---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wp freedom fighter wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Morwen morwen@evilmagic.org
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
[snip]
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
Thanks for this -- I forwarded it to the Arbitration Committee and they said they're looking into it.
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
2009/5/10 Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wp freedom fighter wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Morwen morwen@evilmagic.org
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
It's expecting a bit much of RFA to not just pass only people who are suited for the job, but also pass only that subset which will never ever become burned out or embittered or angry or gullible or...in the indefinite future.
The difficult first task they do immediately, but the impossible will take a little longer.
On the other hand, this might prompt an inactive-deadminning guideline, which might be a good thing.
Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after posting any kind of "resignation" message. By all means allow them to be re-activated on request without going through RFA .
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gwern Branwen" gwern0@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 10 May, 2009 14:58:39 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] someone after non-active admin accounts
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
It's expecting a bit much of RFA to not just pass only people who are suited for the job, but also pass only that subset which will never ever become burned out or embittered or angry or gullible or...in the indefinite future.
The difficult first task they do immediately, but the impossible will take a little longer.
On the other hand, this might prompt an inactive-deadminning guideline, which might be a good thing.
2009/5/11 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after posting any kind of "resignation" message. By all means allow them to be re-activated on request without going through RFA .
When was the last time an admin actually left after resigning? I can't think of anyone since Essjay!
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/11 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after posting any kind of "resignation" message. By all means allow them to be re-activated on request without going through RFA .
When was the last time an admin actually left after resigning? I can't think of anyone since Essjay!
Wikipedia:Former_administrators#Resigned has a list of quite a few admins who resigned, several of whom appear to have stopped editing about the same time.
Sam
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
wrote:
Automatic suspension of admins who have been inactive after a certain period sounds like a prudent idea - and also of admins who turn inactive after posting any kind of "resignation" message. By all means allow them to be re-activated on request without going through RFA .
Andrew
Very frequently, some sort of "get it back, no big deal" routine is mentioned in tandem with these proposals, but that's always seemed a bit naive, to me. If a rogue account can get superuser rights back *just by asking*, the security gained in removing those rights seems questionable. Sanity checks might work in a small community, but assuming a user has been gone for years, I don't see the utility.
-Luna
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
Hey, you wanna hear a really stupid thing *we* could do? The exact same thing! We write emails to a bunch of inactive admins, pretending to be disgruntled wikipedia-haters asking for their accounts, and if they bite, we ban and de-admin them! It would be like a sting! Or entrapment! Or something! We'd be like the Dirty Harry/Lethal Weapon/Archetypal-amoral-movie-cop of the internet!
Or not... whatever...
--Oskar
2009/5/11 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
Hey, you wanna hear a really stupid thing *we* could do? The exact same thing! We write emails to a bunch of inactive admins, pretending to be disgruntled wikipedia-haters asking for their accounts, and if they bite, we ban and de-admin them! It would be like a sting! Or entrapment! Or something! We'd be like the Dirty Harry/Lethal Weapon/Archetypal-amoral-movie-cop of the internet!
Or not... whatever...
Yeah, that would be entrapment. I know of no Wikipedia policy banning entrapment, but it might not be the best idea ever...
It does make you wonder... with the extra responsibility associated with having an admin account, there should be some expectation of a certain level of activity. There are certainly guidelines for the amount of activity that should have occured before an RFA, so why aren't there any for an expected level of activity once adminship is granted?
A de-sysoping for failure to meet this level probably shouldn't be automatic, but I wouldn't have any issue with there being an automatic "call for review" based on it... Angela
2009/5/11 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
It does make you wonder... with the extra responsibility associated with having an admin account, there should be some expectation of a certain level of activity. There are certainly guidelines for the amount of activity that should have occured before an RFA, so why aren't there any for an expected level of activity once adminship is granted?
A de-sysoping for failure to meet this level probably shouldn't be automatic, but I wouldn't have any issue with there being an automatic "call for review" based on it...
Desysopping inactive admins has been discussed and rejected 1000s of times. I don't think this incident should change anything, unless we get evidence that someone has fulfilled the request.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Desysopping inactive admins has been discussed and rejected 1000s of times.
{{citationneeded}}
Please?
"Andrew Turvey" andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote in message news:25230745.571242081651794.JavaMail.SYSTEM@ATSL_Laptop...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Desysopping inactive admins has been discussed and rejected 1000s of times.
{{citationneeded}}
Please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators (failed proposal -- does not indicate numbers.)
Nothing is to do here. Adminships, last time I checked, are already subject to a time-out under admins open to recall. I do not think it matters whether it's three months, twelve, or fifty months. If that's the length of your term, then it does not matter if you go into a coma due to a bad batch of homebrew: You're still an admin. The subject is whether it is ever proper to hand over accounts. Maybe it's proper to hand an account over to your wife or secretary; probably common practice. I think there are some organizational accounts around; they're clearly identified as such. I saw one that had a specific scope in botanical medicine. _______ Warning: BEER.SYS not found. Operator not loaded.
"Angela Anuszewski" angela.anuszewski@gmail.com wrote in message news:f70a9ccf0905111053p988d820q86691d5e0b365c53@mail.gmail.com...
It does make you wonder... with the extra responsibility associated with having an admin account, there should be some expectation of a certain level of activity. There are certainly guidelines for the amount of activity that should have occured before an RFA, so why aren't there any for an expected level of activity once adminship is granted?
A de-sysoping for failure to meet this level probably shouldn't be automatic, but I wouldn't have any issue with there being an automatic "call for review" based on it... Angela
-- Wikipedia:[[User:Psu256]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Nothing is to do here. Adminships, last time I checked, are already subject to a time-out under admins open to recall. I do not think it matters whether it's three months, twelve, or fifty months. If that's the length of your term, then it does not matter if you go into a coma due to a bad batch of homebrew: You're still an admin. The subject is whether it is ever proper to hand over accounts. Maybe it's proper to hand an account over to your wife or secretary; probably common practice. I think there are some organizational accounts around; they're clearly identified as such. I saw one that had a specific scope in botanical medicine.
The English Wikipedia has never had a policy of desysopping inactive admins whether they are open to recall or not (which far from all admins are). Adminship is for life unless the account is compromised, you do something seriously wrong or you resign. I don't know if there is a specific written policy against handing over account, but I doubt the community would accept such an action, especially for an admin account. It certainly isn't common practice. Role accounts are usually banned on sight. They used to be allowed for certain things, but went out of fashion years ago.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Nothing is to do here. Adminships, last time I checked, are already subject to a time-out under admins open to recall. I do not think it matters whether it's three months, twelve, or fifty months. If that's the length of your term, then it does not matter if you go into a coma due to a bad batch of homebrew: You're still an admin. The subject is whether it is ever proper to hand over accounts. Maybe it's proper to hand an account over to your wife or secretary; probably common practice. I think there are some organizational accounts around; they're clearly identified as such. I saw one that had a specific scope in botanical medicine.
The English Wikipedia has never had a policy of desysopping inactive admins whether they are open to recall or not (which far from all admins are). Adminship is for life unless the account is compromised, you do something seriously wrong or you resign. I don't know if there is a specific written policy against handing over account, but I doubt the community would accept such an action, especially for an admin account. It certainly isn't common practice. Role accounts are usually banned on sight. They used to be allowed for certain things, but went out of fashion years ago.
Not strictly true, but they are very limited in what they are used for. Mainly for contact purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
Carcharoth
2009/5/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Nothing is to do here. Adminships, last time I checked, are already subject to a time-out under admins open to recall. I do not think it matters whether it's three months, twelve, or fifty months. If that's the length of your term, then it does not matter if you go into a coma due to a bad batch of homebrew: You're still an admin. The subject is whether it is ever proper to hand over accounts. Maybe it's proper to hand an account over to your wife or secretary; probably common practice. I think there are some organizational accounts around; they're clearly identified as such. I saw one that had a specific scope in botanical medicine.
The English Wikipedia has never had a policy of desysopping inactive admins whether they are open to recall or not (which far from all admins are). Adminship is for life unless the account is compromised, you do something seriously wrong or you resign. I don't know if there is a specific written policy against handing over account, but I doubt the community would accept such an action, especially for an admin account. It certainly isn't common practice. Role accounts are usually banned on sight. They used to be allowed for certain things, but went out of fashion years ago.
Not strictly true, but they are very limited in what they are used for. Mainly for contact purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
I did say "usually". Also, not that that page says all those accounts should be indefinitely blocked. You aren't allowed to actually *use* a role account, but they are allowed to exist to make contacting a group easier in some cases.
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905210757r6bf68360m80277e6491df3d6a@mail.gmail.com...
2009/5/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Nothing is to do here. Adminships, last time I checked, are already subject to a time-out under admins open to recall. I do not think it matters whether it's three months, twelve, or fifty months. If that's the length of your term, then it does not matter if you go into a coma due to a bad batch of homebrew: You're still an admin. The subject is whether it is ever proper to hand over accounts. Maybe it's proper to hand an account over to your wife or secretary; probably common practice. I think there are some organizational accounts around; they're clearly identified as such. I saw one that had a specific scope in botanical medicine.
The English Wikipedia has never had a policy of desysopping inactive admins whether they are open to recall or not (which far from all admins are). Adminship is for life unless the account is compromised, you do something seriously wrong or you resign. I don't know if there is a specific written policy against handing over account, but I doubt the community would accept such an action, especially for an admin account. It certainly isn't common practice. Role accounts are usually banned on sight. They used to be allowed for certain things, but went out of fashion years ago.
Not strictly true, but they are very limited in what they are used for. Mainly for contact purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
I did say "usually". Also, not that that page says all those accounts should be indefinitely blocked. You aren't allowed to actually *use* a role account, but they are allowed to exist to make contacting a group easier in some cases.
If I had known that when I saw it...there *was* an org-named account in a category about wikipedians interested in herbalism, and either it's gone or out of the category, so I couldn't tell you if there was actually only one person behind it. There was another one dedicated to a search engine that had some peer-to-peer capability that I did not understand -- didn't find it, because I don't remember the name of it. I don't remember where to look, either. (Maybe I will after I volume-level my tracks for CJSR). Contacts were being made on the talk page, so for all I know it is out of commission under "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" (I am sure you could fool a lot of people on that one, and not, as it happens, me).
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson < oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, you wanna hear a really stupid thing *we* could do? The exact same thing! We write emails to a bunch of inactive admins, pretending to be disgruntled wikipedia-haters asking for their accounts, and if they bite, we ban and de-admin them! It would be like a sting! Or entrapment! Or something! We'd be like the Dirty Harry/Lethal Weapon/Archetypal-amoral-movie-cop of the internet!
How do you know that's not what "Wp freedom fighter" was doing?
I see no problem with responding. The question for me is how, and to whom, besides this hacker (of the slack hacker variety, not kludge writers) should I respond to. Since he responded to me, and may the wonders of stupidity be praised, he asked for my useless password, it might be within my power to get his google account terminated. They in turn can get his internet service contract reviewed. For some reason, googlemail guards IP posting host numbers. hotmail does not.
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0905100643y1fe7447fleec8fa76b86cbb1e@mail.gmail.com...
I would hope RFA is good enough to weed out people stupid enough to respond to such things...
2009/5/10 Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wp freedom fighter wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Morwen morwen@evilmagic.org
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Wp_freedom_fighter ... No response from gmail about why his e-mail is still functional. The Apathy Cabal rules again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Whew, I thought you were talking about [[User:X!|me]].
- -X!
On May 10, 2009, at 8:52 AM [May 10, 2009 ], Abigail Brady wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wp freedom fighter wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Morwen morwen@evilmagic.org
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm surprised the account hasn't already been blocked with e-mail disabled. Not that he/she couldn't register a new one, but...
Wikipedia Review appears to have picked up on this as well:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.comwrote:
Wikipedia Review appears to have picked up on this as well:
They always do. Good for them.
Your application to an administrator for becoming an administrator should probably be denied. To my knowledge, Ms. Brady does not know you well enough to understand your motivation for becoming an administrator. Since she made your application public, I suspect that she may even find your application to be a threatening evasion of the normal process for becoming an administrator. Furthermore, since you claim to represent a party, and not a single being with your references to "we", I think your account should be watched for evidence of sock-puppetry. Entrusting an account with special rights to an account that may already reprezent several users is clearly outside of [[WP:SOCK]] policy. _______Begin Redacted Message_______ (Sources and destinations are in public view, and may be deleted with a proper application to the oversight committee or with direct applications to thread participants). [i.e. Select Message, press delete, in cases where message is yours.]
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
What I'm wondering is how a campaign whose centerpiece is ppivoted upon deception ofeditors, is planning to fight "corruption"? This sounds an ideal route to being the corrupt themself.
I suspect the aspect how exactly having a dozen admin accounts would help them improve integrity, reduce unfair or improper actions and so on, has not fully crossed their mind.........
It's easy to fight against "the corruption" or "the bureaucracy" -- impressive sounding "things" both. But specifying exactly what corrupt activities deception will help with, and which bureaucratic issues will be removed by additional use of adminship, is not included. "Please give us your admin accounts for a noble cause that we're not going to explain a thing about how we are rather improbably going to further it".
Probably wise that they didn't try to explain, given the user's mindset. The bemusement value would have been significant for this list.......
FT2
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Your application to an administrator for becoming an administrator should probably be denied. To my knowledge, Ms. Brady does not know you well enough to understand your motivation for becoming an administrator. Since she made your application public, I suspect that she may even find your application to be a threatening evasion of the normal process for becoming an administrator. Furthermore, since you claim to represent a party, and not a single being with your references to "we", I think your account should be watched for evidence of sock-puppetry. Entrusting an account with special rights to an account that may already reprezent several users is clearly outside of [[WP:SOCK]] policy. _______Begin Redacted Message_______ (Sources and destinations are in public view, and may be deleted with a proper application to the oversight committee or with direct applications to thread participants). [i.e. Select Message, press delete, in cases where message is yours.]
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In my experience with web-based positions of power, people leave for two reasons:
1. Their life changes (job, kids, school, etc.) basically meaning they can't or don't want to commit the time or 2. Things change and the website didn't go exactly the way they wanted it to - serious business and all that.
Emailing dormant admin accounts is a pretty safe bet, because if it's the former there are unlikely to be repercussions, and if it's the latter then they might be able to engage them in conversation, which is all these "fighters" want. It's pretty clear they're not out for improving anyone's experience other than his/her/their own, but they're just playing the odds.
~A
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 06:32, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm wondering is how a campaign whose centerpiece is ppivoted upon deception ofeditors, is planning to fight "corruption"? This sounds an ideal route to being the corrupt themself.
I suspect the aspect how exactly having a dozen admin accounts would help them improve integrity, reduce unfair or improper actions and so on, has not fully crossed their mind.........
It's easy to fight against "the corruption" or "the bureaucracy" -- impressive sounding "things" both. But specifying exactly what corrupt activities deception will help with, and which bureaucratic issues will be removed by additional use of adminship, is not included. "Please give us your admin accounts for a noble cause that we're not going to explain a thing about how we are rather improbably going to further it".
Probably wise that they didn't try to explain, given the user's mindset. The bemusement value would have been significant for this list.......
FT2
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Jay Litwyn < brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Your application to an administrator for becoming an administrator should probably be denied. To my knowledge, Ms. Brady does not know you well enough to understand your motivation for becoming an administrator. Since she
made
your application public, I suspect that she may even find your
application
to be a threatening evasion of the normal process for becoming an administrator. Furthermore, since you claim to represent a party, and not
a
single being with your references to "we", I think your account should be watched for evidence of sock-puppetry. Entrusting an account with special rights to an account that may already reprezent several users is clearly outside of [[WP:SOCK]] policy. _______Begin Redacted Message_______ (Sources and destinations are in public view, and may be deleted with a proper application to the oversight committee or with direct applications to thread participants). [i.e. Select Message, press delete, in cases where message is yours.]
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and
bureaucracy
at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate
to
contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&showtopic=24308&pid=172868&st=0&#entry172868"> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail, which is understandably bottle-necked.
The headers indicate it was sent through the 'email this user feature': my mailhost received it directly from wikimedia.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fi...
indicates the account was created May 10, although it doesn't seem to have done anything after creation.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href=" http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&showtopic=24308&pid=172868&st=0&#entry172868 "> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm<http://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm> ">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail, which is understandably bottle-necked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Summon a checkuser with a suspected sockpuppet template on their front page. Those are *mainly* the ones who see IP#s and whois search links on those IP#s.
"Abigail Brady" morwen@evilmagic.org wrote in message news:68e55ace0905210832g75a27ee5ha7a36217a2045d9b@mail.gmail.com...
The headers indicate it was sent through the 'email this user feature': my mailhost received it directly from wikimedia.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fi...
indicates the account was created May 10, although it doesn't seem to have done anything after creation.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href=" http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&showtopic=24308&pid=172868&st=0&#entry172868 "> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm<http://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm> ">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail, which is understandably bottle-necked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What was I thinking? You can contact abuse@googlemail.com about your problem without bothering a checkuser. You could also be sly and solicit a response from him via direct e-mail, by replying to him with direct e-mail. IOW, lie about your password. That might let you reach his ISP about hacking potential. In the event that the problem does not go away at source, then putting a suspected sockpuppet template on his front page will summon a checkuser to find another reason to block him, and I do not think you need another reason. I think Mister Lau on wikipedia review will second you if you need that.
"Abigail Brady" morwen@evilmagic.org wrote in message news:68e55ace0905210832g75a27ee5ha7a36217a2045d9b@mail.gmail.com...
The headers indicate it was sent through the 'email this user feature': my mailhost received it directly from wikimedia.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fi...
indicates the account was created May 10, although it doesn't seem to have done anything after creation.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href=" http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&showtopic=24308&pid=172868&st=0&#entry172868 "> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm<http://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm> ">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail, which is understandably bottle-necked.
The suspected sock template does not summon checkusers and nor should it. You should either send a request to a checkuser vie email, or use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI ... the process is much faster then it used to be. (SPI is the replacement for RFCU and SSP).
Contacting the arbcom though is probably the most prudent course of action, and arbcom will take care of getting cu's involved and like.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jay Litwyn < brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
What was I thinking? You can contact abuse@googlemail.com about your problem without bothering a checkuser. You could also be sly and solicit a response from him via direct e-mail, by replying to him with direct e-mail. IOW, lie about your password. That might let you reach his ISP about hacking potential. In the event that the problem does not go away at source, then putting a suspected sockpuppet template on his front page will summon a checkuser to find another reason to block him, and I do not think you need another reason. I think Mister Lau on wikipedia review will second you if you need that.
"Abigail Brady" morwen@evilmagic.org wrote in message news:68e55ace0905210832g75a27ee5ha7a36217a2045d9b@mail.gmail.com...
The headers indicate it was sent through the 'email this user feature': my mailhost received it directly from wikimedia.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fi...
indicates the account was created May 10, although it doesn't seem to have done anything after creation.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href="
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&...
"> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htmhttp://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm
http://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm
">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail,
which
is understandably bottle-necked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Maybe it should go directly to {{SockBlock}}, do not pass go, do not collect notoriety, until he appeals on his discussion page, which might show him to be Grawp. Whoever it is did not introduce himself or make any edits, so it is clear that they want to go directly to using admin powers. I think the e-mail should go on his discussion page.
"Wilhelm Schnotz" wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote in message news:316c73a50905211155u4e2b614al47a3196011df6210@mail.gmail.com...
The suspected sock template does not summon checkusers and nor should it. You should either send a request to a checkuser vie email, or use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI ... the process is much faster then it used to be. (SPI is the replacement for RFCU and SSP).
Contacting the arbcom though is probably the most prudent course of action, and arbcom will take care of getting cu's involved and like.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jay Litwyn < brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
What was I thinking? You can contact abuse@googlemail.com about your problem without bothering a checkuser. You could also be sly and solicit a response from him via direct e-mail, by replying to him with direct e-mail. IOW, lie about your password. That might let you reach his ISP about hacking potential. In the event that the problem does not go away at source, then putting a suspected sockpuppet template on his front page will summon a checkuser to find another reason to block him, and I do not think you need another reason. I think Mister Lau on wikipedia review will second you if you need that.
"Abigail Brady" morwen@evilmagic.org wrote in message news:68e55ace0905210832g75a27ee5ha7a36217a2045d9b@mail.gmail.com...
The headers indicate it was sent through the 'email this user feature': my mailhost received it directly from wikimedia.org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fi...
indicates the account was created May 10, although it doesn't seem to have done anything after creation.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Abigail Brady carbon-copied an e-mail purportedly from user:Wp_freedom_fighter (if you follow the trailing indications of source, which were probably written manually) and that user does not seem to egzist, nor do they seem to hav ever egzisted. All I get on google is games and Sri Lankan war heroes. <a href="
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=6db52210dc1d573db450917c2f128df3&...
"> Unless you count this -CC- to someone else</a>. In other words, this user has nothing to lose but a gmail account, or so they think. googlemail tracks ISPs. An ISP might even be in the received headers. It is best that the complaint come from her and in her own words. _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htmhttp://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm
http://ecn.ab.ca/%7Ebrewhaha/finance/Manual_Spam_Control.htm
">Some clues about how you figure such things out are here.</a> A whois search on X-Originating-IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX might let her bypass googlemail,
which
is understandably bottle-necked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- User:Nixeagle on all wikimedia foundation wikis. Administrator on English wikipedia and meta. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l