Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
I agree that it's likely (though not 100% proven) that someone with an admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. This doesn't alter the fact that Jayjg went off-topic by bringing up Wikitruth in the context of this discussion, which is about editing with open proxies (and raising it as an issue in user CharlotteWebb's RfA). No one has presented any evidence connecting user CharlotteWebb with Wikitruth. No one has presented any evidence suggesting that anyone used a TOR proxy in any way to obtain the admin account which you believe is responsible for posting material to Wikitruth. Since CharlotteWebb is not a sysop, we know it's not her in any case. So why is WIkitruth being dragged into this discussion?
To embellish it with ad hominem references to unrelated topics such as WR and WikiTruth takes it into tinfoil hats territory.
You might want to take into account that there are issues you're not aware of. And the "tinfoil hats" insult is unhelpful.
If there are issues I'm not aware of, make me aware of them. Otherwise I have to believe that my statement above accurately characterizes the absurdity of bringing up WR and Wikitruth in the context of this discussion. Jayjg brings up WR and Wikitruth anytime his actions are criticized. Moreover, he routinely uses insulting language, referring to every question or concern that anyone raises as "conspiracy theories," "ranting," etc. Have you advised *him* to lay off the insults?
I should note for the record that I see a difference in this regard between Slim Virgin and Jayjg. I disagree with Slim Virgin's analysis, but her tone at least has generally been civil.
I should also note that I don't see evidence yet suggesting that Jayjg's actions in l'affaire CharlotteWeb are based on the sort of "political" motives that some people here have suggested. I think it's just a mistake, probably reflecting excessive officiousness and nothing more.
There's probably no way to prevent someone from getting admin status and using it indefinitely for purposes that CANNOT be visibly connected to their user name (such as looking up deleted pages).
As I said earlier, your argument is like that of an airline that withdraws all security measures because 100 percent security is impossible.
We can't prevent it, but we can make it harder.
You're making a straw man argument. I haven't advocated "withdrawing all security measures" from Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anyone else argue for that either. The question is not WHETHER to have security measures but WHAT KIND of security measures to have.
An airline that screens passengers for weapons is using an effective security measure. An airline that turned away all passengers who haven't flown recently would just be alienating customers for no security benefit.
Similarly, a security argument could be made for desysopping admins with easily crackable passwords, but desysopping people simply because they're not currently active is just a bad idea. I'm all for security, but chasing phantoms actually HURTS security.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
I agree that it's likely (though not 100% proven) that someone with an admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. This doesn't alter the fact that Jayjg went off-topic by bringing up Wikitruth in the context of this discussion, which is about editing with open proxies (and raising it as an issue in user CharlotteWebb's RfA).
Wikitruth was brought up days ago, not by me, and I only brought it up in the context of the kinds of things that rogue admin accounts can do, which was being discussed at the time. I did not specifically attach that to CW's RFA, and this discussion has been extremely wide-ranging, not simply restricted to open-proxies. You presenting it in this way is misleading, highly prejudicial, extremely selective, and frankly, unfair.
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
... No one has presented any evidence suggesting that anyone used a TOR proxy in any way to obtain the admin account which you believe is responsible for posting material to Wikitruth. Since CharlotteWebb is not a sysop, we know it's not her in any case. So why is WIkitruth being dragged into this discussion?
First, with respect, you don't know anything about the person who operates the CharlotteWebb account. S/he has gone to great lengths to ensure that you don't.
Secondly, I can't say why anyone else mentioned Wikitruth, but I mentioned it because it's an example of the damage admin accounts in the wrong hands can cause, and because the easiest way to build up multiple admin accounts is by focusing on vandalism for a few months. The reason I mentioned it is because I'd like us to stop promoting those kinds of accounts, so that getting adminship involves more sustantial contributions.
To embellish it with ad hominem references to unrelated topics such as WR and WikiTruth takes it into tinfoil hats territory.
You might want to take into account that there are issues you're not aware of. And the "tinfoil hats" insult is unhelpful.
If there are issues I'm not aware of, make me aware of them.
Not everyone can be made aware of every issue. What I'm getting at is that reasonable people should assume that those who deal with sockpuppetry a lot, and particularly those who have access to checkuser, may be aware of issues the rest of us are not aware of, and not all those issues can be made public. So some people on the list are criticizing without knowing the full facts, and others are having to respond with one arm tied behind their backs. That's why it has been a largely fruitless discussion.
There's probably no way to prevent someone from getting admin status and using it indefinitely for purposes that CANNOT be visibly connected to their user name (such as looking up deleted pages).
As I said earlier, your argument is like that of an airline that withdraws all security measures because 100 percent security is impossible.
We can't prevent it, but we can make it harder.
You're making a straw man argument. I haven't advocated "withdrawing all security measures" from Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anyone else argue for that either. The question is not WHETHER to have security measures but WHAT KIND of security measures to have.
People who argue that admins shouldn't even have to reveal their IPs to the Foundation are indeed arguing that we should withdraw all security.
An airline that screens passengers for weapons is using an effective security measure. An airline that turned away all passengers who haven't flown recently would just be alienating customers for no security benefit.
Similarly, a security argument could be made for desysopping admins with easily crackable passwords, but desysopping people simply because they're not currently active is just a bad idea. I'm all for security, but chasing phantoms actually HURTS security.
That's a fair point, but just because you disagree with something doesn't necessarily make it a phantom, or tin-foil-hat time.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
... No one has presented any evidence suggesting that anyone used a TOR proxy in any way to obtain the admin account which you believe is responsible for posting material to Wikitruth. Since CharlotteWebb is not a sysop, we know it's not her in any case. So why is WIkitruth being dragged into this discussion?
First, with respect, you don't know anything about the person who operates the CharlotteWebb account. S/he has gone to great lengths to ensure that you don't.
Huh? Are you basing this comment simply on the fact that she often edited using TOR? Because I've looked at her contributions, and she's either invented a detailed persona essjay style, or she's willingly revealed quite a bit about herself.