NOTE: This message is the second part of a 3-part message which is over the size limit. I am sending all 3 parts at the same time.
On the Wikipedia IRC channel, I have a confrontation with the user Somitho (his IRC nick is Soms). We later become friends, but at that point we were mortal enemies. He says that he is filing a complaint to my ISP. I blank my own userpage (while logged in) and replace it with the text "I AM BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!111", linked to Somitho's userpage. It was more or less a sarcastic joke, because by then it had become obvious that my ISP was not going to shut off my Internet.
As a result of this dickery on my part, someone continually reverts my userpage, saying it is a personal attack on Somitho (how that constitutes a personal attack I will never know). Elaragirl somehow becomes involved in this and leaves a comment on my talk page. I don't remember what it was, but it was interesting enough to make me go to her talk page and read the linked page "EL:TEACUP" which was an essay in her userspace that talked about how she was not easily offended and that she didn't mind coarse language. Of course, I had been itching for months to find another editor who had the same "to hell with it" attitude as I, and so I left a message on her talk page. I wanted to make it clear that although we seemed to agree on many things, when two people have the same personality it will occasionally create dislike between the two people, and that I did not want that to happen.
After reading my comment on Elaragirl's talk page, Yanksox decided to indefinitely block me without consensus. AFTER THE BLOCK, it was discussed on AN/I. Still no consensus, but I remained blocked. I created another account to bring the case up at the Arbitration Committee, but they didn't give a crap (as usual for bureaucracies) and ignored it completely. An infamous e-mail passed between me and Ryan Postlewait, which was presented at WP:AN/I and so badly misinterpreted that I will not even discuss it here.
After the Soms/Elaragirl Saga, I remained blocked for a couple months.
I created an account named Two-Sixteen one day and began editing articles. I was courteous to everyone and was never warned for any reason. My intentions (although grand) were to edit excellently, become an administrator eventually, and then reveal myself to be Flameviper. Hopefully, the fact that an indefinitely-banned user could become a sysop would show everyone that I wasn't that bad after all, blah blah blah.
Two-Sixteen brings up the issue of Flameviper to CattleGirl, a sysop. I deliver a message to CattleGirl through e-mail.
The issue of my unblocking is brought up at WP:AN or some such board by SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWO-SIXTEEN. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
There is actually a discussion held, which results in a consensus to unblock me. Through the entire discussion, the user Metros continually takes every opportunity to attack me ("major stability issues", "is a troll").
Flameviper is unblocked.
Jpgordon performs a random-ass checkuser and finds that Two-Sixteen and Flameviper are the same person.
Both accounts are indef-blocked.
And of course, everyone proceeds to take their free pot shot at me.
--------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
On 06/09/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
NOTE: This message is the second part of a 3-part message which is over the size limit. I am sending all 3 parts at the same time.
On the Wikipedia IRC channel, I have a confrontation with the user Somitho (his IRC nick is Soms). We later become friends, but at that point we were mortal enemies. He says that he is filing a complaint to my ISP. I blank my own userpage (while logged in) and replace it with the text "I AM BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!111", linked to Somitho's userpage. It was more or less a sarcastic joke, because by then it had become obvious that my ISP was not going to shut off my Internet.
As a result of this dickery on my part, someone continually reverts my userpage, saying it is a personal attack on Somitho (how that constitutes a personal attack I will never know). Elaragirl somehow becomes involved in this and leaves a comment on my talk page. I don't remember what it was, but it was interesting enough to make me go to her talk page and read the linked page "EL:TEACUP" which was an essay in her userspace that talked about how she was not easily offended and that she didn't mind coarse language. Of course, I had been itching for months to find another editor who had the same "to hell with it" attitude as I, and so I left a message on her talk page. I wanted to make it clear that although we seemed to agree on many things, when two people have the same personality it will occasionally create dislike between the two people, and that I did not want that to happen.
After reading my comment on Elaragirl's talk page, Yanksox decided to indefinitely block me without consensus. AFTER THE BLOCK, it was discussed on AN/I. Still no consensus, but I remained blocked. I created another account to bring the case up at the Arbitration Committee, but they didn't give a crap (as usual for bureaucracies) and ignored it completely. An infamous e-mail passed between me and Ryan Postlewait, which was presented at WP:AN/I and so badly misinterpreted that I will not even discuss it here.
After the Soms/Elaragirl Saga, I remained blocked for a couple months.
I created an account named Two-Sixteen one day and began editing articles. I was courteous to everyone and was never warned for any reason. My intentions (although grand) were to edit excellently, become an administrator eventually, and then reveal myself to be Flameviper. Hopefully, the fact that an indefinitely-banned user could become a sysop would show everyone that I wasn't that bad after all, blah blah blah.
Two-Sixteen brings up the issue of Flameviper to CattleGirl, a sysop. I deliver a message to CattleGirl through e-mail.
The issue of my unblocking is brought up at WP:AN or some such board by SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWO-SIXTEEN. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
There is actually a discussion held, which results in a consensus to unblock me. Through the entire discussion, the user Metros continually takes every opportunity to attack me ("major stability issues", "is a troll").
Flameviper is unblocked.
Jpgordon performs a random-ass checkuser and finds that Two-Sixteen and Flameviper are the same person.
Both accounts are indef-blocked.
And of course, everyone proceeds to take their free pot shot at me.
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
checkusers are free to check whoever they like (as long as they have good reason). rfcu is just a convenience.
On 06/09/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
NOTE: This message is the second part of a 3-part message which is over the size limit. I am sending all 3 parts at the same time.
On the Wikipedia IRC channel, I have a confrontation with the user Somitho (his IRC nick is Soms). We later become friends, but at that point we were mortal enemies. He says that he is filing a complaint to my ISP. I blank my own userpage (while logged in) and replace it with the text "I AM BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!111", linked to Somitho's userpage. It was more or less a sarcastic joke, because by then it had become obvious that my ISP was not going to shut off my Internet.
As a result of this dickery on my part, someone continually reverts my userpage, saying it is a personal attack on Somitho (how that constitutes a personal attack I will never know). Elaragirl somehow becomes involved in this and leaves a comment on my talk page. I don't remember what it was, but it was interesting enough to make me go to her talk page and read the linked page "EL:TEACUP" which was an essay in her userspace that talked about how she was not easily offended and that she didn't mind coarse language. Of course, I had been itching for months to find another editor who had the same "to hell with it" attitude as I, and so I left a message on her talk page. I wanted to make it clear that although we seemed to agree on many things, when two people have the same personality it will occasionally create dislike between the two people, and that I did not want that to happen.
After reading my comment on Elaragirl's talk page, Yanksox decided to indefinitely block me without consensus. AFTER THE BLOCK, it was discussed on AN/I. Still no consensus, but I remained blocked. I created another account to bring the case up at the Arbitration Committee, but they didn't give a crap (as usual for bureaucracies) and ignored it completely. An infamous e-mail passed between me and Ryan Postlewait, which was presented at WP:AN/I and so badly misinterpreted that I will not even discuss it here.
After the Soms/Elaragirl Saga, I remained blocked for a couple months.
I created an account named Two-Sixteen one day and began editing articles. I was courteous to everyone and was never warned for any reason. My intentions (although grand) were to edit excellently, become an administrator eventually, and then reveal myself to be Flameviper. Hopefully, the fact that an indefinitely-banned user could become a sysop would show everyone that I wasn't that bad after all, blah blah blah.
Two-Sixteen brings up the issue of Flameviper to CattleGirl, a sysop. I deliver a message to CattleGirl through e-mail.
The issue of my unblocking is brought up at WP:AN or some such board by SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWO-SIXTEEN. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
There is actually a discussion held, which results in a consensus to unblock me. Through the entire discussion, the user Metros continually takes every opportunity to attack me ("major stability issues", "is a troll").
Flameviper is unblocked.
Jpgordon performs a random-ass checkuser and finds that Two-Sixteen and Flameviper are the same person.
Both accounts are indef-blocked.
And of course, everyone proceeds to take their free pot shot at me.
checkusers are free to check whoever they like (as long as they have good reason). rfcu is just a convenience.
Of more concern, any eavesdropper between you and Wikipaedia (or any other website) can run a 'Checkuser' on you.
Of more concern, any eavesdropper between you and Wikipaedia (or any other website) can run a 'Checkuser' on you.
I understand that you are paranoid. That doesn't mean you need to try and make other people paranoid. Eavesdropping on a connection requires a fair amount of skill and effort, so unless you have serious enemies, it's not likely to happen. Also, I would imagine eavesdropping to find out the source IP would be rather difficult - you would have to catch and analyse every packet going into the Wikimedia servers to find which ones are from the person you are looking for.
On 07/09/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Of more concern, any eavesdropper between you and Wikipaedia (or any other website) can run a 'Checkuser' on you.
I understand that you are paranoid. That doesn't mean you need to try and make other people paranoid. Eavesdropping on a connection requires a fair amount of skill and effort, so unless you have serious enemies, it's not likely to happen. Also, I would imagine eavesdropping to find out the source IP would be rather difficult - you would have to catch and analyse every packet going into the Wikimedia servers to find which ones are from the person you are looking for.
You can edit Wikipedia securely from here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page
It's slower, but the connection is SSL, so can't be snooped - only the fact of a transaction can be snooped. Your IP will show up in the server logs, so will be viewable by Wikimedia sysadmins or by those with checkuser, but it's as secure as we can do.
- d.
On 07/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You can edit Wikipedia securely from here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page It's slower, but the connection is SSL, so can't be snooped - only the fact of a transaction can be snooped. Your IP will show up in the server logs, so will be viewable by Wikimedia sysadmins or by those with checkuser, but it's as secure as we can do.
Note also this is a bit beta, so check you're still logged in as you and so on before you hit "edit". (You may wish to choose a different skin to Monobook to give a clear visual clue as to whether you're logged in.)
- d.
On 0, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com scribbled:
On 07/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You can edit Wikipedia securely from here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page It's slower, but the connection is SSL, so can't be snooped - only the fact of a transaction can be snooped. Your IP will show up in the server logs, so will be viewable by Wikimedia sysadmins or by those with checkuser, but it's as secure as we can do.
Note also this is a bit beta, so check you're still logged in as you and so on before you hit "edit". (You may wish to choose a different skin to Monobook to give a clear visual clue as to whether you're logged in.)
- d.
I've been editing this way for quite a while, so I'd like to caution everyone who is thinking about editing this way. A number of JavaScript extensions break when you edit through secure.wikimedia, and sometimes quite badly. (The last one I investigated enough to discover that the extension was assuming that the file path of the article on was viewing could be given in terms of the root directory by going "/wiki/article-name". This obviously doesn't work when you are not on en.wikipedia.org/ but secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/.) In addition, I think I've noticed a pervasive but moderate slow down (unsurprising, really) as compared to going through en.wikipedia.org.
-- gwern HV 1 Iris wetsu hate Ronco SAPT speech noise C2W
On 06/09/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I've been editing this way for quite a while, so I'd like to caution everyone who is thinking about editing this way. A number of JavaScript extensions break when you edit through secure.wikimedia, and sometimes quite badly. (The last one I investigated enough to discover that the extension was assuming that the file path of the article on was viewing could be given in terms of the root directory by going "/wiki/article-name". This obviously doesn't work when you are not on en.wikipedia.org/ but secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/.)
I prefer to avoid JavaScript, because it can break Tor, compromising your anonymity - or, if you are logged in, your pseudonymity. (Okay, I'm simplifying, but if you want the long version, read the paper.)
From the 2007 PET (Privacy Enhancing Technologies)
Workshop: http://www.petworkshop.org/2007/papers/PET2007_preproc_Browser_based.pdf
If you absolutely must use JavaScript, consider using software that can help you manage the risk. NoScript, for example, is available for Firefox users.
Vee wrote:
On 06/09/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
After the Soms/Elaragirl Saga, I remained blocked for a couple months.
I created an account named Two-Sixteen one day and began editing articles. I was courteous to everyone and was never warned for any reason. My intentions (although grand) were to edit excellently, become an administrator eventually, and then reveal myself to be Flameviper. Hopefully, the fact that an indefinitely-banned user could become a sysop would show everyone that I wasn't that bad after all, blah blah blah.
Two-Sixteen brings up the issue of Flameviper to CattleGirl, a sysop. I deliver a message to CattleGirl through e-mail.
The issue of my unblocking is brought up at WP:AN or some such board by SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWO-SIXTEEN. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
There is actually a discussion held, which results in a consensus to unblock me. Through the entire discussion, the user Metros continually takes every opportunity to attack me ("major stability issues", "is a troll").
Flameviper is unblocked.
Jpgordon performs a random-ass checkuser and finds that Two-Sixteen and Flameviper are the same person.
Both accounts are indef-blocked.
checkusers are free to check whoever they like (as long as they have good reason). rfcu is just a convenience.
There's a difference between performing a checkuser, and using the result to unilaterally act in a manner contrary to what had resulted from what appears to have been a consensus arising from a discussion.
Ec
On 06/09/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
On the Wikipedia IRC channel, I have a confrontation with the user Somitho (his IRC nick is Soms). We later become friends, but at that point we were mortal enemies. He says that he is filing a complaint to my ISP. I blank my own userpage (while logged in) and replace it with the text "I AM BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!111", linked to Somitho's userpage. It was more or less a sarcastic joke, because by then it had become obvious that my ISP was not going to shut off my Internet.
See, this looks childish ...
As a result of this dickery on my part,
... but this shows some self-awareness.
Both accounts are indef-blocked. And of course, everyone proceeds to take their free pot shot at me.
And I do appreciate that this really sucks.
- d.