Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching, All editors are reminded to secure their belongings and seek refuge in Options

[Sceptre]

I'm like a headtrip to listen to...

Complete the Real Slim Shady lyrics to your likening (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Sceptre:

[Moulton]

From the AN/I thread...

Oh - and yes, I agree whole-heartedly that we should err on the side of protecting privacy here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone accidentally reveals his actual name in emailing someone or in posting on IRC, that does not constitute a license to repeat that information on Wikipedia. One anti-Wikipedia site talked about the real name of an editor which had somehow popped up in an IRC posting, due to the software attaching his name and institutional affiliation. I have avoided IRC for that reason, not being sure what personal info would be revealed in a posting. I once emailed Wikipedia with an oversight request, after creating an email account which did not attach my real name. I was surprised to find that the software tried to pick up my other (real name) email account rather than the account specifically attached to Wikipedia. Another type of accident would be if one did a copy and paste in a posting, and the software on the PC pasted the wrong text, something previously copied which included personal contact info (thank God for "Show preview"). But these or other accidents should not be cited as a license for someone to maliciously reveal personal information which the editor has not intentionally posted on Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Inadvertant disclosure doesn't count as deliberate. But where is the line? If I suddenly took my real name off my user page now, does everyone have to now keep it secret? Maybe. What if I write people (WP users, say) notes signed with my real name? Just one note? Probably was a slip. Scads? Probably not. What if I write people that have little or nothing to do with WP and sign my real name, and say I'm writing as user so and so... when exactly do I waive my privacy right? Can I take back a previous disclosure without abandoning my old ID and starting over? I think there's something underlying this matter that may not be exactly clear without further analysis. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so, and I explicitly asked ArbCom for a decision a year ago on the question of retracting a voluntary onsite disclosure. They declined to make a decision. What is clear is that if a person has disclosed his or her identity offsite and only offsite, then it violates Foundation privacy policy for anyone else to use it onsite. DurovaCharge! 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy.

Then I sent this message to Durova, with a copy to Lar...

At AN/I you wrote:

What is clear is that if a person has disclosed his or her identity offsite and only offsite, then it violates Foundation privacy policy for anyone else to use it onsite.

I went to the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy page to see if I could find that.

Perhaps there is something amiss in my vision or reading comprehension, but I frankly don't find what you have cited above there. Can you point it out to me?

Thanks,

Barry

--
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

[thekohser]

At AN/I you wrote:

What is clear is that if a person has disclosed his or her identity offsite and only offsite, then it violates Foundation privacy policy for anyone else to use it onsite.

I went to the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy page to see if I could find that.

Perhaps there is something amiss in my vision or reading comprehension, but I frankly don't find what you have cited above there. Can you point it out to me?

Thanks,

Barry

--
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

I wonder what they'd make of this "outing block"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Fawn_Lake

I brought this to the attention of OTRS; they seemed willing to help, but technically unable; so I brought it to Cary and Erik, neither of whom replied; so I brought it to Sue and Mike, neither of whom replied, but it did inspire Cary to explain to me that he was very ill and couldn't meet up with Erik about this problem. What do you think? It's a clear "outing" with no proof, is it not? The blocking admin even admits that it could just as easily be an impersonator!

Greg

[Proabivouac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Fawn_Lake
…
It's a clear "outing" with no proof, is it not?

Isn't the proof right here? Or is there some other way you found out about this block?

I don't know enough about our Internet nodes to comment intelligently. However, I do know that I have used a Comcast router using a computer in Pennsylvania that a Wikipediot admin insisted was in a county in Florida, about 1,100 miles away.

In my experience, Comcast IPs show the location of their routing station (or whatever you'd call it) in that metro area, broadly defined.

Anyway, the evidence is suggested here.

"Clearly warrants following his edits around and reverting at whim."

I can't believe I just read that!

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[thekohser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Fawn_Lake
…
It's a clear "outing" with no proof, is it not?

While it's somewhat beside the point whether the account is my handiwork or not (of course it is)... the experiment enlightened us again on a few items:

(1) That the Wikipedia community is quite uncertain about when and how an "outing" of a real name not revealed "on wiki" is acceptable, if at all. It would seem that "trollish sockpuppeteers" are not included under the protective umbrella of privacy.

(2) That edits alone are sufficient cause to identify and name publicly a user, rather than supported by privately-disclosed CheckUser evidence. No CheckUser was run, AFAIK.

(3) That there are still editors who will blindly revert knowledgeable content, just because they don't approve of the supposed person (or impersonator) who has added the content. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=216330504
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218573839
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=216304082

Really, the account didn't cause much damage, if you ask me. Yet, it explored various questions about privacy, content, and retribution. Wouldn't you say this is worthwhile exploration and learning?

I have another account on Wikipedia, active for over a week, and even contributing to some highly contentious articles. But, because I haven't "clued in" the admin police on who I am, the account is completely undisturbed. It truly underscores that on Wikipedia, the value of your edits is far more determined by who you are than by what you add.

Greg