[WikiEN-l] Oh shit, Slashdot is an attack site!

[Anthony]

On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I dunno, I think a more likely explanation is that the regular
> > deleting happened first, and the oversight came later.  Also take a
> > look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3ASlimVirgin
> > which happened around the same time period.
>
> What makes you think there was any oversighting? The logs aren't
> visible without the oversight privilege, so I have no way to be sure,
> but I see nothing to suggest anything was oversighted. I don't see
> what is unlikely about my description, it's simply a commentary on the
> deletion log.
>
After looking some more at this, I'm going to go back to not leaning
in either direction.  There might have been things oversighted, and
there might not have been.

The slashdot article claimed that "many of her edits to articles
related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in
an attempt to conceal her identity", but looking at the edit history
of the article, many of those edits were *not* removed as well.

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User+talk%3AMusical_Linguist
>
> Those deleted revisions I can see, and they are discussions regarding
> personal information that was published on Wikipedia Review. I see
> nothing untoward about them being deleted.
>
> > The only thing which lends any credence at all to the rumors is the
> > fact that some people are going to such lengths to cover things up.
> > Not that I buy the story as Brandt tells it - I would think a
> > government agent would do a better job of disappearing once eir cover
> > was blown.
>
> I see no coverup, just deletions of personal information, entirely
> according to policy. (Remember, oversight was a brand new feature when
> this was going on.)
>
I actually suspected that oversight was a brand new feature based on
the logs.  But I'm through speculating for now.