On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM, < nawrich(a)gmail.com > wrote:
>
> So here is a breakdown of Sarah's complaint, let me know if I've got this
> right:
>
> * A checkuser checked two accounts, and she disagrees with the basis for
> that check
> * The fact that her account was also checked is, to her, not relevant
> * One account was an established editor editing under a different name
> * The established editor then stopped editing for fear of the accounts being
> connected
> * The only disclosure of information was to the checkusers wife (hard to
> criticise, I think)
> * A review by other checkusers and an Ombudsman found no problem with the
> checks
The incident was discussed on checkuser-L when SlimVirgin made a
complaint to Anthere that was naturally one-sided. The names of the
accounts were never spoken openly, although a few people probably
guessed. And Jayjg (mostly) acted as a proxy for Slim, Crum and
Wikitumnus, who are not subscribed to the list. (I don't mean "proxy"
in a bad way, I mean he represented their views on a mailing list that
they can not subscribe to.) Therefore the debate mainly consisted of
Jayjg arguing there was no good reason for the check and Lar saying
there was. SlimVirgin's view that Mackan79 made a politically
motivated request for the purposes of digging up dirt, and Mackan79's
list of suspicious diffs, were simply never discussed, because the
actual user names were never used but were referred to by code names.
So I don't think one can come to the conclusion that "the checkusers"
found no problem, we lacked key information to conduct a proper
review. At the time I believe I suggested asking a subcommittee of
checkusers from other wikis to be given access to all the information
for a non-biased review, but it never happened. And to the best of my
knowledge, no formal complaint has ever been made to the ombudsman
commission.
Thatcher
In a message dated 7/20/2008 9:18:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of
> those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.>>
--------------------
Yes but our policy does address specifically articles that are mostly, or
mainly referenced from primary sources. We don't like them. We want the
article to have been interesting enough to have already been published by
reliable, secondary, third-party .... etc.
Building an article based entirely or even mostly or mainly on primary
sources is frowned upon.
This was hashed out many years ago, and in-fact spawned a number of
short-articles in WP space as we were debating all the intricacies.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:16:51 -0500
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 33
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4cc603b0807201616x5697bcc0i5ae6103b4308f302(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 7/20/08, Larry Pieniazek <lar(a)miltontrainworks.com> wrote:
> For the record, from time to time I do discuss matters
> related to WMF wiki
> affairs with my wife, if there is a past history of her
> involvement. (which
> there was in this particular case, with the editor whose
> sock I first
> checked) . . . . Her [Lar's wife's] role was only
> that of advise and counsel to both me and the other
> editor whose sock I
> first checked, based on the history of communication that
> we already had
> with that editor, and on the statements that editor had
> made to us. ...
>
> Lar, this is the kind of spinning that occurs throughout your
> correspondence about this, and it worries me and others more
> than the original check. You give the impression above (and
> you have given the same impression elsewhere in connection
> with this) that Wiktumnus and your wife know each other. They
> do not. They have had zero contact.
> Your wife is not someone Wikitumnus would have divulged his
> identity and accounts to. Your wife has not "counseled"
> Wikitumnus. There is no "history of communication" between
> Wikitumnus and your wife. There is no "past history of ...
> involvement."
>
> Sarah
One of the things I find most frustrating in this whole matter, especially
when brought here to a public mailing list, is that you, SlimVirgin, can
make any allegations you want, but for me to refute them would require
breaching privacy. You've done that with just about every aspect of this and
I find it to be tiresome, and dirty pool to boot. Perhaps you should
consider why so many users are somewhat frustrated with your approach to
dispute resolution... you've been called on this particular thing over and
over.
To your proximate point:
> Your wife has not "counseled" Wikitumnus. There is no "history of
communication" between Wikitumnus and your wife.
> There is no "past history of ... involvement."
... you are incorrect. The editor behind the WikiTumnus sock was well aware,
well before this episode, that I had discussed that editors situation with
my wife, and the editor behind the WikiTumnus sock had not indicated an
issue with it.
I went into my email archive and I am looking at an email right now from the
editor behind WikiTumnus and the IDs before it that includes phrases like
"your wife is right..." in direct response to my statement "My wife and I
talked about this matter a bit and she does not understand why you don't
just quit WP completely"...
I've got the email. It's right in front of me. It's from DECEMBER 2007. I
have older ones too. They prove you are the one spinning things here.
But of course, it's my word against yours. Because while I HAVE the email, I
can't release it, because to do so would be a privacy violation. I have high
ethics. My word is good, regardless of how you and your allies attack me. So
you get to malign me over and over and I can't prove you wrong without
violating the trust placed in me.
Nifty, isn't it. What an awesome tactic.
But see, SlimVirgin, the thing is... in the final analysis, it's my word
against yours. My word is good. Yours... not so much. More and more people
realise that, as you try this trick on more and more innocent victims, so
this tactic of yours will work less and less well.
Drop this. You come off the worse, and the more you dig into this, the
deeper you dig your own hole.
Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
On 20 Jul 2008 at 13:34:19 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2008/7/20 private musings <thepmaccount(a)gmail.com>:
>
> > I'd like to formally request here that a checkuser notify me as to when
> > checkuser was used on my current accout, User:Privatemusings, and also on my
> > previous accounts User:Purples, and User:Petesmiles.
>
> I would suggest that you think there's a problem because you were
> caught out sockpuppeting egregiously, and still don't think you did
> anything wrong. In your case I can't see a thing the system did wrong.
That's one way of spinning the Private Musings saga, but I think a
more reasonable way would be to note that he was using an alternate
account to participate in internal Wikipolitics of a somewhat
controversial nature (e.g., the great BADSITES wars), while using his
then-main account to do much less controversial, and site-content
oriented, things. This was, at the time, at least arguably permitted
by the policy (though there was some ambiguity). His political
enemies then proceeded, in conjunction with tightening up this
policy, with enforcing the new understanding of the policy
retroactively on him.
Sockpuppetry for the purpose of involving oneself in political
struggles has always been treated with a double standard depending on
whether the person who does it is in the "favored class" or out of
it.
--
== 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/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FT2 ft2.wiki at gmail.com
> Sun Jul 20 18:00:31 UTC 2008
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at
> rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Nathan wrote:
> > > * The only disclosure of information was to the checkusers wife
> > > (hard to criticise, I think)
> >
> > I'd criticize it.
> >
> > If we say it's okay to give privileged information to your wife, we're
> > essentially saying that making any married person a privileged user is
> > a two-for-one. If so, whenever a married person applies to become an
> > admin, his wife should be checked out and questioned in as much detail
> > as he is, and go through the same gauntlet of criticism as the
> > applicant himself.
> > We don't do this.
>
> Seconded. Family, relatives and friends do not have WMF
> trust inherited.
I agree with this.
> Realistically in everyday life, spouses will hear many things
> that are private - as they would about other matters in a
> person's life they are living with. But they do not have the
> /right/ to, and my expectation would be that a person who
> used a privacy tool (whether CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS,
> internal list, or otherwise) is fully responsible and
> accountable for the information they obtain. That means they
> /need/ to be responsible for assessing whether they can and
> will keep it private, including assessment of those they live
> with or who have access to their computer or saved data.
I agree with this as well.
> That assessment is an integral part of assessing one's own
> fitness for the enhanced tools. A person may be fit for the
> task personally but lack the assurance on that.
I agree with this as well.
> Realistically, I'd accept an assessment that the spouse (or
> other close parties/housemates involves) aren't involved or
> interested, or have more information but a complete sense of
> discretion and "chinese walls", or won't know names or
> details, or whatever. Realistically people may tell spouses
> some things, some times. But a person in any privacy related
> position has to be responsible for assessing the privacy of
> information they are allowed to access. That's not just what
> /they/ will say or do, but that the data will stay private in
> all practical senses if they are allowed access to it. I
> would add this to non-public data policy:
>
> "A person being proposed to have access to non-public data
> will be personally responsible for the data they obtain
> through that access. Their access may be removed if, through
> their being given access, such information is improperly
> spread to unauthorized others."
I agree with this as well.
For the record, from time to time I do discuss matters related to WMF wiki
affairs with my wife, if there is a past history of her involvement. (which
there was in this particular case, with the editor whose sock I first
checked) In general, I do not discuss CU related matters without good reason
for doing so. The vast majority of matters are not discussed with her, but I
nevertheless am responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of private
matters.
I admit bias, however it is my considered judgement that my wife of 27
years, who I trust more than any other person in the world, is extremely
trustworthy and will not divulge matters that are properly kept private. She
has a long track record of operating in confidential environments and not
violating the trust placed in her. Therefore I willingly accept the
additional risk involved and acknowledge that it is indeed my
responsibility, and my reputation on the line, should she divulge anything,
because I adjudge the risk to be low.
In the proximate case, she did not divulge anything to anyone. All outward
communication of whatever sort has been initiated by me. Her role was only
that of advise and counsel to both me and the other editor whose sock I
first checked, based on the history of communication that we already had
with that editor, and on the statements that editor had made to us.
> "Guidance: - In practice this means that such a person should
> assess their online security practices (logging off, or
> sharing or locking their computer), their saved data
> practices (email, evidence, logs, and notes), and their
> shared personal discussion with others if any (housemates,
> close relatives and the like, and those people's discretion
> and involvement).
> These must be operated appropriately before enhanced access
> may be granted, and maintanced appropriately thereafter."
I agree with this as well.
> FT2
Thanks for turning up and adding some sanity.
Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
I was trying to find counterexamples to Joss Whedon's famous claim that
the blonde gets killed off in horror movies (supposedly why he created
Buffy).
Needless to say, using Wikipedia for this purpose means looking at articles
about horror movie characters and checking the color of the hair in the
image.
And of course Wikipedia turned out to be absolutely useless.
In a message dated 7/20/2008 11:22:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scream(a)datascreamer.com writes:
So if my wife brings me a sandwich at the computer... I should break my
neck to hide the OTRS interface from her?>>
------------
Her inadvertent knowledge, and your deliberate action to tell her, are two
different things.
One requires action on your part, the other only inaction.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/the-sam-adams-project/
I left a comment (not approved yet) saying the very best way to get a
POV into Wikipedia is to describe it neutrally, rather than push it,
then your edits will stand.
Also reminding them that Wikipedia is international, and operating at
a higher level than petty US local politics.
- d.
On 20 Jul 2008 at 14:59:22 +0530, "Relata Refero"
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, tl;dr.
Why is it that people who respond "tl;dr" to something almost
invariably top-post this response over a fullquote of the original
message that they regard as too long?
--
== 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/