Kelly Martin discusses Slim, Brandt, and WR, (she lets it all hang out on IRC) Options

[Daniel Brandt]

A sampling from #wikipedia IRC channel (NotACow is Kelly Martin):

[Dec 3 2007 01:11:34] <NotACow> zocky: i don't give a shit about irc logs.
...
[Dec 3 2007 01:32:57] <NotACow> for the most part the crowd at wikipedia review are not a threat.
...
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:52] <NotACow> zocky: everyone i know who has actually talked to brandt says that he's totally fucking nuts,.

(By the way, the only person from Wikipedia I ever talked to was when Linuxbeak called me in December, 2005. His reports of that conversation stated that I seemed to be a very reasonable person, at which point Linuxbeak attempted to proceed with the compromise that we discussed on the telephone.)

[Dec 3 2007 01:04:53] <NotACow> Alkivar: your problem is that your definition of "the right thing" is wrong
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:13] <NotACow> the right thing is that course of action that is most ot the benefit fo slimvirgin.
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:17] <zocky> smooth running of the victim support groups trumps silly things like writing articles
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:18] <Alkivar> lol
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:32] <Alkivar> Karynn: soo true... kissing the cabal's ass is "the right thing"
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:34] <NotACow> zocky: especially those who are the victims of their own carelessness
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:56] <NotACow> zocky: we must make absolutely certain that those who have embarrassed them are suitably punished.
[Dec 3 2007 01:05:58] *** Joins: Ningyou (n=Rosak@a88-112-18-225.elisa-laajakaista.fi)
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:06] <Alkivar> it seems that not to love der fuhrer is a great disgrace
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:20] <NotACow> Alkivar: more like die fuhrerin.
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:32] <zocky> whoa!
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:34] <zocky> speaks german
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:36] <jt1854> nature did an articles on wikipedia vs britannica and they said that wikipedia had about the same or less errors than britannica but britannica said they're wrong are they really wrong or does britannica not like wikipedia? they're just saying that cause they want to be the best
[Dec 3 2007 01:06:44] <NotACow> zocky: yes, more proof tha ti'm a troll!
[Dec 3 2007 01:07:05] *** Joins: GreaseMonkey (n=saru@219-89-43-212.dialup.xtra.co.nz)
[Dec 3 2007 01:07:08] <Alkivar> Karynn: so was User:!! your latest attempt to actually do something of value for the encyclopedia?
[Dec 3 2007 01:07:17] <NotACow> Alkivar: no comment
[Dec 3 2007 01:08:34] *** Random832 is now known as Random832_sleep
[Dec 3 2007 01:08:34] <Krimpet> it seems SV has now unilaterally decreed that IRC is no longer private, and posting IRC logs on-wiki is OK
[Dec 3 2007 01:08:35] <jt1854> is wikipedia better than britannica?
[Dec 3 2007 01:08:50] <Alkivar> Krimpet: thats a bannin
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:02] <Alkivar> direct violation of wikimedia policy
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:09] <NotACow> jt1854: depends on how you define better, wikipedia, and britannica.
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:16] <Alkivar> disclosure of irc logs is a ban from all IRC channels run by WMF
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:20] <NotACow> Alkivar: no, it's not.
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:25] <NotACow> it's a direct violation of irc policy.
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:28] *** Quits: jeronim (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:29] <Krimpet> Alkivar: she's been edit warring on [[Wikipedia:Private correspondence]]
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:32] <NotACow> irc policy has nothing to do with wikimedia, though
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:49] <Alkivar> Karynn: wikimedia has an established irc policy now
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:55] <NotACow> Alkivar: which we ignore
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:56] <Alkivar> they did that when they restructured the ops
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:57] *** Joins: te (i=tao@outbound.silenceisdefeat.org)
[Dec 3 2007 01:09:59] *** Quits: te (Client Quit)
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:04] <NotACow> Alkivar: no, that's not wikimedia's policy
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:07] <jt1854> more in depth
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:09] <NotACow> Alkivar: it's James' policy.
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:24] <NotACow> Alkivar: it just happens to be hosted on meta, but there's no formal wikimedia sanction or involvement in said policy.
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:27] <Krimpet> yeah, technically the wikimedia IRC group is separate from the WMF
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:33] <Alkivar> interesting... James told me when i got my @ back that the board had signed off on it
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:44] <jt1854> more in depth notacow
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:52] <Alkivar> perhaps i misunderstood
[Dec 3 2007 01:10:53] <NotACow> jt1854: more in depth what?
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:00] <NotACow> Alkivar: it's more that the board doesn't care.
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:08] <jt1854> moore in depth than britannica
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:18] <zocky> The IRC log ban is stupid anyway
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:20] *** Joins: te (i=tao@outbound.silenceisdefeat.org)
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:22] <NotACow> Alkivar: james is in charge, sean and mark are his first deputies, and i am their deputy
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:26] <zocky> we really need to get rid of that
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:32] <zocky> it makes us look so silly it's ridiculous
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:34] <NotACow> zocky: i don't give a shit about irc logs.
[Dec 3 2007 01:11:57] <Krimpet> i agree, it's completely unenforceable
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:00] <GreaseMonkey> if someone gets rid of it and announces it on IRC, I bags we post the log of the announcement somewhere.
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:01] <Random832_sleep> she's using the fact that people log against the rules as an excuse: if a channel that is known to be logged in defiance of rules against it has no expectation of privacy, neither does a mailing list that has a history of people leaking messages.
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:04] <NotACow> zocky: i certainly won't ban somoene who uses one reasonably -- and i won't reverse a ban for someone who uses one stupidly.
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:06] <Random832_sleep> (that was my response)
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:41] * NotACow has huge masses of irc log
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:48] <zocky> Random832_sleep, in that case, you say things like "Thank you for finally coming over to the reasonable side of the argument."
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:50] <Alkivar> yeah i know... of the admin channel too
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:53] <Random832_sleep> and that may be true. if you KNOW you have a leak, surely you're not going to EXPECT that your posts will become PRIVATE
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:54] <zvook> i don't think the rule makes anyone less cagey in here anyway
[Dec 3 2007 01:12:59] *** Parts: yao_ziyuan (n=Admin3@222.188.133.139)
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:03] <NotACow> Alkivar: i haven't been on the admin channel in ages, so i dont have logs of it anymore
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:09] <Messedrocker> to make all sides happy, publishing IRC logs could be permitted on the condition there is an official log published
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:11] <NotACow> Alkivar: although i do have logs from when i was in there
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:14] <Alkivar> well justlee was logging it all for you right?
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:17] <Random832_sleep> zocky: my quote was my response, not what she said
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:18] <Krimpet> but, she's obviously trying to say that IRC channels, including -en-admins, are OK to post logs of on-wiki for whatever reason, while her secret mailing lists are to be kept secret
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:33] <NotACow> Alkivar: honestly i don't know if she logged it nor not. she's been kicked out of there anyway.
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:39] <Alkivar> i know
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:42] <jt1854> that's kind of messed up you can legally own absinth but people can make it why not make it illegal to own in US since you can't make it?
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:42] <NotACow> her access rights were revoked some time ago, althoguh nobody told her
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:42] *** Quits: TheLetterE ("Always try to be modest and be proud about it.")
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:46] <Alkivar> she got kicked out before i lost my access to the channel
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:52] <NotACow> she was a bit pissed about that, since she didn't do anything to deserve to lose it
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:53] <jt1854> people can't make it
[Dec 3 2007 01:13:54] <ShakataGaNai> Everyone should assume that the channel is always getting logged
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:11] <NotACow> i don't have access to admins, but i do have an invex, which i do not use
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:15] <zocky> Random832_sleep, yeah, I know, but the fact that she uses that as a justification, means that she agrees that her mailing lists aren't that private either
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:24] <Messedrocker> Krimpet, SlimVirgin is a drama whore and should be shot out of a cannon
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:26] <NotACow> i've used it two or three times, once byb accident and once because i was trying to find someone
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:29] <zocky> Random832_sleep, assuming she uses the same criteria, and assuming good faith, she does
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:43] *** Quits: te (Client Quit)
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:43] <zocky> that said, admin channel is a different matter
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:46] <NotACow> jayjg has been feeding arbcom-l to slimvirgin for at least a year.
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:50] *** Joins: te (i=tao@outbound.silenceisdefeat.org)
[Dec 3 2007 01:14:59] <NotACow> it's remarkable the hypocrisy that she spews forth
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:05] <zocky> logs from there should be leaked when unacceptable things happen
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:13] <zocky> OTOH, this channel should be publically logged by us
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:18] <Messedrocker> NotACow, you expect SlimVirgin to make sense?
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:26] <Messedrocker> She is the antithesis of reason and peace
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:27] <NotACow> zocky: i think justifiable leaks are a reasonable response to malfeasance.
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:33] <jt1854> don't yall agree why is it legal for to posess it but not for people to make it in US it should be illegal to own it too since it's illegal to make it in US what do ya'll think?
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:33] <Krimpet> NotACow: i really don't know why that guy still has access to all his tools and everything - i don't trust the arbcom mailing list, or oversight, etc. while he's around
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:53] <NotACow> zocky: but then again, ibelieve in rational interpretations of policy toward the fundamental goals of the project, isntead of this black-n-white zero-tolerance rulemongering bullshit
[Dec 3 2007 01:15:54] <Krimpet> especially in the wake of the CharlotteWebb fiasco
[Dec 3 2007 01:16:40] <zocky> NotACow, we had a discussion about that yesterday, centered on common law vs. continental law, and what people from different countries find normal
[Dec 3 2007 01:16:42] <NotACow> Messedrocker: i've been trying to come up with an exlanation for her behavior. as of yet, i don't have one, which means that "mental illness" is the main contender.
[Dec 3 2007 01:16:53] <NotACow> zocky: heh, yeah, i can see that
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:15] <Messedrocker> NotACow, I suggest we keep Occam's razor in mind. That said, she's probably just a bitch.
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:15] <Random832_sleep> I just used the edit summary "per SlimVirgin" to make an addition she will surely be opposed to... was that wise?
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:21] <NotACow> zocky: anyhow, in this case it means that i think people shouldn't generally publish logs or emails, and should refrain from sharing them about
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:31] <Random832_sleep> I added "or a channel in which it is widely known that there are people making and posting logs of activity, regardless of any rules against it." to non-private chat
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:32] <NotACow> zocky: but exceptions cand and should be made when circumstances clearly warrant it
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:43] <Random832_sleep> and added "Another example of a non-private list is one in which it is widely known that there are people "leaking" the content of posts, regardless of any rules against it." to the footnote about email
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:45] <zocky> NotACow, in europe, where we have continental law, sticking to rules is the default position, and the whole concept of IAR and such is totally foreign.
[Dec 3 2007 01:17:47] <Krimpet> what scares me is that I know SlimVirgin was stalking and slinging mud at me on her mailing lists - there's some sensitive information about me that anyone with oversight can easily discover... she could easily have it :/
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:18] <Messedrocker> Krimpet, and why is she stalking you?
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:20] *** Quits: jt1854 ()
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:21] <Random832_sleep> Krimpet: send your concerns to the ombudsman committee (i'm sure i've heard they have jurisdiction over oversight as well as checkuser)
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:23] <NotACow> Krimpet: she's a bleeding hypocrite. she wants all the other private lists shut down, but she wants hers protected from disclosure
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:30] <Krimpet> Messedrocker: she thinks i'm a "troll enabler"
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:40] <Messedrocker> is a troll enabler like a nigger sympathizer?
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:41] <NotACow> Krimpet: nevermind that the Durova !! smear was leaked from her own precious list by one of her own precious trusted minions
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:45] <zocky> you know what the worst thing is?
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:50] <NotACow> it wasn't leaked from arbcom-l
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:53] <Krimpet> Messedrocker: i'm reminded of the Westboro Baptist Church
[Dec 3 2007 01:18:57] <zocky> that the people who stand up to MMORPGers are accused of causing drama
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:15] <zocky> there would be no drama if the MMORPGers didn't do stupid stuff in the first place
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:18] <Messedrocker> If SlimVirgin is violating some law, I suggest we subpoena her for mailing list posts.
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:28] <NotACow> zocky: sometimes you have to cause drama in order to end or avoid a larger drama, or to resolve a bigger issue.
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:35] <NotACow> Messedrocker: meh, fuck that.
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:50] <Messedrocker> Alternatively, we could conspire and burn her house down. That's terribly illegal, though
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:57] <zocky> NotACow, I think I put it as "sometimes drama is necessary to restore sanity" on jimbo's talk page
[Dec 3 2007 01:19:59] <NotACow> zocky: you're making the same argument i made, and you objected to, a year ago
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:13] <Alkivar> arent all the wikia hosted mailing lists under the GFDL anyways?
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:14] <zocky> NotACow, am i?
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:27] <NotACow> zocky: i'm pretty sure you signed onto some of the objecting opinions to my position on drama.
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:30] <Alkivar> doesnt that mean they're perfectly acceptable to disclose?
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:33] <Random832_sleep> Alkivar: no. that was a spurious argument
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:40] <Krimpet> but apparently she was cherry picking stuff to paint me as a "troll enabler," rattling off the crimes i'd committed over a long period of time such as supporting a review of the Poetlister block, supporting an RfAR on those LaRouche guys, etc.
[Dec 3 2007 01:20:52] <NotACow> zocky: although yuou may have qualified those concurrences. i has been a year plus
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:03] <NotACow> Krimpet: we're all troll enablers until proven reliable.
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:04] <Random832_sleep> geez is it REALLY this late?
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:05] <zocky> NotACow, i'm sure it was a more nuanced difference than that
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:07] <Random832_sleep> i need to go to bed
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:17] <zocky> that's the position I've held since at least 2003
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:25] <Alkivar> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...92&oldid=774598
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:33] <Alkivar> Mercury@en.wiki "I request removal of access."
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:41] <zocky> yes, mercury has left
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:45] <NotACow> good
[Dec 3 2007 01:21:47] <NotACow> he was a problem
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:00] <Alkivar> one more durova worshipper down... 7 more to go
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:02] <NotACow> frankly i'm more concerned about rebecca, though
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:09] <Alkivar> oh?
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:18] <Krimpet> NotACow: for an enabler, i'm not doing all that good a job, considering all the trolls i block on a daily basis
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:21] <NotACow> she called durova a liar the other day
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:27] <Alkivar> Ambi always seemed rather neutral to the politics in my experience
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:41] <Messedrocker> The sad part is that this is supposed to be some encyclopedia, but instead people like SlimVirgin are turning it into the US government.
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:50] <zocky> i would have opposed ambi a few years ago
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:50] <NotACow> Alkivar: she did slim's dirty work for her in that whole "get kelly for checkusering slim" nonsense last year
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:54] <Messedrocker> <Alkivar> Ambi always seemed rather neutral to the politics in my experience << pun intended?
[Dec 3 2007 01:22:55] <zocky> this time, I asked her to run
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:07] <Alkivar> Messed: yes
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:19] <NotACow> Alkivar: also, she's impetous, cannot remain unbiased on australian politics, inconstant, and unreliable.
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:33] <Messedrocker> NotACow, would you approve if I were to ban her right here and right now?
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:36] <NotACow> Alkivar: and she's a SV toady
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:37] <Alkivar> In other words, she's human?
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:44] <NotACow> Messedrocker: i can do that myself, but i won't.
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:47] <Alkivar> i dunno if i'd call her a SV toady
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:52] <Messedrocker> NotACow, I mean on Wikipedia
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:55] <NotACow> Alkivar: she's done her dirty work several times.
[Dec 3 2007 01:23:59] <NotACow> Messedrocker: yeah, that'll stick.
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:06] *** Quits: JodyB ("ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.11/2007112718]")
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:13] <zocky> NotACow, or maybe she just thought it was the right thing to do at the time
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:14] *** Joins: peng1 (n=xtofu@60-242-139-27.static.tpgi.com.au)
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:15] <Alkivar> Jayjg i'd consider a toady... Ambi i'd consider occaisionally on the same side
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:21] <zocky> NotACow, don't use durova reasoning
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:28] <NotACow> Alkivar: the simple fact tis that rebeccas is overly sensitive to slimvirgin's privacy schtick because of her own situation
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:43] <Alkivar> thats a fair assesment... i can agree with that
[Dec 3 2007 01:24:53] <NotACow> Alkivar: so she's unreasonably susceptible to slimvirgin's groupthink methods, which are quite powerful
[Dec 3 2007 01:25:37] <NotACow> i'm undecided whether rebecca's calling durova a liar was an attempt for rebecca to distance herself from durova, or from SV, or just part of their clique sending the message ot durova that "you're out, sucker, go away"
[Dec 3 2007 01:25:51] <NotACow> at this point i do not trust her.
[Dec 3 2007 01:25:53] <zocky> NotACow, I think you're seriously mistaken there
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:00] <NotACow> zocky: only time will tell.
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:11] *** Joins: Kwitschibo_ (n=Michael@host-091-096-224-034.ewe-ip-backbone.de)
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:18] <zocky> NotACow, rebecca opposed you last year for the same reasons she opposed durova now
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:20] <NotACow> i would vote against her simply because she took the job before and walked away in the middle of her commitment.
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:28] <NotACow> and because her housing situation still sucks ass
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:34] <zocky> NotACow, remember that email about how contributors are not expendable?
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:42] <NotACow> zocky: not really
[Dec 3 2007 01:26:57] <Krimpet> the problem is that SV and the BADSITES crew have taken the real danger of harassment, and abused the community's empathy for that harassment to push their own agenda
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:00] <zocky> NotACow, that was what changed minds on the giano case last year
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:14] <zocky> what real danger of harassment?
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:21] <zocky> if there is real danger of harassment, call the police
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:31] <zocky> it's not something that can be fixed on wikipedia
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:32] <NotACow> Krimpet: and much of the harassment they've drawn onto themselves, in some cases through such blatant ineptitude that it becomes hard to believe that it is not intentional.
[Dec 3 2007 01:27:56] <NotACow> i got onto arbcom because of rebecca, actually
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:00] <Messedrocker> Krimpet: Like the government abusing 9/11 to castrate civil liberties?
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:00] <zocky> if, OTOH, we're talking about "wikistalking" and such stuff, simply vanish and start a new account, or just go if you really can't take it
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:02] <NotACow> i got her seat
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:16] <NotACow> well, i got either hers or grunt's, and kat got the other
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:23] <NotACow> i forget which way it diced out officially
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:26] <Krimpet> Messedrocker: kinda
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:39] <Messedrocker> except the government had more rationale, as they were more scared
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:51] <Messedrocker> but in europe, entire cities would get destroyed and the government would shrug it off
[Dec 3 2007 01:28:54] *** Joins: Onyxyte (i=Onyxyte@r74-192-234-77.lfkncmta01.lfkntx.tl.dh.suddenlink.net)
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:05] <NotACow> zocky: it's foolish for wikipedia to be involved in stalking in any way beyond to forward rewports to law enforcement
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:22] <zocky> NotACow, absolutely
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:24] <NotACow> zocky: i've had death threats as a result of my activity on the wiki; those threats were simply fowarded to the gendarmes
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:39] <Messedrocker> gendarmes?
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:40] *** Quits: Giggy ("Fo shiz, brodda")
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:45] <NotACow> Messedrocker: french for "cop"
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:48] <NotACow>
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:51] <Messedrocker> thank you
[Dec 3 2007 01:29:59] <zocky> i've had death threats made on me too... i simply reverted and indef blocked the guy
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:16] <Messedrocker> It depends on how serious they are
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:18] <Alkivar> i got death threats as well
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:22] <zocky> gendarme != cop... not exactly anyway
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:25] <Krimpet> but what they do is claim that legitimate criticism equates to harassment or "trolling." like pointing out that SV used a sockpuppet to votestack
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:30] <NotACow> zocky: i know, but close eonough
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:34] <Alkivar> i also had my home phone number plastered all over wiki in articles and edit summaries for about 72hrs
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:35] <Messedrocker> and we all know about HighInBC
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:49] <Messedrocker> awh, i could've gotten alkivar's phone number!
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:50] <Messedrocker>
[Dec 3 2007 01:30:56] <Alkivar> Messed: its not hard... ask for it
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:09] <NotACow> one of the best ways to avoid being stalked is to not write articles about living people
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:09] <Messedrocker> ask someone i barely know for their phone number when i don't need it?
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:13] <Messedrocker> that'd feel weird
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:17] <zocky> Alkivar, but you have to type it into the channel
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:21] <NotACow> i have jimbo's cell phone number
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:22] <Krimpet> don murphy was pretty scary, honestly
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:32] <zocky> NotACow, doesn't everybody?
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:36] <NotACow> zocky: probably
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:39] *** Joins: bainer (n=bainer@wikimedia/bainer)
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:43] <Messedrocker> Krimpet, the Don Murphy situation is why I owe Bastique my soul
[Dec 3 2007 01:31:51] <Alkivar> heh Don Murphy is nucking futz
[Dec 3 2007 01:32:03] <NotACow> Krimpet: yeah. the problem with this badsites nonsense is it equates people who are just Saying Mean Things about us with people who are actually making real, serious threats.
[Dec 3 2007 01:32:36] <NotACow> the risk to writing articles about living people is that the living person will find out and be "nucking futz" and go after you
[Dec 3 2007 01:32:52] <zocky> and there are very few of those who make real threats, and very many of those who can be construed to say mean stuff
[Dec 3 2007 01:32:57] <NotACow> for the most part the crowd at wikipedia review are not a threat.
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:09] <Messedrocker> yeah, i've been to wikipedia review, i've read things, i've made posts
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:12] <NotACow> hell, their administrators over ther have made a point to prune the especially nasty ones
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:18] <Messedrocker> they're moreso a pissy bunch than a serious threat
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:27] <NotACow> Messedrocker: some of them are insightful, too
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:32] <Messedrocker> of course
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:41] <zocky> yeah, they have a few deranged members, but all in all, they're not scary
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:45] <Krimpet> it does disturb me a bit how Brandt is worshipped like a god there - he's one of the few really nasty ones
[Dec 3 2007 01:33:57] <NotACow> i'd post there myself except that i can't register an account -- they don't accept reigstations from gmail and i'll be damned if i'm going to use my work account for that
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:01] <zocky> Krimpet, guess whom I meant by "deranged"
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:02] <peng1> so uh... how about that creative commons licensing, eh?
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:18] <NotACow> Krimpet: he's not really worshipped as a god. if anything, his stature there has been dropping somewhat, actually
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:20] <Messedrocker> Krimpet, he's the local semicelebrity with compatible viewpoints. Of course they love him.
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:48] <Messedrocker> NotACow, to get around the ban on Gmail I created an email account on one of my domain names just so I could create a WR account
[Dec 3 2007 01:34:56] <NotACow> Messedrocker: i'm too lazy to do that
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:06] *** Quits: fnordus (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:11] <zocky> brandt's problem is that while he's right on many things in principle, he doesn't seem to have any idea what's moral and what's beyond pale
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:14] <Messedrocker> you could make wr@pyzrrkzkeijigoh.org
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:52] <NotACow> zocky: everyone i know who has actually talked to brandt says that he's totally fucking nuts,.
[Dec 3 2007 01:35:52] *** Quits: amidaniel ("leaving")
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:08] <Krimpet> indeed - he had some legit BLP concerns, and many people in the community did bait him, but his reactions have been completely out-of-line
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:10] <NotACow> zocky: given that, it's unsurprising that he has a disconnect on moral standards.
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:20] *** Joins: fnordus (n=dnall@24.84.160.227)
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:21] <zocky> NotACow, yeah, he seems to think using photos of people's children to make fun of those people is a normal thing.
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:27] <Krimpet> stuff like vandalizing articles with a picture of Jimbo's daughter
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:36] <NotACow> zocky: well, he expresses the same sort of mentaility that slimvirgin does, actually
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:50] <NotACow> zocky: people who are "outside the law" are totally fair game
[Dec 3 2007 01:36:58] <Messedrocker> Krimpet, a person who is pissed off will have out-of-line reactions
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:01] *** Joins: TheBiggestGnome (i=TbG@74-135-245-83.dhcp.insightbb.com)
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:16] <NotACow> zocky: so if you break any of their petty little rules for being "within the law", you immediately lose all rights to any sort of fair treatment of any sort.
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:22] <ShakataGaNai> what's the citations needed template?
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:27] * gentgeen is kinda alive
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:27] <NotACow> ShakataGaNai: {{fact}}
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:30] <zocky> Messedrocker, I'm pissed of about a lot of stuff, and I've done my share of OTT things in life, but using someone's kid for that? I mean really
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:33] * zocky vomits
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:38] * gentgeen feels hypoglycemic
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:49] <NotACow> zocky: it's just black and white thinking again.
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:49] * Messedrocker gives gentgeen a glass of orange juice
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:53] <ShakataGaNai> NotACow: I think I ment references needed - for an entire section
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:56] <Krimpet> Messedrocker: yes, but there's a certain limit where things become unacceptable. brandt crossed that long ago
[Dec 3 2007 01:37:57] <NotACow> ShakataGaNai: oh, that.
[Dec 3 2007 01:38:12] <zocky> NotACow, the War on Trollor takes no prisoners
[Dec 3 2007 01:39:01] <NotACow> indeed
[Dec 3 2007 01:39:11] <NotACow> zocky: and everyone is guilty until proven innocent
[Dec 3 2007 01:39:46] <zocky> well, you don't want to risk a sockpuppeting troll fixing typos in articles, you know
[Dec 3 2007 01:39:49] * Messedrocker would like to see some people signing up for his semi-fork
[Dec 3 2007 01:39:57] *** Joins: lucasbfr (n=nn@wikipedia/lucasbfr)
[Dec 3 2007 01:40:00] <NotACow> zocky: god forbid. they might use polluted punctuation!
[Dec 3 2007 01:40:15] * Messedrocker sighs
[Dec 3 2007 01:40:23] <NotACow> zocky: do you suppose that if they find my sockpuppet, they'll revert all the vandalism i've removed using it?
[Dec 3 2007 01:40:49] <zocky> NotACow, we recently had a whole decent article deleted because it was created by a banned user
[Dec 3 2007 01:40:56] <NotACow> zocky: stupid.
[Dec 3 2007 01:41:04] <NotACow> zocky: all that should matter is whether it's a good article or not.
[Dec 3 2007 01:41:34] <NotACow> zocky: david gerard is behind that policy.
[Dec 3 2007 01:41:53] <zocky> hehe
[Dec 3 2007 01:42:25] <zocky> when jimbo said "incivility is unacceptable" I said "obviously not, as illustrated by the wikicareer of david gerard" (and some other people)
[Dec 3 2007 01:42:43] <Messedrocker> incivility is unacceptable to a lot of people
[Dec 3 2007 01:42:49] <Messedrocker> including jimmy-jimmy
[Dec 3 2007 01:42:52] <Messedrocker> including myself
[Dec 3 2007 01:42:56] <NotACow> zocky: incivility is unacceptable, but the definition of incivility depends on who is talking and who they're talking to
[Dec 3 2007 01:43:04] *** Quits: Kwitschibo (Connection timed out)
[Dec 3 2007 01:43:25] <zocky> Messedrocker, if it were up to me, we would have strict etiquette for everything apart from user talk pages
[Dec 3 2007 01:43:51] <zocky> Messedrocker, but since we don't, fretting about incivility is useless and regularly misses the point
[Dec 3 2007 01:43:56] *** Quits: wmarsh ()
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:12] <Messedrocker> aye
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:15] <NotACow> zocky: it was a mistake to let giano get away with his temper tantrums back when it first started, but now that it's been allowed to continue it's now the law of the land.
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:22] <NotACow> zocky: changing that will be very hard
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:27] <zocky> NotACow, it's not like he started them first
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:27] <Messedrocker> and i hate to see a powerful argument being shat on because it had a degree of incivility to it
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:36] <NotACow> zocky: indeed, not.
[Dec 3 2007 01:44:58] <NotACow> Messedrocker: yes, that is one of the big problems with civility patrolling
[Dec 3 2007 01:45:09] <Messedrocker> NotACow, Giano's usually good, isn't he?
[Dec 3 2007 01:45:16] <NotACow> Messedrocker: he's usually a very good editor, yes
[Dec 3 2007 01:45:18] <Messedrocker> as long as he's not FrankenGiano?
[Dec 3 2007 01:45:26] <NotACow> Messedrocker: but he trolls when he's upset.
[Dec 3 2007 01:45:51] * gentgeen found his blood meter, and IS hypoglycemic. He's off the hunt/gather some food
[Dec 3 2007 01:46:19] <NotACow> i wasn't going to vote
[Dec 3 2007 01:46:30] <NotACow> but i swear i will vote if brad dones't get an oppose
[Dec 3 2007 01:46:56] <zocky> NotACow, good, otherwise I'll have to switch my vote
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:04] <NotACow> i have at least four accounts that are eligible to vote, maybe five or even six.
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:09] <NotACow> which one should i use?
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:16] *** Joins: Becca (n=Becca@wikipedia/Rebecca)
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:17] <Messedrocker> All of them
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:22] <Messedrocker> hi becks
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:24] <NotACow> Messedrocker: some of them are obvious
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:42] <Becca> hi messedrocker
[Dec 3 2007 01:47:47] <zocky> or maybe I could have User:ZockPuppet oppose him
[Dec 3 2007 01:48:11] <NotACow> one of the advantages of having been a checkuser is that i have a pretty good idea of how to conceal a sockpuppet
[Dec 3 2007 01:48:27] <NotACow> of course, it also helps if you avoid doing naything controversial
[Dec 3 2007 01:48:40] <zocky> NotACow, it's not like it's that hard
[Dec 3 2007 01:48:50] <Messedrocker> Of course. All my sockpuppet ever did was copyedit articles
[Dec 3 2007 01:48:54] <zocky> just get a throwaway dial up account and you're done
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:06] *** AwayO is now known as ScorpO
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:20] <zocky> the whole idea that we should worry much about sockpuppets on a website like wikipedia is silly
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:28] <Krimpet> newyorkbrad is actually a reasonable fellow, though - i'm glad he's got the level of support he does
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:32] <zocky> you can't stop it, so you have to have a system where it doesn't matter
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:35] * gentgeen has chocolate. the best part of going low
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:39] <Miranda> get a banned user sockpuppet from 2006 with an open proxy
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:40] <zocky> either that, or we require ID
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:46] <zocky> dosing what we do now is stupid
[Dec 3 2007 01:49:59] <NotACow> Krimpet: he's a community wonk. his whole purpose in being on wikipedia is to be elected to the arbcom. i have no idea what he will do with the office once he gets it.
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:19] <zocky> IMO, he'll continue being reasonable
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:19] <Becca> Krimpet: i'm still amazed that he's still polling 100%. it's nigh impossible not to piss off at least *someone*...
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:21] * Kasshoku_Neko looks at Messedrocker
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:22] <zocky> which is a good thing
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:35] <NotACow> zocky: i expect so as well, but there's this lingering doubt there
[Dec 3 2007 01:50:55] <NotACow> Becca: actually i'm still a bit pissed at him, but it's over something private and has no relationship to the election
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:02] * Messedrocker looks at Kasshoku_Neko
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:08] <Becca> NotACow: ah, fair enough
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:09] *** Quits: JWSchmidt (Connection timed out)
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:09] <zocky> i think he's been around long enough that we'd notice the hidden agenda if he had any
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:19] <NotACow> Becca: i don't plan to vote, in any case
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:21] * Kasshoku_Neko licks Messedrocker
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:27] * Messedrocker picks up Kasshoku_Neko
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:38] * Kasshoku_Neko falls asleep
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:46] <Becca> zocky: i think he's just attracted to this sort of thing as a lawyer.
[Dec 3 2007 01:51:48] <zocky> NotACow, anyway, I usually can tell that somebody will become problematic years in advance
[Dec 3 2007 01:52:12] <NotACow> Becca: i have a theory on fhtat, but i won't share it publicly.
[Dec 3 2007 01:52:23] <zocky> Becca, as long as he isn't disbarred....
[Dec 3 2007 01:52:26] <Krimpet> NotACow: perhaps, but his long history dealing with arbcom has at least proved he makes solid decisions
[Dec 3 2007 01:52:57] <NotACow> zocky: if he is, he's lying about it.
[Dec 3 2007 01:53:13] <NotACow> he told me his prior firm earlier today, although i forget what he said.
[Dec 3 2007 01:53:16] *** Joins: kila (n=chatzill@wikipedia/Ali-K)
[Dec 3 2007 01:54:01] <NotACow> i've spent probably 100 hours talking to brad in private over the past few months.
[Dec 3 2007 01:54:18] <NotACow> in that itme i've learned very little about him. he's very good at not talking about himself
[Dec 3 2007 01:55:25] <Messedrocker> NotACow, he *is* more anonymous than most Wikipedians
[Dec 3 2007 01:55:55] <zocky> i wonder if he's the same lawyer called brad from newyork I know from a forum
[Dec 3 2007 01:55:58] <zocky> i should ask him once
[Dec 3 2007 01:56:19] <Becca> nothing much wrong with anonymity.
[Dec 3 2007 01:56:34] <Messedrocker> zocky, since brad is a common name, law is a common profession, and new york is a highly populous city, it's probably a coincidence
[Dec 3 2007 01:57:04] <zocky> Messedrocker, quite possibly... the other brad is also a reasonable well spoken fellow, though
[Dec 3 2007 01:57:09] <Messedrocker> Now... were he Phineas the Pizza Box Juggler...
[Dec 3 2007 01:57:19] <zocky> haha
[Dec 3 2007 01:58:00] <Krimpet> it's a good sign that he manages his anonymity well, instead of letting it slip then aggressively enforcing policies to silence anyone who mentions it.
[Dec 3 2007 01:58:58] <zocky> Krimpet, point
[Dec 3 2007 02:00:46] * Krimpet is reminded of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N80nUa7rhYw
[Dec 3 2007 02:01:57] * Kasshoku_Neko is reminded of http://www.gaynaughtyxxxpics.com
[Dec 3 2007 02:03:17] *** Quits: K__ ("Leaving")
[Dec 3 2007 02:03:40] <Becca> Krimpet: eh, i think we should be protecting people's privacy either way.
[Dec 3 2007 02:04:00] * Becca doesn't think we should be expecting wikipedians to have a degree from the school of usenet...
[Dec 3 2007 02:04:24] <Krimpet> Becca: indeed, i agree that privacy is a very real issue
[Dec 3 2007 02:04:30] * peng1 is reminded of a hundred lovely lakes, and recalls the fragrant breath of pine and fir and cedar and poplar trees. The trail has strung upon it, as upon a thread of silk, opalescent dawns and saffron sunsets.
[Dec 3 2007 02:04:41] <zocky> yes and not... privacy is a realistic concern for some people, but mostly it's way overblown
[Dec 3 2007 02:04:56] <zocky> lots of us edit under our real names, or it's trivial to find them out
[Dec 3 2007 02:05:27] <Becca> zocky: honestly, i don't know about that. i sometimes think it appears that way, but some of the people who have been harassing wikipedians are *really* fucking scary.
[Dec 3 2007 02:05:46] <zocky> Becca, yeah, but that's not something we can deal with
[Dec 3 2007 02:06:00] <zocky> Becca, it's a matter for real-life law enforcement
[Dec 3 2007 02:06:06] <Becca> that's true.
[Dec 3 2007 02:06:19] <Becca> i do think we can minimise the stress it causes people they're after though.
[Dec 3 2007 02:06:25] <Krimpet> hell, some of the oversighted revisions on my page are enough to bring my life crashing down if the right folks got a hold of em :/
[Dec 3 2007 02:06:48] <zocky> Becca, i think the best advice we can give them is to vanish and come back under a new identity
[Dec 3 2007 02:07:12] <zocky> it does suck losing the connection to your old edits, but if you're really real-life scared, it's a trivial matter
[Dec 3 2007 02:07:15] <peng1> zocky: and to not talk to anyone via wikipedia ever again?
[Dec 3 2007 02:07:30] *** Joins: Idonotexist (i=FPlKyC3c@c-24-16-36-215.hsd1.mn.comcast.net)
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:00] <zocky> peng1, if they're THAT scared that they'd even stop doing that, then maybe they should stop editing
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:05] <Becca> zocky: i think that's true in some cases, but i think there's quite a few where there's really no need, but where wikipedia is really quite good at compounding people's distress.
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:10] <zocky> it's not fair, but it's simply not something we're equipped to deal with
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:18] <Becca> this is true, yes.
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:25] <Becca> we've seen that with morrow.
[Dec 3 2007 02:08:55] *** Joins: UnFred (n=UnFred@S010600095b44774f.vs.shawcable.net)
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:09] <Messedrocker> emh
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:10] <Messedrocker> meh
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:10] <Krimpet> it's also troubling that the real, genuine privacy concerns have been subtly conflated by some people to silence legit criticism and transparency - it's almost insulting to people who have really been stalked and harassed
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:16] <Messedrocker> i'm tired but i'm not really bored
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:24] <Messedrocker> should i consume some caffeine y/n
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:29] <ShakataGaNai> WHY!
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:34] <ShakataGaNai> nm me
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:47] <Becca> Krimpet: in what way?
[Dec 3 2007 02:09:53] <ShakataGaNai> Messedrocker: Yes
[Dec 3 2007 02:10:24] <zocky> Becca, well, one example is "wikistalking"
[Dec 3 2007 02:10:40] *** Joins: GerardM- (n=chatzill@f11013.upc-f.chello.nl)
[Dec 3 2007 02:10:45] <zocky> somebody combing through your edits and being a prick to your online identity is NOT real-life danger
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:05] *** Quits: lucasbfr (Connection timed out)
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:08] * zocky sometimes think some people actually believe in Anonymous
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:11] <Idonotexist> maybe not, but it's still not desireable
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:13] <Idonotexist> lol
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:15] <zocky> then again, maybe it really exists
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:16] <peng1> zocky: is there a specific problem or are you just being theoretical?
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:25] <Becca> zocky: anonymous as in the troll people?
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:30] <zocky> Becca, yes
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:33] <Krimpet> Becca: like trying to silence dispute resolution procedures on consistently problematic editors by claiming harassment
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:38] <zocky> you know, with the exploding vans
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:42] <Becca> zocky: did you see their attack on the feminist sites?
[Dec 3 2007 02:12:43] *** Joins: Mike42 (i=Mike@wikimedia/MichaelBillington)
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:00] <zocky> Becca, does it predate the fox news crap story?
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:20] <Idonotexist> Anonymous "attacks" everyone and everything
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:28] <NotACow> lots of things are undesirable
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:30] <Krimpet> or claiming that exposing and blocking an abusive sockpuppet is "harassing" the high-profile puppeteer
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:35] <NotACow> the war in iraq is undesirable
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:39] <Becca> zocky: yes and no. i had a really fucking creepy hate site set up about me for a while. thankfully this particular creep (who was a genuinely scary guy) was on the other side of the pacific, but it's still pretty stressful.
[Dec 3 2007 02:13:42] <zocky> peng1, i'm not sure what you're asking
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:02] *** Joins: lea_w (n=lea_w@dhcp-138-80.vassar.edu)
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:02] <Becca> Krimpet: if you're referring to sarah, that's stretching it rather a lot.
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:08] <NotACow> Becca: i've had hate sites about me since the mid-90s. so far it hasn't affected my life.
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:27] <Becca> NotACow: hon, you came out of usenet. i'm not surprised.
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:37] <Messedrocker> NotACow, do you think that... you know... has helped it not affect your life?
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:38] <peng1> zocky: are you saying we don't have resources to do more than tell people to get a new account BECAUSE a) there is someone you would specifically give this advice to or as a general rule
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:40] <NotACow> Becca: not only that, i crossed swords with scientology
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:43] <lea_w> Are there any plans to get publicly accessable image history (including the image files i.e.) into Wikipedia? Does this exist in MediaWiki?
[Dec 3 2007 02:14:57] *** peng1 is now known as pengo
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:11] <Idonotexist> I thought it did, lea_w
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:17] <pengo> lea_w: it exists already, just not for deleted images
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:24] <NotACow> pengo: some deleted imaegs
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:25] <zocky> pengo, well, both... it is a general rule, and there are people I would give this advice to
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:41] <NotACow> pengo: images deleted since that thing brion wrote went in are in the deleted image history.
[Dec 3 2007 02:15:42] <Krimpet> Becca: perhaps not the best example, then
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:03] <Idonotexist> lea_w: just scroll down to "File history" on any image page
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:25] <Idonotexist> most of them only have one revision tho
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:26] <NotACow> pengo: telling people to get a new account is poontless because someone like durova will just hunt out the account anyway.
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:36] <zocky> NotACow, ROTFL
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:46] <Krimpet> but the worst example of such, IMO, is the use of this private mailing list ostensibly about tackling the problem of cyberstalking, to instead witch-hunt and sling mud at contributors
[Dec 3 2007 02:16:46] <zocky> by using the super reliable methodology?
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:12] <NotACow> zocky: her methods are good at identifying people who have previously edited under another identifier
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:21] <zocky> NotACow, no they aren't
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:27] <pengo> zocky: isn't there a problem of people putting up others' private information?
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:28] <zocky> NotACow, they would have identified me, likely
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:37] <NotACow> zocky: or kat walsh, i suspect
[Dec 3 2007 02:17:48] <zocky> pengo, we have oversight for that
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:04] <Krimpet> especially considering that i've been harassed and pestered by trolls myself. knowing that mud was being slung at me on a "cyberstalking" list seems like a double slap in the face
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:05] <zocky> pengo, we can't stop people from posting, unless we require id, and we won't do that
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:06] <NotACow> zocky: or any of a large number of other editors who took a few moments to look before leaping
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:07] <Becca> Krimpet: it actually is about dealing with cyberstalking, or was. i haven't been paying much attention to it lately.
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:46] <NotACow> Becca: i find myself rather blase over the cyberstalking thing
[Dec 3 2007 02:18:54] <NotACow> Becca: and i've been cyberstalked rather extensively.
[Dec 3 2007 02:19:05] <NotACow> Becca: the only time it was really bothersome was when my ex ws cyberstalking me
[Dec 3 2007 02:19:21] <Krimpet> Becca: indeed, and i can understand that. but from what i've heard, it largely steered into "investigations" and such
[Dec 3 2007 02:19:41] <zocky> the only time I suffer from cyberstalking is when I look at my picture on the hive and realize that I'm not nearly as young anymore
[Dec 3 2007 02:19:46] <Becca> Krimpet: that was more the other list, which i'm not on.
[Dec 3 2007 02:19:59] <NotACow> Krimpet: it's likely that the real "juice" was on other lists than the one that becca is talking about.
[Dec 3 2007 02:20:41] *** Joins: leileilol (n=Hsi@c-76-118-249-203.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
[Dec 3 2007 02:20:43] *** Quits: MrZ-man ("And with that, I depart.")
[Dec 3 2007 02:20:56] <NotACow> Becca: and it was only really bohtersome because my ex was cyberstalking me, then using the resultant inadvertent contact to try to get me arrested
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:07] <Becca> lovely.
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:13] <Krimpet> hmm, perhaps; i don't have access to any of them, it was just my impression that the witchhunting grew to be such a big part that they spun off the new list
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:14] *** Parts: SAndrewMiller (n=StevenAn@c-68-55-5-81.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:17] <lea_w> pengo: Idonotexist: Sorry, I'm an idiot. ;-) You're right...
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:19] <NotACow> Becca: the list admin for the mailing list where she pulled this told her where to stuff it and banned her for life.
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:43] <NotACow> Becca: my ex showed up on wikipedia briefly back around the time i got my adminship, but nobody paid any attention to her and she went away,
[Dec 3 2007 02:21:46] <pengo> lea_w:
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:00] * zocky notes that a good way to avoid being picked on by idiots is to treat them in non-personal manner
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:08] <pengo> so what's going on with GFDL/creative commons compatibility?
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:18] <zocky> friendly, official, strict, without shouting and threatening
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:40] <NotACow> zocky: that's why we need to deal with idiots who think thati t's ok to be incivil toward vandals
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:42] <pengo> so i should stop telling idiots that i'm in love with them?
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:51] <Becca> pengo: lol
[Dec 3 2007 02:23:59] <zocky> pengo, depends on your preference
[Dec 3 2007 02:24:06] <NotACow> zocky: ran into some of tha today while editing....
[Dec 3 2007 02:24:35] * NotACow has found at least one admin who ought nt have the bit, but won't say anything about it because it would blow the cover on her sock
[Dec 3 2007 02:24:37] <zocky> NotACow, absolutely.... my recipe for dealing with vandals is to bore them, not excite them
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:09] * kmccoy is an admin who shouldn't have the bit, but probably doesn't do any harm by having it.
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:13] <pengo> am i the only person who's excited about this CC = GFDL thing?
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:13] <NotACow> zocky: that's why i don't send "warning messages" to vandals when i do rc patrol.
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:20] <NotACow> zocky: the "warning message" just keys them up
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:30] <zocky> NotACow, even blocking them is often counterproductive
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:30] <NotACow> the orange box of instant gratification
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:35] *** Quits: Mike42 (Nick collision from services.)
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:40] <zocky> revert, ignore, forget
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:40] <NotACow> zocky: i'm no an admin so i can't block them anyway
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:42] *** Quits: Tooby ("bye!")
[Dec 3 2007 02:25:43] *** Joins: Mike42 (i=Mike@wikimedia/MichaelBillington)
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:01] <zocky> NotACow, are you seriously telling me you have no sysop sockpuppets?
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:01] <NotACow> zocky: yup. revert. revert. revert again. we can do that all day.
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:05] <bainer> pengo: something like this has been mooted for a long time. and it's always been possible given the terms of the GFDL. I'm waiting to see the draft that actually implements it before I get excited
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:13] <NotACow> zocky: if i do, i'm not talking about it.
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:29] *** Quits: lea_w ("Lost terminal")
[Dec 3 2007 02:26:58] <Krimpet> i usually block them early without templating their talk page - that way it's physically impossible for them to continue, but their talk page doesn't get a shiny trophy
[Dec 3 2007 02:27:33] <Idonotexist> do you know what's real ridiculous?
[Dec 3 2007 02:27:36] <Alkivar> The foundation that runs Wikipedia has finally agreed to pay contributors to the online encyclopedia a modest fee for their work. But it won’t pay the thousands of people who participate in creating the wiki pages — just artists who create “key illustrations” for the site.
[Dec 3 2007 02:27:36] <Alkivar> The payments are made possible by a $20,000 donation from Philip Greenspun, who said he was moved to give the money because of his experience seeing technical books he had originally published online appear in print.
[Dec 3 2007 02:27:43] *** Joins: lucasbfr (n=nn@wikipedia/lucasbfr)
[Dec 3 2007 02:27:52] <Alkivar> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technolo...ess&oref=slogin
[Dec 3 2007 02:28:06] <Alkivar> IIIIIIIIIInteresting
[Dec 3 2007 02:28:07] <Idonotexist> multiple consecutive final or only warnings.
[Dec 3 2007 02:29:35] <zocky> Krimpet, of course, it's not physically impossible for them to continue, if they're on dialup, on rotating IPs, or in a classroom where each computer has its own IP
[Dec 3 2007 02:29:35] <Miranda> NotACow: did you update your blog concerning the Arbcom elections?
[Dec 3 2007 02:29:58] <zocky> Krimpet, blocking them still excites them... in my experience, most give up after 10-20 edits anyway
[Dec 3 2007 02:30:08] <bainer> Alkivar: there was a long thread on foundation-l about it earlier this month
[Dec 3 2007 02:30:22] <NotACow> Miranda: no, and i don't plan to
[Dec 3 2007 02:30:29] <Miranda> ok
[Dec 3 2007 02:30:38] *** Quits: torch ("This computer has gone to sleep")
[Dec 3 2007 02:30:48] *** Joins: Evil_Monkey (n=EM@202-0-58-117.cable.telstraclear.net)
[Dec 3 2007 02:31:26] <NotACow> zocky: i've seen a few continue past that, but i don't think blocks are useful except in the caseo f move vandalism
[Dec 3 2007 02:38:39] <Hildanknight> *too much - typo, sorry.
[Dec 3 2007 02:38:46] <zocky> "by" could also work, but being a forinner, I'll shut up
[Dec 3 2007 02:38:48] <NotACow> either with or aganst can be used.
[Dec 3 2007 02:38:48] <kmccoy> Or even "by", though I think "with" or "against" would probably be better.
[Dec 3 2007 02:38:50] <Idonotexist> what Wikipedia needs is better photographers
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:00] <NotACow> the implication of "with" is differen than that of "against", tough
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:08] <NotACow> "against" implcies that X and Y compete.
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:11] <Idonotexist> see [[Four species]] -- that photo is HORRIBLE
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:15] <Krimpet> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nopenis.svg
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:18] <bainer> Idonotexist: there are some great photographers contributing to Commons
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:22] <Hildanknight> Idonotexist - what Wikipedia does *not* need is the anti-fair use brigade.
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:28] <NotACow> "by" is also valud and implies that Y somehow mitigates the excesses of X
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:37] <Hildanknight> Kick them out and the quality of photos will improve.
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:46] <Idonotexist> Hildanknight: ...
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:48] <kmccoy> Yeah, "with" is probably the most neutral of them...
[Dec 3 2007 02:39:57] <Idonotexist> Not the quality of freely usable photos, Hildanknight.
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:03] <pengo> i did the graphic for [[Species]]. I want my $40.
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:10] <Idonotexist> I'm talking about crap like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arbaat_haminim.jpg
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:10] *** dungodung|sleep is now known as dungodung
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:14] <Hildanknight> NotACow - I stated the intended meaning. You're thinking too much about X; you need to think about both X and Y equally.
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:28] <kmccoy> Hildanknight, is there a signup somewhere for this brigade?
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:39] <NotACow> i'm thinking too much about wikipedia
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:44] <NotACow> i need to thin kabout sleep instead
[Dec 3 2007 02:40:45] <NotACow> good night

And good night to you too, Kelly.

[Somey]

And good night to you too, Kelly.

Hey, thanks for posting that, God Daniel! Hmmm, maybe it's time to take Zocky off the hive-mind page... In fact, maybe it's time to take a LOT of people off the hive-mind page...

And I should probably send Kelly an e-mail to inform her that we allow Gmail (and free-mail in general) registrations for people we know to be real people who are also non-spammers.

Also, I'd just like to point out that I totally concur with the sentiment that it's best not to tell idiots that you're in love with them.

[wikiwhistle]

Confused- I don't mean to be nasty in anyway but...Kelly has a reputation as being a bit loopy doesn't s/he? Why would they let her in IRC, don't they bounce people ever? Especially given their latest paranoia about keeping their conversations and actions planned secret.

They all, such as Jimbo etc, read the IRC don't they? So maybe they plan to use these comments against her.

[Daniel Brandt]

Hmmm, maybe it's time to take Zocky off the hive-mind page... In fact, maybe it's time to take a LOT of people off the hive-mind page...

Hmmm, Mr. Anonymous Sysop for Wikipedia Review, I was thinking it's time to put my stereo pic of Kelly back up on hivemind. I guess we don't think alike on this issue of cyber-accountability.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And I should probably send Kelly an e-mail to inform her that we allow Gmail (and free-mail in general) registrations for people we know to be real people who are also non-spammers.

Yes, the policy has been to admit Wikipedians with free-mail if they can prove they are the genuine article. That's how I got in (courtesy of Blu Aardvark, BTW.) I will send Kelly a Wikipedia email to this effect.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Yes, the policy has been to admit Wikipedians with free-mail if they can prove they are the genuine article. That's how I got in (courtesy of Blu Aardvark, BTW.) I will send Kelly a Wikipedia email to this effect.

I emailed from Gmail and was given this account - no questions asked! But it took a day during which I got another account from my regular email. (I wont use that one. "Turkey", I think)

But this had me thinking: I'm an admin at Wikipedia and a while back I was investigating some NAZI website causing trouble on-wiki but it wouldn't let me in, couldn't see any of the pages. So I cleared my cookies and viola - got right in. Then I asked a friend (who is not an admin) to try it from a different computer with his cookies intact. He got in without a problem. I repeated the process with the same results.

So I'm suspicious that the nazi site had a script that looked at my cookies and divined my Wikipedia user account name, checked to see if it was an admin account and banned if so. Is this possible? Does WR sniff up our cookies?

If I recall correctly, Wikipedia doesn't use cookie based sock checks because many edits come from public computers that different people use.

Yay! my first post, sorry it's off-topic...

[WordBomb]

Does WR sniff up our cookies?

Unless you have an ancient browser and are visiting an unscrupulous site running a cookie stealing script, cookies can't be seen across domains. In other words, the cookie that WR places (so I don't have to log in each visit) can only be seen by the server at wikipediareview.com, and the cookie placed by wikipedia.org can only be seen by wikipedia.org.

This is enforced by your browser.

[WordBomb]

Confused- I don't mean to be nasty in anyway but...Kelly has a reputation as being a bit loopy doesn't s/he? Why would they let her in IRC, don't they bounce people ever? Especially given their latest paranoia about keeping their conversations and actions planned secret.

They all, such as Jimbo etc, read the IRC don't they? So maybe they plan to use these comments against her.

I cannot think of a single reason why Kelly should not be welcomed here enthusiastically, and possibly offered an honorary adminship. Aside from her feelings toward Daniel Brandt, I'm deeply supportive of her.

[Fox]

Does WR sniff up our cookies?

Unless you have an ancient browser and are visiting an unscrupulous site running a cookie stealing script, cookies can't be seen across domains. In other words, the cookie that WR places (so I don't have to log in each visit) can only be seen by the server at wikipediareview.com, and the cookie placed by wikipedia.org can only be seen by wikipedia.org.

This is enforced by your browser.

Would it be technically possible for Wikipedia to run a script in any way to look for Wikipedia Review cookies? Are they doing this?

[wikiwhistle]

Confused- I don't mean to be nasty in anyway but...Kelly has a reputation as being a bit loopy doesn't s/he? Why would they let her in IRC, don't they bounce people ever? Especially given their latest paranoia about keeping their conversations and actions planned secret.

They all, such as Jimbo etc, read the IRC don't they? So maybe they plan to use these comments against her.

I cannot think of a single reason why Kelly should not be welcomed here enthusiastically, and possibly offered an honorary adminship. Aside from her feelings toward Daniel Brandt, I'm deeply supportive of her.

That's not what I mean lol I just was surprised they 'let' her have that convo in wikipedia IRC- I thought one of the admin lot would have stepped in and bounced people who criticised them there.

But then I don't know much about IRC

[Moulton]

Would it be technically possible for Wikipedia to run a script in any way to look for Wikipedia Review cookies? Are they doing this?

For all practical purposes, no.

They'd have to exploit some kind of known vulnerability to install a trojan to bypass the way your browser processes cookies. And if they did so, the security community would quickly spot it and expose it.

But there is a much simpler way to identify Wikipedians visiting WR.

It is trivial for anyone registered and posting on WR to collect the IPs of most visitors to the site. A list of IPs can, of course, be cross-checked against the WP server logs.

[wikiwhistle]

only admins or mods can view the IPs people use here, well that's how it usually works on forums.

[Amarkov]

Unless you have an ancient browser and are visiting an unscrupulous site running a cookie stealing script, cookies can't be seen across domains. In other words, the cookie that WR places (so I don't have to log in each visit) can only be seen by the server at wikipediareview.com, and the cookie placed by wikipedia.org can only be seen by wikipedia.org.

This is enforced by your browser.

Would it be technically possible for Wikipedia to run a script in any way to look for Wikipedia Review cookies? Are they doing this?

It's possible that they found a bug in web browsers which allows them to do this. But, even assuming that they somehow prevented any hint of this from leaking out, Wikipedia couldn't get away with blatantly abusing security holes. And they aren't idiots over there.

This post has been edited by Amarkov: Tue 4th December 2007, 12:59am

[wikiwhistle]

If you go from one site, the next site can easily see where you've just come from- (I'm getting this from my boyf who has his own site). They can also see the next site you move on to.

Apache just asks the browser where it was 'referred' from. You have to turn it on as an option as it uses a lot of bandwidth that could bog down a busy site.

[Alkivar]

If you go from one site, the next site can easily see where you've just come from- (I'm getting this from my boyf who has his own site). They can also see the next site you move on to.

Apache just asks the browser where it was 'referred' from. You have to turn it on as an option as it uses a lot of bandwidth that could bog down a busy site.

yes what your talking about here is called the referrer information.

WP doesnt log referrers as far as I am aware. My local mediawiki install doesnt either, so I'm pretty sure its disabled by default.

[Daniel Brandt]

That's not what I mean lol I just was surprised they 'let' her have that convo in wikipedia IRC- I thought one of the admin lot would have stepped in and bounced people who criticised them there.

But then I don't know much about IRC

Nah, she's been yakking away like that in #wikipedia for over a year. She practically owns that particular channel. They'd all have nothing to talk about and die from boredom if she wasn't around. It's not like the old days, when wikizealots could throw zingers at me for fun.

[anthony]

WP doesnt log referrers as far as I am aware. My local mediawiki install doesnt either, so I'm pretty sure its disabled by default.

Wikipedia definitely logs referrers. They've run statistics on who's hitting WP from Google, for instance.

[Moulton]

Very likely the Wiki servers are logging all the optional fields in the Apache logs.

[Somey]

So which is more concerning, then? The idea that WP is logging referrers to sniff out who's following links from here, or the idea that people here are sneakily using offsite-hosted avatars or those little 1px tracking images to obtain IP's without anyone else knowing about it?

I know we've been accused of looking at our own raw access logs to try and figure out who's visiting from WP, but that's just part of the usual JzG cabal disinformation campaign. (AS IF Selina or I would actually have the time or patience to sift through all that stuff!)

Besides, look at the recent numbers down in the board footer... Everybody's dropping by nowadays.

[Alkivar]

So which is more concerning, then? The idea that WP is logging referrers to sniff out who's following links from here, or the idea that people here are sneakily using offsite-hosted avatars or those little 1px tracking images to obtain IP's without anyone else knowing about it?

I know we've been accused of looking at our own raw access logs to try and figure out who's visiting from WP, but that's just part of the usual JzG cabal disinformation campaign. (AS IF Selina or I would actually have the time or patience to sift through all that stuff!)

Besides, look at the recent numbers down in the board footer... Everybody's dropping by nowadays.

A simple solution would be to require all avatars be locally hosted on the server.