In a message dated 9/26/2008 4:29:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
I believe it IS sometimes permissible. For instance, if someone is
vandalizing, making threats, etc. it is permissible to discover
personal information about them for the purposes of preventing the
problem. For instance, that's what checkusers do in cases of serious
vandalism etc. We may, for instance, discover personal information
through those checks, make connections between multiple accounts,
announce issues if we feel it necessary, get in touch with ISPs in
severe cases, etc.
--------------------------------------
Not this case.
This was a single admin, acting alone.
And no evidence that this was a "severe case" anyway.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Thomas, I was replying to the *general feeling* by some that it is sometimes
permissible to track down real-world identities, of those who for, whatever
reason, are trying to hide theirs.
It was not directly to you. I'm not trying to set-up an adversarial
counter-attack on your particular position, just point out that there is a larger
issue at-stake here. Rather than give extra leeway to admins, I would be more
inclined to give admins less leeway. Power, even small amounts, tends to
make people feel they are immune from the standards that apply to the powerless.
If we are going to stress that in-wiki and out-wiki activities shouldn't
merge, than that standard needs to be applied to admin actions as well and
perhaps even more-so. IMHO.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
That's a very fine hair you're trying to split here.
To justify the actions of one person, while vilifying the actions of
another, even though they did, exactly the same thing. No matter how thinly the
hair is split, it is the *intent* of the person which matters isn't it?
And we are all old enough to understand that "intent" can be viewed in a
hundred different ways depending on who you're trying to attack :)
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Are you sure Thomas? Wasn't there a recent case where a user was
"indefinitely blocked" for merely mentioning the real name of Durova in-wiki when
actually her real name is known already. The justification in that case for the
block, was merely mentioning the name. That's all. Not stalking them
in-the-real-world.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 9/26/2008 1:53:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Working out somebody's name isn't stalking. Using that name to phone
their place of work and complain about them, or something, could be
considered stalking, but just finding out their name isn't.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Did not the user state that the admin was stalking them out of Wikipedia?
Trying to discover their real name?
I was under the impression that that sort of activity was frowned upon.
In a message dated 9/26/2008 9:39:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
What you describe is an administrator investigating a ban-evading
sockmaster, discovering instances of further ban-evasion, and properly
blocking to enforce the ban.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:05:55 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ryulong
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0809251705r3c65a564g138e3f4c7ad9fd2e(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2008/9/26 Jonas Rand <joeyyuan(a)cox.net>:
>> Ryulong, real name Michael, has stalked me. He has obviously ben
>> searching
>> for my real name. I made some comments on Wikiversity under an IP address
>> not in my known range, signed my real name. These posts had no link
>> whatsoever to a userpage on another wiki. The only way Ryulong could have
>> found those posts, connected it, found my IP address, and blocked it on
>> enwiki, is doing searches on my real name, either for the express purpose
>> of
>> looking for new IP addresses, or (more likely) some strange stalker hunt.
>> It
>> would be awkward for someone to search for the real name of a person to
>> find
>> sockpuppets or IPs, unless he knows I've moved since I had IPs in the
>> 68.224.0.0/17 range, in which case he's still on a stalkerish hunt for
>> me.
>
> This is not the place for such complaints. Try the Administrators
> Noticeboard in the first instance.
You must not know who I am, about my ban, and how many ways and times I have
been told "Fuck you" by higher-up Wikipedians.
My name is Jonas Rand, and I live in Nevada. I was banned a long time ago,
and the ban still stayed.
I became a member of Wikipedia Review shortly after I stopped vandalising
and began editing regularly. I posted on there some comments critical of
Wikipedia, not really in a mature fashion. I also found out about things
there, such as Ryulong's RFC. When I looked at the abusive blocks he had
made (he apologised, but continues to be rude nowadays), I decided to
comment on it, requesting that he be desysopped. I still maintain that he
should be desysopped, however the way I phrased the comment and the reasons
that I thought he should have been desysopped for (to see how it feels) made
people think I was trolling. I was new in the field of Wikidrama. So I was
blocked for a week. After I sockpuppeteered during that block, when I was
let back in, I tried to remove the sockpuppeteer template, as it was
unseemly and I thought it made me look like I was blocked. So I called
Ryulong names. I harassed him, and he was rude to me. Then, Josh Gordon came
in and threatened me with a 1-month block, not seeing that his friend
Ryulong was not willing to negotiate with me. I realised his threat was
serious, the hard way.
I created more and more sockpuppets over more and more bans, eventually
leading to an indefinite block by someone who obviously meatpuppets for
Slimvirgin, Crum375. It was for harassing SV with a sockpuppet.
I don't believe the ban is unfair, I think that it shouldn't be permanent.
There is also no reason to harass me by being so obsessed with me as to do
google searches for my real name to check for sockpuppets.
Of course, I won't be going through the trouble to find an unblocked open
web proxy, create a sockpuppet, post to the AN, and get reverted as a troll
by Luna Santin ;).
To Josh, because I know you read this list, I'm sorry for the abusive
e-mails and disruption, I've realised my mistake, but you must realise as
well that Ryulong wasn't acting very nice, either. I hope this can be
resolved.
Jonas Rand
User:Ionas68224
Ryulong, real name Michael, has stalked me. He has obviously ben searching
for my real name. I made some comments on Wikiversity under an IP address
not in my known range, signed my real name. These posts had no link
whatsoever to a userpage on another wiki. The only way Ryulong could have
found those posts, connected it, found my IP address, and blocked it on
enwiki, is doing searches on my real name, either for the express purpose of
looking for new IP addresses, or (more likely) some strange stalker hunt. It
would be awkward for someone to search for the real name of a person to find
sockpuppets or IPs, unless he knows I've moved since I had IPs in the
68.224.0.0/17 range, in which case he's still on a stalkerish hunt for me.
Jonas
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >http://xkcd.com/446/
> > Sean Barrett
> > sean(a)epoptic.com
> >
>
> Yes, very nice. As ever. The semantics and linking of Wikipedia are
> often very silly.
>
> Gordo
>
Holy old thread, Batman!
I just want to lament the fact that Randall uses the CC-BY-NC license, so we
can't use his stuff.
--
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P
elipongo(a)gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elipongo
How do you have a "mob" and then say "it's nice" ?
By the way Ayn didn't necessarily believe that a "committe" was nice. A mob
can be a committee as well. The underlying point is that only individuals
can create true works of beauty. That to her mind, a collective can never
create a work of beauty. They can however, evidently, create a "society" *in
which* artists are free to express their works. But it's not the specific
works that she would like created collectively, only the environment in which
those works could be created by invidivuals.
That's my viewpoint of her viewpoint.
In a message dated 9/22/2008 10:34:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
elipongo(a)gmail.com writes:
The article space is most certainly not controlled by committee; the real
estate of what's visible to the public in the articles is subject to
constant struggle and competition amongst the editors to get what they think
should be up there. We form and disband coalitions and constantly adapt our
tactics to the environment of our competitors. Thankfully this competition
is usually undertaken with rational debate (though I think we've all seen
the occasional lynching, it's all part of being a mob).
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)