FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) High School kid who pretends to be a cop up for CU? -
# Strong support Seen this user around many times while doing vandalism reverts. I would like to see a police officer be an admin on Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 talk 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've always been curious, since it appears the user is still in high school (I could be wrong about that), in what capacity he serves as a police officer (this is per the userbox on his user page). Tiptoety, could you clarify that? Katr67 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment More than that, it would appear that this user is also an emergency responder - seems bizzare to be both, and still in high school (by the looks of things). Having said that, I would certainly like to hear why NHRHS2010 thinks that we need a police officer as an admin on Wikipedia. A police officer, in my opinion, won't necessarily make any better an admin than (for want of a better expression) a normal person. TheIslander 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If either of you have any evidence or proof that he is, indeed, a high school student, hadn't you best provide it here rather than simply making it seem as though Tiptoety is fabricating his identity? Otherwise it would seem you're derailing this RFA with non-issues that could sway people in their support or dissent. Thank you. Jeffpw 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I totally agree with Jeffpw that this does not seem to be helpful in terms of this RfA, it is hard to reconcile this diff [1] with the assertions of being a law enforcement officer. Normally the police don't get grounded by their parents ...... Pedro : Chat 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Quite right, Jeffpw, I should have cited what Pedro just has. Appologies. TheIslander 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I admit that dif is disconcerting. That said, it could have been a joke. Until Tiptoety is here to answer for himself, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was being playful when he put that on his page. Naturally, if it turns out he has misrepresented who he is, I will withdraw my support. Not for his age (I know other teen admins here who do a great job), but for the misrepresentation. Jeffpw 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, i am a student in a high school, but also serve as an employee of the Police Bureau as a Law Enforcement Cadet. I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing. A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun, and can not operate and emergency vehicle with lights and sirens. Take a look here: [2]. Cheers! Tiptoety 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up, Tiptoety. I was sure there must be some logical explanation for that. You seemed to have too strong an ethical code to have lied to the community. If you need help making a police cadet userbox, hit me up. It goes without saying you have my continued support for this nomination. Jeffpw 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes, thank you Tiptoety for clearing that up. I figured it was something like that, judging by your interest in search and rescue. I in no way meant to imply that being in high school is a reason to oppose, nor was I saying you attempted to misrepresent yourself on purpose. It is bothersome to know, however, you don't know enough about wikicoding to perhaps "subst" the userbox and then change the text to more appropriately reflect your status. Katr67 15:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Echoed - thanks for clearing that up, Tiptoety. Having said that, I still wonder about the Emergency Responder box... TheIslander 16:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Response - Thank you to everyone who understood the situation! I am glad that is cleared up, and have fixed the userbox issue on my userpage. On the topic of the first responder box, I am indeed a first responder (it stems from my work with Search and Rescue). Cheers! Tiptoety 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone's in any doubt, Tiptoey has always been clear on this and isn't trying to mislead anyone - see this conversation for example. — iridescent 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Tiptoey I'm concerned by this "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices" which I highly doubt. Without going through the DPSST I doubt you can arrest anyone as a cadet (other than citizens arrest) or issue citations. Is this correct? Aboutmovies 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this really relevant anymore to this RfA? It's been cleared up that he wasn't intentionally misleading anyone, if you wish to argue what a police cadet can and can not do, wouldn't it be better to use email, or a talk page instead? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No it has not been cleared up. This user has a history of misrepresentation (I don’t care if its intentional or not) including where in the oppose section someone pointed out this user did this which is far more troubling than the userbox issue. But Tiptoey says it was a misunderstanding, but says they are basically a cop minus a gun. I don’t think that’s true. Simply put, Tiptoey made a mistake, now he just needs own up to it completely. It’s the same thing as the copyvio issue. He’s trying to wriggle around it and make it seem not so bad, which is not owning up to the problem. Own up to the problem, reform, and come back to RFA in a few months. And I’m not sure why you think this was resolved. The only action in this thread of the RFA contributed by Tiptoey since their comment I quoted, is that he removed the user box, that doesn’t address the other claim of being a police officer made by this RFA candidate, which seems to continue when you make comments about cadets being cops minus a gun. Aboutmovies 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
How is this relevant to this RfA? That is what I am asking. How is the difference between being a cadet and an actual police officer relevant to this RfA? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It's (possibly weakly) relevant 'cause it shows trust issues. There was confusion as to how a high school person could be a Police Officer, and Tiptoety cleared that up. However, since that things have surfaced where Tiptoety has claimed to be a Police Officer, yet he states here that he is not. There are definite honesty issues here, which is why this is being discussed. TheIslander 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant because as many people have pointed out, can Tiptoey be trusted with the tools.?To analyze this you start with the editors trustworthiness. The above issues demonstrate their are issues with that trustworthiness. Note, its not that there is from a WikiPedia editing difference, anything relevant to cop vs. cadet. It has to do with Tiptoey's response to this issue of misrepresenting himself as a police officer, and then when called on it trying to mitigate it by saying, well I'm a cadet so the only difference is I don't have a gun so really its no big deal. Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know about you but I don't go around WikiPedia telling people/implying to others that I'm a lawyer, when really I'm a law student. First it's border line illegal (impersonating a law enforcement officer is usually illegal), and second what good does it do for the project? Look, we all make mistakes, but if you want to be an admin you better own up to those mistakes, whether that be copyvio issues or saying you are a cop when you are not. Notice below the person who added the info about the claim of being a cop is apparently a law enforcement person, so I'll take their word that their is serious issue and difference with cadet v. cop. Aboutmovies 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Then the response to this issue has been (at least to me) more of a trying to avoid responsibility That raises issues of trust, and that is obviously related to being an admin.
Ummm, I still don't get it, maybe it's how we are interpreting this section of the discussion, but Tiptoety states "I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing." Also in this conversation he states that he is a cadet. So he couldn't find the correct userbox, that makes him untrustworthy? He made a mistake with adding content that was a copyvio. Mistakes happen, people are human. I dunno, this is just my 2 cents, but it seems like your consistent issue about this is very overbearing. He's made some mistakes, if you choose to oppose because of them that is your prerogative. But you seem to be making a big deal over the comment "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun." What does that have to do with this RfA? I just don't get it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's relevant to this RFA or not, but in terms of the link above where Tiptoety says "I am a police officer" -- Tiptoety, please don't do that anymore. It's well-intentioned, but misleading. I don't think it reflects on your honesty or anything like that (particularly since you're kinda like a police officer), but it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons. That said, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the candidate on here, so I'm not expressing any opinion of the RFA (and from all accounts he seems like a good guy). --TheOtherBob 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No you don't seem to get it, its not about the userbox, its about his responses after the userbox part was "fixed" if you will. Note, again, there are two instances where it appears Tiptoey has represented he is a cop, the userbox, and far more troubling the Admin noticboard incident. Those are both mistakes, and the problem I have is Tiptoey's response to the community's concerns about the userbox, and more importantly the second incident. I asked a simple question, you have decided that you wanted to say its not relevant, all I want is a response from the candidate. Now if you really want to analyze the userbox, its not that he couldn't find the right userbox, its how he responded to the concern, oh its no big deal since a cadet is really just a cop without a gun. Well a private citizen is really just a cop without the authority, but if I misrepresent that I am a cop when I am not, then I get a free ticket to jail. So the problem I have is that Tiptoey was trying to downplay these misrepresentations, instead of owning up to the mistakes. Changing the userbox is the first step, but this comes across as very insincere when you try to downplay the problem. Aboutmovies 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Aboutmovies's comment was below mine, but I'm pretty sure it responds to the one above mine. To be clear, I don't hold any opinion here other than that Tiptoety shouldn't claim to be a police officer until he is one. --TheOtherBob 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
From IP information gleaned from Wikipedia Watch and Sam Spade, which I won't go into here, it would appear that Tiptoety has a history of making claims about being a law enforcement officer on other sites.
Now, does Wikipedia really want a younger kid who has obviously has a law enforcement fetish to handle this type of serious information? I see red lights going off all over the place here and this person seems to me to be the very last person who should have access to CU tools on the English Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
It's good that his nomination is questioned.
Wonder if people remember what a Cabal butt-nozzle Tiptoety really is?
Does anyone remember this? Wherein that snotty teenaged cop-wannabe blocked a series of accounts, based on extremely sketchy evidence, directly on the instigation of Guy, Will Beback, GWH and (inevitably) The Slim Bitch.
And I still think this was a classic. (You remember--it started out as an April Fool's joke. Makes one wonder if Tip's nose is buried up Raul's ass.)
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
Off of Tiptoety's nomination statement :
QUOTE
it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the ''public''." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).
So, we're going to start releasing CU data to LE as part of SOP?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 25th July 2009, 3:35pm)
Off of Tiptoety's nomination statement :
QUOTE
it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the ''public''." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).
So, we're going to start releasing CU data to LE as part of SOP?
...this really, really stinks....
WMF doesn't even bother to set forth a reasonable TOS agreement and now we have a high school student (is he a minor too?) ready to release on his own initiative private information to law enforcement. To what possible end given that any and all use of the website is permitted by the absence of a TOS? Surely if a credible threat of harm is made they wouldn't leave it in this youngsters hands? Yet here he is just itching to engage law enforcement. The Privacy Policy is the sole acceptance of any responsibility by the WMF board of trustees for what happens on the site. The trustees need to step-in themselves or instruct Gardner here and, without regard to any community process, make it clear this kid doesn't get access to this information.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 25th July 2009, 3:38pm)
From IP information gleaned from Wikipedia Watch and Sam Spade, which I won't go into here, it would appear that Tiptoety has a history of making claims about being a law enforcement officer on other sites.
Now, does Wikipedia really want a younger kid who has obviously has a law enforcement fetish to handle this type of serious information? I see red lights going off all over the place here and this person seems to me to be the very last person who should have access to CU tools on the English Wikipedia.
We have a term for people like this in the ham radio community. They're called "whackers". They're a serious problem (for lots of different reasons) and we really don't need them running around anywhere. (BTW, the "cadet" program he's in is probably this one.)
I don't think Wikipedia should have sworn officers acting in any role that gives one access to "private" information; the risk of putting that person into a conflict between their duties as a sworn officer and their obligations to the Wikipedia community are too great. The WM privacy policy does not allow the willy-nilly release of checkuser information to law enforcement, and (at least when I was a checkuser) the decision to make such a release was supposed to be referred to Wikimedia's General Counsel. I don't believe that an 18 year old tyro has the requisite world experience to make that judgment call responsibly.
Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Legendary for punitive blocks to silence critics, and for blanking talkpages for same. I've been going thru his logs, and I don't see any substantial article contributions..... but he sure does enjoy marking pages as patrolled, blindly deleting "nonfree" images, and sniping at people on their talkpages. In short, a classic robotic deletionist.
Humorless asshole. Might make a good police officer, given better supervision. But for Wikipedia (where "supervision" is a joke), he's a poor match.
I'd post more links to his stupid, wikilawyering activities, but there are too many to list. Go thru past Deletion Reviews for some examples.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
A teenage kid who enjoys dressing up in uniform and confuses himself with police officers ... it all smacks of suppressed authoritarian homo-eroticism to me.
And, certainly if Tiptoety, himself does not harbor elements of authoritarian homo-eroticism (sneaking up in the dark on 'tip-toe', no doubt, to catch wrongdoers in the act), he must surely be the image of homo-erotic fantasy. I am having flashbacks of George Michael here.
I wonder if he gets a stiffie at the though of being empowered with a shooter in the near future, and will find satisfaction in the power to BAN, BAN, BAN and PUNISH dissident voices off the Pee-dia in the meanwhile? BTW, do we know if he is good looking ... is he all fit and tanned?
I think we ought spare no extra efforts discussing the matter but introduce him to leading Wikipedian David Shankbone, and his camera, to get some pictures of him in his uniform as evidence right away.
As for the Balzac topic? Good God! If being French is not enough to have one's Pee-dia page erased from the American Wiki, the man was probably a communist as well.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 25th July 2009, 9:20pm)
A teenage kid who enjoys dressing up in uniform and confuses himself with police officers ... it all smacks of suppressed authoritarian homo-eroticism to me.
And, certainly if Tiptoety, himself does not harbor elements of authoritarian homo-eroticism (sneaking up in the dark on 'tip-toe', no doubt, to catch wrongdoers in the act), he must surely be the image of homo-erotic fantasy. I am having flashbacks of George Michael here.
I wonder if he gets a stiffie at the though of being empowered with a shooter in the near future, and will find satisfaction in the power to BAN, BAN, BAN and PUNISH dissident voices off the Pee-dia in the meanwhile? BTW, do we know if he is good looking ... is he all fit and tanned?
I think we ought spare no extra efforts discussing the matter but introduce him to leading Wikipedian David Shankbone, and his camera, to get some pictures of him in his uniform as evidence right away.
(Cuz I keep coming up with bizarreness like this and this.)
I can't do that here, but I can explain how Tarantino was able to find this: The IP information found on wikipedia-watch leads to what appears to be a real name, which also appears to be the name of an account which also edited Wikipedia. This name has posted on quite a few LE forums saying things which suggest that this person is not just a cadet, but a real police officer.
I suppose that anybody could find this out now, once you've got the IP off of the chat cache on WW...
Group: Contributors
Posts: 269
Joined:
Member No.: 8,638
Perhaps the effete Old Country has something to say here after all. The principles underlying the Data Protection Act are that personal data must be * Fairly and lawfully processed * Processed for limited purposes * Adequate, relevant and not excessive * Accurate and up to date * Not kept for longer than is necessary * Processed in line with your rights * Secure * Not transferred to other countries without adequate protection
While the WMF is not, alas, subject to UK law, a responsible organisation might like to consider the principles while formulating its policy and practice. It might be instructive to consider how CheckUser data is handled by WMF. I wonder how many of the eight principles are actually being adhered to. Could it be -- None?
Stifle won't get anywhere near the nmbers required because of past behaviour.
PS this site is somewhat difficult to post to using an iPhone while using full mode (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) (not a complaint more an observation)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 26th July 2009, 8:12am)
This name has posted on quite a few LE forums saying things which suggest that this person is not just a cadet, but a real police officer.
Uh-oh ... Hold on.
You are saying he is a real police officer ... pretending to be a teenager to edit on the Wikipedia ... self-presenting to become an admin/checkuser ... and then having access to private personal information about other Wikipedia users?
So, how many more "law enforcement", "private investigators" or "intelligence operators" are lurking round the back end of the Pee-dia admins pages? By probability alone, there have got to be more than one. Well, OK, perhaps there is not much evidence of "intelligence" but you get what I am saying.
Young man, there's no need to feel down. I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground. I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town There's no need to be unhappy.
Young man, there's a place you can go. I said, young man, when you're short on your dough. You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find Many ways to have a good time.
It's fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A, It's fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A.
They have everything that you need to enjoy, You can hang out with all the boys ...
Young man, are you listening to me? I said, young man, who do you want to be? I said, young man, you can make real your dreams. But you've got to know this one thing!
No man does it all by himself. I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf, And just go there, to the Wik-i-Pedi-A. I'm sure they can help you today.
They have everything that you need to enjoy, You can hang out with all the boys ...
Its fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A, Its fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
It would be a good idea to keep all election stuff together, on the thread I started on the topic. That way it's easier to follow, rather than having numerous threads to check through.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 26th July 2009, 9:02am)
Uh-oh ... Hold on.
You are saying he is a real police officer ... pretending to be a teenager to edit on the Wikipedia ... self-presenting to become an admin/checkuser ... and then having access to private personal information about other Wikipedia users?
That's not what I got out of it - it sounds more like a teenager pretending to be a police officer (not a cadet), as opposed to the other way around.
The specific post in question appears to have been made to a website operated by a group that "offers young people (ages 14-21) an opportunity to not only learn about law enforcement, but also serve their community." The person presumably believed to be Tiptoety posted this, from a city quite a long way away from the group in question:
QUOTE
Great site, I am hoping our unit will be able to get something like this up and running. It looks like you guys have a lot of fun!
So, it boils down to how you interpret the words "our unit," and either way, this is hardly proof that Tiptoety is anything in particular.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with wanting to pursue a career in Law Enforcement, as long as one doesn't seriously misrepresent himself or herself in the process.
Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement ...
I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question) ...
Do local police departments in the US really care about wiki-wars ... or is he just trying to score do-gooder points on his cadet record?
Yes, I know, "if I did nothing wrong I would have nothing to fear" but isn't this all becoming a bit Orwellian? Give the guy a red sash and sign him up for the Junior Anti-Sex League.
If Checkusers and admins are off taking private information, sharing it with others according to their whim, and reporting individuals to the Police state, shouldn't it all be transparent, accountable and recorded somewhere?
I mean, who is he to judge who gets what? Is there no policy on this?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 25th July 2009, 10:51pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 25th July 2009, 3:35pm)
Off of Tiptoety's nomination statement :
QUOTE
it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the ''public''." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).
So, we're going to start releasing CU data to LE as part of SOP?
...this really, really stinks....
WMF doesn't even bother to set forth a reasonable TOS agreement and now we have a high school student (is he a minor too?) ready to release on his own initiative private information to law enforcement. To what possible end given that any and all use of the website is permitted by the absence of a TOS? Surely if a credible threat of harm is made they wouldn't leave it in this youngsters hands? Yet here he is just itching to engage law enforcement. The Privacy Policy is the sole acceptance of any responsibility by the WMF board of trustees for what happens on the site. The trustees need to step-in themselves or instruct Gardner here and, without regard to any community process, make it clear this kid doesn't get access to this information.
I suppose it is worth pointing to clause 6 of Part VII of the privacy policy:
QUOTE
Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Not saying it is wise, right, or whatever, but it does at least read as a broad clause to me.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 26th July 2009, 11:23am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 25th July 2009, 10:51pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 25th July 2009, 3:35pm)
Off of Tiptoety's nomination statement :
QUOTE
it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the ''public''." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).
So, we're going to start releasing CU data to LE as part of SOP?
...this really, really stinks....
WMF doesn't even bother to set forth a reasonable TOS agreement and now we have a high school student (is he a minor too?) ready to release on his own initiative private information to law enforcement. To what possible end given that any and all use of the website is permitted by the absence of a TOS? Surely if a credible threat of harm is made they wouldn't leave it in this youngsters hands? Yet here he is just itching to engage law enforcement. The Privacy Policy is the sole acceptance of any responsibility by the WMF board of trustees for what happens on the site. The trustees need to step-in themselves or instruct Gardner here and, without regard to any community process, make it clear this kid doesn't get access to this information.
I suppose it is worth pointing to clause 6 of Part VII of the privacy policy:
QUOTE
Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Not saying it is wise, right, or whatever, but it does at least read as a broad clause to me.
I have no problem with the WMF or its agents doing this. But not by a bust-happy high school student who they have no means to hold accountable.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 26th July 2009, 12:12pm)
Do local police departments in the US really care about wiki-wars ... or is he just trying to score do-gooder points on his cadet record?
There are very few situations where it would be reasonable to release checkuser information to law enforcement. Most of the cases where one might be tempted to are likely to be petty drama situations where dogoody types can be coopted into magnifying drama by the posting of ambiguous threats to do harm to oneself or another.
It's far more likely for checkuser information to be of interest in a civil suit (typically defamation or copyright infringement), in which case the plaintiff can just request it directly from the Foundation (and this happens more than you probably realize, since such requests are not generally discussed publicly and may be granted without even creating entry in the checkuser log as the developers can pull the relevant data directly from the database without a log).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
QUOTE(Grep @ Sun 26th July 2009, 5:21pm)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 26th July 2009, 6:12pm)
I mean, who is he to judge who gets what? Is there no policy on this?
Think of it as the violence inherent in the system.
This looks like an accurate characterization. The policy basically says they can release information whenever they want, to whoever they wish, for whatever purpose they like, as long as it is supposedly "reasonable". And if it was all a big mistake, it's the user's problem, not theirs. "We tried our best ... suckah!" (See section "VII. Disclaimer".)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
I have never heard of a U.S. police department where a cadet has the same responsibilities of an academy-trained police officer, as per Tiptoey's tiptoeing.
He forgot to mention one key difference in his case: cadets cannot make arrests. A cadet, as per the Portland PD web site, is basically a glorified public security guard -- they are not involved in any serious criminal investigation or crime scene situations, but they can do benign stuff that any paid security guard can do.
I am really surprised that absolutely no one caught his lies when he was running for RfA.
This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
I have never heard of a U.S. police department where a cadet has the same responsibilities of an academy-trained police officer, as per Tiptoety's tiptoeing. If he was an auxiliary officer or a reserve officer, I could understand that statement. But that also requires extensive training, and there is a huge difference between being a trained officer and a cadet.
Not only that, but cadets (and also reserve auxiliaries and especially junior cadets) are told again and again that they are not sworn officers and that they are not empowered with the full powers, duties, and responsibilities as sworn officers, and that they are not to act as if they have such status, or present themselves as such to others, if they ever want to actually achieve the status of sworn officer.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
He forgot to mention one key difference in his case: cadets cannot make arrests. A cadet, as per the Portland PD web site, is basically a glorified public security guard -- they are not involved in any serious criminal investigation or crime scene situations, but they can do benign stuff that any paid security guard can do.
Yup. A cadet has exactly the same power to effect an arrest as any citizen. They're not sworn officers. If they pretend to act as if they are sworn officers, they commit the offense of "impersonating a police officer", for which they can be arrested, which would seriously harm their chances of actually becoming a police officer.
I think one of the purposes of these programs is to identify people unfit to serve as police officers so they can be blackballed early on before the state spends a bunch of money training them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th July 2009, 5:22pm)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
I have never heard of a U.S. police department where a cadet has the same responsibilities of an academy-trained police officer, as per Tiptoety's tiptoeing. If he was an auxiliary officer or a reserve officer, I could understand that statement. But that also requires extensive training, and there is a huge difference between being a trained officer and a cadet.
Not only that, but cadets (and also reserve auxiliaries and especially junior cadets) are told again and again that they are not sworn officers and that they are not empowered with the full powers, duties, and responsibilities as sworn officers, and that they are not to act as if they have such status, or present themselves as such to others, if they ever want to actually achieve the status of sworn officer.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
He forgot to mention one key difference in his case: cadets cannot make arrests. A cadet, as per the Portland PD web site, is basically a glorified public security guard -- they are not involved in any serious criminal investigation or crime scene situations, but they can do benign stuff that any paid security guard can do.
Yup. A cadet has exactly the same power to effect an arrest as any citizen. They're not sworn officers. If they pretend to act as if they are sworn officers, they commit the offense of "impersonating a police officer", for which they can be arrested, which would seriously harm their chances of actually becoming a police officer.
I think one of the purposes of these programs is to identify people unfit to serve as police officers so they can be blackballed early on before the state spends a bunch of money training them.
I think this character is unfit for any job that requires decision making and carrying the burden of responsibility. Wikipedia is chicken dip, in the ultimate scheme of things, but I am genuinely concerned that someone of this personality would possibly be in a position that enables him to carry firearms and deprive people of their liberty.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined:
Member No.: 4,627
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 25th July 2009, 5:05pm)
It's good that his nomination is questioned.
Wonder if people remember what a Cabal butt-nozzle Tiptoety really is?
Does anyone remember this? Wherein that snotty teenaged cop-wannabe blocked a series of accounts, based on extremely sketchy evidence, directly on the instigation of Guy, Will Beback, GWH and (inevitably) The Slim Bitch.
And I still think this was a classic. (You remember--it started out as an April Fool's joke. Makes one wonder if Tip's nose is buried up Raul's ass.)
I don't see how Raul's bullshit shows TipToeTy is buried up his ass. I didn't get that impression.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:34pm)
I think this character is unfit for any job that requires decision making and carrying the burden of responsibility. Wikipedia is chicken dip, in the ultimate scheme of things, but I am genuinely concerned that someone of this personality would possibly be in a position that enables him to carry firearms and deprive people of their liberty.
You never know, he might grow into it. Very few people survive their twenties without changing somewhat.
I bet him and Dan Rosenthal get along like gangbusters.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th July 2009, 8:40pm)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:34pm)
I think this character is unfit for any job that requires decision making and carrying the burden of responsibility. Wikipedia is chicken dip, in the ultimate scheme of things, but I am genuinely concerned that someone of this personality would possibly be in a position that enables him to carry firearms and deprive people of their liberty.
You never know, he might grow into it. Very few people survive their twenties without changing somewhat.
I bet him and Dan Rosenthal get along like gangbusters.
I strongly doubt it. Once a liar, always a liar.
Dan Rosenthal is a f**king idiot. I feel terrible for the people who rely on him for legal assistance.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 26th July 2009, 9:22pm)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
I have never heard of a U.S. police department where a cadet has the same responsibilities of an academy-trained police officer, as per Tiptoety's tiptoeing. If he was an auxiliary officer or a reserve officer, I could understand that statement. But that also requires extensive training, and there is a huge difference between being a trained officer and a cadet.
Not only that, but cadets (and also reserve auxiliaries and especially junior cadets) are told again and again that they are not sworn officers and that they are not empowered with the full powers, duties, and responsibilities as sworn officers, and that they are not to act as if they have such status, or present themselves as such to others, if they ever want to actually achieve the status of sworn officer.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 26th July 2009, 4:12pm)
He forgot to mention one key difference in his case: cadets cannot make arrests. A cadet, as per the Portland PD web site, is basically a glorified public security guard -- they are not involved in any serious criminal investigation or crime scene situations, but they can do benign stuff that any paid security guard can do.
Yup. A cadet has exactly the same power to effect an arrest as any citizen. They're not sworn officers. If they pretend to act as if they are sworn officers, they commit the offense of "impersonating a police officer", for which they can be arrested, which would seriously harm their chances of actually becoming a police officer.
I think one of the purposes of these programs is to identify people unfit to serve as police officers so they can be blackballed early on before the state spends a bunch of money training them.
It seems that a lot of police agencies have these cadet programs in which teenagers can dress like policemen, ride along on patrols, participate in some training activities with the real police force, and are available for grunt work, like helping with crowd control at community events or combing the woods for lost hikers. I've seen it before where some of the teenage participants begin to identify themselves as police officers and start acting like they've already joined the force.
Obviously, those individuals have some perspective and control issues and probably aren't suited for actual police work, although in my experience it doesn't mean that they won't become actual police officers later. From what I've observed (and I mean no offense to anyone here who works in law enforcement or has family or friends who do), US police agencies could do a better job at screening potential applicants, but that's a subject for another thread.
If this kid on Wikipedia is falsely claiming that he's a police officer, he shouldn't be anywhere near any of the higher admin privileges.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
He's already on the Wikimedia Black Ops Team (a/k/a OTRS), so he's already inside the "wall of privacy". That also means he's at least 18, or else he's conned Cary into disregarding the privacy policy once again.
In any case, I concur that Wikipedia doesn't need whackers.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 27th July 2009, 2:06am)
He's already on the Wikimedia Black Ops Team (a/k/a OTRS), so he's already inside the "wall of privacy". That also means he's at least 18, or else he's conned Cary into disregarding the privacy policy once again.
In any case, I concur that Wikipedia doesn't need whackers.
OTRS ... unfortunately it even sounds just like something out of Scientology.
Of course Tip Toe himself still hasn't confirmed or denied, and not two hours after that, Tip Toe is talking about being on his "summer break". Summer break? Does that sound more like a student, or a cop, to you?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Fri 31st July 2009, 12:32am)
Of course Tip Toe himself still hasn't confirmed or denied, and not two hours after that, Tip Toe is talking about being on his "summer break". Summer break? Does that sound more like a student, or a cop, to you?
Well, there's no reason to believe that Nathan knows anything at all.
There are actually cops who get summer breaks: typically, they're rent-a-cops that work for schools or universities, for whom there is little or no work during the school's summer break. But I'd hazard to guess that he's a student. Note also that the Portland police requires police officers to have a college degree, and he hasn't been out of high school long enough to have acquired one of those, so if he really is a cop he's not a cop in Portland.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
I would not give this more than 5 minutes - as the guy has nothing to me - but, as the 'Pee-dia might be headed off into Essjay territory, there do seem to be questions to answer. Tiptoety used to admirably sign himself off with a real name ... T Van Wormer (OK ... move along there folks ... nothing to see that has not already been made public by the user himself).
So, what is a cop, or a Wikipedia would be checkuser admin, doing with an open proxy?
22:37, 4 March 2008 Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, as user 63.105.27.175, does says ... "No vandalism after final warn, will keep an eye of him ... (oops forgot to sign in)". It looks pretty damning. The diff is here: Tiptoety forgets to sign in.
Now, technically speaking, perhaps he meant "teat" but I think still think that is wrong. Not to say unreferenced. But its an easy research error to make if one has had very little experience in the field.
Great site, I am hoping our unit will be able to get something like this up and running. It looks like you guys have a lot of fun!
The email address for which is tiptoety@...... Fun ... is that with "teats" or guns?
"Police Explorer Post 1952 (link to site) offers young people (ages 14-21) an opportunity to not only learn about law enforcement, but also serve their community. Explorers participate in many community related events such as National Night Out and occasional fingerprinting booths at certain times around the county. Explorers may dress up as McGruff the Crime Dog or the Crash Dummies at these events."
No, that tag indicates it is a closed proxy for a particular internet provider's customers. Some providers cache frequently requested web pages on a local server to improve loading time, and run their http traffic through that server. It is also common for school districts to have a small number of servers acting as firewalls for internet traffic, so that one or a few IPs carry traffic from multiple school locations. (If it was an open proxy, meaning anyone from anywhere could connect, it would have been blocked.)
That IP was previously blocked on the grounds that it was used for vandalism by the housemate of a Wikipedia user. People are generally rightly skeptical of the housemate excuse, but I have encountered occasional legitimate cases of shenanigans by roommates, friends visiting, and so forth.
This post has been edited by No one of consequence:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 31st July 2009, 11:17am)
People are generally rightly skeptical of the housemate excuse, but I have encountered occasional legitimate cases of shenanigans by roommates, friends visiting, and so forth.
I'd say in this case "the housemate excuse" looks very likely.
It seems Tyler is a highly responsible teenager but that he has some highly idiotic housemates who think very little of his Wikipedia volunteering. I'd be serious upset about it if I was him.
But is it worth clarifying the cop claim to close this topic? I would not say it look so good having a teenager with "wiki-powers" ... and a professional interests ... going off making unaccountable reports to law enforcement agencies or disclosures to other third parties, even if they are responsible.
Unless the Pee-dia is going to come clean on this new chapter and admit up that is what it is doing now ...
New Improved Wikipedia with Built-in Law Enforcement!!!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 31st July 2009, 12:40pm)
But is it worth clarifying the cop claim to close this topic? I would not say it look so good having a teenager with "wiki-powers" ... and a professional interests ... going off making unaccountable reports to law enforcement agencies or disclosures to other third parties, even if they are responsible.
Using logic. There are three descriptions in question
* Vandal with IP 63.105.27.175 * 'Our Tiptoety' - CU candidate, who has provably edited from the same IP * A individual who is called 'Tyler', who also has the same IP, who edited the Howard County Police web page here http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:De5ro...2&hl=en&ct=clnk, and who has the googlemail tiptoety @ gmail.com.
The 'housemate' rationale makes it uncertain whether the vandal description fits that of 'Our Tiptoety'. However 'Tyler' is almost certainly the same as 'Our Tiptoety'. If Tyler is a student who likes to post to police pages, why does he say "Great site, I am hoping our unit will be able to get something like this up and running. "? At the very least he is lying, in claiming to belong to a police unit, and so why is he applying for a job that requires trust?
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined:
Member No.: 1,010
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 31st July 2009, 12:29pm)
The 'housemate' rationale makes it uncertain whether the vandal description fits that of 'Our Tiptoety'. However 'Tyler' is almost certainly the same as 'Our Tiptoety'. If Tyler is a student who likes to post to police pages, why does he say "Great site, I am hoping our unit will be able to get something like this up and running. "? At the very least he is lying, in claiming to belong to a police unit, and so why is he applying for a job that requires trust?
Huh? An explorer post is something like scouting (and sometimes officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts). In my locality there are explorer posts associated with the police, the fire department and the ambulance squad. Young kids have meetings at the base or station, learn about procedures, and so forth, under the supervision of adult leaders who are full member of the organization. Explorers participate in fundraising activities (for volunteer fire department and ambulance corps), may assist with search-and-rescue missions (lost hikers, etc) and things like that. My daughter was a member of the Explorer post for our town's volunteer Ambulance squad for two years, she had fun and learned first aid and CPR. Some explorers joined the corps officially when they turned 18 although my daughter did not.
All that message board post shows is that in 2007, someone named Tyler praised the web site of a different explorer post than the one he was affiliated with. He could have been a member (aged 14-20, apparently) or he could have been one of the adult leaders. It is also entirely possible that he was a member of an explorer post in Feb 2007 and is now a full member of the parent organization. (For example, in early 2007 he was a high school senior, by 2009 he had completed a 2-year college degree in criminal justice and got hired as a cop.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Fri 31st July 2009, 8:07am)
There have been enough abuses to oppose zis guy even without this saga. Maybe he's a cop in his own mind.
I seem to remember his involvement in Deskana's biggest blunder.
Cock, that was a funny image.
Without a doubt he deliberately produced confusion about being a law enforcement officer as late as November 2007, at which time he admitted on wiki to being in high school. The absolute earliest, based on the information he "provided" (more like concealed) he could have completed high school was June 2008. The latest possible date, assuming normal course of progress, will be June 2010. It would seem he should be required to fill in the dots, the outline of which he created for his own self-serving purposes. This would reasonably require him to state his exact age, date of completion of high school, and his current employer.
But better still let him pass. This will almost certainly result in a high profile embarrassment to WMF at some point in time. That would be better than patching the system on the fly one more time without addressing the underlying problems.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined:
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 30th July 2009, 10:53pm)
There are actually cops who get summer breaks: typically, they're rent-a-cops that work for schools or universities, for whom there is little or no work during the school's summer break. But I'd hazard to guess that he's a student. Note also that the Portland police requires police officers to have a college degree, and he hasn't been out of high school long enough to have acquired one of those, so if he really is a cop he's not a cop in Portland.
True. Though a rent-a-cop is either not really a cop (though I wouldn't put it past them to call themselves such, they're usually failed wannabes), or if they are a cop, they'd get assigned to another duty, not given a three month vacation.
Of course, there's still the issue of timing. As No-one of consequence mentions, if he talked about being in high school in late 2007, he graduated at the earliest in summer 2008 - even if he immediately went into the simplest, quickest online Criminal Justice degree, that's 2 years, plus I believe at least 3-6 months training.
And I think the mentioning of Explorer's posts, etc is disingenuous to the real issue: speaking as someone who is about to being training as a paramedic (notice I didn't call myself a paramedic), police cadet, explorer, what have you... one of the first things drilled into you very strongly (and perhaps more so in the former) is that you are not a police officer until and unless you are carrying that badge, no matter what you're doing, no matter how appreciated your efforts are.
No-one of consequence mentions his daughter being involved in such a thing. I don't know his daughter, but I'd hazard a guess that if someone asked her what she did in life when she was doing that, she didn't reply "paramedic / ambulance officer", and she didn't obfuscate when people asked for clarification.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Fri 31st July 2009, 1:37pm)
And I think the mentioning of Explorer's posts, etc is disingenuous to the real issue: speaking as someone who is about to being training as a paramedic (notice I didn't call myself a paramedic), police cadet, explorer, what have you... one of the first things drilled into you very strongly (and perhaps more so in the former) is that you are not a police officer until and unless you are carrying that badge, no matter what you're doing, no matter how appreciated your efforts are.
In the ham radio community we have a name for people like Tiptoety: "whacker". Whackers are people who have an emotional desire to be "like" police officers or firefighters, but are unwilling or unable to meet the requirements and obligations of the profession. Whackers often join volunteer organizations associated with emergency management or law enforcement in order to gain access without accepting obligation (as volunteers cannot generally be forced to accept obligations except on a "best-effort" basis); they present a serious credibility problem for such organizations and are a pox generally. Search and rescue groups, which in much of the US is a volunteer activity, is a common place for whackers to end up, and I seem to recall Tiptoety mentioning that he was involved in S&R at some point.
The connection to ham radio, in case is it unclear, rests in the federally-mandated purposes for the amateur radio service in the United States, which includes public service and emergency communications. It is commonplace for legitimate public service volunteers to use amateur radio frequencies to coordinate their activities, and we are also expected to provide, and do provide, last-resort communications in emergency "when all else fails". As a result, whackers often become ham radio operators with the goal of using their status as an amateur radio operator to gain access to, for example, county emergency operation centers. (There are seventeen hams in Oregon named "Tyler", but none of them appears to be Tiptoety. Then again, he probably got better access via his Junior Cop program anyway.)
Anyway, Tiptoety sets off my "whacker-dar". I sense a very strong need for this person to Be Important, and that's the hallmark of the whacker. One of the key points for me is how he's vague about his relationship with official law enforcement: that's a common trait in whackers, when questioned on their authority. Real sworn officers don't hedge on this point (they're typically proud of their unit and don't try to hide it); neither do honest volunteers.
(BTW, none of this post is intended to malign volunteer firefighters, volunteer search and rescue, volunteer EMTs, or any other of the volunteers doing legitimate public safety work. I recall that something like two-thirds of the firefighters in the United States are volunteers, and we'd be much worse off without them. It's the people who volunteer not because they are willing to stand ready to help their neighbors in times of need, but because they want a chance to be a Hero or Important or Powerful, that are the problem.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined:
Member No.: 7,398
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 25th July 2009, 6:08pm)
We have a term for people like this in the ham radio community. They're called "whackers". They're a serious problem (for lots of different reasons) and we really don't need them running around anywhere.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 31st July 2009, 3:00pm)
In the ham radio community we have a name for people like Tiptoety: "whacker". Whackers are people who have an emotional desire to be "like" police officers or firefighters, but are unwilling or unable to meet the requirements and obligations of the profession. Whackers often join volunteer organizations associated with emergency management or law enforcement in order to gain access without accepting obligation (as volunteers cannot generally be forced to accept obligations except on a "best-effort" basis); they present a serious credibility problem for such organizations and are a pox generally. Search and rescue groups, which in much of the US is a volunteer activity, is a common place for whackers to end up, and I seem to recall Tiptoety mentioning that he was involved in S&R at some point.
The connection to ham radio, in case is it unclear, rests in the federally-mandated purposes for the amateur radio service in the United States, which includes public service and emergency communications. It is commonplace for legitimate public service volunteers to use amateur radio frequencies to coordinate their activities, and we are also expected to provide, and do provide, last-resort communications in emergency "when all else fails". As a result, whackers often become ham radio operators with the goal of using their status as an amateur radio operator to gain access to, for example, county emergency operation centers. (There are seventeen hams in Oregon named "Tyler", but none of them appears to be Tiptoety. Then again, he probably got better access via his Junior Cop program anyway.)
Anyway, Tiptoety sets off my "whacker-dar". I sense a very strong need for this person to Be Important, and that's the hallmark of the whacker.
As the father of two Sea Scouts and the son of another, I'd just like to correct that as it is little misleading. Sea Scouts are basically just scouts with a sea-faring bent - ironically our patch is pretty much as far from the sea as you can get. The Navy do offer some sponsorship, and we get very cheap summer holiday camps on a Navy ship, but Sea Scouts are simply scouts at the bottom of it, the Navy are not involved in the day to day running of the Sea Scouts.
I suspect that the CCF (Combined Cadet Force) might be a better UK analogy as that is sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and although not a specific route into the armed forces, it is designed to be an organisation that encourages appropriate skills.
Combined_Cadet_Force also gives us a nice example of currentism on Wikipedia. I'd be pretty confident that there have been many deaths over the years in the CCF due to accidents, but the article highlights only one event in June 2009 with no indication of any other incidents.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Fri 31st July 2009, 2:07pm)
Cock, that was a funny image.
Why thank you ... but that's "Cock-up" to the likes of you, please.
Perhaps a poll we should feature as a parallel to this election ...
How many people would trust a cop (never mind a kid pretending to be a cop) on a deal for which he had only given his word? (See " boy scout's promise", here.
I can imagine 90% of our readership is now on the floor in tears of laughter at the suggestion. Why is it an "issue of privacy" that he is not being made to clarify what his status actually is?
A second question arises in my mind ...
How many other cops (or professional private detectives, corporate shills etc) ... have wormed their way into positions of "power" and useful insight within the Wikipedia projects?
Is there any screening, review or accountability over such an issue?
I doubt it. I suspect the Foundation is flopping about with two left feet over this issue and has not even thought of the implications of it. And, at the core of this all, does it not raise issues around the foundation's 'duty of care' and their users' right to privacy (although I suspect, on the basis of their record to date, that the foundations considers that users have a 'right to nothing' and to be 'shafted at will' by anyone with a barnstar awarded by a sycophantic psychopath).
For the record, I'd trust a kid FAR more than I would a cop.
Now, this might not seem such a big issue ... and you can play the "if you have nothing to be guilty, you have nothing to fear" card. BUT ... let's look at this across the whole of the Pee-dia complex.
Ask ... would you trust a cop or PDI in a so-called "responsible democracy" like a America ... now, would you trust a cop or PDI in a borderline 2nd World nation like England ... an East European state ... Latin America ... China and so on.
Where would your trust stop and the Mediawiki's irresponsibility start?
I said it before and I will say it again ... it will take a death or two before the a-holes wake up. I only hope it is Jimbo's in a revenge killing rather than some innocent kid or, say, a democratic activist in a developing nation.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined:
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185
Apropos of anything else, history and otherwise, Tiptoety has now clarified his status:
QUOTE
Nathan, as much as I appreciate you attempting to clarify the situation, you are wrong. Let me say this for all those on WR, I am ''not'' a full time Police Officer. I am ''affiliated'' with law enforcement, but like I said before: I do not see it, and will not allow it to conflict with my role as a Checkuser.
I can at least give him credit for clearing the air.
Thanks! I feel about real police much as I do about admins. They are a necessary evil. However in RL there are all sorts of checks and balances which limit the power of the police. For example, there are courts, there is the requirement for warrants and so on. Most important, they have no jurisdiction over the work I do. I am free to get into an argument at work (you will be surprised to learn I am very polite at work and much of my job currently is settling disputes and not causing them) without some uniformed officer does not escort me off to some prison cell without trial.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
What does, "I am ''affiliated'' with law enforcement" mean? There is really no such thing. That is not a 'clarification'. That is an 'obfuscation'.
Look, you are dealing with someone ingratiating themselves into the higher echelons of the Pee-dia, being given free rein over the most sensitive areas of user identity, AND a potential future police officer (presuming he is not a civilian worker).
What is the problem with a straight answer? If one cannot get a straight answer NOW, what hope in the future once he is better dug in?
If I was a potential employer and some teenage wannabe was not answering, and would not answer, my simple questions during the interview ... he'd be straight out the other door.
He may well be a good kid but that it not the issue. The whole thing is also playing into the whole "anonymous teens being voted in by other anonymous teens" zone.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 1st August 2009, 8:25am)
However in RL there are all sorts of checks and balances which limit the power of the police. For example, there are courts, there is the requirement for warrants and so on ... without some uniformed officer does not escort me off to some prison cell without trial.
Cops you have a right to a number for and an *independent* complaints mechanism. Ditto, in court you know name and address of the person who is accusing you, and they have to come, take an oath and witness against you in person.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
I suspect he means he has an "affinity" for law enforcement.
In the world of games, where uniform adherence to the rules is the key to fair play, having a non-player referee who ensures uniform adherence to the rules is essential to the health of the game.
In an educational venture (which Wikipedia arguably is not), one needs educators who act like coaches (rather than referees). Moreover the object of the enterprise is optimal education for each individual learner. Someone who has an affinity for law enforcement is not well-suited to play a supervisory role in an authentic educational enterprise.
But given that WP is actually a game (not unlike Mafia Wars on Facebook), having referees who have an affinity for rule enforcement is important, so as to ensure fair play on the competitive playing field.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 1st August 2009, 5:50am)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 1st August 2009, 7:11am)
What does, "I am ''affiliated'' with law enforcement" mean? There is really no such thing. That is not a 'clarification'. That is an 'obfuscation'.
It means "I am deliberately creating confusion as to my credentials." In a normal process in which an applicant is seeking special access or privileges the burden to establish their ability to use that access appropriately would be on the applicant and any deliberate confusion would be charged against them. This means it would be understood in the least favorable possible light until they clarified matters. But I don't know what kind of process we are dealing with here.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
Lar seems to have given up on any effort to do the right thing and just wants to be popular with his peeps.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Sat 1st August 2009, 3:13am)
I can at least give him credit for clearing the air.
That statement doesn't really clear the air, if anything it muddies it further. "Affiliated" could mean anything from "I'm a reserve officer" to "I'm a regular department snitch" to "I wash the coffee cups at the local police station" to "I've been arrested six times in the past month".
Some straight talk from the WikiWhacker would be welcome here. Fat chance on that, though. I will say that he's amply demonstrated the sort of obfuscatory vacuousness that the community seems to want in checkusers; he should do well indeed.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined:
Member No.: 7,398
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 1st August 2009, 1:03pm)
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Sat 1st August 2009, 3:13am)
I can at least give him credit for clearing the air.
That statement doesn't really clear the air, if anything it muddies it further. "Affiliated" could mean anything from "I'm a reserve officer" to "I'm a regular department snitch" to "I wash the coffee cups at the local police station" to "I've been arrested six times in the past month".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 269
Joined:
Member No.: 8,638
I suppose the question is not "What sort of policeman are you?" so much as "Do you have any off-wiki duties which might conflict with the overriding requirement to protect personal information on-wiki?" Of course, that's assuming that there's any point in asking given the abusive culture surrounding Checkuser.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Grep @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 4:30am)
I suppose the question is not "What sort of policeman are you?" so much as "Do you have any off-wiki duties which might conflict with the overriding requirement to protect personal information on-wiki?" Of course, that's assuming that there's any point in asking given the abusive culture surrounding Checkuser.
So if you follow this concern a bit further... Might be interesting if a law enforcement person sought to gain access to special privileges on a web site to investigate porn, child abuse etc. Interesting thing is that lying about this would not invalidate the investigation. If you ask a undercover officer "are you a cop" prior to a drug sale and the officer lies, saying "of course not," that does not stop him from slapping on the cuffs a few seconds later. Deception, including outright lies does not constitute in itself entrapment and is considered an appropriate investigative tool.
There might be search and seizure issue however in gaining such access without a search warrant. But suppose further that a "law enforcement wannabe" freelanced his way in on what might otherwise be a fishing exhibition. Once that indy gained information and then approached his law enforcement pals as an"informant" he could be used without raising entrapment and/or search and seizure concerns.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Grep @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 5:30am)
I suppose the question is not "What sort of policeman are you?" so much as "Do you have any off-wiki duties which might conflict with the overriding requirement to protect personal information on-wiki?" Of course, that's assuming that there's any point in asking given the abusive culture surrounding Checkuser.
That question is useless, because he could very well have such duties, but either lie about them, or simply not understand that they would create a conflict. If you ask an idiot if he's an idiot, he's likely to say no, and you haven't learned anything thereby.
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 1:15am)
Perhaps Wikiversity can start teaching courses on public relations, specifically crisis management....
FEMA already offers free online courses in crisis manangement, which I imagine are a fair sight better than anything Wikiversity is likely to poop out any time soon. (Disclaimer: I have an IS-100 certification from FEMA.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 269
Joined:
Member No.: 8,638
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 4:15pm)
QUOTE(Grep @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 5:30am)
I suppose the question is not "What sort of policeman are you?" so much as "Do you have any off-wiki duties which might conflict with the overriding requirement to protect personal information on-wiki?" Of course, that's assuming that there's any point in asking given the abusive culture surrounding Checkuser.
That question is useless, because he could very well have such duties, but either lie about them, or simply not understand that they would create a conflict. If you ask an idiot if he's an idiot, he's likely to say no, and you haven't learned anything thereby.
I'm taking my cue from the questions they ask on the I94W, for example: "Were you involved with Nazi war crimes?" Obviously no-one in their sense is going to say Yes, but it makes it possible to expel you later for lying to an immigration officer. Similarly, a website concerned about the balance between the legitimate demands of law enforcement and the legitimate expectations of users' privacy could either (1) come up with a well-thought-out policy before the elections or (2) make the issue one of deception of the community. Obviously (1) would be best. WP being WP will do (3) nothing at all until it all goes pear-shaped and then have an unending and ultimately fruitless drama.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Grep @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 12:16pm)
I'm taking my cue from the questions they ask on the I94W, for example: "Were you involved with Nazi war crimes?" Obviously no-one in their sense is going to say Yes, but it makes it possible to expel you later for lying to an immigration officer.
Yes, but that sort of question only makes sense if you're operating under the rule of law. Wikipedia operates under the rule of drama.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 459
Joined:
Member No.: 1,155
From Tiptoety's user page, with linky goodness added by me:
QUOTE
I guess you must not have a good answer to the latest question about your IP, User:63.105.27.175Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, which, it appears, you used to vandalize (among other things) your own userpage, leaving yourself an ominous sounding threat.[1]24.22.141.252 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you could go blind threatening yourself...
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:36am)
Just curious....anyone seen this yet? Looks like it was just posted today.
This blog also purports to out Wizardman and HK. Would say that it's proab-aligned (dwelling on Gomi), except that it loaths SV. Who is this? Maybe deserves it's own thread, or has it been discussed elsewhere?
His real name has been known for a long, long time. Hardly "sleuthing" when it's simply looking at his early edits which anyone with an ounce of sense can do.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(One @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 7:03pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:36am)
Just curious....anyone seen this yet? Looks like it was just posted today.
This blog also purports to out Wizardman and HK. Would say that it's proab-aligned (dwelling on Gomi), except that it loaths SV. Who is this? Maybe deserves it's own thread, or has it been discussed elsewhere?
My rough head math tells me you are about 250 times more likely to be "outed" (rightly or wrongly) if you are an WR staff than if you are a WP admin.
Tiptoety commented on: "I Beat Her, and I will Be you Too!"
Like I always say: "We don't play fair, we play to win".
The video is of a pretty brutal police kicking, which I think most lawyers would have down for being "disproportionate force", followed by a tasering of a man whose trousers were already down at his ankles making it impossible for him to run away if he had wanted.
QUOTE(Tiptoety @ 3rd Dec 2008, 12:36am)
"I live and work as a LEO cadet in the surrounding area, and there is more to the story than reads above. First off the State Trooper was a bomb tec ..."
Does being a LEO cadet stick him as a teenager? If he is too young to handle a gun, why hand him administration tools on the Wikipedia. I have got to the point where, I am sorry, but I do not consider that teenagers have the education or experience to run an "Encyclopedia" and this is part of the problem.
But I can see how the cult leaders on the Pee-dia need to encult wiling youngsters by giving them more "powers" ... its kind of like when you see all those wet behind the ear LDS kids with the world 'ELDER' on their black badges.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 8:18pm)
It's not Proab, and they've got HK wrong.
Agreed - Proabivouac wouldn't take quite so scattershot an approach, though I wouldn't put it past him to refer to SlimVirgin as "notorious." The "SV is a whore" thing could conceivably be a red herring... And as for HK, this "Covici" guy is a tech person, whereas HK clearly is not.
It could be almost anyone, I suppose... since he started out with a two-parter on Shankers first, my first guess would be that it's one of the ED people, two of whom we've suspended from here - one quite recently. But then you'd expect more references to "lulz" and "buttsecks," things of that nature, and there are none on this blog... Hmm, this might take a bit of thought!
And by the way, am I just too likable, or what? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) These folks never seem to want to have a go at me for some reason. I mean, sure, I try to be polite and considerate and all that, but it's been three years already.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined:
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 9:07pm)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 8:18pm)
It's not Proab, and they've got HK wrong.
Agreed - Proabivouac wouldn't take quite so scattershot an approach, though I wouldn't put it past him to refer to SlimVirgin as "notorious." The "SV is a whore" thing could conceivably be a red herring... And as for HK, this "Covici" guy is a tech person, whereas HK clearly is not.
It could be almost anyone, I suppose... since he started out with a two-parter on Shankers first, my first guess would be that it's one of the ED people, two of whom we've suspended from here - one quite recently. But then you'd expect more references to "lulz" and "buttsecks," things of that nature, and there are none on this blog... Hmm, this might take a bit of thought!
And by the way, am I just too likable, or what? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) These folks never seem to want to have a go at me for some reason. I mean, sure, I try to be polite and considerate and all that, but it's been three years already.
Well there is no mention of certain far-right ideologies so that rules out Lolwut/ByAppointmentTo, I don't see masturbation anywhere so it isn't Hagger, and no obscene death eliminates Grawp.
Given that they target two staff members here I think we are dealing with someone a little closer to home. There is also no love lost towards Jayjg and Slim but that part seems a little overdone. They also focus on Arbitration Committee members. I am intrigued.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:51am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 4:39am)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:34am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 4:07am)
It could be almost anyone, I suppose...
I think it's Jonas.
But then Somey thinks Jonas is a 47-year old woman posing as a precocious teen from Las Vegas.
I know. I bet I'm right. In the unlikely event we both are right, that would really be interesting.
Somey and I have never compared notes (i.e. evidence) on the question. My evidence is that when I first communicated with Jonas, he invited me to confirm his identity (and more importantly his adult supervision) by contacting the faculty at the school where he was listed as the winner of the spelling bee. I did contact them and obtained a reply from the Director of the school.
It means "I am deliberately creating confusion as to my credentials." In a normal process in which an applicant is seeking special access or privileges the burden to establish their ability to use that access appropriately would be on the applicant and any deliberate confusion would be charged against them. This means it would be understood in the least favorable possible light until they clarified matters. But I don't know what kind of process we are dealing with here.
Actually, for what it's worth, when I gave him credit, it was for that one sentence, "I am not a law enforcement officer". Not the air quotes "affiliated". That first sentence - when he said that, following the numerous documented instances on the net where he has said "I am a law enforcement officer", that was pretty much all I needed to know on him.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:09am)
Somey and I have never compared notes (i.e. evidence) on the question. My evidence is that when I first communicated with Jonas, he invited me to confirm his identity (and more importantly his adult supervision) by contacting the faculty at the school where he was listed as the winner of the spelling bee. I did contact them and obtained a reply from the Director of the school.
That only proves (or does it?) that there's a real kid named Jonas, though - not that the person we've been bedeviled by for so long is that same kid.
Anyway, this "Wiki-Hell" person could easily be Jonas - his/her choice of targets is consistent with those you'd expect Jonas to choose, and Jonas has been behaving more agressively lately, or so I've heard. That would also explain the choice of Shankers first... Still, in the past Jonas has always tried to impress us with articulate prose, not with clinical lists of links, IP addresses, and search results. And he never seemed especially interested in identifying people, though that sort of thing can always change, I suppose.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:50am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:09am)
Somey and I have never compared notes (i.e. evidence) on the question. My evidence is that when I first communicated with Jonas, he invited me to confirm his identity (and more importantly his adult supervision) by contacting the faculty at the school where he was listed as the winner of the spelling bee. I did contact them and obtained a reply from the Director of the school.
That only proves (or does it?) that there's a real kid named Jonas, though - not that the person we've been bedeviled by for so long is that same kid.
Were the blogger an imposter, it's likely the school would have responded to an instance of identity theft. On the other hand, he was using an alias on the blog, so they might not have been concerned, save for the fact that in e-mail he was disclosing his school/parent/teacher connections. The bottom line is that the response from the Director is not entirely conclusive. All I can say for sure is that I made the Director aware of the existence of Jonas on the Internet and the fact that he was representing himself as one of their students. The Director did not wave me off, nor did he indicate that my continued contact with Jonas was in breach of parental approval. My conclusion was that Jonas really was a student, and that he was participating on the Internet with the consent of his adult supervision.
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:50am)
Anyway, this "Wiki-Hell" person could easily be Jonas - his/her choice of targets is consistent with those you'd expect Jonas to choose, and Jonas has been behaving more aggressively lately, or so I've heard. That would also explain the choice of Shankers first... Still, in the past Jonas has always tried to impress us with articulate prose, not with clinical lists of links, IP addresses, and search results. And he never seemed especially interested in identifying people, though that sort of thing can always change, I suppose.
I would frankly be surprised if the Wiki-Hell blogger were Jonas. It's probably someone who has been in contact with Appliantologist (who contacted me after running into Filll Bob Stevens on an extreme right wing hate group on Skype).
Incidentally, my last message from Appliantoligist pointed me to a YouTube video of Orly Taitz (an outspoken figure who is prominent in the anti-Obama "Birthers" movement that got so much press last week). In the video, Orly Taitz mentions that Bob Stevens is her web site manager. Appliantologist also compiled further evidence that Robert Evan Stevens is indeed Filll's real name.
Appliantologist Posts the Linkage from Orly Taitz to Bob Stevens
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 24th January 2010, 8:42am)
So, has something changed or is this just because nobody noticed?
Good spot and extra points for finding and placing it in the old thread. It makes it much easier to follow. I had almost forgotten about this Junior G-Man.
So, has something changed or is this just because nobody noticed?
Good spot and extra points for finding and placing it in the old thread. It makes it much easier to follow. I had almost forgotten about this Junior G-Man.
Well, Commons seems to give out Checkuser in the same manner that "Rollback rights" are given over on EN-WP. There seems to be much less discussion, much less drama and generally it seems that this process is handled as being "routine" So, maybe it is different? I'd like to know what people involved there think. My own observations would tend to support the idea that the bureaucracy on commons is very different than on other projects.
That said, it seems to me that having CU on one project means that one has access to all sorts of data on other projects. And since Jack Webb Jr. here seems to want to promote his police cadet career in a big way, what does him having access to this information project-wide imply?
And what about privacy? If he gets some juicy CU info and gives it to one of his LE cronies, is that against the WP privacy policy?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
Commons is different than en:wp. Some things are not good, as we've discussed here before (such as the somewhat lax (to put it charitably) view about permissions and age verification) but some things are better.
The reduced drama and more laid back approach to everything is in many ways better.
As to Tip getting CU, I supported it and I think it's nothing to worry about. He's a good person who works hard, trustworthy and conscientious, and I've not seen these issues the rest of you seem to.
So, has something changed or is this just because nobody noticed?
Good spot and extra points for finding and placing it in the old thread. It makes it much easier to follow. I had almost forgotten about this Junior G-Man.
Well, Commons seems to give out Checkuser in the same manner that "Rollback rights" are given over on EN-WP. There seems to be much less discussion, much less drama and generally it seems that this process is handled as being "routine" So, maybe it is different? I'd like to know what people involved there think. My own observations would tend to support the idea that the bureaucracy on commons is very different than on other projects.
That said, it seems to me that having CU on one project means that one has access to all sorts of data on other projects. And since Jack Webb Jr. here seems to want to promote his police cadet career in a big way, what does him having access to this information project-wide imply?
And what about privacy? If he gets some juicy CU info and gives it to one of his LE cronies, is that against the WP privacy policy?
Less drama? Thats news to me. But administrators seem to have even more arbitrary authority on Commons than WP. That might make you feel more comfortable, but not the surfs.
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
QUOTE(Kwork @ Sun 24th January 2010, 6:43pm)
Less drama? Thats news to me. But administrators seem to have even more arbitrary authority on Commons than WP. That might make you feel more comfortable, but not the surfs.
I don't really follow what happens on Commons very closely. I just happened on this while searching for something else. I'd appreciate people's reactions to what I wrote, if only to have a more clear picture of what this might mean...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 24th January 2010, 12:00pm)
Commons is different than en:wp. Some things are not good, as we've discussed here before (such as the somewhat lax (to put it charitably) view about permissions and age verification) but some things are better.
The reduced drama and more laid back approach to everything is in many ways better.
As to Tip getting CU, I supported it and I think it's nothing to worry about. He's a good person who works hard, trustworthy and conscientious, and I've not seen these issues the rest of you seem to.
Dammit, Lar: commons isn't what it it used to be and you know it. It's "management" follows the MMPORG model even more than en.wp, thanks to:
1. People like Herbythyme and Mike.lifeguard, who only like the game and have little or nothing they want to actually contribute outside of proposing rules for the game. 2. People like you who encourage them and give them wikilove. 3. People like me who don't didn't want to interfere with where Teh Community was going.
Frankly, it's the "3." crowd (including me) that deserves the blame more than you do, but at least I'm aware of what I did. Are you?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 24th January 2010, 6:32pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 24th January 2010, 12:00pm)
Commons is different than en:wp. Some things are not good, as we've discussed here before (such as the somewhat lax (to put it charitably) view about permissions and age verification) but some things are better.
The reduced drama and more laid back approach to everything is in many ways better.
As to Tip getting CU, I supported it and I think it's nothing to worry about. He's a good person who works hard, trustworthy and conscientious, and I've not seen these issues the rest of you seem to.
Dammit, Lar: commons isn't what it it used to be and you know it. It's "management" follows the MMPORG model even more than en.wp, thanks to:
1. People like Herbythyme and Mike.lifeguard, who only like the game and have little or nothing they want to actually contribute outside of proposing rules for the game. 2. People like you who encourage them and give them wikilove. 3. People like me who don't didn't want to interfere with where Teh Community was going.
Frankly, it's the "3." crowd (including me) that deserves the blame more than you do, but at least I'm aware of what I did. Are you?
You lost me at #1...
Herby a game player? He's about as far from that as it's possible to get. He has dropped most of his bits because his tolerance for games (and willingness to try to get things done despite them) is low. Can't say as I blame him. He seems to be having fun taking landscape pics instead, and in general getting on with life.
Did you forget... when Jayjg and his crowd came to Commons to derail your CU candidacy in revenge for some slight you did them ( never did really follow what exactly their beef with you was ) Herby was one of the people who helped put a stop to their gamesmanship.
For you to take this view of him now... just baffles me. It's disappointing.
You know my email, you should have been using it all along because this seems like a big disconnect to me
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 24th January 2010, 9:13pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 24th January 2010, 6:32pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 24th January 2010, 12:00pm)
Commons is different than en:wp. Some things are not good, as we've discussed here before (such as the somewhat lax (to put it charitably) view about permissions and age verification) but some things are better.
The reduced drama and more laid back approach to everything is in many ways better.
As to Tip getting CU, I supported it and I think it's nothing to worry about. He's a good person who works hard, trustworthy and conscientious, and I've not seen these issues the rest of you seem to.
Dammit, Lar: commons isn't what it it used to be and you know it. It's "management" follows the MMPORG model even more than en.wp, thanks to:
1. People like Herbythyme and Mike.lifeguard, who only like the game and have little or nothing they want to actually contribute outside of proposing rules for the game. 2. People like you who encourage them and give them wikilove. 3. People like me who don't didn't want to interfere with where Teh Community was going.
Frankly, it's the "3." crowd (including me) that deserves the blame more than you do, but at least I'm aware of what I did. Are you?
You lost me at #1...
Herby a game player? He's about as far from that as it's possible to get. He has dropped most of his bits because his tolerance for games (and willingness to try to get things done despite them) is low. Can't say as I blame him. He seems to be having fun taking landscape pics instead, and in general getting on with life.
Did you forget... when Jayjg and his crowd came to Commons to derail your CU candidacy in revenge for some slight you did them ( never did really follow what exactly their beef with you was ) Herby was one of the people who helped put a stop to their gamesmanship.
For you to take this view of him now... just baffles me. It's disappointing.
You know my email, you should have been using it all along because this seems like a big disconnect to me
Not the drama game (though he does do a little bit of that), but the "score lots of points and you'll get/keep tools" game. Trust and "no big deal" are completely out the window. It's like Farmville + dramah now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)
I tried to make it clear after the CU thing that I wasn't interested in having the rules rewritten on my account. In fact, by the time the thing was over I wasn't sure I wanted to be involved any more. Still not sure, but I still think RC patrollers shouldn't really be the ones using the CU tools... collaborative efforts make a better statement.
Herby's been sniping at me for a long time because I don't spend all day (much less have all day to spend) on this silliness.
Group: Special Contributors
Posts: 405
Joined:
Member No.: 16,782
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 24th January 2010, 9:30pm)
QUOTE(Kwork @ Sun 24th January 2010, 6:43pm)
Less drama? Thats news to me. But administrators seem to have even more arbitrary authority on Commons than WP. That might make you feel more comfortable, but not the surfs.
I don't really follow what happens on Commons very closely. I just happened on this while searching for something else. I'd appreciate people's reactions to what I wrote, if only to have a more clear picture of what this might mean...
I would not pretend that Lar and I are on good terms (a carry over from his involvement in my being indefed on WP), but although my interactions with him on Commons are woven into what I see as the drama there on Commons, it should not be too difficult to separate things out.
In general, it seems that the hot spots on WP, such as the I/P dispute articles, carry over to disputes over image categories on Commons. On Commons there are the same dramas, and same user unwillingness to compromise to get things done.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 25th January 2010, 7:51am)
I would not pretend that Lar and I are on good terms (a carry over from his involvement in my being indefed on WP), but although my interactions with him on Commons are woven into what I see as the drama there on Commons, it should not be too difficult to separate things out.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 26th January 2010, 12:05am)
QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 25th January 2010, 7:51am)
I would not pretend that Lar and I are on good terms (a carry over from his involvement in my being indefed on WP), but although my interactions with him on Commons are woven into what I see as the drama there on Commons, it should not be too difficult to separate things out.
That didn't parse for me, sorry.
I do not like Lar. He was involved in my being blocked on Wikipedia.
The only time I deal with him on Commons is when he is involved in drama.
Despite this, I believe that he has the capacity for decency and am willing to work with him should the necessity arise.
Maybe I should set up as the Wikipedia to English version of Babelfish.
The average Wikipedian? Probably a slightly-overweight college student, with zero friends and a so-so GPA.......
BMI of 19.4, GPA of 3.8 (of course it's art school, so take what you will from that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)). Tallying up friends seems like some sort of Facebook exercise in futility.
I think that the Meetups I've been to have generally disproved your attitude, but then again those who do fit the stereotype prolly aren't showing up in full force to those.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sat 24th April 2010, 12:44pm)
I think that the Meetups I've been to have generally disproved your attitude, but then again those who do fit the stereotype prolly aren't showing up in full force to those.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 16,616
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 24th April 2010, 8:50pm)
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sat 24th April 2010, 12:44pm)
I think that the Meetups I've been to have generally disproved your attitude, but then again those who do fit the stereotype prolly aren't showing up in full force to those.
Wikipedia doesn't care about integrity, only edit counts. They'd rather let proven fraudsters hold admin positions than deal with the fear of losing someone willing to do loads of menial labor that no one else wants to do. The only reason Essjay was given the heave-ho is because it made the news and would've been bad PR for them. It's sad.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 19,401
Now he's in the newest CU election. Fucking jerk. That greedy little four-eyes needs to be taught a lesson. Someone go into his house while he's asleep, get a CD player and put in a CD with heavy metal music, put the CD player's speaker right next to his ear, and put the volume on max. THAT will show him.
Daniel Brandt, could you please put Tyler on your Hivemind? He more than definitely deserves to be there.
I really hope Tyler gets knocked off the elections and someone much better, like Heimstern Läufer, takes his place. After all, Heimstern is an admin on a non-Wikimedia wiki, so it would be great to have a candidate of that kind (as far as I know, there have never been any such candidates).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Rick @ Sun 9th May 2010, 12:51am)
And I've heard that he's abused his Oversight priveleges on Commons. That should be proof enough that he should not get the CU tools on EnWiki.
You mean ... YOU WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ... he abused his Oversight "priveleges" [sic] on Commons.
No, he is wonderful and doing a wonder job in this case ... and if he buried some of his deletions where the rabble cannot find them, then top marks to him. More has to be done.
Look forward to seeing more of you are you post here.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 8th May 2010, 7:13pm)
No, he is wonderful and doing a wonder job in this case ... and if he buried some of his deletions where the rabble cannot find them, then top marks to him. More has to be done.
However, the vote is currently running at 19:13 in his favour. We would surely agree with some of the "keep" comments:
"I would think that someone with oversight access would have the discretion to remove images that are questionable as to the person's age to consent" - FloNight
"these were removed solely because they were apparent child porn or other oversightable content" -JzG
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 19,401
"You mean ... YOU WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ... he abused his Oversight "priveleges" [sic] on Commons.
No, he is wonderful and doing a wonder job in this case ... and if he buried some of his deletions where the rabble cannot find them, then top marks to him. More has to be done.
Look forward to seeing more of you are you post here.
What did he do to you?"
"Nonsense. Who are you anyway? Do you have anything to post here that's not about Tiptoety?"
But that jerk has no sense of humour. He's the sort of arsehole who needs his public face acquainted with the pavement. Hard. And he needs to be kicked off the EnWiki CU elections and replaced.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Rick @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:39pm)
Nonsense. Who are you anyway? Do you have anything to post here that's not about Tiptoety?"
But that jerk has no sense of humour. He's the sort of arsehole who needs his public face acquainted with the pavement. Hard. And he needs to be kicked off the EnWiki CU elections and replaced.
This topic is about Tiptoety and no so. I like to stick on topic.
The problem is, unless you state what he has done to you and others, and give us a few examples or diff, there is nothing we can say ... it is an argument based on slur and insult, which is a very weak argument that harms you more than your target.
Do I believe that what you say is true? Yes, of course, it is the Wikipedia ... all that stuff is normal day to day behavior.
But what did he do to you and others ... show us. Unpick it, lay it out for the world to see. If you want to nail him or the Wikipedian culture ... lay it all out neatly and argue your case well.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 9th May 2010, 10:49pm)
QUOTE(ulsterman @ Sun 9th May 2010, 4:44pm)
We would surely agree with some of the "keep" comments
What country are you king of?
Obviously, I know better than to assume that there would be a 100% consensus about anything on this site, any more than there is on Wikipedia. However, I didn't expect much dissent from the idea that porn pictures of under-aged girls should be obliterated from Commons on sight. Weren't you a Commons admin at one point? What would you have done if you'd seen such pictures there?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 19,401
Well, it looks like that greedy bastard has finally gotten the job he has wanted for a long time. He is now a Checkuser. That jerk who cares about nothing but Wiki power and the ability to send the data he gets to his cronies - why did no one bring up the police concerns this time? He is so greedy, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Google, and Microsoft, even the four of them combined, are nothing compared to him.
I hate you, Tiptoety. I really, really, really, really, really, really hate you. There is no word that can accurately describe my opinion of you.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Rick @ Wed 1st September 2010, 9:32am)
There is no word that can accurately describe my opinion of you.
Well ... actually ... a lot less words would have looked a lot better.
Now, Wikipedia Elects High School kid who pretended to be a cop up as a senior admin with access to all users personal information IS a story enough. But the way you are presented it makes you look ... well ... even younger.
Next time just spill the shit on him, call him an asshole, and be done with it. That's the Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
Oh, I see he is a clerk for Arbcom too ... so you know what he is after next.
The funny thing is, he did get asked outright about misrepresenting himself as a cop in May 2010. Ignored it completely. And still got elected ( ... and I am not fan of Max Rebo Band, or his agenda. even if he did send Tiptoety links to a pert selection of Wiki-titties).
When was the election/appointment?
QUOTE
I notice that you were criticised for "misrepresenting" the fact you were in fact a Police Officer with the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office in your second failed Request for Admin, and admitted it yourself in your third Request. This does raise severe privacy concerns for me, when Law Enforcement is now seeking the ability to ascertain the actual identities of pseudonymous editors on WMF. Max Rebo Band (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
That which cannot be expressed in words must be passed over by making phunny phaces. — Loud Wit Wittgenstein
QUOTE(Rick @ Wed 1st September 2010, 5:32am)
I hate you, Tiptoety. I really, really, really, really, really, really hate you. There is no word that can accurately describe my opinion of you.
Oh, I reckon there is such a word. What say we try to find it...
Here are some starters...
Dreadful.
Outrageous.
Oh. Wait, you want a word not to characterize Tiptoety, but rather a word that describes your inability to even come up with a word to say how you feel.
In his homoerotic styled uniform with his weapon in his hand.
$10s to who ever uploads the "educational" pictures to Wikipedia.
The Wikipedian libertarians REALLY trusts a cop with global CU access!?! I still say there is undercover access or "compliancy" going on with any agency that wants it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 11:13pm)
The Wikipedian libertarians REALLY trusts a cop with global CU access!?! I still say there is undercover access or "compliancy" going on with any agency that wants it.
It's still to be proved that Tyler actually goes out and does some genuine, tedious, walking-up-and-down-streets police work--a lot of law-enforcement fanboiz won't lift an actual finger to do the actual job......
Yup. He vandalizes templates on Commons with the above text in the hope that the more pages it appears on, the greater the chance it'll get stuck in the Google cache.
Yup. He vandalizes templates on Commons with the above text in the hope that the more pages it appears on, the greater the chance it'll get stuck in the Google cache.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Mon 4th October 2010, 8:10pm)
I'm confused. Does Jeremy really think that everyone who cares doesn't already know his real name?
It's been posted on WR numerous times. But I guess WR isn't as "dangerous" to his "reputation". In essence, Jeremy/Grawp and Tiptoety are cut from the same basic cloth. They both want to control information, for different reasons but under the same delusion of self-importance.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
QUOTE
It's been posted on WR numerous times. But I guess WR isn't as "dangerous" to his "reputation". In essence, Grawp and Tiptoety are cut from the same basic cloth. They both want to control information, for different reasons but under the same delusion of self-importance.
Corrupt cop versus berserk rebel.
The corrupt cop needs to be reported and dealt with, however there is no justification for a mass murder by a rebel as a side effect.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 19,401
THAT BLOODY BASTARD! I see that he has now become a Bureaucrat on MetaWiki, and now a CheckUser there as well! Will he ever give up?!? He's so GREEDY! So bloody greedy that not even Google can compare to him!
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
High School kid who pretends to be a cop up for CU?, ...and ArbCom asked him to stump???
