Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ SlimVirgin _ SlimVirgin's melt down on the WikiEN-l
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------
<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094572.html
-----------------------------
<<<Slimmy>>> Both the first and second editor were affected by this. The first abandoned the checked accounts because Lar is not trusted.
<<Luna>> Lar is not trusted? Why not? By whom? ...
<David Gerard>Indeed. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094564.html
-----------------------------
<David Katz>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094591.html
----------------------------
And for the http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094583.html;
Sarah:
I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.
> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,
Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.
> or the second
As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.
> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.
You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.
> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.
I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.
Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.
Larry Pieniazek
Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker
Quite frankly, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094586.html is what disgusts me the most. Attacking someone via their spouse? How low-handed do you have to go?
Posted by: Wikileaker
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife - she did not need to be brought into this - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17490&view=findpost&p=94062
Jayjg hasn't embellished the truth. In fact, he's leaving out some details to save what little face Lar has left.
Posted by: msharma
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:36am) 
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife - she did not need to be brought into this - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17490&view=findpost&p=94062
Jayjg hasn't embellished the truth. In fact, he's leaving out some details to save what little face Lar has left.
I'd say Lar has plenty of face. Jay's intervention was sadly typical, in that it was a fairly inoccuous thing (his wife!), but phrased most accusingly. How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
Posted by: Wikileaker
Do you not consider leaking checkuser information to be a heinous act? This is nothing new for Lar.
Try and put yourself in Slimvirgin's shoes here. You've had your privacy invaded for no good reason, then had that private information spread around to third parties who have no involvement. I hate to admit it, but this is one of the few times where the callous bitch is unequivocally in the right.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:36am)
I said something about this earlier but declined to name Lar's wife…
Hate to pry, but…who's Lar's wife?
Posted by: maggot3
He has it on his userpage, it's not private http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epousesquecido
Posted by: Heat
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
I don't feel I'm immune, but I do feel there should be a presumption
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crum375&diff=172790564&oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikitumnus&diff=196887161&oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crum375&diff=172790564&oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikitumnus&diff=196887161&oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:41am)
Do you not consider leaking checkuser information to be a heinous act? This is nothing new for Lar.
Try and put yourself in Slimvirgin's shoes here. You've had your privacy invaded for no good reason, then had that private information spread around to third parties who have no involvement. I hate to admit it, but this is one of the few times where the callous bitch is unequivocally in the right.
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
Posted by: UserB
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Posted by: Viridae
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
I was wondering that too. But whatever the reason that piece of info got out I especially agree with the last statement. SV is losing credability so fast its not funny.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 20th July 2008, 4:09am)
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
Everyking, you really must stop this business of saying things that I have no choice but to agree with.Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:25am)
How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:38am)
QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:25am)
How on earth did Jay get to be a checkuser and privy to all this information?
There might have been some discussion of his appointment in the old arbcom-l archives, which I downloaded when I was appointed, but I can't find those files now (they're probably on my old laptop, which died two years ago) and I rather doubt I'd be allowed to download them again now.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE
But (I believe) all ArbCom members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list
Surely Sarah knows better than that.
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
[...]
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway.
[...]
Sarah
It looks to me that Wikitumnus was ElinorD's sock, who actually has not abandoned her account,
When Macken79 on March 8 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikitumnus&oldid=225799217#Question whose sock she was, the Wikitumnus account quit editing. ElinorD also stopped editing, but then returned April 7.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 20th July 2008, 2:09am)
Even if there was "no good reason", her reaction has been outrageous. I'm sure users are checkusered all the time for inadequate reasons--most of us just don't have the connections to know when this has been done. I can only assume that I've been checkusered, probably many times, given my history of disputes with the site's elite, but I'll probably never know for sure, because I don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick like SV does. Considering what we know about SV--her long-term abuse of the project and its community, including at least one case of sockpuppetry--there is every reason to assume that in this case there was a perfectly good reason for the check. Furthermore, I consider Lar to be reasonably reliable, while SV is completely unreliable.
Good point, most people don't have a trusty checkuser sidekick.
Howabout a log where registered users can look up to see if they were CU'd? It would only give results for that registered user. Just knowing that a service like this exists will make the CU's behave differently.
Posted by: Newyorkbrad
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 20th July 2008, 2:06pm)
QUOTE
But (I believe) all ArbCom members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list
Surely Sarah knows better than that.
I, for one, was never a checkuser, though I am sure I would have been granted the status if I'd asked for it. A list of all the checkusers is available on-wiki.
Posted by: Piperdown
so has a CU ever been run to show the SV is not Crum?
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:40am)
so has a CU ever been run to show the SV is not Crum?
SlimVirgin is NOT Crum, for the thousandth time. When Wikiabuse was up I had numerous amounts of very private information brought to my attention, plus someone had posted a volume of very, very private information to a page there, which I quickly deleted (it might have been Kato from Wikipedia Review that posted it, but I forget now). Remember, I had a strict "no outing" policy on Wikiabuse before the site got basically ripped to shreds by everyone's various agendas--it was supposed to be strictly a catalog of Wikipedia policy violations by admins, before I pulled the site and erased the database.
Anyway, between that posting of very private info on Slim and Crum, and Kato's analysis of it, it was strongly implied that Slim and Crum were not one and the same. Because I got very, very sick of the days of people trying to sneak in the private information, I checkusered Slim and Crum, who both had posted on Wikiabuse. They both had posted from several IPs, which were obviously NOT open proxies at the time. Kato had also posted his conclusion based on the posted/leaked information *BEFORE* I had a chance to pull it off the site--it had lasted a couple hours, and was not home at the time.
Kato's conclusion (if you don't trust me, and Kato has ****NO**** love lost for either Slim or Crum, consider this) was that Slim and Crum were not the same person. I posted my thoughts on the Checkuser--with no private information--and my conclusion plus the leaked evidence was the same. They're absolutely not the same unless they somehow totally hoodwinked two people who reviewed some very juicy stuff, plus my own review of CU and raw access logs, because I got sick of the constant Slimcrumvirgin chatter and wanted to see one way or the other. They're not the same person and didn't even appear to be operating from the same time zone, let alone COUNTRY.
Please, don't bother asking for the info. You're not getting it, and I don't have the IPs/other stuff anymore anyway and saved none of it.
Slim is not Crum as of everything I saw mid-2007. They're obviously just really close and either watch the same pages, or maybe chatter over IM or something. That is not the end of the world, and ZOMG people are FRIENDS!!!!1!!
Out of anything people can possibly complain about, that is utterly the most singularly trivial stuff.
Posted by: Piperdown
i dont think they were the same person at the start.
but from editing activity, i believe they could have an arrangement where SV can use Crums account when needed. Which appears to be very often.
and once someone knows they're a "made" man/woman on WP and are above CU scrutiny, oh boy, then they can just do what they want. that's not good.
i would guess that SV has been allowed as a professional wikivictim to use a proxy. she's socked before (SweetBlueWater, Sunsplash) and will sock again if allowed to use proxy or allowed to have immunity from CU.
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:01am)
i would guess that SV has been allowed as a professional wikivictim to use a proxy.
And if she or anyone posts from a closed proxy, to hide their geolocation, I don't believe that's against the rules. For example, if a valid/unbanned editor happens to edit only from a closed or sealed IP somewhere, to obscure their home or work location from the WMF or Checkusers, to my knowledge thats fine. As long as it's not an "open" proxy.
Posted by: Milton Roe
[quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' date='Sat 19th July 2008, 9:50pm' post='115168']
Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------
<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094572.html
-----------------------------
All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?
Seems to me there are some people outraged here over checkuser being used without a judge signing off on it, as though they view it as being like a wiretap or warrant (nevermind acid comments on recent US law in dealing with "terrorism"). however, I think what these people forgot is that Checkusers ARE the equivalent of such judges on WP, if any there be. That's the point of making only a few people checkusers. Wikipedia has no mechanism for one sysop or group of sysops preventing "abuse" of search functions by another, by pre-approving them so that there is a two-party sign-off. If they wanted that, they should have set up such a system. Looks like they forgot 
In that case, sooooo sorry, but that's what you-all asked for. Slimey, you never complained about the system when you were the one gaming it.
Slimey might (or might not) be "comforted" to know that the real world of search-warrants actually looks frighteningly like Wikipedia, albeit with a few nods toward the pretense of independent oversight. In point of fact, there are certain judges in any system who will sign just about any warrant request put before them, few or not questions asked. The cops know who these judges are. So, any warrant anybody wants to serve, usually gets served. The process for real vetting of these things happens much later at the trial, and a judge may throw out results of a search he/she doesn't like. Victims of property-damaging fruitless searches MIGHT (after much hassle) recover some small monetary compensation for repairs, but otherwise it's just assumed by the courts that cops and judges act on good faith. AGF, mo-fo. The judge signing off on the "bad" warrant is essentially never penalized (it hardly matters how screwy or badly framed, or in error, or free of good faith it is) nor are the cops penalized (except for having their case weakened by loss of evidence). So, search warrants are almost universally abused in the event, even in societies with due process and oversight on using them. 
So, get used to it. 
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power). 
Posted by: Moulton
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:50pm)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:50am)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Ah, but can or should you be able to alter or counterfeit your license plate?
You know what the real problem with open proxies is, and why Wikipedia hasn't simply initiated a hunt to automatically find and ban them all? In some repressive countries, such as recently China (don't know if it's that way just now before the Olympics, but it can change overnight in any case) you cannot edit WP except by proxy server. The blockers knew that taking out such sites would effective end all WP access by anybody in those countries.
Thus, if you want to proxy-sock on WP, it's not a matter of finding a proxy-- it's just a matter of finding the RIGHT proxy. And do try to edit on some human rights violation in China articles.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 11:47am)
All of which suggests this question: what is checkuser most "like" in law enforcement? Is checkuser like a cop looking at registration stickers on auto license plates of random people going past? Checking speeds of people going past? Or just radaring people who look like they're going too fast? Or is it more like shining a flashlight in the backseat only of people you've pulled over for other reasons (however small)? Is it like a breath alcohol analyzer? Or is it more like (say) a searchwarrant or wiretap?
The fact that Checkuser is governed by http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and not a mere "community" rule ought to make it subject to something analogous to a warrant. Although you are correct that warrant requests are approved with little scrutiny by some judges, and cops do judge shop, they are still subject to review by other judges and remedies can be given to those subjected to wrongly granted warrants.
Perhaps SlimVirgin realizes that and it explains why she goes about trying to manufacture her own little "war on terror" to weaken the protection afforded by the Privacy Policy.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:13am)
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
Yes, if you're a nameuser you can in theory contact somebody with oversight, to have that info removed (and of course that's the first thing that anybody who gets oversight does for him/herself and anybody they care about, just as soon as they can), BUT the fact is that so many people screw up and post as IP-users without meaning to, that not enough oversighter time in the world exists to clean up this mess. Many a socker has been caught that way, if they don't have oversight themselves, or a nice friend with oversight. The "friends-with-oversight" is just one more way in which insiders get to break the rules more, on WP.
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:47pm)
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from legal scrutiny, eh? So say conservatives (and whoever is in power).
I beg to differ. Anyone clued in on surveillance powers knows darn well that they get used to coerce and push around. Unless strong controls are enacted.
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 1:53pm)
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:01pm)
i dont think they were the same person at the start. but from editing activity, i believe they could have an arrangement where SV can use Crums account when needed. Which appears to be very often.
I think this 1000-word Slimvirgin essay below qualifies as a hystronic rant™. Easily. If I were in the room, standing behind her, I'd use my hand and make puppet mocking talk motions.
QUOTE
I don't feel I'm immune, but I do feel there should be a presumption
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crum375&diff=172790564&oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikitumnus&diff=196887161&oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious
grounds to suspect abuse.
But I am not complaining about the check against me. I'm complaining
about the check against the other two. I have their permission to
explain further.
Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to
perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they
appeared to be sockpuppets.
Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for
about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he
blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not
persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum
derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of
Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum.
The only "evidence" Lar had of a relationship between Wiktumnus and
Crum was that Wikitumnus had ONCE reverted vandalism from Crum's talk
page in November 2007 -- four months before Mackan asked Lar for a
check. Here is the diff of the "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crum375&diff=172790564&oldid=172790134
Here is Mackan79 four months later, in March 2008, saying that
Wikitumnus appears to be another user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikitumnus&diff=196887161&oldid=192350698
It was on this basis that Lar performed a check of Wikitumnus a few
days later at Mackan's request, later telling Wikitumnus and other
checkusers and ArbCom members that there were grounds to believe that
Wikitumnus was Crum. This is a clear fishing expedition, because there
is *nothing* about that diff that would give rise to a suspicion of
sockpuppetry. Wikitumnus had never edited the same articles as Crum,
had never voted with him, had never supported him, had never shown up
on noticeboards to comment on him, or anything else.
Personally, I have no problem with allowing checkuser to be used for
fishing *so long as the policy makes clear that it may be so used*
because then editors can arrange to use open or closed proxies if they
don't want their real IPs to become known during random checks. What I
object to is the policy saying one thing, and checkusers doing
another.
When Lar performed his check of Wikitumnus, he discovered that it was
an established editor who is well known to Lar, and who had abandoned
their original account for various reasons. He knew *for certain* that
this person was not Crum375. Yet he went on to peform the check of
Crum anyway. If you want to say that, once he had checked Crum, he had
reason to check me, then fine. Ignore the check of me. But his check
of Wikitumnus was made on the flimsiest of grounds. And his check of
Crum was made *on no grounds whatsoever*. That the request was made by
a known troublemaker makes things even worse, but even if you ignore
that too, you are left with two checks performed for no reason.
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account.
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
The question is why Lar is allowed simply to ignore the checkuser
policy, and why, when he does, other checkusers support him in that.
If there is no peer pressure on checkusers to conform to the policy,
and there is no Ombudsman who can look at checkuser policy violations,
the only protection we have is ArbCom. But (I believe) all ArbCom
members have checkuser and are on the checkuser mailing list, so they
could have acted against Lar when the issue was raised there (at my
request, among others), but they didn't. They're therefore unlikely to
act when it's brought before them in another venue.
The bottom line is that editors are left with no realistic way to
complain about a violation of the checkuser policy, which means that
it may as well not exist.
Sarah
She's unravelling....
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:06pm)
She's unravelling....
(removed image)
Look. I think by now it is no secret that SlimVirgin and I do not see eye to eye on all possible topics.
But how exactly does posting an image of the wicked witch of the west directly below "she's unraveling" which in turn is directly below a post of hers on the mailing list... how exactly does that help matters?
Doing stuff like that contributes to a rather nasty climate here and I don't condone it. Not in the slightest. Rather, I find it quite reprehensible. There's no call for it regardless of WHAT you think anyone did. No call for such harassment. Doing so strengthens the hand of those who marginalise ALL input here.
Speak truth to power, for the truth shall set you free.
But wicked witch pictures? No. Certainly not in my name at any rate. You are free to say whatever you wish but you can also expect to get called on it from time to time...
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
I think I'm in the black as far as Slim is concerned.
The picture was not posted in your name.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
Right to the top! you go, girrrl.
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094621.html?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226227463#Break:_checkuser
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
Posted by: Piperdown
i agree with Patrick Byrne (imagine that!) on his old classmate's situation...I find no pleasure and no further point in taking any joy or any victory in directly causing SlimV any distress.
I merely ask those on WP who have taken the damsel in distress routine too far on too many occasions:
1) Cla68 is one of your best editors, best problem resolutionists, and most level-headed adults. SlimVirgin fucked him over terribly for, as Johnny Cash would say, just to see his RFA die. WP, apologise to Cla68 on behalf of SV, let his RFA proceed and tell SV and her ever shrinking circle to give it a rest.
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin. WP - some of your best editors make your worst admins, and vice versa. Look at Jimbo. Couldn't edit his way out of a wet paper sack. Runs your wiki. LOL.
3) Declare that the following editors should also have deadminned for the same reasons SV should be"
Crum
Jayjg
JzG
They have no business being admins. POV warriors yes, admins no.
4) Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:53pm)
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I would thought someone entrusted with confidential information should keep it confidential i.e. to themselves or within the organizational hierarchy mallarkey (I mean no disrespect to Lar by so saying, that's just what I would have thought.)
Posted by: Piperdown
um, how about a case where a Checkuser's wife(s) sockpuppets on WP? Should he be under obligation to do use his CUship for good, or turn the other cheek (eww!)?
not specifically talking about any polygamists that ironically banned Utah from WP, but if the shoe fits...
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:26pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:53pm)
QUOTE(UserB @ Sun 20th July 2008, 12:41pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 20th July 2008, 5:06am)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
Lar compounded the error by telling his wife the real identity of
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Wikitumnus. Lar's wife is another Wikipedian, not someone Wikitumnus
has had any contact with, and also not someone Wikitumnus would choose
to reveal their identity to. Wiktumnus was extremely upset about that
aspect of the incident, and it was a violation of the privacy policy,
although not one serious enough that the Ombudsman Commission wanted
to act on.
Silly question that I'm missing here - how did it get out that Lar revealed the data to his wife? Did she start spreading it? Or is it merely that he said "I was talking about this with my wife" in an off hand way? If the latter, that's not really a big deal in my mind. We can't realistically expect to require husbands and wives to not have open communication.
Obviously neither Jay nor SV have never been married or in a long term relationship.
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I would thought someone entrusted with confidential information should keep it confidential i.e. to themselves or within the organizational hierarchy mallarkey (I mean no disrespect to Lar by so saying, that's just what I would have thought.)
Generally that is the case. Or if not, and the person is the type who just can't keep anything from the better half, they should warn the world. Example: In the Manhattan project, the scientists were not supposed to tell their wives (and overwhelmingly the partners were wives in the world of science of 1944) anything about The Bomb. And mostly they didn't. So the wives did non-secret jobs at Los Alamos, or stayed at home tending kids (of which there were lots and lots, since there wasn't much else to do). Those scientists who absolutely had to tell wives about work got clearance to do so: E.O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron and head of the U separation project, got Top Clearance for his wife, even though she wasn't a scientist at all. And because the brass had to have Lawrence, they cleared the wife.
As for Lar, the worst thing isn't that he told his wife; the worst thing is now that he has pulled this boner and given Slimey a rope to grab onto, he feels obligated to stick up for Slimey vs the WR. The problem is that SV really as a bad as her rep, so this behavior from Lar really does qualify for an "Ewwww" from me. Yuk.
And if you'd like to see difs for SV's badness, there are a couple of hundred collected by Cla68 and many in the ongoing ArbCom, and they're just as nasty as I've remembered from what I've seen of SV in action personally. More on that in another message. Apparently Lar hasn't been reading evidence. I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that is his problem. Otherwise, he's just another schlub who can't admit a screw-up, and is now among the compromised. At least as regards this matter.
Gee, it's so nice to be able to say anything I want about WP and its politics without getting blocked by some boob for "incivility" in the process of WP:SPADE.
Hey, WP wonks!
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:21pm)
Ban FM for OddNature. Extensive abusive sock puppetry = bannning of all accounts involved. Let him start from wikiscratch.
I want a truth and reconciliation process with FM and his lackeys.
I may never get to reconciliation, but I am serious about getting to the truth about FM and his odd band of sycophants.
There is a lot more to FM's corruption than just using Odd nature / Blogger Skip as a sock puppet.
A hell of a lot more.
Posted by: gomi
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fat_Bachelor.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:52pm)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fat_Bachelor.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
I'm glad to see you're thinking along the lines of what it means to inadvertently empower someone by deliberately disempowering them.
The most powerful figures in human history had less than zero political power.
What they had was ingenuity, creativeness, and innovativeness.
I have no idea how SlimVirgin ranks in terms of those traits, but I'm guessing she's no slouch.
Having said that, I think the drama would be more interesting if she were de-adminned, just to discover what gambits she devises when she's out of Machiavellian-type power.
After all, the English Wikipedia is obviously like some rough beast slouching its way toward Bedlam.
Are we there, Yeats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence
Some Rough Knuckle-Dragging Beast
Slouching Toward Bedlam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence
Some Rough Knuckle-Dragging Beast
Slouching Toward Bedlam
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 21st July 2008, 12:52pm)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fat_Bachelor.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
His third proposal was to desysop those guys too, or something along those lines. I can't say it's a bad idea.
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:51pm)
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
There's a good way around that log-out problem. When I started at WP, the site used a different default skin than it does now. Later, they switched the default, but because I preferred the old one, I stuck with it--and that means that whenever I'm logged out, there's a different skin, making it obvious to me that I need to log in.
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 21st July 2008, 3:52am)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:21pm)
2) Take away SV's adminship. Let her edit, she's quite good at it. When the playing field is equal. When she had admin privies on a topic she's emotionally vested in, abuses have happened and continue to happen. WP will be a better place with an SV contributing as an editor and not as and admin.
This is an admirable, turn-the-other-cheek sentiment, but I think that in the unlikely event it is ever implemented, it will not work, unless Jayjg, Crum375, JoshuaZ and some others are de-adminned at the same time.
Slim has only indef-blocked 18 times in the last year, and most of those were in 2007. She doesn't really use the admin tools that much. She has become something of a shadow warrior, depending on her cronies for most of the real abuse. Jayjg, despite taking a nearly 5-month leave of absence, has blocked dozens of times in that period, as has Crum375, including such exceptional ones as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fat_Bachelor.
No, I think de-adminning Slimey may have the perverse effect of making her more powerful. Many will think she was wronged, and she'll simply move to directing malfeasance from her lair.
I agree with Piperdown that SV's work as an editor appears, to the extent that I've read it (I'm really just thinking of Brown dog affair here), to be quite good, but I share your doubts about whether she could ever be a net-positive, even without adminship, due to the way she treats others.
Posted by: LessHorrid vanU
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:51pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 20th July 2008, 10:13am)
Hmm. Your computer tells it's IP address to the wikimedia server every time it requests a page or posts an edit, but the humans who run the system have created social contracts among themselves not to look except for "good cause." It seems like the computers have more rights than the people.
That part about the social contract is not exactly true. WP can and has diddled with the inactive "log you off" time, so that any nameuser is bound to be caught by it at least once and been logged out without noticing, following which they then wind up posting inadvertantly as a naked IP user for all to see, quite often on articles where their username appears as well. Do that a couple of times, and pattern emerges so that a check of that IP makes it quite obvious to the world what nameuser who owns it, is. This info remains in public view, and WP even not-so-subtley emphasizes this fact, in their efforts to get their IP-users to register. But they didn't always do that.
Yes, if you're a nameuser you can in theory contact somebody with oversight, to have that info removed (and of course that's the first thing that anybody who gets oversight does for him/herself and anybody they care about, just as soon as they can), BUT the fact is that so many people screw up and post as IP-users without meaning to, that not enough oversighter time in the world exists to clean up this mess. Many a socker has been caught that way, if they don't have oversight themselves, or a nice friend with oversight. The "friends-with-oversight" is just one more way in which insiders get to break the rules more, on WP.
The "log you off" only works when you have a dedicated ip addy through your ISP. Gmail accounts, and in the UK Tiscali (which is the one I use), allocate you the first free addy - possibly from a batch based on location, likely not - available when you log in. I was checking an ip the other day with GEOLOCATE from the tools, and was interested to note that the site also provided me with the stats for my ip - which was London, and that is 300 miles from where I edit. I could edit an article as an ip and log off, log in and edit under my username, then log off and edit again as an ip and all ip's would be different - and given the popularity of Tiscali in the UK (top 5 if not 3) there would be no obvious ip link between the three posts.
Posted by: Derktar
Moderator's Note: Moved this to the SlimVirgin sub-forum.
Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Lar
(if the thunderdome wasn't inefficient and glacially slow)
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:20pm)
Right to the top! you go, girrrl.
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094621.html?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226227463#Break:_checkuser
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
Missed some ... thanks for the PM...
* A metric buttload of email boxes
* At least one ombudsmen
* sympathetic arbcom members (ok, this one is just a guess)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser&oldid=226984812
Posted by: Piperdown
thatcher & slimmy.
imagine that.
both still have a lot to answer for in the 2006-2008 Weiss Affair.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Mon 21st July 2008, 5:27pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Lar
QUOTE
Although this probably a futile request, can we avoid unnecessary drama-raising pile-on statements from the peanut gallery? Very few people actually know what is going on here; uninformed commentary is likely to unhelpful in addressing the situation.
Posted by: The Adversary
"exactly the situation we have here" whaw! 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
.....
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
....
Sarah
Is Slimmy really saying that making a CU on an account is "exactly" like blocking the account?
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Mon 21st July 2008, 10:34am)
"exactly the situation we have here" whaw!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094603.html
QUOTE
.....
I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established
editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his
identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation
we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked
for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the
account in case their identity leaks out.
....
Sarah
Is Slimmy really saying that making a CU on an account is "exactly" like blocking the account?
Apparently. In both cases you're completely immobilized. In one case, by hysterical, groundless, freefloating paranoic fear
.... and in the other, because your computer won't work on the damn site any more. 
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:20pm)
Right to the top! you go, girrrl.
I wonder how Anthere feels about being used by Slim, who sent her to marching into checkuser-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094621.html?
Slim's forum shopping so far:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226227463#Break:_checkuser
* english wikipedia mailing list
* Wikimedia Foundation chair
* checkuser-l
did I miss any?
Puts finger between teeth.
Bites.
Posted by: Heat
It looks like SV's circle continues to shrink now that she's alienated the Checkuser community as well. It'll be interesting to see how many supporters she has left in the ArbComm. I'm sure Jpgordon and possibly FloNight (despite her "absence") have been lobbying in SV's defense in the first ArbComm case but will they still come to her side in the new one? And Jimbo has been conspicuous by not sweeping in with a deus ex machina show of support - of course ever since the Rachel Marsden scandal he has very little moral authority left at wikipedia - at least among experienced senior editors.
Posted by: Mr. Mystery
QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 21st July 2008, 10:01pm)
It looks like SV's circle continues to shrink now that she's alienated the Checkuser community as well. It'll be interesting to see how many supporters she has left in the ArbComm. I'm sure Jpgordon and possibly FloNight (despite her "absence") have been lobbying in SV's defense in the first ArbComm case but will they still come to her side in the new one? And Jimbo has been conspicuous by not sweeping in with a deus ex machina show of support - of course ever since the Rachel Marsden scandal he has very little moral authority left at wikipedia - at least among experienced senior editors.
Between Slim Virgin and Rachel Marsden, that Jimbeau has utterly shocked me with his lousy taste in women!
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Mon 21st July 2008, 3:06pm)
Between Slim Virgin and Rachel Marsden, that Jimbeau has utterly shocked me with his lousy taste in women!
Bunny-oglers find bunny-boilers ©. That's a Milton law. Bomis Jimmy is certainly the first, and has had his share of the second. And my share, too, god bless him.
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 21st July 2008, 10:01pm)
It looks like SV's circle continues to shrink now that she's alienated the Checkuser community as well. It'll be interesting to see how many supporters she has left in the ArbComm. I'm sure Jpgordon and possibly FloNight (despite her "absence") have been lobbying in SV's defense in the first ArbComm case but will they still come to her side in the new one? And Jimbo has been conspicuous by not sweeping in with a deus ex machina show of support - of course ever since the Rachel Marsden scandal he has very little moral authority left at wikipedia - at least among experienced senior editors.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094699.html Wikipedia Review is "a shifting mess of crazy and often malice" and that "listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree [that Lar does] can affect one's thinking."
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 21st July 2008, 5:51pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 21st July 2008, 10:01pm)
It looks like SV's circle continues to shrink now that she's alienated the Checkuser community as well. It'll be interesting to see how many supporters she has left in the ArbComm. I'm sure Jpgordon and possibly FloNight (despite her "absence") have been lobbying in SV's defense in the first ArbComm case but will they still come to her side in the new one? And Jimbo has been conspicuous by not sweeping in with a deus ex machina show of support - of course ever since the Rachel Marsden scandal he has very little moral authority left at wikipedia - at least among experienced senior editors.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094699.html Wikipedia Review is "a shifting mess of crazy and often malice" and that "listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree [that Lar does] can affect one's thinking."
He also said;
QUOTEOn the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this case.
.. which is fair enuf, I guess
Posted by: Cla68
I've see Thatcher defend SV before, but, I don't think that's the case here;
QUOTESecond, with respect to SlimVirgin and Lar. Lar pretty much has his hands tied. It would certainly be a breach of the privacy policy to discuss the results of the check, and it would be an ethical violation (if not a privacy violation) to discuss the reason for the check. So his hands are tied; SlimVirgin can slag off on him publicly and he can't defend himself. That's pretty low, and this is maybe the third time it has happened. (Once before on checkuser-L and once at [[Wikipedia talk:Checkuser]].) So I think it would be best for all concerned, if Slim believes that Lar is not trustworthy, that she make a formal request to Arbcom to consider the matter, and then keep it off the wiki.
Thatcher
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094577.html
and
QUOTEWe danced around this on checkuser-L for a week without really discussing the precise details; we are certainly not going into detail here on whether or not the request to compare user A and user B was valid. I really think it is time for Slim to put up or shut up. Ask Arbcom to review Lar's trustworthiness and judgement to use the tool, or don't, but please quit bringing it up on wiki. Smearing Lar's character when only about 6 people know the details, and those who do can't discuss it publicly, is unacceptable.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094579.html
Posted by: jch
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:50am)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Ah, but can or should you be able to alter or counterfeit your license plate?
You know what the real problem with open proxies is, and why Wikipedia hasn't simply initiated a hunt to automatically find and ban them all? In some repressive countries, such as recently China (don't know if it's that way just now before the Olympics, but it can change overnight in any case) you cannot edit WP except by proxy server. The blockers knew that taking out such sites would effective end all WP access by anybody in those countries.
Thus, if you want to proxy-sock on WP, it's not a matter of finding a proxy-- it's just a matter of finding the RIGHT proxy. And do try to edit on some human rights violation in China articles.
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(jch @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 12:14pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 20th July 2008, 6:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:50am)
Your IP Address is most like the license plate on your car as you cruise the information highway. It's public information within the definition, scope, and operation of the TCP/IP Protocol Stack that operates at the heart of the Internet's communication technology infrastructure.
Ah, but can or should you be able to alter or counterfeit your license plate?
You know what the real problem with open proxies is, and why Wikipedia hasn't simply initiated a hunt to automatically find and ban them all? In some repressive countries, such as recently China (don't know if it's that way just now before the Olympics, but it can change overnight in any case) you cannot edit WP except by proxy server. The blockers knew that taking out such sites would effective end all WP access by anybody in those countries.
Thus, if you want to proxy-sock on WP, it's not a matter of finding a proxy-- it's just a matter of finding the RIGHT proxy. And do try to edit on some human rights violation in China articles.
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
The Tor-is-OK thingo was only added to that in the last few days, for the record.
Posted by: prospero
QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 21st July 2008, 6:01pm)
It looks like SV's circle continues to shrink now that she's alienated the Checkuser community as well. It'll be interesting to see how many supporters she has left in the ArbComm. I'm sure Jpgordon and possibly FloNight (despite her "absence") have been lobbying in SV's defense in the first ArbComm case but will they still come to her side in the new one? And Jimbo has been conspicuous by not sweeping in with a deus ex machina show of support - of course ever since the Rachel Marsden scandal he has very little moral authority left at wikipedia - at least among experienced senior editors.
Oh? Didn't you know? Slim has not forgiven Flo for taking these actions a few months ago:
- Endorsing and voting for poetlister's RfB on wikiquote.
- Encouraging ArbCom to take a second look at the evidence that got poetlister indef'd from en-wp, the result of which led to poetlister's return to en-wp recently.
Posted by: Cla68
SV just admitted on Wikien that some of her past edits were oversighted:
"Gery, very few of my edits have been oversighted, so I'm sure you can
still find the post in question, if it ever existed."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094744.html
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 21st July 2008, 11:04pm)
QUOTE(jch @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 12:14pm)
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
The Tor-is-OK thingo was only added to that in the last few days, for the record.
Who was the admin candidate who got torpedoed when a checkuser said that the person had been editing via a TOR node?
Posted by: sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 5:51pm)
Who was the admin candidate who got torpedoed when a checkuser said that the person had been editing via a TOR node?
CharlotteWebb
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:51pm)
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 21st July 2008, 11:04pm)
QUOTE(jch @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 12:14pm)
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
The Tor-is-OK thingo was only added to that in the last few days, for the record.
Who was the admin candidate who got torpedoed when a checkuser said that the person had been editing via a TOR node?
CharlotteWebb, nuked from high orbit by Jayjg I think, for no good reason.
Posted by: sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 5:30pm)
SV just admitted on Wikien that some of her past edits were oversighted:
If a user reverts, for example, a gross BLP-vio, the admin's reversion would also be oversighted, no? Having some oversighted edits isn't necessarily a nefarious thing.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:51pm)
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 21st July 2008, 11:04pm)
QUOTE(jch @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 12:14pm)
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
The Tor-is-OK thingo was only added to that in the last few days, for the record.
Who was the admin candidate who got torpedoed when a checkuser said that the person had been editing via a TOR node?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 6:59pm)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:51pm)
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 21st July 2008, 11:04pm)
QUOTE(jch @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 12:14pm)
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
The Tor-is-OK thingo was only added to that in the last few days, for the record.
Who was the admin candidate who got torpedoed when a checkuser said that the person had been editing via a TOR node?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Yeah, I had basically completely forgotten that CharlotteWebb was taken down by SlimVirgin/Crum and involved Jayjg revealing Checkuser information. Maybe this has already been discussed in the context of Lar and I just missed it, but I find that astonishly hypocritical. Someone should definitely bring that to ArbCom's attention.
They seem to have done something similar at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, though I haven't seen there who revealed that Armedblowfish was editing via Tor.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 11:58pm)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 5:30pm)
SV just admitted on Wikien that some of her past edits were oversighted:
If a user reverts, for example, a gross BLP-vio, the admin's reversion would also be oversighted, no? Having some oversighted edits isn't necessarily a nefarious thing.Yes, that probably would be an appropriate use of oversight. In the same Wikien thread, though, someone asks SV why her edits needed to be oversighted, and she gives an evasive answer and accuses the people asking the question of making a personal attack:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094754.html
Posted by: Heat
Anyone else notice that Felonious Monk and Crum have been absent from wikipedia? FM since a block of his was undone 3 days ago while Crum has been gone for 11 days.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Heat @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 8:21pm)
Anyone else notice that Felonious Monk and Crum have been absent from wikipedia? FM since a block of his was undone 3 days ago while Crum has been gone for 11 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ConfuciusOrnis#Are_you_gone_for_good.3F appears to be gone, too.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 11:58pm)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 5:30pm)
SV just admitted on Wikien that some of her past edits were oversighted:
If a user reverts, for example, a gross BLP-vio, the admin's reversion would also be oversighted, no? Having some oversighted edits isn't necessarily a nefarious thing.It wouldn't have to be - it'd just show up as a null edit. I've deleted revisions in that situation before; I don't bother excluding the reversion, it's one less box to un-tick.
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 12:02am)
They seem to have done something similar at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, though I haven't seen there who revealed that Armedblowfish was editing via Tor.
AB was openly using Tor; it's mentioned in the nomination - ip block exemption was one of the main reason for wanting to give her adminship.
Posted by: Bob Boy
I've never understood the open proxy thing, unless it's placed in the context of sockpuppet paranoia, which I understand even less.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(jch @ Mon 21st July 2008, 7:14pm)
There's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption to allow Chinese (and others) to edit via open proxy now. I don't know if you've seen it yet or not.
No, I hadn't, actually. Does this mean that from now on, they're going to assume that anybody who hasn't actually asked for open-proxy permission, can't be in fear for political reasons, but must be a socker?
And what's happened to AOL, ComCast and all those other ISPs that use rotating IP addresses? They still doing it? Seems like every time I WHOIS an IP these days, it says they're in Lynchburg, VA.
Posted by: KStreetSlave
Sorry for requesting the summary, but did it ever get leaked the results of the check as pertaining to SlimVirgin? i.e. did the check show one way or another that she had used socks? Because I seem to recall the thread having several people, Mackensen and Greg Maxwell, I believe, saying that the checkuser turned up some worrying results. What were those results?
Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker
No, despite all the thunder she's been spouting, only the fact that they were done was released...no data.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 12:52am)
Sorry for requesting the summary, but did it ever get leaked the results of the check as pertaining to SlimVirgin? i.e. did the check show one way or another that she had used socks? Because I seem to recall the thread having several people, Mackensen and Greg Maxwell, I believe, saying that the checkuser turned up some worrying results. What were those results?
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 12:08am)
No, despite all the thunder she's been spouting, only the fact that they were done was released...no data.
I'm sure it's one of Slimvirgins's pathological "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" ploys.
Both her and Durova do this.
Again, there's got to be some kind of neuroleptic for this syndrome.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:31am)
I'm sure it's one of Slimvirgins's pathological "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" ploys.
That is exactly what it is. She is running around waving the victim flag, while at the same time refusing to avail herself of any of the dispute resolution options available to her. It is shameful and disgusting; why the community continues to tolerate such disruptive and narcissistic behavior is beyond me.Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 5:36am)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:31am)
I'm sure it's one of Slimvirgins's pathological "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" ploys.
That is exactly what it is. She is running around waving the victim flag, while at the same time refusing to avail herself of any of the dispute resolution options available to her. It is shameful and disgusting; why the community continues to tolerate such disruptive and narcissistic behavior is beyond me.It's obvious to me why *she* does it. It is distraction. In fact, it's rather patently boring normal behavior in the US politics/media sphere. Anytime someone accuses of X then suddenly throw your entire bodyweight (or in Slim's case, the desk she's sitting in if not the building) at another more compelling topic: your own victimization.
You've got to give it to her for how talented she is at this. It's pathetic, as a career skill, but credit where credit is due.
This bizarre behavior of hers has prevented her from being held to account for a goodly amount of time. And let's face it: It's the status quo for people in politics in the present day. It's how the newer awareness of sensitivity and psychology get misused, if not abused, by persons attempting to turn it on it's head - serving to confuse the well-meaning masses. Slim's behavior is rather normal, for anyone in politics in the U.S. today. It's media manipulation of perception. This is her forté.
As for the people who buy it. Well, most people are not all that terrifically smart. Wikipedia is only a sampling of that phenom.
Slim banks on that she's smarter than her adversaries.
When that falls through she's left squealing louder. More recently like a stuck pig.
Posted by: Robert Roberts
Indeed, the trick is to keep repeating it over and over again - the reality of what you are saying is irrelevant.
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(Robert Roberts @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 7:13am)
Indeed, the trick is to keep repeating it over and over again - the reality of what you are saying is irrelevant.
Yeah, you see this everywhere in U.S. politics today...used to be, when a politician got caught riding dirty, they apologized and/or resigned. The Clintons raised the tactic of smearing your accuser to a high art form, and everyone does it now (in both parties).
Posted by: Mr. Mystery
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 11:46am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 5:36am)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:31am)
I'm sure it's one of Slimvirgins's pathological "I'm a victim, I'm a victim" ploys.
That is exactly what it is. She is running around waving the victim flag, while at the same time refusing to avail herself of any of the dispute resolution options available to her. It is shameful and disgusting; why the community continues to tolerate such disruptive and narcissistic behavior is beyond me.It's obvious to me why *she* does it. It is distraction. In fact, it's rather patently boring normal behavior in the US politics/media sphere. Anytime someone accuses of X then suddenly throw your entire bodyweight (or in Slim's case, the desk she's sitting in if not the building) at another more compelling topic: your own victimization.
You've got to give it to her for how talented she is at this. It's pathetic, as a career skill, but credit where credit is due.
This bizarre behavior of hers has prevented her from being held to account for a goodly amount of time. And let's face it: It's the status quo for people in politics in the present day. It's how the newer awareness of sensitivity and psychology get misused, if not abused, by persons attempting to turn it on it's head - serving to confuse the well-meaning masses. Slim's behavior is rather normal, for anyone in politics in the U.S. today. It's media manipulation of perception. This is her forté.
As for the people who buy it. Well, most people are not all that terrifically smart. Wikipedia is only a sampling of that phenom.
Slim banks on that she's smarter than her adversaries.
When that falls through she's left squealing louder. More recently like a stuck pig.
What is interesting to me though is how she essentially brought this all down on herself in the first place. If she never created the original stub on Brandt in the first place, would this guy have been alerted to and subsequently taken such an active interest in her activities or in WP politics at all? I entirely doubt it. If she hadn't written that stub, the Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents would not have unfolded the way they did, with Brandt ramming the issues through and the WP community essentially blaming him and WR for exposing their problems.
It would seem to me that this LM/SV is in a similar situation as GW/MM was. That may be why she was so willing to support him, apart from the supposed Bryne-Cambridge connection. GW/MM's COI activities on the site against Patrick Bryne attracted a "nakedly" hostile response from JB/Wordbomb, that would have caused LM to feel sympathy for GW, as her own activities were already under a similar kind of heat from Brandt, so it was probably easy for her to view GW/MM as a fellow "journalist" and "victim of harassment," even though these guys were only trying, in their own respective ways, to correct the problems that these two entirely unethical "journalists" and "Wikipedians in good standing" were creating for them.
It would seem to me the only solution for the WP community would be for it to admit that it was played by Slim Virgin as much as it was by Mantanmoreland, and promptly ban all forms of the account. Because Jimbo, fool that he is, is not going to countermand his prior support for her, and because she's written so many of the policies they interpret and apply remedies based on, the Arbitration Committee is not going to be able to do this. It really would require a popular revolution, in the French sense of the term.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 1:52pm)
It would seem to me the only solution for the WP community would be for it to admit that it was played by Slim Virgin as much as it was by Mantanmoreland, and promptly ban all forms of the account. Because Jimbo, fool that he is, is not going to countermand his prior support for her, and because she's written so many of the policies they interpret and apply remedies based on, the Arbitration Committee is not going to be able to do this. It really would require a popular revolution, in the French sense of the term.
Theme already suggested: "LET THEM EAT DOG!"
It is indeed amazing how much damage SV has done in one way or another, and how much damage WP has tolerated rather than do something about her. I think, all in all, the only things Jimbo has tolerated more damage from on WP than SV, is his own policies and the delictations associated with his daliances.
I think, based upon history, we might even nominally begin to construct a "Jimmy Wales Relative Importance Scale," starting from #1 importance to him, and moving down:
1) Own pecker
2) Own policies
3) SlimVirgin
4) JzG
.
.
.
n) Wikipedia
Fill in the blanks.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 9:52pm)
It really would require a popular revolution, in the French sense of the term.
QUOTE
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
G K Chesterton
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 2:17pm)
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 9:52pm)
It really would require a popular revolution, in the French sense of the term.
QUOTE
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
G K Chesterton
And Jimbo, he often said to his guests when they sat down to dine,
"I don't care where the money goes if it doesn't get into the wine."
GK Asterton
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Robert Roberts @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 7:13am)
Indeed, the trick is to keep repeating it over and over again - the reality of what you are saying is irrelevant.
You learn quickly.
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:52am)
Yeah, you see this everywhere in U.S. politics today...used to be, when a politician got caught riding dirty, they apologized and/or resigned.
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:52am)
The Clintons raised the tactic of smearing your accuser to a high art form, and everyone does it now (in both parties).
Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to not roll over and say 'thank you sir may I have another' when someone smeared him.
That was unforgivable in certain circles. Their ability to fight back remains unmatched.
They weren't perfect, but who the heck is in Sin City.
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 2:52pm)
It would seem to me that this LM/SV is in a similar situation as GW/MM was.
(chokes while coughing a word that no one understands)
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 2:52pm)
It really would require a popular revolution, in the French sense of the term.
What, you mean a change of government?
(chokes while coughing a word that no one understands)
Posted by: Milton Roe
Declare victory with honor, then rapidly retreat in disarray...
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:03pm)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 11:16pm)
What, you mean a change of government?
(chokes while coughing a word that no one understands)
I'd be happy with just the public beheading of the current ArbCom and most of the administrator corps.*
*Not that I'm advocating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror! But really, the community has to take control and purge these wikicrats from the site!
It is not that I oppose your remedy, but I would never leave it in the hands of the "community."
Posted by: Mr. Mystery
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 24th July 2008, 1:54am)
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 6:03pm)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 11:16pm)
What, you mean a change of government?
(chokes while coughing a word that no one understands)
I'd be happy with just the public beheading of the current ArbCom and most of the administrator corps.*
*Not that I'm advocating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror! But really, the community has to take control and purge these wikicrats from the site!
It is not that I oppose your remedy, but I would never leave it in the hands of the "community."
Who else or what else is going to be in a position to do it? Larry Sanger, the exiled "co-founder of Wikipedia?" My greatest wish is for Jimbo et all to become the victims of their own success and get booted off the site by the community that is fed up with their bullshit.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 8:09pm)
Who else or what else is going to be in a position to do it? Larry Sanger, the exiled "co-founder of Wikipedia?" My greatest wish is for Jimbo et all to become the victims of their own success and get booted off the site by the community that is fed up with their bullshit.
Despite Giano's endless plotting about bombs in his briefcase this is never going to happen from within. Change your analogy. Not The Terror. Think Red Army sweeping through a crumbling Germany. I read Vollman's Europe Central in the last year. It has a character called "The Red Guillotine." Let her do the heavy lifting.
Posted by: gomi
[Moderator's note: I have moved a number of off-topic posts to the Tar Pit. Please take personal attacks there. -- gomi]