> An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic.
> The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account.
> Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Here's the rub: when I do a sockpuppet investigation and develop strong
suspicions (or even locate a smoking gun, which sometimes happens) the
editor who violated policy often invents some specious claim to pretend his
or her actions were legitimate. So sure, there are legitimate reasons to
operate sockpuppets. Perhaps the noblest is to blow the whistle on sneaky
abuse without becoming a target for disgruntled editors on one's main
account. More often the "discussion" the editor wanted to join was an
AFD where they'd already dropped by to say "keep".
******
> OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor
> the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a
> correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a
> completely different user happened to have used the same IP address,
> but otherwise?)
"And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP
looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts
thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case."
I disagree. Two different people will have different prose styles and
different interests. As the total quantity of edits increases they become
easier to distinguish. In some cases I've spotted a sockpuppet instantly,
months after having investigated the sockmaster. I'll do follow up research
to confirm or reject the suspicion, of course, but tigers don't change their
stripes easily.
-Durova
On 21 Aug 2007 at 14:44:29 +0100, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's very easy for us to say that they broke the rules. What were they
> > supposed to do?
>
> They should have done something. Actual compliance is rather
> complicated, but it's not difficult to at least be honourable and
> admit that it's not your text.
So, basically, we want people reusing our content to show some sign
that they are attempting in good faith to comply with the license,
even if they don't quite dot the i's and cross the t's in a manner
that can't be nitpicked to death by a lawyer. Perhaps we should
have, somewhere prominently linked from our copyright license page,
some plain-English non-lawyerese explanation of the bare minimum that
would be needed by a reuser to show such good faith and not be
ridiculed by us (even if we're not generally inclined to sue).
--
== 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/
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wasn't thinking of fair use. I was thinking "work of joint authorship".
>
> Does it being a work of joint authorship help? The GFDL explicitly
> states how modifications work, I think, so I don't think we'll be able
> to use joint authorship to get around it. It would boil down to
> nullifying the license, which is not something we should be trying to
> do.
>
Joint authors, in the absense of a joint authorship agreement, can
grant any non-exclusive license to anyone.
On 23/08/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > What criteria for deadminning are you thinking of? "Unpopular for
> > deleting 1000 fair-abuse images" or something that'll be usable for
> > that shouldn't be amongst them, for instance.
> The same at the criteria for a block. Violating policy. When such a
> violation requires action and what action is required should be at the
> discretion of the crat, just as it's at the discretion of the admin
> for blocks.
The criterion for a block is actually preventing damage - not
punishment, which is why mere past policy violation isn't reason for a
block and blocks for old 3RRs are ill-favoured.
So presumably de-adminning would also be for prevention of damage.
Examples would be useful as well, so we aren't talking entirely in the
abstract. Probably with names removed.
- d.
Greetings...
On en.wikipedia, fair use images are allowed so long as they comply with
the fair use criteria as stipulated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFCC.
Recently, and especially subsequent to the Foundation's resolution
on licensing, significant efforts have been made to bring en.wikipedia
in compliance. A large number of users have engaged in activities
intended to bring images in compliance with our policies or be deleted.
There's been several key debates/events in this process:
* Images/screenshots in episode lists have been removed. This
was reported in Signpost
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_u…)
* User:Betacommand created a bot (BetacommandBot) to tag images missing fair
use rationales (a requirement under the fair use criteria) as
missing them, placing
them for deletion. This was debated in a number of places, most notably at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/FURG
* Images in music discographies are being removed
* Based on dumps from May, a list of articles where fair use images were used
in large numbers was created and is now being worked on by several users. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse
These are not the only efforts underway, but should serve to demonstrate
what is happening.
Some of the problems that are happening, using a broad paintbrush:
* Some users are insisting that if the Foundation hasn't taken a position
specifically against fair use images being used in say discographies, that
it is therefore acceptable use.
* Some users have insisted that the bot tagging images missing fair use
rationales be permanently blocked. Further, that the deletion policy for
such images (WP:CSD I6) be suspended.
* Some users have been debating, at great length, that boiler plate fair
use rationales can be used to bring these images in compliance. This is
in large part due to the idea that fair use criteria is sufficiently met if
the fair use image serves to __identify__ the thing in question. Under
this argument, it is not necessary to have any critical commentary
regarding the product being displayed, or the cover art/logo being
displayed.
* Debates that have previously occurred, even recently, are being disputed
as not achieving consensus. Yet, those attempting to act to bring our fair
use images in compliance are acting under policy and the Foundation's
resolution. It is frequently noted that consensus does not always trump
policy, or indeed our very mission to develop free content. These debates
are becoming endless, with no way to seemingly satisfy all parties.
I am summarizing in short as much as I can. Please understand that these
debates have been heavily rancorous at times, almost always long winded,
repetitive, and unending. Just about every negative word you could think
of a debate would apply to the sum of all that has happened on this overarching
debate in the last three months since the Foundation's resolution.
I am not looking for people from this mailing list to jump into the debates
and speak their minds in support of one camp or another. That will do
nothing to end this terrible situation.
--- What I think needs to be done ---
A clearer stance from the Foundation needs to be made with specific
regard to fair use on the English language Wikipedia. In particular, this
stance needs to clearly indicate one of several possible stances:
1) Fair use may be liberally used wherever it is legal within the confines
of fair use law in the United States.
- This is a stance that one side of this issue insists is acceptable.
2) Fair use may be used if it serves to identify a given thing, such as
an album, book, person, etc. No critical commentary on the image
in question is needed; just that it serves to identify.
- This is one interpretation of the current policy. Many people feel
this interpretation is correct. Many people feel it is not.
3) Fair use may be used only if it discussed within the context of
critical commentary inline with the article, thus the image is necessary
to the text of the article itself.
- This would greatly diminish fair use usage as it would remove logos,
book covers, album covers, and quite a number of other possible
types of images. It would retain images that are significant to the text
of an article, including unusual book covers, album covers, logos, etc.
where critical commentary on the design was present.
- Note there is a further division of this stance as there will be some
that will argue that if you are discussing a book, displaying the book
under this stance would be ok. Which is it? Commentary on the contents
of the book or the cover of the book?
4) Fair use works may not be used at all.
- This would bring en.wikipedia in line with other language Wikipedias,
but has the drawback of eliminating highly significant photographs
relevant to articles about the things depicted in those photographs.
It could be modified to have an exclusion for historically significant
images, but this reduces the bright line effect of this stance.
I know that Jimbo has stated a personal stance of limiting fair use
to highly historical photos. Stance (3) above supports that, but is
more broad. Stance (4), if modified, could support that. Stances (1)
and (2) can not.
Our current situation is very murky. The debates are endless and
are getting nowhere. People are acting to support perceived policy
and resolution, but are being called vandals often enough and
reverted numerous times. There is no clear line, and nothing
in policy that provides us with a clear delineation of what is
acceptable and what is not.
While fair use law is deliberately vague and does not provide
a bright line, I feel we must provide one in policy for en.wikipedia if
we are to have any chance of achieving the targets laid out in the
Foundation's licensing policy
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy).
Personally, I have been attempting to support our fair use policies
for a year and a half now. I have been attacked for it more times
than I care to account. I've been called an extremist, disruptive,
fair use nazi, revisionist, and all manner of assorted attacks. I am
growing tired of endlessly trying to explain to users that we are
a free content project, and our fair use policy is a superset of
law. I'm about ready to throw in the fair use towel because of my
perception that at a fundamental level, this issue doesn't matter
enough to the Foundation for the real power of this project to
step in and clearly support our mission. The licensing resolution
helps, but has suffered multiple interpretations locally.
On en.wikipedia, there are approximately 200 thousand fair
use, copyrighted images of ~750 thousand images total.
This is a major, major undertaking to bring ourselves into
compliance. Yet, in three months we've barely made a dent
affecting only a few thousand images, and fixing a similar
number of articles. At the rate we are progressing, the nearest
date we could come into compliance would be ~5 years from
now. Further, we'd have a huge amount of effort wasted in the
process debating endlessly over this subject.
Please help us.
Respectfully,
-Durin
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/014605.html
Many less than ideal bits, but hearteningly clueful. Durova's Letter
to the SEOs appears to have sunk in, as has JEHochman's continued
attempts to spread clue amongst the marketers.
- d.
There is an anoymous user who has for the past few hours been engaging
in personal attacks towards me over the guitar article. The article
could really do with out the overt nationalistic flag waving. Would an
admin be able to step in here thanks.
Meg
I have noticed that the data dumps take increasingly longer to complete.
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070802/ <- This may not even be done
until the middle of next month, at which point the data contained will be
significantly outdated.
Are there any ways to distribute the processing of dumps such as these, and
if so, what would be the best approach?
Just thought I'd call it to attention.
Thanks,
Knsa H.
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Seems like all it would take to solve this dilemma is an encrypted proxy
> > > > that delivers the decryption code(s) to the WMF developers. So the editor
> > > > gets privacy from User:JoeSchmoe but Wikipedians with a certain level of
> > > > permissions could determine the point of origin.
> > >
> > > Logging in does exactly that. It hides your IP address from anyone
> > > without the checkuser bit.
> > >
> > > > Something like that would come in very handy for the editors from mainland
> > > > China, and a couple of smaller countries that firewall access.
> > >
> > > That's not a matter of hiding your identity, it's a matter of hiding
> > > the identity of the site you are viewing. Anonymous proxies/TOR do
> > > both, but they are different things.
> > >
> > Except this list has pretty much established to me that checkuser is
> > used to satisfy curiosity, to find out who is using Tors, and other
> > political reasons, so, logging in isn't any level of security, when it
> > isn't strictly used for its purposes.
> >
> Exactly. Some of the people with checkuser can't be trusted. Answer
> me this: has AB ever been checkusered? Have I?
>
> The last time I alluded to people with checkuser abusing their power I
> was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent
> discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman
> has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because
> inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy
> policy.
>
Yes, it appears from reading that that is correct.
Abusing check user privileges to satisfy curioisity, as offered
recently on this list, and to gain information about who is using Tor
accounts, then publish that usage is not an abuse, or an actionable
abuse by the ombudsman, because the ombudsman is strictly limited to
assisting those users whose privacy has been abused, when they were
the subject of a checkuser.
And clearly ArbCom doesn't want to do anything serious about those
with checkuser privileges abusing it, as indicated by their silly
response to the Charlotte Webbe incident.
So, anything that isn't strictly covered by the limited scope of
privacy concerns and handled by the ombusdmans is fair game for
exposure on Wikipedia, except you might be admonished to not be a
drama king about it. But you can still use your checkuser privileges
however you want, unconstrained by the intentions behind it.
So, we have users given immense power to violate the personal space of
other users, and we have no control over their use and abuse of that
power.
And, you don't even have to personally abuse your own checkuser power,
as shown by the recent e-mail where a user offered up his check user
results to others who e-mailed him, so they wouldn't personally have
to sully themselves by snooping--unbelievable.
So, are there privacy issues on Wikipedia? Damn straight, when huge
powers to invade others' privacy are given without restraints. It
makes me wish I were savvy enough to use a Tor exit node.
KP
I present these not as edicts from above, but rather to show that
completely blocking Tor is not an edict from above:
"All I'm saying is that Tor could segregate users easily enough into two
clouds: "We sorta trust these ones, more or less, a little bit, but no
guarantees" -- "We don't trust these ones, we don't know them".
Users in the first group could be allowed access to Wikipedia because
their overall level of bad behavior would be tolerable. Users in the
second group would still be blocked."
http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00274.html
"First, having a login id doesn't mean that we trust you, it just means
that you've signed up. One of the reasons that we don't _require_ login
ids, actually, is that it allows jerks to self-select by being too lazy
to login before they vandalize. :-)
But, we could do something like: allow non-logged in posts, and allowed
posts with Tor *for trusted accounts*, but not non-logged-in posts with
Tor, and not logged-in-but-not-yet-trusted accounts with Tor.
Still, there's a flaw: this means you have to come around to Wikipedia
in an non-Tor manner long enough for us to trust you, which pretty much
blows the whole point of privacy to start with."
http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00292.html
Anthony