Personally, I think Tony is right, but instead of throwing around insults, can we get back tot he matter at hand?
I, personally, don't see why you would not perform a checkuser on the anonymous accounts. ~~~~
They did not commit any offense, merely participated in debate. I'm curious, but that is no reason to run checkuser.
Fred
On 4/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
They did not commit any offense, merely participated in debate. I'm curious, but that is > no reason to run checkuser.
What confuses me is this, if those using the anonymous accounts to protest the Brandt unblocking were concerned about Jimbo and co taking some kind of retribution on them for their views then what good would it do to make another account? If the "God Kings" are petty enough to do that, then they would have no qualms about doing an out of process checkuser to find out who they are.
On 21/04/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
They did not commit any offense, merely participated in debate. I'm curious, but that is > no reason to run checkuser.
What confuses me is this, if those using the anonymous accounts to protest the Brandt unblocking were concerned about Jimbo and co taking some kind of retribution on them for their views then what good would it do to make another account? If the "God Kings" are petty enough to do that, then they would have no qualms about doing an out of process checkuser to find out who they are.
Next you'll be saying there is no cabal.
- d.
On 4/21/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
They did not commit any offense, merely participated in debate. I'm
curious, but that is > no reason to run checkuser.
What confuses me is this, if those using the anonymous accounts to protest the Brandt unblocking were concerned about Jimbo and co taking some kind of retribution on them for their views then what good would it do to make another account? If the "God Kings" are petty enough to do that, then they would have no qualms about doing an out of process checkuser to find out who they are.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that the editor(s) were/was trying to hide from Jimbo. Despite what Fred said, I'd be very surprised if no one ran checkuser, after all, it can be run without generating a public log...
On 4/21/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that the editor(s) were/was trying to hide from Jimbo.
you're probably right, they could have been hiding from Daniel Brandt who is known for his attempts to out editor's meatspace IDs.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that the editor(s) were/was trying to hide from Jimbo. Despite what Fred said, I'd be very surprised if no one ran checkuser, after all, it can be run without generating a public log...
A public log, no, but there is still a log viewable by other checkusers, and they all have a responsibility to monitor that log. If anyone runs a checkuser without good reason (and there is no good reason here), they won't stay a checkuser for long. The tool isn't there to satisfy idle curiosity.
On 4/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Personally, I think Tony is right, but instead of throwing around insults, can we get back tot he matter at hand?
I, personally, don't see why you would not perform a checkuser on the anonymous accounts. ~~~~
They did not commit any offense, merely participated in debate. I'm curious, but that is no reason to run checkuser.
Fred
Apparently, they made remarks that were considered disruption/trolling. I'm not saying to check them against known editors, just against each other. ~~~~
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l