Dude, my LJ alerts just went off.

Parker Peters has a major scoop today: they "banned" him from their mailing list, despite no problems and users defending his posts and interacting fine - because he was able to expose the lies of a cabal member.

http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/

This shit is great! We need to get it out as much as possible, seriously. Maybe someone should archive the mailing list posts in case they decide to try to scrub their archives too, wouldn't put that shit past those lying sons of bitches.

Looks like I'm not the only one seeing it, there's a Digg link now:

http://digg.com/tech_news/Wikipedia_admin_..._making_coverup

Digg it all you can, folks.

Maybe he got banned for stuff like this:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ary/062724.html

Just guessing though

If the moderators let it through, why should he be banned for it?

Oh, wait... Ashibaka... right, a fascistpedia fascist admin coming by to badmouth people, right.

Aw, c'mon, Ashibaka isn't so bad...

I'm hardly one to talk, of course, given that I pretty much took the lead on restricting two of our own members here (ElectricRay and Nobs) just recently. Even non-fascists get fed up after a while! (This assumes that I'm a non-fascist, of course. I just checked, though, and I wasn't wearing an armband.)

Parker Peters does have some good ideas and quite a few valid criticisms, but let's be honest here - as soon as that whole Gmail thing happened, he was chopped liver as far as they were concerned, regardless of whether or not he actually is an admin over there... Tell you what, unless there are strenuous objections, I'll go ahead and put a link to his blog in the "Useful Links" list. As long as he continues to bash Dave Gerard like that, he's OK by me!

He revealed the truth about JPGordon lying about a CheckUser, and published the real results.

The only way Wikipedia would be able to prove him wrong is to try to shut him up, for sure.

They're protecting JPGordon.

I would hardly say there were "no problems". Keep in mind the user was on moderation and not all of his/her emails reached the mailing list.



How charming.

The WikiEN-l mailing list is already publicly archived/mirrored by Gmane:

http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.lingui...kipedia.english



As I stated on the mailing list (you must have missed my email in response to Parker Peters, or you are blindly believing everything they say for whatever reason), I independently got two uninvolved CheckUsers to examine the CheckUser log for the users Peters claimed to post the CheckUser "data" for. The only person at that time to have queried all 3 users in question was JPGordon. Parker Peters could only have gotten the CheckUser data from JPGordon, and considering Parker Peters' vitriolic attacking of JPGordon's actions, I don't think that is very likely. His only response to my comment to that effect on the list was to ask me to do a CheckUser lookup on the users myself.

There was also no posting of the CheckUser results on the CheckUsers' mailing list.

So there are several possibilities stemming from this:

1. Parker Peters has access to the CheckUser data in a way that doesn't leave something on the log (i.e. a developer with database access) -- unlikely

2. JPGordon gave Parker Peters the CheckUser data, mistakenly taking the person for someone they can trust -- unlikely

3. Parker Peters has hacked into JPGordon's computer -- unlikely

4. Parker Peters is lying about having the CheckUser data, and is either making it up or going off what he/she has been told directly by the user(s) concerned -- possible

5. Parker Peters is in fact the concerned user(s) and knows whether there is IP crossovers etc. because he or she made sure to keep the IPs separated etc. when using the accounts -- also possible.


The assertion that as a list administrator I am "protecting" JPGordon from being exposed as a big boogeyman is ridiculous, especially considering I don't recall ever having any significant interaction with JPGordon (except maybe for random exchanges in IRC channels -- I lose track of nicknames in there for everyone except the most vocal regulars).

Hey look, sweet - PP got Dugg, and one of Wiki's scumbags pops in to try to defend themselves here.

Why don't they just come clean?



And your point is? I was on that list too once, but I got "moderated" because the islamist cabal didn't want to have anyone writing truthful articles about islam, they just want it to be propaganda filth.



You got two "uninvolved checkusers" huh? I wonder why the Checkuser log isn't public, so that everyone can see who did it?

But sure I'll bite.

1. - As likely as anything else.
2. - And how do you know?
3. - I agree, not likely.

4. - And if the users are telling the truth, and JPGordon is the one lying?

5. - IF PP is all of them, that'd be a laugh, but I don't think so. I think that #1 is the truth.

HEre's a funny thing. If PP really were #5, and if the IP addresses were indeed completely different then, what WOULD the results of the CheckUser be? Well?

That's something for you to ask. There are at least 4 things on this list you gave that don't require PP to be lying about what what the checkuser should have shown.

I think the checkuser ought to be checked. I think JPGordon is lying. Occam's razor says the simplest answer is most often true, the simplest answer to any of the above is: JPGordon did indeed lie about the result. You admit people are checking WHO made the checks, but not one of them checked to see whether or not PP's analysis is right. I think he is. I think PP has the results, and JPGordon lied about them, because that's what makes the most sense.

You admit people are still hiding the actual results. Why is that?

Don't you have any social skills whatsoever? Grow some civility if you want people to actually consider what you say instead of writing you off as a lunatic fringe weirdo.



At the time you said it was because of David Gerard assuming you were Enviroknot. What's changed?



That's a very good question, one which I would like to know the answer to as well. I can understand the Oversight log being private (so that people don't go and hunt out mirrored versions of removed revisions just for the sake of it), but not the CheckUser log.



I don't agree; there are only a very small handful of developers who have access to the database to access such data directly. But sure, it's still possible, hence why I listed it.



JPGordon has said they didn't give any data to anyone (and in fact that there is no such thing as "CheckUser Data" - the function doesn't return a coherent table or anything.



I don't know what the CheckUser results are. I don't have CheckUser access and don't want it. Doing the CheckUsers and keeping a watch over one another is the job for those with CheckUser access, and I note that in the CheckUser log I saw, two other CheckUsers (not the two I asked to look at the log) had also performed checks on the users concerned. If JPGordon's findings were wrong, there are two CheckUsers there who would be able to contradict JPGordon's results. But they haven't. So assuming those two CheckUsers are trustworthy, then I think it's fair to also assume the veracity of JPGordon's results. But if you feel there is a need for a re-check, I suppose you could always take it to RfCU again.

Dear Mark,

Welcome to the Wikipedia Review. You will find that many of our foragers are accustomed to speaking the vernacular. Not a few of us consider traits like directness, honesty, and a certain tolerance for diverse forms of expression to be far more important social skills than the cynical sort of pseudo-civility that we know and despise from Wikipedia. Personally, I find Queeran's manner of expressing contempt for certain patterns of conduct to be clear and comprehensible.

Jonny

Considering the worst (and only) two things I have ever done to "Queeran" are to not clear the WikiEN-l moderation queue for a week (hey, we all get busy) and dare to respond with something other than total agreement, and his response was to call me a "scumbag" (and, indirectly, a "lying son of a bitch"), then it's no wonder he's not allowed to edit Wikipedia, if that is what he considers to be acceptable, constructive communication. And considering it is accepted, encouraged and, as you say, 'the vernacular', on this site, then it probably just indicates that your members are better off here than attempting to edit Wikipedia.

As I understand it, when you go to the CheckUser page you see two boxes: username and IP. If you type in a username, you get all of the IPs that that user has edited from (as far back as the logs go). If you type in an IP, you get all of the usernames who have used that IP. You can also specify a range of IPs, so 123.234.0.0/16 will give you all IPs starting with 123.234.

I don't know what the checkuser log looks like; presumably it tells you who has run a checkuser and when, and the parameters (i.e. which users and IPs were searched).

I'd have to say that last bit is certainly true, but I don't think we encourage people to use vulgar terminology - especially when describing other members... We may be more tolerant of it than we should be, but then again, most people here have been through a lot worse!

Queeran does seem to be a bit of a hot-head at times, I'll admit. We haven't sent him any warnings or anything - and indeed, it may be that we're just a little afraid of him - but if he keeps it up, I can assure you that we'll take the standard-issue steps. (We even have a new proposed policy and everything!)

Dear Mark,

Look, I just got back from a vacation devoutly to be wished and I don't know anything about you but the first couple of your postings that I randomly lit on. But you're coming at me like a Hare Krishna at the e-port, or a Wikipedian Funnel-Mentalist thumping your Babel, preaching your gospel of wikicultism like we're supposed to adopt it without barfing on site.

The way I see it, you have a lot to learn about real-world civility.

Jonny

Mark here is one of the moderators of WikiEN-L, as most of us probably know... I suspect his decision to join us was motivated partially by an increase in the general level of hostility among their subscribers (see this post) and partially due to the whole "Parker Peters Problem" - which is to say that Parker Peters exposed a larger problem that's somewhat specific to that list, namely that their subscribers can't really agree on what level of WP-bashing is considered acceptable there, particularly if it's intelligently written.

Whoever he is, Parker Peters is probably one of the most energetic, clever, and motivated anti-Wikipedia types they've ever encountered. And until recently, he's operated mainly on their own turf, which obviously upsets them to no end. He's also part of a whole new class of Enemy Combatant, namely those who treat the whole thing as a kind of performance art, and their numbers will only increase as they get more sophisticated and learn what succeeds and what doesn't. While it's certainly amusing to see it happen, you really do have to sympathize with Mark here to some extent - people who can divide communities like that can be very frustrating indeed!

(Just look at me!)

You get more than that - you get a list of the edits made from that IP - article, date, time and user.

Thanks for the info -- that puts the Gospel of Mark past the shadow of a doubt for me, and saves me the benefits thereof. When it comes to playing nice, I promise to give him as good as I got on WikiEN-L when last I visited there.

Jonny