested for it,
none were given.
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Let me repeat that if you review the talk page, you can see that the very
issue that this is a "mistake" is disputed. So continuing to focus only on
that aspect, misses the larger point, that some editors believe they have
legitimate reasons to believe that it's not a mistake at all.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT), arromdee(a)rahul.net (Ken
Arromdee) wrote:
> Wikipedia has an article whose name is a mistake, but people claim
> that the article must be named that anyway because our rules say
> that we must use the most widely used English name, and the mistake
> is used more frequently than the correct name. (This happened
> because the mistake was made by a big English-language publisher,
> so a lot of people picked it up.)
The fact that some manner of referring to something originated as an
error does not inherently prove that it's not currently correct to
use that terminology on the grounds that, despite its erroneous
origin, it is currently in more widespread use than any alternative
usage that is more technically accurate.
One theory (though disputed) as to how the city of Nome, Alaska got
its name is that a mapmaker misread an explorer's notes where he had
written "? Name" next to a spot on an older map to indicate that he
wasn't sure what that point was or ought to be named; this got
misread as "Nome" and it stuck as the official name of the place.
Also, our system of numbering years is supposedly based on the years
since the birth of Jesus, but this is currently well known to be an
incorrect count due to erroneous reasoning about when that date
actually was. And, of course, lots of common terms such as "sunrise"
and "sunset" are incorrect by current astronomical knowledge; it's
the Earth that moves, not the Sun.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A8re_Jacques poses a lot of problems.
Normally, I'd just cut the BS being bold - but the whole thing is littered
with it.
Surfing 4 knowledge, found the WP entry, went to look up its origin and
horror after horror its a maze.
Article fails on so many issues, though so much of it is sourced but the
whole thing is littered with OR and BS.
Culturally the article should never have been left in a position where it
breaks every rule in MOS.
Mike