On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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
On 13/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Indeed. Checkuser evolved from the en:wp arbcom nagging the devs on IP matches, eventually leading to Tim hacking together an interface for me to look up IPs without needing full database access and having to handcraft SQL. So I suggest you solve it at the technical level: how to stop people having to access the database for any reason. I look forward to your work.
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.
What the whuh? Link?
So, are there privacy issues on Wikipedia? Damn straight, when huge powers to invade others' privacy are given without restraints.
Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous drag queen. That is, theoretically.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Indeed. Checkuser evolved from the en:wp arbcom nagging the devs on IP matches, eventually leading to Tim hacking together an interface for me to look up IPs without needing full database access and having to handcraft SQL. So I suggest you solve it at the technical level: how to stop people having to access the database for any reason. I look forward to your work.
Ah, yes, I find problem's with the president's overseas policy, so I should shut up or run?
I wouldn't actually give people access to the database for any reason, though. I'm a bit shocked that's how it's done, too.
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.
What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so, where something came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his results of the check user with others with the privilege so they wouldn't have to look it up.
That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all fun and fair.
So, are there privacy issues on Wikipedia? Damn straight, when huge powers to invade others' privacy are given without restraints.
Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous drag queen. That is, theoretically.
Nice try. Well, not really.
This will still come back and bit Wikipedia real ugly. There is no security and Wikipedia does not take user's privacy seriously enough to demand that those with the potential to invade it strictly limit everything they do with the knowledge they gain possession of.
KP
On 13/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, yes, I find problem's with the president's overseas policy, so I should shut up or run?
On a wiki, everyone is Jimbo.
I wouldn't actually give people access to the database for any reason, though. I'm a bit shocked that's how it's done, too.
I think there'd be a fun old time running the finicky gaffer-tape-and-string wonders of MySQL without anyone having access to the database. But as I said, I look forward to your solution.
What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so, where something came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his results of the check user with others with the privilege so they wouldn't have to look it up. That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all fun and fair.
No, it's that I'm not even going to attempt to address a complaint of malfeasance of such ridiculous vagueness. Shit or get off the pot.
Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous drag queen. That is, theoretically.
Nice try. Well, not really.
Your logic has floored me.
This will still come back and bit Wikipedia real ugly. There is no security and Wikipedia does not take user's privacy seriously enough to demand that those with the potential to invade it strictly limit everything they do with the knowledge they gain possession of.
I look forward to your proposed rewrite of [[m:CheckUser]] then.
- d.
Forgive my obtuseness once more...
Shit or get off the pot.
Explain the analogy to me. I've not heard this one before.
Thanks in advance, Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:50 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
On 13/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, yes, I find problem's with the president's overseas policy, so I should shut up or run?
On a wiki, everyone is Jimbo.
I wouldn't actually give people access to the database for any reason, though. I'm a bit shocked that's how it's done, too.
I think there'd be a fun old time running the finicky gaffer-tape-and-string wonders of MySQL without anyone having access to the database. But as I said, I look forward to your solution.
What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so, where something came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his results of the check user with others with the privilege so they wouldn't have to look it up. That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all fun and fair.
No, it's that I'm not even going to attempt to address a complaint of malfeasance of such ridiculous vagueness. Shit or get off the pot.
Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous drag queen. That is, theoretically.
Nice try. Well, not really.
Your logic has floored me.
This will still come back and bit Wikipedia real ugly. There is no security and Wikipedia does not take user's privacy seriously enough to demand that those with the potential to invade it strictly limit everything they do with the knowledge they gain possession of.
I look forward to your proposed rewrite of [[m:CheckUser]] then.
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive my obtuseness once more...
Shit or get off the pot.
Explain the analogy to me. I've not heard this one before.
State your complaint or quit whining.
"Your complaint is too vague to answer. Link please." "See, that you don't remember it proves the validity of my complaint!" "wtf?"
- d.
It's a US term meaning roughly the same as "put up or shut up" in Europe.
It means, provide something substantial and specific; if one can't then don't try making vague allusions to grand malfeasance claims that are high on dramatic impact and low on hard facts.
Say something solid, or don't bother with smoke.
That's the rough meaning.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of NavouWiki Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:53 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
Forgive my obtuseness once more...
Shit or get off the pot.
Explain the analogy to me. I've not heard this one before.
Thanks in advance, Navou
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Indeed. Checkuser evolved from the en:wp arbcom nagging the devs on IP matches, eventually leading to Tim hacking together an interface for me to look up IPs without needing full database access and having to handcraft SQL. So I suggest you solve it at the technical level: how to stop people having to access the database for any reason. I look forward to your work.
Ah, yes, I find problem's with the president's overseas policy, so I should shut up or run?
I wouldn't actually give people access to the database for any reason, though. I'm a bit shocked that's how it's done, too.
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.
What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so, where something came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his results of the check user with others with the privilege so they wouldn't have to look it up.
That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all fun and fair.
That's how it's been, CheckUsers have a mailing list for that reason. It's not pixie dust, the results need interpretation and sometimes that needs to be provided by other more knowledgable people. Without knowing to *whom* they were sharing this information, we can't really yell at them. If a CheckUser shares information with another CheckUser, that's fine, especially since they all have access to the log.
So, are there privacy issues on Wikipedia? Damn straight, when huge powers to invade others' privacy are given without restraints.
Indeed, much as every man is a potential fabulous drag queen. That is, theoretically.
Nice try. Well, not really.
This will still come back and bit Wikipedia real ugly. There is no security and Wikipedia does not take user's privacy seriously enough to demand that those with the potential to invade it strictly limit everything they do with the knowledge they gain possession of.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 8/13/07 4:45 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
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.
What the whuh? Link?
It was a fairly recent post, in the past week or so, where something came up about checkuser, and a list member offered to share his results of the check user with others with the privilege so they wouldn't have to look it up.
That you didn't even notice is what I am talking about, that this post went by without a blink, is what I am talking about--there are no privacy considerations, a little sharing of what was revealed is all fun and fair.
KP,
Could you be referring to David's own post of 8/3/07, subj: Moving Forward in which he said:
"BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
Marc
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Could you be referring to David's own post of 8/3/07, subj: Moving Forward in which he said: "BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
checkuser-l is for discussing results one doesn't understand or suggesting others run a check one considers one shouldn't. Where's the privacy violation? Please show your working when answering.
- d.
On 13/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Could you be referring to David's own post of 8/3/07, subj: Moving Forward in which he said: "BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
checkuser-l is for discussing results one doesn't understand or suggesting others run a check one considers one shouldn't. Where's the privacy violation? Please show your working when answering.
Or, for the real point of the thread, the expectations violation. Again, please show working, because it will be closely questioned.
- d.
David, the whole thing really is nonsense. I'm not sure why we are wasting our time.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Could you be referring to David's own post of 8/3/07, subj: Moving
Forward
in which he said: "BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
checkuser-l is for discussing results one doesn't understand or suggesting others run a check one considers one shouldn't. Where's the privacy violation? Please show your working when answering.
Or, for the real point of the thread, the expectations violation. Again, please show working, because it will be closely questioned.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
David, the whole thing really is nonsense. I'm not sure why we are wasting our time.
There appears to be an expectations violation. That' s what I'd really like to see stated in detail, more than "someone's doing magic I don't understand - it might be bad for me, so it must be stopped!" which is what it reads like so far.
But I'm sure the complainants can clearly state their expectations in detail and how and why they are violated, preferably in a way that shows they actually know what checkuser access does in practice. That would make this a useful and productive thread.
- d.
Yup, which is why I asked in the other thread for them to read the Privacy policy (on wikimediafoundation), the CheckUser policy (on meta), and the Extension:CheckUser (on MediaWiki) before commenting more.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
David, the whole thing really is nonsense. I'm not sure why we are
wasting
our time.
There appears to be an expectations violation. That' s what I'd really like to see stated in detail, more than "someone's doing magic I don't understand - it might be bad for me, so it must be stopped!" which is what it reads like so far.
But I'm sure the complainants can clearly state their expectations in detail and how and why they are violated, preferably in a way that shows they actually know what checkuser access does in practice. That would make this a useful and productive thread.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Could you be referring to David's own post of 8/3/07, subj: Moving Forward in which he said: "BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
on 8/13/07 5:09 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
checkuser-l is for discussing results one doesn't understand or suggesting others run a check one considers one shouldn't. Where's the privacy violation?
David, I was merely trying to help KP locate a post. I thought this might have been it.
Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
Marc
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
I'm addressing this to the complainants :-)
There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't account for.
It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool (which just isn't going to happen).
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
I'm addressing this to the complainants :-)
There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't account for.
It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool (which just isn't going to happen).
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't. If you really need to stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
I'm addressing this to the complainants :-)
There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't account for.
It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool (which just isn't going to happen).
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
You may say that you expect it, but by visiting any page on Wikimedia site, you are agreeing to the privacy policy http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and also the resolutions of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and its relevant policies. The CheckUser policy explicitly states that "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with
the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
That in itself is, maybe unfortunately, probably not going to happen.
It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet
of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't.
This may be one of the most understandable things you've ever said, but this isn't the place to bring it up. There is an official policy against sockpuppetry, and that won't be broken here.
If you really need to
stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
Wtf? You are upset becasue we are checking your *IP address* and instead you wish for us to find out your exact identity?!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please show your working when answering.
I don't even know what this means
I'm addressing this to the complainants :-)
There's clearly an expectations failure - there's something users expect which the privacy policy or other checkuser policies don't account for.
It would be good to allow for expectations without abandoning the tool (which just isn't going to happen).
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
You may say that you expect it, but by visiting any page on Wikimedia site, you are agreeing to the privacy policy http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and also the resolutions of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and its relevant policies.
I'd disagree with your statement that I "am agreeing" to anything simply by visiting a page, however I do realize that checkuser exists and that I have no legal recourse against it. This is why I often see a problem in a Wikipedia article and choose not to fix it.
The CheckUser policy explicitly states that "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."
Yep. I thought what David was asking was what we think the policy should say, not what it does say.
It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't.
This may be one of the most understandable things you've ever said, but this isn't the place to bring it up. There is an official policy against sockpuppetry, and that won't be broken here.
The policy about sockpuppetry only pertains to very limited cases where there is no violation of other policies. Basically, so long as you don't vote or become an admin, and don't violate any policies, you can have as many sockpuppets as you want.
If you really need to
stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
Wtf? You are upset becasue we are checking your *IP address* and instead you wish for us to find out your exact identity?!
A) anyone who does the slightest bit of investigation can easily find out my "exact identity". B) You don't really need to know if I'm a sockpuppet of anyone, because I'm not an admin and I don't participate in voting. (well, I rarely participate in voting nowadays, I'll gladly stop doing so if it's a problem, though).
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
You don't get that, any more than you get to object to a sysadmin looking through the logs of a server they are charged with administering. Checkuser is essentially a sysadmin function. (But then, you know this, having read the manual.)
What do you gain from knowing, if the information is not revealed?
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't. If you really need to stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
Assume that the tool will continue to be used as it is unless you can *convince* lots of people otherwise. It's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of persuasion. Can you make a fair shot at that?
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
You don't get that, any more than you get to object to a sysadmin looking through the logs of a server they are charged with administering. Checkuser is essentially a sysadmin function. (But then, you know this, having read the manual.)
What do you gain from knowing, if the information is not revealed?
What I gain by knowing when I am checkusered and for what reason, is the ability to make an informed decision whether or not to continue participating on the site.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't. If you really need to stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
Assume that the tool will continue to be used as it is unless you can *convince* lots of people otherwise. It's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of persuasion. Can you make a fair shot at that?
I really have no idea how the tool is currently being used, as I don't have access to the logs. I know of a few instances where it was used improperly, but I have no idea how common this is.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm asking what those expectations are, with as much detail as possible. Then we can work on something which doesn't piss people off.
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
You don't get that, any more than you get to object to a sysadmin looking through the logs of a server they are charged with administering. Checkuser is essentially a sysadmin function. (But then, you know this, having read the manual.)
Or any more than I get to object to (or even know about) a warrantless search of my phone records when George W Bush decides to go on a terrorist hunt. (But I know that, having read the lawsuits.)
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
I think the one thing not needed is another way for every edit warrior and sock warrior to have yet another way to stonewall and stall dispute resolution processes. It's a tough balance. Somewhere there's a line, trust these (few) people and processes, or refrain from editing.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely. It shouldn't matter whether or not a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Either their argument has merit or it doesn't. Either they're breaking policy or they aren't.
In principle it should be the case. But in practice, a number of items do end up heavily damaged through sock use. Unfortunately dispute resolution is a messy art, and sock presence does make it worse. In an ideal world where every other editor was careful and fully followed policy, never argued, never got upset, always sought dispute resolution, ignored all trolls, and above all where there were no borderline areas where degree of support for different views made a difference, it would be easy. Until then, sock use is a problem, and sock exposure a sadly needed ability.
(I spend a lot of time of sock related matters and disputes + informal mediation. The above is what one sees in practice.)
Changes to admin approach on the scale to make checkuser unnecessary and policy compliance assured without it, if applied across the board, would be draconian.
It would involve a far more ruthless approach from admins, and if applied across the board, this would probably be perceived as heavy handed, undesirable, domineering, and would problematically change the entire balance of the project. Applying it to select disputes might be more beneficial.
If you really need to stop sockpuppetry, then what you need is for the user to verify his/her identity, not to check IP addresses.
The latter doesn't affect puppetry, except with considerable difficulty and trouble. If you wanted to check if two accounts were in fact controlled by the same person, you'd have to get both to make some form of non-fakable personal contact - both speak to the same person so their voices could be compared, both show formal ID to some reliable party, or the like. Given that sock check can be run on two editors far apart and in areas where such checks are difficult, and most users point-blank will not wish to do this kind of disclosure, what means would you feel might better verify their identity in any practical sense without providing far more information and greater trouble, than IP checking?
FT2.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy.
I think it is sad that you are, apparently, so unwilling to extend trust to others even after benefiting from it yourself. I assume you know what they say about people who live in glass houses?
Wiki(p|m)edia isn't an anonymity service and becoming one would not further our mission.
It's believed by some that the limited level of anonymity we already provide is counter to our mission as well as the public good, although I don't personally share that view.
No realizable improvements would likely satisfy the desires of those who want better privacy enough to say something. What these people should want is a level of privacy which can only be provide by special tools (like TOR), and may not really be possible in open editable system because it is so easy to leak personally identifiable information.
I do, however, support the arguments you've made about increasing our friendliness towards outside anonymity services. We should do that to the greatest extents which are possible without damaging our ability to further our primary activities.
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy.
Wow, there is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.
To start with, use of a sockpuppet is not a violation of policy, and the sockpuppet I was using did not violate any policy. So there was absolutely no valid reason to make that check in the first place. Secondly, the fact that my actions were not disclosed to the public is irrelevant, as what I have a problem with is the fact that the checkuser was made in the first place. Thirdly, revelation of the matter would not have hurt my reputation. I have made no attempt to hide the fact that I often edit Wikipedia using pseudonyms. And fourthly, my privacy would have been violated by your revelation of the identity of an edit which was made under a pseudonym. You might not call that a violation of privacy, but it is.
I think it is sad that you are, apparently, so unwilling to extend trust to others even after benefiting from it yourself. I assume you know what they say about people who live in glass houses?
I don't understand whose trust you're claiming that I have benefited from. Yes, you didn't reveal private information about me to the public. That's great, you're not supposed to do that. Doing one right thing in one particular situation isn't enough to earn my trust.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
To start with, use of a sockpuppet is not a violation of policy, and the sockpuppet I was using did not violate any policy. So there was absolutely no valid reason to make that check in the first place. Secondly, the fact that my actions were not disclosed to the public is irrelevant, as what I have a problem with is the fact that the checkuser was made in the first place. Thirdly, revelation of the matter would not have hurt my reputation. I have made no attempt to hide the fact that I often edit Wikipedia using pseudonyms. And fourthly, my privacy would have been violated by your revelation of the identity of an edit which was made under a pseudonym. You might not call that a violation of privacy, but it is.
Anthony. You created a sock which was an apparent impersonation of a outside institution which was in some way associated with the WMF or some members of the WMF board.
Creating impersonation accounts is a violation of EnWP policy. You should have known better.
You used that account to create an article on the institution.
Doing so created the appearance of a violation of our conflict of interest guidelines. At least within our community, doing cast the origination in a falsely negative light ... as you should be well aware, much of our community frowns on self-edits. You should have known better.
As a direct result of your actions Wikimedia received unfair public criticism. It was claimed that Wikimedia looks the other way when it comes to COI edits from possible sponsors. You should have seen that coming.
I asked a Enwiki checkuser to see if there we had any useful data on the impersonator account, and the checkuser discovered that the person who created the account was you.
If you think that checkuering a blocked impersonator account is a violation of your privacy you are more out of touch with reality than I previously expected. No doubt, no one thinks you are important enough to bother checkusering you... it's just as easy to checkuser the disruptive account you make.
I see that you don't disclose your actions in your post, is it because you are not so confident that it wouldn't hurt your reputation or is it because you've created disruptive sock accounts so many times that you couldn't tell which one I was taking about in your prior message?
I suggest you be more careful with your words, because it's really starting to sound like you're complaining because you're not able to avoid the risk of being caught when you create a disruptive account.
Rather than simply throw you to the dogs over this, I asked the CU to take no further action at the time. I contacted you directly and asked what you were up to. You gave what I felt was a half-assed excuse, but since we all make idiotic mistakes from time to time I left it at that. As far as I can recall I only ever told a few foundation folks, since they had to clean up the mess you made.
It was my view that we needed no further response towards you in order to avoid continued disruptive behavior from you of that sort. After seeing your ranting, complaint, and defence of your disruptive actions I now believe my prior conclusion was made in error.
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy.
I just took a look. You're not on the checkuser list. So how exactly did you find out about this sockpuppet?
He's a checkuser on Commons.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy.
I just took a look. You're not on the checkuser list. So how exactly did you find out about this sockpuppet?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
Two separate projects. Separate, no?
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:18 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Within reasonable limits, all checkusers are probably best considered mutually trustworthy. Each project has separate checkusers but all fall under the WMF's management, and checkuser is a WMF provided capability. The notion of a divide isn't useful. If a checkuser can't be trusted, they can't be trusted on any project. The aim of checkuser and its reason for being provided is solely to safeguard WMF projects. That sounds like what was being done here.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of NavouWiki Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:25 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
Two separate projects. Separate, no?
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:18 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
Currently, the checkusers are on one private email list and it is considered acceptable to do so. If this causes problems, perhaps it should be revisited.
-Matt
He can view the log (if it's still saved) or he can view any discussion between CheckUsers on the mailing list (or they could tell him).
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 14/08/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He can view the log (if it's still saved) or he can view any discussion between CheckUsers on the mailing list (or they could tell him).
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
He's a checkuser on Commons.
So does that mean he has direct access to checkuser information on en.wikipedia, or does it mean that it's acceptable to tell him information about checkuser results from en.wikipedia, or neither?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it.
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it.
Does the log contain the results?
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it.
Does the log contain the results?
Strictly speaking, no. Although sometimes early results are obvious from the list of accounts which are subsequently checkusered.
On 14/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it.
Does the log contain the results?
No, but in some circumstances you can guess what they might be from the number and order of checks that get made (which is somewhat inevitable unless you deliberately cripple the output).
On 8/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
The checkuser log is global AFAIK, meaning all checkusers can view it.
Does the log contain the results?
No, but in some circumstances you can guess what they might be from the number and order of checks that get made (which is somewhat inevitable unless you deliberately cripple the output).
Well, as my name was never checkusered (at least not in as long as the logs go back), that's not the case in this situation.
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, as my name was never checkusered (at least not in as long as the logs go back), that's not the case in this situation.
Is there a purpose to the continued speculation after I already posted exactly what happened? Or do we just all enjoy being played by this disruptive troll?
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, as my name was never checkusered (at least not in as long as the logs go back), that's not the case in this situation.
Is there a purpose to the continued speculation after I already posted exactly what happened? Or do we just all enjoy being played by this disruptive troll?
So I raise questions about checkusers violating people's privacy, and you respond to it by violating my privacy, and the matter is suddenly closed?
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So I raise questions about checkusers violating people's privacy, and you respond to it by violating my privacy, and the matter is suddenly closed?
As far as I can tell, at this point, what you're actually doing is trying to argue that our projects should tie their own hands so that disruptive users, like yourself, can continue disrupting the project without risk of their actions being attributed back to them.
If you actually think I've violated your privacy then I invite you to take it up with the foundation. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous allegations about my conduct.
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So I raise questions about checkusers violating people's privacy, and you respond to it by violating my privacy, and the matter is suddenly closed?
As far as I can tell, at this point, what you're actually doing is trying to argue that our projects should tie their own hands so that disruptive users, like yourself, can continue disrupting the project without risk of their actions being attributed back to them.
Oh please, stop blaming the victim. I'm not a disruptive user, and you yourself didn't have any problem with the honest mistake I made until today when I question your actions (something which I did without mentioning your name until you did so yourself).
If you actually think I've violated your privacy then I invite you to take it up with the foundation. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous allegations about my conduct.
Hmm, let's see: "The tool [checkuser] is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
So, that's one policy you violated.
"It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above."
And there's a second policy you violated.
If you think I've libeled you, then I invite you take it up with a court of law. I'm not interested in playing with the Foundation's circus courts.
I don't think this conversation is doing anyone any good anymore. Please drop it or take it off-list.
Thanks.
Was it ever really doing any good? :)
On 8/13/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this conversation is doing anyone any good anymore. Please drop it or take it off-list.
Thanks.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So I raise questions about checkusers violating people's privacy, and you respond to it by violating my privacy, and the matter is suddenly closed?
As far as I can tell, at this point, what you're actually doing is trying to argue that our projects should tie their own hands so that disruptive users, like yourself, can continue disrupting the project without risk of their actions being attributed back to them.
Oh please, stop blaming the victim. I'm not a disruptive user, and you yourself didn't have any problem with the honest mistake I made until today when I question your actions (something which I did without mentioning your name until you did so yourself).
Oh, don't you start. You think you're the victim? How many times have you been put on moderation? Do you like being put on moderation for every list you comment on? Obviously, you are a very disruptive user on the mailing lists, I will not comment on your activity on-wiki. Either way, you are definitely not "the victim".
If you actually think I've violated your privacy then I invite you to
take it up with the foundation. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous allegations about my conduct.
Hmm, let's see: "The tool [checkuser] is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
So, that's one policy you violated.
How so?
"It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data
collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
- In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above."
And there's a second policy you violated.
If you are going to talk like that, you have to explain in detail how Greg violated that policy. He did not publish the results of it, did he share the other account name or IPs? No.
If you think I've libeled you, then I invite you take it up with a
court of law. I'm not interested in playing with the Foundation's circus courts.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Oh please, stop blaming the victim. I'm not a disruptive user, and you yourself didn't have any problem with the honest mistake I made until today when I question your actions (something which I did without mentioning your name until you did so yourself).
Whoa whoa whoa. You were questioning *my* actions, come again?
Exactly what action of mine were you questioning in this thread?
I await with baited breath your explanation of this one. It's sure to be a doozey.
So, that's one policy you violated.
Your policy argument makes no sense to me: Someone other than me checkusered an impersonation account and shared the results with me as part of an investigation into that account that I was conducting, doing so was perfectly fine with policy.
I've still not posted the identity of the impersonator account, although there is nothing stopping me from doing so.
I did not do so previously because I hoped you action was more stupidity than intentional disruption, and would mend your trollish ways. Now I continue to not disclose it because no one has asked and the process of of people searching for it and unearthing more disruptive accounts would be beneficial.
If you think it's a violation of your privacy to non-specifically describe to others how you caused harm using a sock account, I'm just going to have to invite you to pound sand.
We have checkuser precisely to catch harmful behavior, and if you don't like that then we should remind you that nothing is making you edit the site.
If you don't impersonate or disrupt it's unlikely that anyone would checkuser you, but if you don't edit at all then people have no ability to do so.
If you think I've libeled you, then I invite you take it up with a court of law.
de minimis non curat lex
While the negative statements you made about me were untrue, should have been known to you to be untrue, and certainly appear to have been made as part of malicious attack on my character... No harm to me can come of it, because so little credibility is granted to your rantings. No court would care, nor should it.
My request for an apology was a request to conform with a community standard of civility, not an offer to begin litigation. You would have heard about litigation from me via a process server, not a mailing list server. :)
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
While the negative statements you made about me were untrue, should have been known to you to be untrue, and certainly appear to have been made as part of malicious attack on my character... No harm to me can come of it, because so little credibility is granted to your rantings. No court would care, nor should it.
My request for an apology was a request to conform with a community standard of civility, not an offer to begin litigation. You would have heard about litigation from me via a process server, not a mailing list server. :)
Even though your histrionics, assumption of bad faith, and attacks on me make me question whether or not you deserve it, if you can show me where I've made negative factual statements about you which you can show to be untrue, I'll give you that apology. Your assertion that I made such statements knowing them to be untrue is incorrect.
Anthony
Sorry list I meant this to be private.
On 8/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
While the negative statements you made about me were untrue, should have been known to you to be untrue, and certainly appear to have been made as part of malicious attack on my character... No harm to me can come of it, because so little credibility is granted to your rantings. No court would care, nor should it.
My request for an apology was a request to conform with a community standard of civility, not an offer to begin litigation. You would have heard about litigation from me via a process server, not a mailing list server. :)
Even though your histrionics, assumption of bad faith, and attacks on me make me question whether or not you deserve it, if you can show me where I've made negative factual statements about you which you can show to be untrue, I'll give you that apology. Your assertion that I made such statements knowing them to be untrue is incorrect.
Anthony
On 14/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Even though your histrionics, assumption of bad faith, and attacks on
As we've seen, he didn't actually have to *assume* this - the direct evidence was right there.
This correspondence is probably near-dead as well, unfortunately.
- d.
<humor> I am still amused. He shall continue. </humor>
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Maxwell Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:56 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for fun, for profit, for mild curiosity, for sharing, for whatever
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, as my name was never checkusered (at least not in as long as the logs go back), that's not the case in this situation.
Is there a purpose to the continued speculation after I already posted exactly what happened? Or do we just all enjoy being played by this disruptive troll?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There'd be more confidence in CheckUsers if the users with the tool were more accountable. Right now it looks like individuals have the tool indefinitely once they are granted it. It might make more sense to link it specifically to certain elected positions such as ArbComm member as well as staffers or to ensure there was an accessible way to test whether or not an individual CheckUser still enjoys the trust of the community. Maybe a painless way of doing that is having a fixed term of one year for CheckUsers who are not on ArbComm or staff which can only be renewed trhough a community vote?
It is completely up to ArbCom. ArbCom can remove all the users with checkuser or they can make tons more, it's their decision.
On 8/13/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
There'd be more confidence in CheckUsers if the users with the tool were more accountable. Right now it looks like individuals have the tool indefinitely once they are granted it. It might make more sense to link it specifically to certain elected positions such as ArbComm member as well as staffers or to ensure there was an accessible way to test whether or not an individual CheckUser still enjoys the trust of the community. Maybe a painless way of doing that is having a fixed term of one year for CheckUsers who are not on ArbComm or staff which can only be renewed trhough a community vote?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l