William Connelley - The Opinionator, How one extremist skews Wikipedia Options

[Dzonatas]

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

If he didn't, then why give all the information?

You could have simply responded with, "no connection, now move along." Did you think he wouldn't believe you with a simple answer? Was it that necessary?

[wikiwhistle]

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

If he didn't, then why give all the information?

You could have simply responded with, "no connection, now move along." Did you think he wouldn't believe you with a simple answer? Was it that necessary?

? What do you mean. There's been long-term problems with GH, even if Alison hadn't said it was him on her talk page, the IP's talk and user page would probably have got a banner on it saying so, and rightly so.

[Dzonatas]

It's called checkuser? Happens all the time. It's not like it was linking to his real name or something- to be clear, Goldie was posting using his IP- Alison didn't disclose the IP in this instance, if that's what you mean. He disclosed it himself, it's one of the drawbacks of editing as an IP that erm... people can see your IP.

People use an IP so you don't see their username.

People use their username so you don't see their IP.

When someone uses an IP it doesn't automatically disclose their username.

People who know about 'whois' I'm sure know about the dangers of trying to put a username to an IP.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sat 12th July 2008, 10:50pm

[wikiwhistle]

If you post under an IP and are using it as a disruptive sock, especially if you are a banned user, that's what happens.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 12th July 2008, 10:52pm

[Dzonatas]

If you post under an IP and are using it like a sock, that's what happens.

The username doesn't show when one posts under an IP.

[wikiwhistle]

If you post under an IP and are using it like a sock, that's what happens.

The username doesn't show when one posts under an IP.

? No but it may show with a checkuser/ it was already known to be Goldheart's IP range, plus he admitted it here I think.

[Dzonatas]

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

If he didn't, then why give all the information?

You could have simply responded with, "no connection, now move along." Did you think he wouldn't believe you with a simple answer? Was it that necessary?

There's been long-term problems with GH, ...

That is not only irrelevant, but it is a distraction away from this issue when WMC posted the question and Alison replied. You are trying to justify fair game to mutilate people.

[Gold heart]

It's called checkuser? Happens all the time. It's not like it was linking to his real name or something- to be clear, Goldie was posting using his IP- Alison didn't disclose the IP in this instance, if that's what you mean. He disclosed it himself, it's one of the drawbacks of editing as an IP that erm... people can see your IP.

People use an IP so you don't see their username.

People use their username so you don't see their IP.

When someone uses an IP it doesn't automatically disclose their username.

People who know about 'whois' I'm sure know about the dangers of trying to put a username to an IP.

This is where Alison reveals who the editor is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225238962

Only she knew at that stage.

The editor was discussing some previous edits, no disruption as Wikiwhistle falsely claims. Thark and me are old pals.

[Dzonatas]

If you post under an IP and are using it like a sock, that's what happens.

The username doesn't show when one posts under an IP.

? No but it may show with a checkuser/ it was already known to be Goldheart's IP range, plus he admitted it here I think.

He didn't admit it publicly. Alison even confirmed it wasn't public info on her talk page.

I know of wikipedia policy where justified private info can be sent privately in certain instances, but those instances don't include where checkuser can publicly disclose information.

Wow, even people need to go to court to extract private information from google and yahoo.

[Rootology]

Is "Gold Heart" known by a "real life" name? Or is Gold Heart just some anonymous person that happens to be tied to random British wireless IPs? If the latter, nothing "private" has been disclosed. All that's known is that Gold Heart is editing as an IP (if you don't want your IPs revealed, why don't you sock as a username?).

I see no private info here:

http://samspade.org/whois/93.107.68.59
http://openrbl.org/query?93.107.68.59

All I see is you have a Vodaphone mobile somewhere in Ireland. That really narrows it down, don't it? Thats like saying "so and so edits from a Verizon IP somewhere in the southwestern United States". It makes you one of what, 1,000,000?

I'm the first to complain about privacy issues, but this is stretched awful thin.

[wikiwhistle]

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

If he didn't, then why give all the information?

You could have simply responded with, "no connection, now move along." Did you think he wouldn't believe you with a simple answer? Was it that necessary?

There's been long-term problems with GH, ...

That is not only irrelevant, but it is a distraction away from this issue when WMC posted the question and Alison replied. You are trying to justify fair game to mutilate people.

???He asked her to do a checkuser, and she did. It revealed a sock of a banned user, who was identified and blocked. Happens every day, numerous times. Are we talking about the same thing, mentioning the IP and saying it was Goldheart? Anyway, he admitted it himself here.

Think how many times an IP is identified as one used by Grawp, for instance.

How is this 'mutilation'?

Is "Gold Heart" known by a "real life" name? Or is Gold Heart just some anonymous person that happens to be tied to random British wireless IPs? If the latter, nothing "private" has been disclosed. All that's known is that Gold Heart is editing as an IP (if you don't want your IPs revealed, why don't you sock as a username?).

Precisely

[Rootology]

Is "Gold Heart" known by a "real life" name? Or is Gold Heart just some anonymous person that happens to be tied to random British wireless IPs? If the latter, nothing "private" has been disclosed. All that's known is that Gold Heart is editing as an IP (if you don't want your IPs revealed, why don't you sock as a username?).

Precisely

I don't know what it is lately, if some people are running out of things to complain about and are getting down to their personal gristle or something... but this one takes the cake for the week of misguided aim.

ZOMG I DID STUFF AS AN IP THEN TOLD EVERYONE AND THEN ALISON OUTED ME BY SAYING "YEP THAT WAS GOLD HEART LIKE GOLD HEART HERSELF SAID", ITS ALISONS FAULT!!!! CHECKUSER ABUSE!!!!!!

We've gone from critiquing sniper shots to hurling random armed claymore mines through pre-school learning center windows lately, hoping to scrape up as much blood as possible.

[Gold heart]

Is "Gold Heart" known by a "real life" name? Or is Gold Heart just some anonymous person that happens to be tied to random British wireless IPs? If the latter, nothing "private" has been disclosed. All that's known is that Gold Heart is editing as an IP (if you don't want your IPs revealed, why don't you sock as a username?).

Precisely

I tried and she got me there too. Just about 5 days ago. There's no escape.

It refers to this.

This post has been edited by Gold heart: Sat 12th July 2008, 11:34pm

[Dzonatas]

I see no private info here:
[...]
I'm the first to complain about privacy issues, but this is stretched awful thin.

If someone uses an IP then any potential username that can be connected to it is private.

If someone uses their username, then any IP connected to it is private.

The privacy policy passed by Wikimedia's Board of Trustee's is very clear on that policy.

I don't see anything in those edits of that IP that constitute vandalism. Maybe others may not like the changes, but just because someone doesn't like the changes does not give them right to call it vandalism on a whim to release private information. That would be way to easy to game and get personal information.

It is a content dispute. A content dispute doesn't justify the release of private personal information as public personal information.

From that policy

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances

[Rootology]

Is "Gold Heart" known by a "real life" name? Or is Gold Heart just some anonymous person that happens to be tied to random British wireless IPs? If the latter, nothing "private" has been disclosed. All that's known is that Gold Heart is editing as an IP (if you don't want your IPs revealed, why don't you sock as a username?).

Precisely

I tried and she got me there too. Just about 5 days ago. There's no escape.

Escape is always an option. Maybe do something else with your time than mess around on the Internets? Enjoy life and the wide world?

I see no private info here:
[...]
I'm the first to complain about privacy issues, but this is stretched awful thin.

If someone uses an IP then any potential username that can be connected to it is private.

If someone uses their username, then any IP connected to it is private.

The privacy policy passed by Wikimedia's Board of Trustee's is very clear on that policy.

I don't see anything in those edits of that IP that constitute vandalism. Maybe others may not like the changes, but just because someone doesn't like the changes does not give them right to call it vandalism on a whim to release private information. That would be way to easy to game and get personal information.

It is a content dispute. A content dispute doesn't justify the release of private personal information as public personal information.

From that policy

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances

"Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers"

Thats the "out" that allows this. Since Wikipedia/WMF like any private orginization sets their own rules--everyone that knows me here knows that I'm playing devil's advocate here--the disruption is that the Wikipedia administration has decided that Gold Heart isn't welcome, and is trespassing. So, if they really really don't want this person around, but they keep coming back, they do ever more to discourage them coming round. That "out" is built into the privacy policy and is specifically there for this purpose.

Now, if Alison went and released my IP or another user's, say, or another CU did, and we've done nothing wrong, their balls would be in an Ombudsman sling lickety split. But since Gold Heart is banned at the moment, and keeps coming back to do the same edits that got him banned, they got him on that little clause in the privacy policy. It is what it is, and any private company/site can make their own rules and do anything they want with it. Same as a message board that always publishes IPs for every post, or a place like Citizendium that requires confirmed "real names". If you don't like the internal rules, you don't HAVE to use the service.

Just some things to think about.

[Proabivouac]

You did link the IP to the account. Problem Alison, you have to be far too clever, and blurp it out. You did publicly post that information.

Come, now, all she did was quote your post here.

There's enough genuine indignation all around that we shouldn't have to manufacture it.

[Dzonatas]

ZOMG I DID STUFF AS AN IP THEN TOLD EVERYONE AND THEN ALISON OUTED ME BY SAYING "YEP THAT WAS GOLD HEART LIKE GOLD HEART HERSELF SAID", ITS ALISONS FAULT!!!! CHECKUSER ABUSE!!!!!!

You are the one saying that along with mixing personal and private information issues. Calm down -- no need for caps.

[Rootology]

ZOMG I DID STUFF AS AN IP THEN TOLD EVERYONE AND THEN ALISON OUTED ME BY SAYING "YEP THAT WAS GOLD HEART LIKE GOLD HEART HERSELF SAID", ITS ALISONS FAULT!!!! CHECKUSER ABUSE!!!!!!

You are the one saying that along with mixing personal and private information issues. Calm down -- no need for caps.

Uh... that was satire. I've got no stake in this.

[Dzonatas]

"Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers"

Thats the "out" that allows this. Since Wikipedia/WMF like any private orginization sets their own rules--everyone that knows me here knows that I'm playing devil's advocate here--the disruption is that the Wikipedia administration has decided that Gold Heart isn't welcome, and is trespassing. So, if they really really don't want this person around, but they keep coming back, they do ever more to discourage them coming round. That "out" is built into the privacy policy and is specifically there for this purpose.

Now, if Alison went and released my IP or another user's, say, or another CU did, and we've done nothing wrong, their balls would be in an Ombudsman sling lickety split. But since Gold Heart is banned at the moment, and keeps coming back to do the same edits that got him banned, they got him on that little clause in the privacy policy. It is what it is, and any private company/site can make their own rules and do anything they want with it. Same as a message board that always publishes IPs for every post, or a place like Citizendium that requires confirmed "real names". If you don't like the internal rules, you don't HAVE to use the service.

If it is just an IP, you have no idea what is the username. Even then, it is just a guess.

It's like trying to search a house without a warrent to find evidence, and then you hope to find any evidence to make the end justify the means.

Even in this case with the private policy from the board of trustees, even with the statement you put on there, there is nothing that says that information can be put publicly on Wikipedia. It says only when information may be released.

Now I understand why SirFozzie, like in the Tar Pit, and others get so upset as Rootology did above over semantics about terminology over word 'release' because they want to argue over the letter of this policy. Certainly there is a spirit here, and the spirit and the letter of the policy do not specific allowances to do what was done. In fact, the difference between the usage of 'release' and 'public distribution' is clearly two meanings, and the blanket policy set by the BoT is to not release it publicly.

[Gold heart]

Now I understand why SirFozzie, like in the Tar Pit, and others get so upset as Rootology did above over semantics about terminology over word 'release' because they want to argue over the letter of this policy. Certainly there is a spirit here, and the spirit and the letter of the policy do not specific allowances to do what was done. In fact, the difference between the usage of 'release' and 'public distribution' is clearly two meanings, and the blanket policy set by the BoT is to not release it publicly.

Yes, very self protecting lot. Ever notice how those admins never admit their mistakes, and blame everyone from WR to "kingdom come".

I'm pretty calm about all this. Alison and me have a weird relationship, she spots me, does her "turkey shoot", blocks, and I usually chuckle to myself. So no bitterness involved on my part whatsoever. Like here, sometimes a thread develops beyond its original intention, and chaos theory takes over. My main thrust was to expose William Connelley, and his misguided behaviour today. What happened today is typical of Wikipedia, a user gets falsely accused of sockpuppetry by an abusive admin William Connelly, who seemingly is not man enough to admit his mistake.

Problem. Typically this is the type of rubbish running, and ruining Wikipedia. It needs corrective mending before the situation becomes totally incorrigible.


This post has been edited by Gold heart: Sun 13th July 2008, 12:55am