|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Chase Me de-adminned, It floats |
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
For reasons which don't add up at all, Chase Me Ladies, I'm The Cavalry has had their rights removed and their account locked. QUOTE Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry de-adminned
From what I've gathered, Iridescent is being blamed for this arbcom-l leak. It looks like Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has had his on-wiki rights removed, though (and there doesn't seem to be any mention of him on this page). What's the story there? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Iridescent has not been blamed for this at all; the information we have is that there was a theft of information from his email account which in turn led to the archives being accessed. As we've pointed out several times, this can happen to even the most diligent of internet users, and Wikipedia has long recognized this; it just happens that this compromise was more dramatic than most. Once Iridescent is able to demonstrate that he's in control of his accounts, standard processes take effect. The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) The timing is a bit, um, suspicious.
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 25th June 2011, 11:29pm) For reasons which don't add up at all, Chase Me Ladies, I'm The Cavalry has had their rights removed and their account locked. QUOTE Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry de-adminned
From what I've gathered, Iridescent is being blamed for this arbcom-l leak. It looks like Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has had his on-wiki rights removed, though (and there doesn't seem to be any mention of him on this page). What's the story there? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Iridescent has not been blamed for this at all; the information we have is that there was a theft of information from his email account which in turn led to the archives being accessed. As we've pointed out several times, this can happen to even the most diligent of internet users, and Wikipedia has long recognized this; it just happens that this compromise was more dramatic than most. Once Iridescent is able to demonstrate that he's in control of his accounts, standard processes take effect. The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) The timing is a bit, um, suspicious. Yeah they really are chasing their tails. Those arbies are very quick to throw the criminal accusation about. So what's the crime Anne?
|
|
|
|
Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE The timing is a bit, um, suspicious.
QUOTE 19:22, 25 June 2011 Barras (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry@enwiki from CheckUser, oversight and administrator to (none) ‎ (private request by enwiki arbcom member and wmf staff) Somehow it's difficult to believe that two separate groups were so incensed by his sudden reappearance that they both requested this move. If he handed over the information the legal aspect is much more interesting; there could be no crime at all.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Risker) The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him? As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:09am) QUOTE(Risker) The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him? As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked. That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails."
|
|
|
|
bi-winning |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined:
Member No.: 45,540
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Sat 25th June 2011, 2:39pm) So what's the crime Anne?
You mean besides impersonating an officer in Her Majesty's Royal Navy? Lol. This is fucking "Chase me ladies."
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 25th June 2011, 10:21pm) QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:09am) QUOTE(Risker) The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him? As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked. That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails." Can someone provide a timeline? I'm a bit lost as to who did what to whom.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(radek @ Sun 26th June 2011, 4:47am) QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 25th June 2011, 10:21pm) QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:09am) QUOTE(Risker) The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him? As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked. That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails." Can someone provide a timeline? I'm a bit lost as to who did what to whom. All times in UTC, many of them estimated 28 February: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry stops editing somewhat abruptly. He has made ~30 edits in the prior week. 15:00, 23 June: MaliceAforethought posts their first thread. 19:30, 23 June: Coren claims to have cut off all future access to our leaker 08:47, 24 June: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry begins editing again. He makes a single innocuous edit. 21:00, 24 June: Coren posts an update to WT:AC, stating that it was Iridescent's email account that was likely hacked into. 15:54, 15:56, and 18:10, 25 June: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry makes three more edits. 19:22, 25 June: A steward removes Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's checkuser, oversight, and administrator access on the request of an arbitrator and WMF staff. 19:29, 25 June: The same steward globally locks Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's account, preventing him from logging in, on the request of an arbitrator and WMF staff. 03:19, 26 June: Newyorkbrad posts to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's user talk page, asking him to contact the Arbitration Committee and reply to emails that they had previously sent him.
|
|
|
|
LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:38pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 26th June 2011, 9:34am) This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events. The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised. You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me. Is there supposed to be a downside to that?
|
|
|
|
Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:05am) You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.
Is there supposed to be a downside to that? If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role.
|
|
|
|
LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th June 2011, 4:29pm) QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:05am) You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.
Is there supposed to be a downside to that? If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role. However, that is what the great majority of "players" say they want. Why not convince the WMF/Jimmy/Arbcom to allow that change to happen, and thus potentially change the site to that as advertised? (Noting I am adopting your language only, not your viewpoint). Is it also your contention that it is the drama that leads the viewing numbers, and not the content?
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sun 26th June 2011, 4:44pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th June 2011, 4:29pm) QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sun 26th June 2011, 10:05am) You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.
Is there supposed to be a downside to that? If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role. However, that is what the great majority of "players" say they want. Why not convince the WMF/Jimmy/Arbcom to allow that change to happen, and thus potentially change the site to that as advertised? (Noting I am adopting your language only, not your viewpoint). Is it also your contention that it is the drama that leads the viewing numbers, and not the content? Viewing figures are lead by Google ranking which is why so many people are so keen on SEO techniques. Google hikes pages where the content is changing, so drama on the pages will increase ranking. Additionally though they may well contain a good amount of it WP pages aren't total crap. So having a WP page near the top of the search query (just after the ads) will give people something of use.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Sun 26th June 2011, 8:07pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th June 2011, 3:38pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 26th June 2011, 9:34am) This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events. The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised. That's clearly true, but it's equally clearly true that nothing will change until someone in authority such as the WMF imposes such a change. Knock, knock? Who's there? WMF. Fuck off we're busy uploading kiddie porn. This post has been edited by lilburne:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |