Chase Me de-adminned, It floats Options

[carbuncle]

For reasons which don't add up at all, Chase Me Ladies, I'm The Cavalry has had their rights removed and their account locked.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry de-adminned

From what I've gathered, Iridescent is being blamed for this arbcom-l leak. It looks like Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has had his on-wiki rights removed, though (and there doesn't seem to be any mention of him on this page). What's the story there? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent has not been blamed for this at all; the information we have is that there was a theft of information from his email account which in turn led to the archives being accessed. As we've pointed out several times, this can happen to even the most diligent of internet users, and Wikipedia has long recognized this; it just happens that this compromise was more dramatic than most. Once Iridescent is able to demonstrate that he's in control of his accounts, standard processes take effect.
The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The timing is a bit, um, suspicious.

[RMHED]

For reasons which don't add up at all, Chase Me Ladies, I'm The Cavalry has had their rights removed and their account locked.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry de-adminned

From what I've gathered, Iridescent is being blamed for this arbcom-l leak. It looks like Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has had his on-wiki rights removed, though (and there doesn't seem to be any mention of him on this page). What's the story there? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent has not been blamed for this at all; the information we have is that there was a theft of information from his email account which in turn led to the archives being accessed. As we've pointed out several times, this can happen to even the most diligent of internet users, and Wikipedia has long recognized this; it just happens that this compromise was more dramatic than most. Once Iridescent is able to demonstrate that he's in control of his accounts, standard processes take effect.
The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The timing is a bit, um, suspicious.

Yeah they really are chasing their tails.

Those arbies are very quick to throw the criminal accusation about. So what's the crime Anne?

[gomi]

Those arbies are very quick to throw the criminal accusation about. So what's the crime Anne?

Is not the proper wiki response to "he should own up to his criminal behaviour" this: "I'll own up to my behaviour when ArbCom and the rest of the Wikipidiot Cabal owns up to theirs!"? I should think so. Just the proper amount of "I am rubber, you are glue" to it. Part of the Holy Trinity, with "What are your previous accounts?" and "How did you come to be editing this article?"

[Text]

Why are they calling Iridescent a "he"? Wasn't it confirmed there was a woman behind the account?

Oh wait, it's clear that all females and women on Wikipedia are either fat old men or transsexuals and associated variants.

ObviousStuffIsObvious.jpg

ArbCom did the same with Sophie, "she" got hammered and nothing was ever explained.

"Don't air your dirty laundry in public", eh?

[EricBarbour]

Every time something like this happens, I have this unfortunate mental picture--
of my fist, smashing into Jimmy Wales's face. Over and over.

HE installed the original Arbcom, HE facilitated the paranoid and dishonest internal culture
that makes Coren call the leak of the Arbcom-L messages "criminal", just by way of a recent
example.

I would not be surprised to learn that Chase Me leaked the messages accidentally, and that
his "reward" is permanent lifetime demonization. Real encyclopedias don't do shit like that, okay?

(On 2nd thought, I'd prefer not to injure my hand on Jimbo's grubby little face.
Anyone got a stun-gun I can borrow?)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 26th June 2011, 1:32am

[Sololol]

The timing is a bit, um, suspicious.

19:22, 25 June 2011 Barras (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry@enwiki from CheckUser, oversight and administrator to (none) ‎ (private request by enwiki arbcom member and wmf staff)

Somehow it's difficult to believe that two separate groups were so incensed by his sudden reappearance that they both requested this move. If he handed over the information the legal aspect is much more interesting; there could be no crime at all.

[Somey]

The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him?

As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked.

[NuclearWarfare]

The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him?

As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked.

That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails."

[bi-winning]

So what's the crime Anne?

You mean besides impersonating an officer in Her Majesty's Royal Navy?

Lol. This is fucking "Chase me ladies."

[radek]

The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him?

As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked.

That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails."

Can someone provide a timeline? I'm a bit lost as to who did what to whom.

[NuclearWarfare]

The account of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry had all permissions removed because of unexpected editing activity at a time when he was not responding to contacts through other means, and has been done as a routine precautionary measure. Risker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His contribs show only four recent edits, all made within the last two days, none of which are suspicious in any way - did something get deleted or oversighted? Or are they saying they were expecting to hear from him about something important, got the four edits instead, and this upset them to the point where they blocked him?

As capricious as they can be sometimes, that doesn't sound too credible to me... and moreover, you'd think Ms. Risker wouldn't make such a statement when things like that are so easily checked.

That sounds unlikely. I know nothing beyond what you know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were nothing more than "started editing again at an unusual time after quite a while and failed to respond to emails."

Can someone provide a timeline? I'm a bit lost as to who did what to whom.

All times in UTC, many of them estimated

28 February: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry stops editing somewhat abruptly. He has made ~30 edits in the prior week.
15:00, 23 June: MaliceAforethought posts their first thread.
19:30, 23 June: Coren claims to have cut off all future access to our leaker
08:47, 24 June: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry begins editing again. He makes a single innocuous edit.
21:00, 24 June: Coren posts an update to WT:AC, stating that it was Iridescent's email account that was likely hacked into.
15:54, 15:56, and 18:10, 25 June: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry makes three more edits.
19:22, 25 June: A steward removes Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's checkuser, oversight, and administrator access on the request of an arbitrator and WMF staff.
19:29, 25 June: The same steward globally locks Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's account, preventing him from logging in, on the request of an arbitrator and WMF staff.
03:19, 26 June: Newyorkbrad posts to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's user talk page, asking him to contact the Arbitration Committee and reply to emails that they had previously sent him.

[Kelly Martin]

I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest a connection. Rather, I think this is just the Inner Circle reminding Chase Me of his duty to serve and protect, combined with the usual "circle the wagons" mentality they fall into whenever they perceive that they're under attack.

Remember, Wikipedians, especially those that live fairly high up in the system, don't think or behave like normal people.

[carbuncle]

I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest a connection. Rather, I think this is just the Inner Circle reminding Chase Me of his duty to serve and protect, combined with the usual "circle the wagons" mentality they fall into whenever they perceive that they're under attack.

Remember, Wikipedians, especially those that live fairly high up in the system, don't think or behave like normal people.

The only connection seems to be the timing and the rather unusual steps taken by not only desysopping but also locking the account. And the WMF request mentioned in the log. I think the normal course of action when an account is suspected of being compromised is to simply block the account until control of the account has been established.

This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events.

[Kelly Martin]

This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events.

The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised.

[LessHorrid vanU]

This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events.

The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised.

You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.

Is there supposed to be a downside to that?

[Kelly Martin]

You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.

Is there supposed to be a downside to that?

If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role.

[LessHorrid vanU]

You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.

Is there supposed to be a downside to that?

If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role.

However, that is what the great majority of "players" say they want. Why not convince the WMF/Jimmy/Arbcom to allow that change to happen, and thus potentially change the site to that as advertised? (Noting I am adopting your language only, not your viewpoint).

Is it also your contention that it is the drama that leads the viewing numbers, and not the content?

[lilburne]

You mean, you would only be left with the sysops who actually do stuff diligently and without too much controversy... and, um, me.

Is there supposed to be a downside to that?

If Wikipedia were, in fact, what it claims to be, there would be no downside to that. However, as Wikipedia is actually a massively multiplayer blog, drama, and social gaming platform, it would be highly detrimental to its main function if only responsible, diligent, and uncontroversial admins were allowed to continue in that role.

However, that is what the great majority of "players" say they want. Why not convince the WMF/Jimmy/Arbcom to allow that change to happen, and thus potentially change the site to that as advertised? (Noting I am adopting your language only, not your viewpoint).

Is it also your contention that it is the drama that leads the viewing numbers, and not the content?

Viewing figures are lead by Google ranking which is why so many people are so keen on SEO techniques. Google hikes pages where the content is changing, so drama on the pages will increase ranking. Additionally though they may well contain a good amount of it WP pages aren't total crap. So having a WP page near the top of the search query (just after the ads) will give people something of use.

[Malleus]

This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events.

The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised.

That's clearly true, but it's equally clearly true that nothing will change until someone in authority such as the WMF imposes such a change.

[lilburne]

This is the same WP that can't get consensus for the blinding obvious commonsense security step of removing admin rights from accounts that haven't edited in a year. Although I suspect that certain attitudes may change in light of recent events.

The reason they won't do any sort of procedural removal of admin rights is because the administrative corps views that as a threat to their precious powers. Also, if they really did require reconfirmations, the number of administrators would shrink to the point that it would become fairly obvious how few admins Wikipedia really has, and how many of them are deeply compromised.

That's clearly true, but it's equally clearly true that nothing will change until someone in authority such as the WMF imposes such a change.

Knock, knock? Who's there? WMF. Fuck off we're busy uploading kiddie porn.


This post has been edited by lilburne: Sun 26th June 2011, 8:21pm