On 7/19/08, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond. I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to explain the reason or context.
Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it off the wiki.
Thatcher
In what way is it an ethical violation to reveal the reason for a check?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia < thatcher131@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that
she
could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run.
Instead, it
appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond. I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to explain the reason or context.
Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it off the wiki.
Thatcher
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 Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond. I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to explain the reason or context.
Second, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it off the wiki.
You left out the issue of Lar informing his wife, another Wikipedia editor, of the results of the checks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
jayjg wrote: <snip>
You left out the issue of Lar informing his wife, another Wikipedia editor, of the results of the checks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seriously.
Best, Jon (en:NonvocalScream)
I'm thinking of a policy that says anyone who asks whether they've been checkusered must be told whether, why, and by whom, if they make the request within six months of the check. The request must come from the e-mail address the editor has added to their Wikipedia preferences. They may only ask whether that particular account has been checked. They need not be told the results of the check, in case that inadvertently implicates someone else, though they may be told it if no one else is involved.
We could build in a grandfather clause so that this doesn't apply retroactively. That would protect current checkusers who had performed checks without knowing the information might become public.
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond. I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to explain the reason or context.
Regardless of the current issue at stake, I like James approach on top of Sarah's one. It is at the same time very respectful to the person asking for information, but also very respectful of the checkuser.
I think it is fair that a user could ask if he was checkusered and if he was, to be informed when he was. However, the user should not get the name of the checkuser who did the check, but this latter should receive a notification of the request. I also think he should be given the freedom to answer or not.
This is possibly the best way to recognise and support both checkuser and checkusered and cut down on personal drama.
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
I'm thinking of a policy that says anyone who asks whether they've been checkusered must be told whether, why, and by whom, if they make the request within six months of the check. The request must come from the e-mail address the editor has added to their Wikipedia preferences. They may only ask whether that particular account has been checked. They need not be told the results of the check, in case that inadvertently implicates someone else, though they may be told it if no one else is involved.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of checkuser is one where "no one else is involved"?
It just does not make sense to me, please explain.
We could build in a grandfather clause so that this doesn't apply retroactively. That would protect current checkusers who had performed checks without knowing the information might become public.
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly doesn't appear that SV was given this information so that she could block or report the person on whom the CheckUser was run. Instead, it appears that she was told so she could tip off the person.
You've misunderstood what happened. I was told -- told, not "tipped off" -- about the checkuser because I was one of the people Lar checked. That is allowed under the policy.
There are two issues here that I would like to comment on.
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond. I think it would be pretty discourteous to the other checkuser to say directly, "Yes, you were checked by Smith" because that gets the editor angry at Smith without giving Smith a chance to explain the reason or context.
Regardless of the current issue at stake, I like James approach on top of Sarah's one. It is at the same time very respectful to the person asking for information, but also very respectful of the checkuser.
I think it is fair that a user could ask if he was checkusered and if he was, to be informed when he was. However, the user should not get the name of the checkuser who did the check, but this latter should receive a notification of the request. I also think he should be given the freedom to answer or not.
Let me just get this clear, you are suggesting that the checkuser could voluntarily let the person making a query about whether they had been checked, know that it was just this particular checkuser who was on the job on the given day? Or if the checkuser wanted to not be identified, that would be okay too?
This is possibly the best way to recognise and support both checkuser and checkusered and cut down on personal drama.
This sounds a very hopeful note, though I suspect mildly unwarrantedly optimistic in its tone.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
I'm thinking of a policy that says anyone who asks whether they've been checkusered must be told whether, why, and by whom, if they make the request within six months of the check. The request must come from the e-mail address the editor has added to their Wikipedia preferences. They may only ask whether that particular account has been checked. They need not be told the results of the check, in case that inadvertently implicates someone else, though they may be told it if no one else is involved.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of checkuser is one where "no one else is involved"?
It just does not make sense to me, please explain.
I did not write this. It was a copy paste of an email from Slim Virgin on this list. My comment was below Thatcher one.
Ant
On 7/22/08, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
First, on the issue of notification. My personal approach is that if someone asks me, "Have I been checkusered," I will answer yes or no. I will not identify the checkuser, because I can not speak for why that checkuser ran the check, but I will offer to notify the checkuser that the editor in question would like to discuss the matter. Then it is up to the checkuser who ran the check to decide whether or not to respond ...
Regardless of the current issue at stake, I like James approach on top of Sarah's one. It is at the same time very respectful to the person asking for information, but also very respectful of the checkuser.
I think it is fair that a user could ask if he was checkusered and if he was, to be informed when he was. However, the user should not get the name of the checkuser who did the check, but this latter should receive a notification of the request. I also think he should be given the freedom to answer or not.
Ant, the name of the checkuser is important. In two of the cases where I've been checked, it was by checkusers who had personal issues with me. The first was Kelly Martin in 2005, at the height of Wikipedia Review trying to find out where I live. She had always disliked me, and she checkusered me, for no reason that she was ever able to give. The second was Lar, someone who posts regularly to Wikipedia Review, which frequently publishes false and very damaging allegations about me, not just criticism of me as a Wikipedian.
Just as admins shouldn't use the tools against people they appear to be in dispute with, so too with checkusers. It's common sense, but we seem to have checkusers who lack that. That means editors need to be given the right to know whether people they're in dispute with have tried to find out where they live. That will stop it from happening overnight.
Sarah
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Ant, the name of the checkuser is important. In two of the cases where I've been checked, it was by checkusers who had personal issues with me. The first was Kelly Martin in 2005, at the height of Wikipedia Review trying to find out where I live. She had always disliked me, and she checkusered me, for no reason that she was ever able to give. The second was Lar, someone who posts regularly to Wikipedia Review, which frequently publishes false and very damaging allegations about me, not just criticism of me as a Wikipedian.
[snip]
At the time Kelly was a widely respected and trusted user. Her check of you *was* explained many times and supported by other people. You made a post to your talk page which looked completely out of character (which I believe has since been oversighted along with other large chunks of your history, so I can't point to it), so she check to see if there was any evidence that your account had been compromised. Nothing came out of the check, and no harm was done.
The only harm here comes from people who consider that the mere fact that a check was performed to be some scathing indictment. It's not. Get over it. If you're so worried about being checked then you need to quit editing, because sometimes checks will happen.
(for example, anyone could create an imitation SV sock account and the correct and expected thing to do would be to perform a complete set of checks. It's nothing personal. Yet we can all see exactly the sort of trouble some people will cause when they know they've been checked)
On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
At the time Kelly was a widely respected and trusted user. Her check of you *was* explained many times and supported by other people. You made a post to your talk page which looked completely out of character (which I believe has since been oversighted along with other large chunks of your history, so I can't point to it), so she check to see if there was any evidence that your account had been compromised. Nothing came out of the check, and no harm was done.
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
When first asked what her reason was, Kelly said she couldn't remember. The story about me making a post that was out of character came later. I still haven't been told which post. Also, I wasn't editing at all at the time she checked me -- I had taken a few days off.
The important point is that, had the check been legitimate, someone else would have done it instead. We need to emphasize to checkusers that they must not check people they could be seen to be in direct conflict with, or people they've previously expressed strong negative feelings about. Kelly was in the habit of attacking me viciously on IRC, so it doesn't take much common sense to realize that using the tool against me would look bad.
Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust. Therefore, in their own interests, checkusers who post there regularly should make it a point of principle never to use the tool against editors who are attacked there, or in whom Wikipedia Review expresses too much of an interest.
Sarah
2008/7/22 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
Why would any of your edits be oversighted?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/7/22 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
Why would any of your edits be oversighted?
Because after oversight was created JayJG systematically erased some amount of SV's history, presumably in an honest attempt to make life harder for some of the aggressive jerks trying to track her down.
This much is public knowledge because for at least a little while the oversights logs were public (http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/Oversight/HideRev...) and because someone (Judd Bagley) used old Wikipedia dumps to recover some of the oversighted evidence and though that discover Sarah's "sweetbluewater" 'sock' account. So, unfortunately, the use of oversight managed to degrade accountability which is an unfortunate risk of oversight.
On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/7/22 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
Why would any of your edits be oversighted?
Because after oversight was created JayJG systematically erased some amount of SV's history, presumably in an honest attempt to make life harder for some of the aggressive jerks trying to track her down.
This much is public knowledge because for at least a little while the oversights logs were public
Why even mention that, Greg? It was long before the checkuser we're talking about, and therefore obviously not connected to it. It looks like an attempt to get yet another swipe in.
Would you like it if someone did that to you? Oh look, another post from Gregory Maxwell, author of this personal attack [diff], and that one [diff], and this ridiculous comment [diff], and this attack on other editors on IRC [link]?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Why even mention that, Greg? It was long before the checkuser we're talking about, and therefore obviously not connected to it. It looks like an attempt to get yet another swipe in.
I didn't say anything attacking you here, I'm pointing out that fact that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible because of the uncertainty created by oversight. It's a statement of fact, not an allegation and not a reason to fault you.
It's one of several unfortunate side-effects on the use of checkuser... and one which is irritating here because you're making claims here which, as far as I can tell are highly revisionist compared to my recollection of the history... but it's not even worth my time to perform the searches or dig up the diffs because there is no way I could tell if they were oversighted or not. The reason I brought up SBW was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your interactions.
I have no clue if this was the diff that caught Kelly's attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... but I'd certainly describe it as atypical and out of character. If, indeed, WR was hunting your identity at that time I'm sure someone can provide a link.
Nowhere in the 5000 edits made by either you or Kelly Martin prior to the time her CU was performed was an edit by either of you the other's talk page. The only connecting point I see is Kelly *defending* you (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly_Martin&diff=pr...) None of my extensive IRC logs indicate that she had any major dislike of you.
Can you show me any evidence prior to May 31 2006 that would allow me to see why you would have any justified reason to think that Kelly Martin might have some grudge against you?
Many of the arguments you've been making here are spurious at best:
The second was Lar, someone who posts regularly to Wikipedia Review, which frequently publishes false and very damaging allegations about me, not just criticism of me as a Wikipedian.
Lar posts to WR, but most of the time he's arguing against the attacks, trying (perhaps hopelessly) to keep things a little more sane .. and not endorsing the attacks. That you'd even try to attack Lar's character in this way is breathtaking. Your past attempts to assert that anyone that can be connected to WR is evil has been resoundingly rejected.
By the same logic I could argue that WR mostly discusses wikipedia drama, and that you are a favourite point of discussion, therefore you are a major cause of drama and should be blocked.
Why are you continuing to make these arguments here rather than making them on the arb case? It make it seem to me like you're more interested in smearing people's names than actually achieving the justice that you claim to be demanding.
As far as I can tell in both past cases and in the current case you retroactively saw a dispute in the past which did not exist when you looked through eyes biased by the knowledge of a check being performed. I can't see myself adopting a different position without some decent evidence supporting all allegations you've made here.
I think some people deserve apologies from you. I don't think the community should tolerated these sort of character attacks from within our own.
On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Why even mention that, Greg? It was long before the checkuser we're talking about, and therefore obviously not connected to it. It looks like an attempt to get yet another swipe in.
I didn't say anything attacking you here, I'm pointing out that fact that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible because of the uncertainty created by oversight. It's a statement of fact, not an allegation and not a reason to fault you.
It is not a statement of fact. It's nonsense. Some of my earlier edits were oversighted. The period you are looking for was long after that.
It's one of several unfortunate side-effects on the use of checkuser... and one which is irritating here because you're making claims here which, as far as I can tell are highly revisionist compared to my recollection of the history... but it's not even worth my time to perform the searches or dig up the diffs because there is no way I could tell if they were oversighted or not. The reason I brought up SBW was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your interactions.
Brought up SBW? I don't know what you mean. You are just going for maximum smear, Greg, and while that kind of thing used to bother me a lot, I have to tell you that it's water off a duck's back now. One favor Wikipedia Review has done me has been to thicken my skin considerably, so pray continue.
I have no clue if this was the diff that caught Kelly's attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... but I'd certainly describe it as atypical and out of character. If, indeed, WR was hunting your identity at that time I'm sure someone can provide a link.
LOL!! Kelly wrote to me today citing that exact diff, so what you do mean you have no cluse whether it's the one? Kelly now says (this is the third reason she's offered) that she checkusered me because I had posted that I was leaving, and that I might go rogue. She wrote:
"Upon review of the evidence, including evidence which I failed to find when responding to the original complaint, I find that my original response was not entirely correct. My decision to checkuser her was related to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice.... ... In any case, at the time it was my evaluation that she was at risk to [sic] going "rogue" and might come back using sockpuppets abusively, given her apparent state of mind and recent behavior at the time. I captured and held her IP address against the possibility of her doing so. The checkuser also served to confirm that her account had not been compromised, which was another concern I had at the time."
The cited diff shows that, directly above my post implying that I might leave, FloNight also indicated that she would be leaving. Did Kelly Martin also checkuser FloNight, in case she went rogue? No, she did not, because Wikipedia Review had expressed no interest in FloNight's whereabouts.
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
Can you show me any evidence prior to May 31 2006 that would allow me to see why you would have any justified reason to think that Kelly Martin might have some grudge against you?
I will look for evidence if I have time, though I wonder what the point of convincing you would be.
Sarah
You know.... I, for one, am so incredibly frustrated with this whole discussion.
OK: you think there are CU issues, fine. Propose a policy. Let the community give it an up or down.
For the love of G-d, if you think there are issues, FILE A REQUEST FOR ARB (or better yet, comment on the one that someone else filed)... but let's not let this damned thing fester.
It's a scab, it's getting picked at, and frankly, it's getting infected.
_____________________ Philippe Beaudette Tulsa, OK philippebeaudette@gmail.com
On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:04 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Why even mention that, Greg? It was long before the checkuser we're talking about, and therefore obviously not connected to it. It looks like an attempt to get yet another swipe in.
I didn't say anything attacking you here, I'm pointing out that fact that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible because of the uncertainty created by oversight. It's a statement of fact, not an allegation and not a reason to fault you.
It is not a statement of fact. It's nonsense. Some of my earlier edits were oversighted. The period you are looking for was long after that.
It's one of several unfortunate side-effects on the use of checkuser... and one which is irritating here because you're making claims here which, as far as I can tell are highly revisionist compared to my recollection of the history... but it's not even worth my time to perform the searches or dig up the diffs because there is no way I could tell if they were oversighted or not. The reason I brought up SBW was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your interactions.
Brought up SBW? I don't know what you mean. You are just going for maximum smear, Greg, and while that kind of thing used to bother me a lot, I have to tell you that it's water off a duck's back now. One favor Wikipedia Review has done me has been to thicken my skin considerably, so pray continue.
I have no clue if this was the diff that caught Kelly's attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... but I'd certainly describe it as atypical and out of character. If, indeed, WR was hunting your identity at that time I'm sure someone can provide a link.
LOL!! Kelly wrote to me today citing that exact diff, so what you do mean you have no cluse whether it's the one? Kelly now says (this is the third reason she's offered) that she checkusered me because I had posted that I was leaving, and that I might go rogue. She wrote:
"Upon review of the evidence, including evidence which I failed to find when responding to the original complaint, I find that my original response was not entirely correct. My decision to checkuser her was related to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... . ... In any case, at the time it was my evaluation that she was at risk to [sic] going "rogue" and might come back using sockpuppets abusively, given her apparent state of mind and recent behavior at the time. I captured and held her IP address against the possibility of her doing so. The checkuser also served to confirm that her account had not been compromised, which was another concern I had at the time."
The cited diff shows that, directly above my post implying that I might leave, FloNight also indicated that she would be leaving. Did Kelly Martin also checkuser FloNight, in case she went rogue? No, she did not, because Wikipedia Review had expressed no interest in FloNight's whereabouts.
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
Can you show me any evidence prior to May 31 2006 that would allow me to see why you would have any justified reason to think that Kelly Martin might have some grudge against you?
I will look for evidence if I have time, though I wonder what the point of convincing you would be.
Sarah
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 Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
For the love of G-d, if you think there are issues, FILE A REQUEST FOR ARB
But then she might lose. Right now it seems she gets to play the victim indefinitely, which I imagine is rather a comfortable and gratifying position.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
For the love of G-d, if you think there are issues, FILE A REQUEST FOR ARB
on 7/23/08 3:45 AM, Luna at lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
But then she might lose. Right now it seems she gets to play the victim indefinitely, which I imagine is rather a comfortable and gratifying position.
You're right, Luna. There is real pathology at work here. And everyone, by buying into it, is enabling the dysfunctional behavior to continue. There are two persons I never argue with: a patient, and a person who clearly needs to be one.
Marc Riddell
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
You're right, Luna. There is real pathology at work here. And everyone, by buying into it, is enabling the dysfunctional behavior to continue. There are two persons I never argue with: a patient, and a person who clearly needs to be one.
Marc Riddell
Marc is pissed off with me because I defended Jimbo on this list a few months ago. That, apparently, set me beyond the pale.
So who's willing to put up money to produce Big Brother: Wikipedia Edition? We're at no shortage of material.
]On Jul 23, 2008, at 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
You're right, Luna. There is real pathology at work here. And everyone, by buying into it, is enabling the dysfunctional behavior to continue. There are two persons I never argue with: a patient, and a person who clearly needs to be one.
Marc Riddell
Marc is pissed off with me because I defended Jimbo on this list a few months ago. That, apparently, set me beyond the pale.
I think you just proved his point, Slim. At this point, this whole thread is being directed to my trash folder. _____________________ Philippe Beaudette Tulsa, OK philippebeaudette@gmail.com
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 06:01 -0500, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
You're right, Luna. There is real pathology at work here. And everyone, by buying into it, is enabling the dysfunctional behavior to continue. There are two persons I never argue with: a patient, and a person who clearly needs to be one.
Marc Riddell
Marc is pissed off with me because I defended Jimbo on this list a few months ago. That, apparently, set me beyond the pale.
Try because you're annoying just about everyone on the list.
If you think there's an abuse of the privacy policy, make an official complaint to the Ombudsman Commission. If you think the offence is an abuse of CheckUser policy other than a violation of the privacy policy, make an official complaint to ArbCom, or rather, contribute to the current ongoing requests. If you think the CU policy need tightening, dis-ambiguated, or whatever, propose a change to the policy on wiki.
Continuously making allegations that either cannot be defended without explicitly violating privacy, or at best is your word against their word is helpful. What was the original issue over now? Lar and CU use and leak of results / logs. We have now added (by various sides) KM, WR, SWB abuse, jajgy oversight, .... My word, who would have guessed at the beginning of this thread! *rolleyes*
Let it drop. Continuously smearing different and increasing number of people by playing the victim that everyone in the world want to attack, without no solid evidence to back it up, or shown actual desire to resolving the issues by going through conflict resolution channels is getting boring, and doing yourself no favour.
KTC
p.s. Don't bother looking to see if you can attack me as well. I have never interact with you before. I am not pissed off with anyone because they are or are not worshipping Jimbo. I have never posted to WR, much less regularly read it, although I registered an account after the end of this year board election so that I can defend myself against one individual unfounded implication that because I modified the software for the election, and share a similar (in English) name, was why Ting won the eventual election. That was shot down by everyone else on there while my account was in the approval queue. I don't have access to deleted contrib (i.e. not admin), much less information like ArbCom-l, CU logs, oversights logs etc. I am identified to the foundation, although a quick google search (with my freely available name) would reveal more about me than that copy of my identification.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
p.s. Don't bother looking to see if you can attack me as well. I have never interact with you before. I am not pissed off with anyone because they are or are not worshipping Jimbo. I have never posted to WR, much less regularly read it, although I registered an account after the end of this year board election so that I can defend myself against one individual unfounded implication that because I modified the software for the election, and share a similar (in English) name, was why Ting won the eventual election. That was shot down by everyone else on there while my account was in the approval queue. I don't have access to deleted contrib (i.e. not admin), much less information like ArbCom-l, CU logs, oversights logs etc. I am identified to the foundation, although a quick google search (with my freely available name) would reveal more about me than that copy of my identification.
I think that was one of the longest post-scripts I have ever seen.
SlimVirgin schreef:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
You're right, Luna. [snip]
Marc Riddell
Marc is pissed off with me because I defended Jimbo on this list a few months ago. That, apparently, set me beyond the pale.
{{citation needed}}
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
For the love of G-d, if you think there are issues, FILE A REQUEST FOR ARB
But then she might lose. Right now it seems she gets to play the victim indefinitely, which I imagine is rather a comfortable and gratifying position.
She could take the case to Judge Judy too, if she really wants people who know less than nothing publicly commenting on her situation. I can understand not wanting to file an arbcom request. Even if you "win" you lose.
That said, this thread has become about as bad if not worse than an arbcom case. And like the train wreck it is I for some reason find myself looking anyway.
Can I get off moderation please? I can't imagine my emails are worse than the average one in this thread.
Anthony
2008/7/23 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
I think I have...
On 7/22/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
To put things in perspective there was, sadly, a situation where an admin was checkuser'd because she implied that she might be committing suicide. Of course offing oneself would be difficult to surpass in terms of rogue-ness, so this might be a very legitimate reason for a check.
—C.W.
I can think of numerous instances where such "preventative" checkusering took place, both with administrators and non-administrators; I can also state that there have been numerous times when we wish we had IPs for long departed administrators who suddenly (purportedly) came back but exhibited strange, unexpected behavior. In the absence of reliable contact information sometimes it's the only thread out there. In particular, any user who had been under sanction and claimed to be leaving would get a look to guard against the possibility that they might come back under a different name to evade scrutiny.
Charles
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/22/08, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
To put things in perspective there was, sadly, a situation where an admin was checkuser'd because she implied that she might be committing suicide. Of course offing oneself would be difficult to surpass in terms of rogue-ness, so this might be a very legitimate reason for a check.
—C.W.
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 Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
I'm not sure that I'd call the number of your edits which have been oversighted 'few' but even if the edits in question are not oversighted, the I checked most of your talk page history had been at least deleted... it's not at all as easy digging through deleted contribs.
When you asked she might have told you that she didn't remember (...) but the very day you begin making public complaints about it she was saying that she believed it was the cause. There is an IRC discussion between her, jwales, and others posted on WR (I'll avoid linking to it here).
[snip]
The important point is that, had the check been legitimate, someone else would have done it instead. We need to emphasize to checkusers that they must not check people they could be seen to be in direct conflict with, or people they've previously expressed strong negative feelings about. Kelly was in the habit of attacking me viciously on IRC, so it doesn't take much common sense to realize that using the tool against me would look bad.
I can't find any evidence to support that there was some major conflict between you and her at *the time the check was made*. Not anything in email, not anything in your edit history of the time, not in extensive IRC logs. Your complaints related to this were over a month later and perhaps something happened in the meantime.
A check being valid is not an easy black and white thing. A lot of bad behaviour has been found as a result of unilateral checks driven by the checker seeing something which failed the 'smell test'. Kelly's explanation looked reasonable enough at the time.
Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust. Therefore, in their own interests, checkusers who post there regularly should make it a point of principle never to use the tool against editors who are attacked there, or in whom Wikipedia Review expresses too much of an interest.
Furthermore, I just searched Wikipedia review and their public efforts to uncover your identity did not appear to begin until long after that check was performed. So even if we had adopted your "don't check if WR is looking" criteria, it wouldn't have applied there. (perhaps brandt was hunting you then, but there is no evidence of that on WR... the only discussion of you then was the random "zomg SV = rouge admin" stuff that existed for a lot of other admins, including Kelly.)
If indeed WR has/has had a CU 'in their pocket' then simply avoiding checks directly on particular target users is not likely to be helpful:
For example, WR user could use access logs from websites they control to make educated guesses about what ranges a target might be using, (i.e. list of all IPs that searched WR for 'username'. An evil WR CU could then find vandalism from those ranges or some other excuse (an address in the ranges being listed in some open proxy list) and perform CUs of those ranges. If they guessed a rangecorrectly they'd see your exact IP in the results, but there would be *nothing* in the CU log to indicate that they'd been looking for you as the results are not logged (and shouldn't be, for retention and other reasons). And if someone else ran the same check and saw the target user there the checking CU would have a very plausible explanation for the checking.
On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can still find the post in question, if it ever existed.
I'm not sure that I'd call the number of your edits which have been oversighted 'few' but even if the edits in question are not oversighted, the I checked most of your talk page history had been at least deleted... it's not at all as easy digging through deleted contribs.
If it was an edit made by me, it's almost certainly not on my talk page. I mostly answer people's queries on their own talk pages.
But I can assure you that there is no "out of character" edit. I post with the same "voice," same writing style, and same views, all the time, to the very best of my knowledge. That I'd posted something out of character and therefore needed to be checkusered was an ex post facto excuse.
When you asked she might have told you that she didn't remember (...) but the very day you begin making public complaints about it she was saying that she believed it was the cause. There is an IRC discussion between her, jwales, and others posted on WR (I'll avoid linking to it here).
I read it. It cast no light on what the post might have been.
[snip]
The important point is that, had the check been legitimate, someone else would have done it instead. We need to emphasize to checkusers that they must not check people they could be seen to be in direct conflict with, or people they've previously expressed strong negative feelings about. Kelly was in the habit of attacking me viciously on IRC, so it doesn't take much common sense to realize that using the tool against me would look bad.
I can't find any evidence to support that there was some major conflict between you and her at *the time the check was made*.
As I said, she and her friends had a habit of attacking me and many others on IRC. That included you, as I recall.
[snip]
A check being valid is not an easy black and white thing. A lot of bad behaviour has been found as a result of unilateral checks driven by the checker seeing something which failed the 'smell test'. Kelly's explanation looked reasonable enough at the time.
She was never able to produce the mysterious "out of character" post, so I don't know how you could have found the explanation reasonable. Anyway, the point is, if the reason had been valid, someone else would have done the check for her.
Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust. Therefore, in their own interests, checkusers who post there regularly should make it a point of principle never to use the tool against editors who are attacked there, or in whom Wikipedia Review expresses too much of an interest.
Furthermore, I just searched Wikipedia review and their public efforts to uncover your identity did not appear to begin until long after that check was performed.
You're not searching very carefully in that case. They were right in the middle of a frenzy of trying to find out who I was when Kelly performed the check. You may have to go into archive.org to find it. I remember thinking at the time, "I bet Kelly Martin checkusers me," but I didn't ask until months later, because part of me didn't want to know. (Because then what? Make a complaint -- have it smoothed over by Jimbo, referred to an Ombudsman who ignores it, more attacks on me on IRC by Kelly Martin and her friends? -- which was precisely what happened.)
Similarly, when I read Wikipedia Review claiming to have a checkuser in their pocket, my first thought was, "That person will out himself by checkusering me." (It was like finding out which employee has raided the company accounts by waiting to see which of them suddenly buys a new car and a second home in the country.)
[snip]
For example, WR user could use access logs from websites they control to make educated guesses about what ranges a target might be using, (i.e. list of all IPs that searched WR for 'username'. An evil WR CU could then find vandalism from those ranges or some other excuse (an address in the ranges being listed in some open proxy list) and perform CUs of those ranges. If they guessed a rangecorrectly they'd see your exact IP in the results, but there would be *nothing* in the CU log to indicate that they'd been looking for you as the results are not logged (and shouldn't be, for retention and other reasons). And if someone else ran the same check and saw the target user there the checking CU would have a very plausible explanation for the checking.
Yes, true, but that is an unlikely scenario, and if they guess wrong about the IP range, or if the target doesn't visit any sites they control, it wouldn't help them.
SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly, when I read Wikipedia Review claiming to have a checkuser in their pocket, my first thought was, "That person will out himself by checkusering me." (It was like finding out which employee has raided the company accounts by waiting to see which of them suddenly buys a new car and a second home in the country.)
That's a rather sneaky way of accusing Lar of being in WR's "pocket".
You've made a number of claims without posting a single diff or link to back up your claims. You've also, again, completely evaded your responsibility with Sweet Water Blue. That was an abusive sockpuppet which you used in content disputes and to enable you to vote twice. Can you give some sort of explanation for that sock as well as Jayjg's attempt to cover up its existence by using oversight?
DK
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
You've also, again, completely evaded your responsibility with Sweet Water Blue. That was an abusive sockpuppet which you used in content disputes and to enable you to vote twice. Can you give some sort of explanation for that sock as well as Jayjg's attempt to cover up its existence by using oversight?
SWB is old news and boring at this point. Water under the bridge, if you will. It may well be that Sarah did something evil and stupid then, but she's not the same person today that she was then. I brought it up only to point out that oversight has made it impossible to fully investigate past activity related to Sarah. I think we should drop that.
I chose to ignore the implication that Lar is some kind of WR sock CU. It's too obviously wrong to be deserving of a comment.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
You've also, again, completely evaded your responsibility with Sweet Water Blue. That was an abusive sockpuppet which you used in content disputes and to enable you to vote twice. Can you give some sort of explanation for that sock as well as Jayjg's attempt to cover up its existence by using oversight?
SWB is old news and boring at this point. Water under the bridge, if you will. It may well be that Sarah did something evil and stupid then, but she's not the same person today that she was then.
People would be more willing to accept that if 1) she'd take responsibility and admit it 2) she'd apologize for it.
Isn't that the minimum Wikipedia usually expects from people who've transgressed? Why is Sarah the exception, particularly when she's demanded the same from others for the exact same transgression?
DK
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:29 PM, David Katz dkatz2001@gmail.com wrote:
People would be more willing to accept that if 1) she'd take responsibility and admit it 2) she'd apologize for it.
Isn't that the minimum Wikipedia usually expects from people who've transgressed? Why is Sarah the exception, particularly when she's demanded the same from others for the exact same transgression?
I would hope that we would equally ignore old activities of all users. ... We don't, but that doesn't stop me from arguing that its the right thing to do.