Examining the New Checkuser Trio

[Triptych]

There is a trio of new checkusers: Bbb23 (T-C-L), Callanecc (T-C-L), and Mike_V (T-C-L).

In the interests of protecting regular Wikipedia editors, who now have three more entities probing their IP, browser, OS and other information, I'm taking a look at them.

Encyclopedia Dramatica has very little on them. It does describe Bbb23 as obsessively fussy and has a picture it suggests may have been planted by him or her as a red herring.

Bbb23. There's a Wikia page on the video game Mortal Kombat in which a "Bbb23" (same capitalization) is involved. Also involved with Grand Theft Auto video game. Here's an interesting exchange quoted on somebody's blog:

Wiki: “I’ve deleted your sandbox. Don’t recreate it with a self-promoting article about you, or you risk being blocked.–Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)”

Mary Cummins: “Why are you stalking me here? Why are you following me? Who are you? I need a copy of the page you deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC).” (Http://marycumminsmarycummins.com/2013/ ... nt-page-1/.)

I never understood the need of some admins to delete stuff a user works on in his or sandbox rather than politely saying "you won't be able to put this up as an article." Itchy Twinkle finger, I guess. Oh, ED says Bbb23 banned AmericanDad86 who was the newbie victim of a grotesque WP:AN/ANI mobbing. I remember him, he was pretty cool, would have been a fine and productive editor were it not for those stupid jackals that went at him, <sarcasm on> because they know all the cool lingo like "WP:NOTHERE" and "WP:POINT" and so forth, and he didn't. They live at WP:AN/ANI and are obviously more about creating an encyclopedia than some dude writing the article on the "American Dad" animated TV show <sarcasm off>.

More than 4000 users have been blocked by Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

Callanecc's first edits were in 2009 on Australian military matters. With admins you never really know because they often go back to sanitize their edit histories, or get a pal to do it. His or her early edit history could be legit, though he or she edited in infrequent bursts. By 2012 he or she is editing more frequently and it's pretty much all administrative: tagging, deleting, etc. He or she says at his or her userpage that he or she has three alternate accounts, each a variation of "Callanecc." He or she definitely seems to be Australian, it's not just the military stuff. Callanecc is an Arbcom clerk and a non-arb member of AUSC which is supposed to watchdog checkuser and other advanced tools abuse (but never appears to have actually done this).

Mike V: First (apparent) edits were in 2007 on "Super Smash Bros." a video game for the Nintendo Wii. Edits (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =156634283) show an interest in a "magnet" high school in Michigan, USA. I think magnet schools in USA are quality public schools specializing in this or that, which thinking parents try to get their kids accepted into. Mike V's recent activity is all sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry, he's found his true inclination it looks like.

[Moral Hazard]

The National Basketball Association (T-H-L) (NBA) barred The Cleveland Cavaliers (T-H-L) owner, Ted Stepien (T-H-L), from making any further trades, after he had made so many bad ones.

[thekohser]

...Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

Sexist.

[Konveyor Belt]

...Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

Sexist.

Why can't everyone just use the neutral, singular "they"? (In particular, why do people feel the need to make up words like xe when a good one already exists?)

[Marinka]

There is a trio of new checkusers: Bbb23 (T-C-L), Callanecc (T-C-L), and Mike_V (T-C-L).

In the interests of protecting regular Wikipedia editors, who now have three more entities probing their IP, browser, OS and other information, I'm taking a look at them.

Encyclopedia Dramatica has very little on them. It does describe Bbb23 as obsessively fussy and has a picture it suggests may have been planted by him or her as a red herring.

Bbb23. There's a Wikia page on the video game Mortal Kombat in which a "Bbb23" (same capitalization) is involved. Also involved with Grand Theft Auto video game. Here's an interesting exchange quoted on somebody's blog:

Wiki: “I’ve deleted your sandbox. Don’t recreate it with a self-promoting article about you, or you risk being blocked.–Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)”

Mary Cummins: “Why are you stalking me here? Why are you following me? Who are you? I need a copy of the page you deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC).” (Http://marycumminsmarycummins.com/2013/ ... nt-page-1/.)

I never understood the need of some admins to delete stuff a user works on in his or sandbox rather than politely saying "you won't be able to put this up as an article." Itchy Twinkle finger, I guess. Oh, ED says Bbb23 banned AmericanDad86 who was the newbie victim of a grotesque WP:AN/ANI mobbing. I remember him, he was pretty cool, would have been a fine and productive editor were it not for those stupid jackals that went at him, <sarcasm on> because they know all the cool lingo like "WP:NOTHERE" and "WP:POINT" and so forth, and he didn't. They live at WP:AN/ANI and are obviously more about creating an encyclopedia than some dude writing the article on the "American Dad" animated TV show <sarcasm off>.

More than 4000 users have been blocked by Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

Callanecc's first edits were in 2009 on Australian military matters. With admins you never really know because they often go back to sanitize their edit histories, or get a pal to do it. His or her early edit history could be legit, though he or she edited in infrequent bursts. By 2012 he or she is editing more frequently and it's pretty much all administrative: tagging, deleting, etc. He or she says at his or her userpage that he or she has three alternate accounts, each a variation of "Callanecc." He or she definitely seems to be Australian, it's not just the military stuff. Callanecc is an Arbcom clerk and a non-arb member of AUSC which is supposed to watchdog checkuser and other advanced tools abuse (but never appears to have actually done this).

Mike V: First (apparent) edits were in 2007 on "Super Smash Bros." a video game for the Nintendo Wii. Edits (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =156634283) show an interest in a "magnet" high school in Michigan, USA. I think magnet schools in USA are quality public schools specializing in this or that, which thinking parents try to get their kids accepted into. Mike V's recent activity is all sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry, he's found his true inclination it looks like.

BBB23 has a picture of Château de Bourdeilles on his user page. That's an opera venue which fits his opera buff profile. I do have from another source confirmation his IP resolves to a Dordogne, France, location. Unfortunately I didn't keep a note of the location because he hadn't really come onto to my radar then, though I'll recognize it when I see it. Looks to me like a retired lawyer from San Francisco running a gay guest house in the Dordogne. My guess is that bbb23 refers to his establishment being number 23 in a BBB (Better Business Bureau) list at the time. I've put out a call amongst my folk for his identity. I've never once doxed a web identity, but I will be doxing this one here, there and everywhere. I'll give him a lesson in privacy invasion.

[Zoloft]

I'd like a more substantial reason for poking around in someone's private business than 'obsessively fussy' and deleted somebody's user space page.
Believe it or not, such a thing is not helpful to this site unless they are a mover and shaker and have at the very least a red lightsaber.

[eppur si muove]

More than 4000 users have been blocked by Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

This allows for a whole new game. If Bbb23 were a character from a particular opera which would he be? I started by thinking about Berg's Wozzeck and have a choice between three authority figures: the snivelling captain, the doctor with his weird experiments, and the bullying drum-major.

[Poetlister]

Has The Good Soldier Schweik been made into an opera? He's the doctor who is about to declare someone who claims to be unfit for military service to be a malingerer when the man drops dead.

[Triptych]

More than 4000 users have been blocked by Bbb23, according to his or her user page, where Bbb23 say he is a non-drinker that enjoys opera.

This allows for a whole new game. If Bbb23 were a character from a particular opera which would he be? I started by thinking about Berg's Wozzeck and have a choice between three authority figures: the snivelling captain, the doctor with his weird experiments, and the bullying drum-major.

Thank you for calling that part of my remark to Zoloft's attention. Red light sabre.

[thekohser]

Thank you for calling that part of my remark to Zoloft's attention. Red light sabre.

Is 4,000 blocks really a big deal, on a site that (by my count) blocks about 1,200 users per day? Or is it more that he brags about it on his user page?

[Poetlister]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

[Triptych]

Thank you for calling that part of my remark to Zoloft's attention. Red light sabre.

Is 4,000 blocks really a big deal, on a site that (by my count) blocks about 1,200 users per day? Or is it more that he brags about it on his user page?

I wouldn't call it "bragging," as he or she just puts up a statistics table of various administrative metrics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23). I actually approve of that part.

[Triptych]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

He (or she, by the way if he or she has said either, I haven't seen it) blocked AmericandDad86 (T-C-L) for 48 hours by the blocklog, I was thinking it was a perma-block. Americandad86 a "serious contributor?" He's doing pop culture and TV show-type stuff, a lot of it. ED has a quote where he was supremely snotty to another editor that made a grammar (only) edit that was incorrect, but I didn't verify this by finding the diff.

I scanned Bbb23's recent contributions log, it's vastly sockpuppetry stuff. Maybe somebody else wants to have a look and make an appraisal. That link I gave above regarding "Mary Cummins" is kind of strange. It does feature ye olde Bwilkins calling an editor a dolt (via WP:DOLT, (sarcasm on) which totally makes the insult okay (sarcasm off)).

I wasn't implying agreement with what Marinka said. "Doxing" is other than "identifying." Those who've read me here for a while know my disagreement with the WMF's decision to stop requiring identication (to it) from those it grants access to the privacy-sensitive information (IPs, UTRS, etc. etc. etc.) of rank and file editors. In the absence of that, I think it creates a pressure for them to be otherwise identified (for example, by or in the name of editors mistreated by them) but I disagree that that means doxing.

[Marinka]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

Yes, that's right. What we see are hundreds of trivial actions camouflaging perhaps the occasional not so trivial actions I've been glancing through his contributions. He's making a deliberate effort now to conceal his identity. The legal background (California) and the Dordogne is all that is certain I think, possible the LGBT sympathies he earlier expressed. I've emailed all my French opera buff enthusiasts (I have a few).

Nominated for admin by Miesy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) (why was KW banned? just seen that) observed that his edits are overwhelmingly minor (other than his legal edits I add). Miesy gives two article starts, but they're pedestrian. What you would hope from any competent editor, amongst whom Miesy not necessarily to be found explaining impressed perhaps? Otherwise his edits are for the most part in popular culture as far as I can see. An early fan of Justin Bieber when he was still winsome and cuddly. Got the old mojo going for Daniel Radcliffe phwaaw! (that one's genuine honest. I went myself just to people watch the other pervs going, of which an amazing number turned out to be respectable ladies of a certain age with adoloscent daughters in tow - that was pretty depressing). 100+ edits, and where have we seen that sort of fandom else?

This is bbb23 on Miesy's boy. Mrs. Mies gets no credit.

I would say NSA. Don't know any NSA buffs, honest, so can't help really.

[Marinka]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

He (or she, by the way if he or she has said either, I haven't seen it) blocked AmericandDad86 (T-C-L) for 48 hours by the blocklog, I was thinking it was a perma-block. Americandad86 a "serious contributor?" He's doing pop culture and TV show-type stuff, a lot of it. ED has a quote where he was supremely snotty to another editor that made a grammar (only) edit that was incorrect, but I didn't verify this by finding the diff.

I scanned Bbb23's recent contributions log, it's vastly sockpuppetry stuff. Maybe somebody else wants to have a look and make an appraisal. That link I gave above regarding "Mary Cummins" is kind of strange. It does feature ye olde Bwilkins calling an editor a dolt (via WP:DOLT, (sarcasm on) which totally makes the insult okay (sarcasm off)).

I wasn't implying agreement with what Marinka said. "Doxing" is other than "identifying." Those who've read me here for a while know my disagreement with the WMF's decision to stop requiring identification (to it) from those it grants access to the privacy-sensitive information (IPs, UTRS, etc. etc. etc.) of rank and file editors. In the absence of that, I think it creates a pressure for them to be otherwise identified (for example, by or in the name of editors mistreated by them) but I disagree that that means doxing.

[Edit conflict] I'm thinking more along extra-judicial lines now ... Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll look through recent stuff and make a serious analysis of the early less guarded contributions, but I'm pretty sure he not going to be giving much away. Understand that about identification v doxing. But I will be doxing. Not here in deference to your and Zoloft's views, somewhere deep and dark down under maybe .

[Vigilant]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

He (or she, by the way if he or she has said either, I haven't seen it) blocked AmericandDad86 (T-C-L) for 48 hours by the blocklog, I was thinking it was a perma-block. Americandad86 a "serious contributor?" He's doing pop culture and TV show-type stuff, a lot of it. ED has a quote where he was supremely snotty to another editor that made a grammar (only) edit that was incorrect, but I didn't verify this by finding the diff.

I scanned Bbb23's recent contributions log, it's vastly sockpuppetry stuff. Maybe somebody else wants to have a look and make an appraisal. That link I gave above regarding "Mary Cummins" is kind of strange. It does feature ye olde Bwilkins calling an editor a dolt (via WP:DOLT, (sarcasm on) which totally makes the insult okay (sarcasm off)).

I wasn't implying agreement with what Marinka said. "Doxing" is other than "identifying." Those who've read me here for a while know my disagreement with the WMF's decision to stop requiring identification (to it) from those it grants access to the privacy-sensitive information (IPs, UTRS, etc. etc. etc.) of rank and file editors. In the absence of that, I think it creates a pressure for them to be otherwise identified (for example, by or in the name of editors mistreated by them) but I disagree that that means doxing.

[Edit conflict] I'm thinking more along extra-judicial lines now ... Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll look through recent stuff and make a serious analysis of the early less guarded contributions, but I'm pretty sure he not going to be giving much away. Understand that about identification v doxing. But I will be doxing. Not here in deference to your and Zoloft's views, somewhere deep and dark down under maybe .

I'd recommend getting a web domain of the form www.FirstnameLastnameIsBbb23.com using domains by proxy and filling the page with the person's name and Bbb23.

[Triptych]

Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll look through recent stuff and make a serious analysis of the early less guarded contributions, but I'm pretty sure he not going to be giving much away. Understand that about identification v doxing.

That's 100% right about the WMF decision. I can't this moment, but a little later I'll give you links and (I believe) some important perspective. You can websearch for "Access to Non-Public Information" "WMF" if you want something right away.

Oh, when I said "I wasn't implying agreement with what Marinka said" I meant "I wasn't implying agreement with everything Marinka said."

[Marinka]

It depends whom he blocks. I expect most blocks are spambots or childish vandals. If he blocks serious contributors for dubious reasons, that's an entirely different matter.

He (or she, by the way if he or she has said either, I haven't seen it) blocked AmericandDad86 (T-C-L) for 48 hours by the blocklog, I was thinking it was a perma-block. Americandad86 a "serious contributor?" He's doing pop culture and TV show-type stuff, a lot of it. ED has a quote where he was supremely snotty to another editor that made a grammar (only) edit that was incorrect, but I didn't verify this by finding the diff.

I scanned Bbb23's recent contributions log, it's vastly sockpuppetry stuff. Maybe somebody else wants to have a look and make an appraisal. That link I gave above regarding "Mary Cummins" is kind of strange. It does feature ye olde Bwilkins calling an editor a dolt (via WP:DOLT, (sarcasm on) which totally makes the insult okay (sarcasm off)).

I wasn't implying agreement with what Marinka said. "Doxing" is other than "identifying." Those who've read me here for a while know my disagreement with the WMF's decision to stop requiring identification (to it) from those it grants access to the privacy-sensitive information (IPs, UTRS, etc. etc. etc.) of rank and file editors. In the absence of that, I think it creates a pressure for them to be otherwise identified (for example, by or in the name of editors mistreated by them) but I disagree that that means doxing.

[Edit conflict] I'm thinking more along extra-judicial lines now ... Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll look through recent stuff and make a serious analysis of the early less guarded contributions, but I'm pretty sure he not going to be giving much away. Understand that about identification v doxing. But I will be doxing. Not here in deference to your and Zoloft's views, somewhere deep and dark down under maybe .

I'd recommend getting a web domain of the form http://www.FirstnameLastnameIsBbb23.com using domains by proxy and filling the page with the person's name and Bbb23.

Trying something of the sort already ... that's true what I said about finding (but not on my website) an IP resolving somewhere in the Dordogne, just cant' remember where.

On my site a couple of days I made a deliberately provocative remark of the sort that would annoy (say) Recep Erdoğan.Within minutes I had three visits from IPs resolving to Instanbul. Scary.

[Triptych]

Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll give you some links, but what I want to say upfront is that the WMF is misleading editors about the matter, and an indication of this I've found is that a great amount of them, and even WMF employees, and you, are surprised to find out the identities of checkusers, oversighters, arbs, and so forth are not required to be known to it.

The smoke-screen starts at number one, here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ac ... ata_policy. "Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation, where that data or other information is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy."

But if that's the case, what's the statement of Director of Whatever-He-Is-Now Philippe Beaudette here mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =398201391. "We verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age we update the Identification Noticeboard, and any physical copies are shredded; any virtual copies are removed from the mailbox and destroyed." In case you read from that this "Identification Noticeboard" is a physical thing in a locked office in which actual names are marked on there, it's not. It's this page on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identif ... oticeboard. No names.

So, are the identities of those administrators granted the advanced rights "known to the Wikimedia Foundation?" No, of course not. The WMF is misleading people. If the idea is occurring to you, "well Philippe said that in 2010, maybe somebody else involved in this matter is properly maintaining the identification documents in a safe or whatever by now," I think he's still the person doing it or at least the senior person doing it, he's the "director"-level one. He's still among those updating the noticeboard if you look at its history. I noticed this James Alexander (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jalexander-WMF) "manager"-level guy is also involved with it now if you want somebody else to ask "is shred-and-forget still the practice?"

Now, the plot thickened further last year. The WMF Board of Trustees voted to change the policy in April, 2014, as I said: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_ ... ion_policy. That requires only four things: A "certification [by the individual of minimum age," a "valid, linked, email address," and an "agreement to read and certify that they agree" to a statement on how they're supposed to treat the non-public information." The words "identity" and "identified" and "identify" are not in the new policy that I can see.

Another plot twist if you noticed: the new policy has a banner stating basically "it's not in effect yet, so go back and read the old policy" (which they're not following). If all this seems to someone sorting it out that it must be confusing to prospective new editors trying to understand how their IP etc. etc. etc. data is protected and even long-term existing editors with the same question, he or she with all this should ask himself or herself "is it possibly meant to be?"

[Poetlister]

On my site a couple of days I made a deliberately provocative remark of the sort that would annoy (say) Recep Erdoğan.Within minutes I had three visits from IPs resolving to Instanbul. Scary.

Yes, he's terribly paranoid. He no doubt has you listed as a Gulenist.

[Marinka]

Is that right about the WMF decision? That check users don't need to provide evidence of identification? Is that really so. Can you give me a link?

I'll give you some links, but what I want to say upfront is that the WMF is misleading editors about the matter, and an indication of this I've found is that a great amount of them, and even WMF employees, and you, are surprised to find out the identities of checkusers, oversighters, arbs, and so forth are not required to be known to it.

The smoke-screen starts at number one, here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ac ... ata_policy. "Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation, where that data or other information is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy."

But if that's the case, what's the statement of Director of Whatever-He-Is-Now Philippe Beaudette here mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =398201391. "We verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age we update the Identification Noticeboard, and any physical copies are shredded; any virtual copies are removed from the mailbox and destroyed." In case you read from that this "Identification Noticeboard" is a physical thing in a locked office in which actual names are marked on there, it's not. It's this page on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identif ... oticeboard. No names.

So, are the identities of those administrators granted the advanced rights "known to the Wikimedia Foundation?" No, of course not. The WMF is misleading people. If the idea is occurring to you, "well Philippe said that in 2010, maybe somebody else involved in this matter is properly maintaining the identification documents in a safe or whatever by now," I think he's still the person doing it or at least the senior person doing it, he's the "director"-level one. He's still among those updating the noticeboard if you look at its history. I noticed this James Alexander (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jalexander-WMF) "manager"-level guy is also involved with it now if you want somebody else to ask "is shred-and-forget still the practice?"

Now, the plot thickened further last year. The WMF Board of Trustees voted to change the policy in April, 2014, as I said: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_ ... ion_policy. That requires only four things: A "certification [by the individual of minimum age," a "valid, linked, email address," and an "agreement to read and certify that they agree" to a statement on how they're supposed to treat the non-public information." The words "identity" and "identified" and "identify" are not in the new policy that I can see.

Another plot twist if you noticed: the new policy has a banner stating basically "it's not in effect yet, so go back and read the old policy" (which they're not following). If all this seems to someone sorting it out that it must be confusing to prospective new editors trying to understand how their IP etc. etc. etc. data is protected and even long-term existing editors with the same question, he or she with all this should ask himself or herself "is it possibly meant to be?"

First of all, thank you very much Triptych for taking the trouble to respond. Really appreciated.

You're right. I had never really thought about the issue. I just assumed they were somehow known to the Wikimedia foundation. But of course they're not. All they really know about bbb23 is that someone one glanced at an email containing an image he said was his driving licence before wiping it. bbb23 is elected to this position as a check user solely on his edits on Wikipedia. Nothing is really known about him. [CENSORED]He could be living in Manchester prevented by court orders from grooming adoloescent girls but otherwise at large (there are such individuals), known to everyone in his community as a thoroughly dangerous psycho who shouldn't be trusted with the time of day, but because he has this long record at Wikipedia of deleting edits by vandals wishing to let the world know that Daniel Radcliffe has a maggot for a dong, he gets all this oversight.[/censor]

That's the thing about Wikipedia, the idea that because you spend your entire day making hundreds of edits a day on Wikipedia, you're somehow a saint. So weird.

[Triptych]

First of all, thank you very much Triptych for taking the trouble to respond. Really appreciated.

You're right. I had never really thought about the issue. I just assumed they were somehow known to the Wikimedia foundation. But of course they're not.

I'm happy to shed light on this matter. If you want more, I think I read that the checkuser weapon as implemented on Meta also reveals the email address of anyone that has used that function there. I'd be interested to know if that is also the case case on English (and the others I guess) Wikipedia. I keep up with this stuff as if deranged, do you suppose average Wikipedia editors know it?

[Marinka]

First of all, thank you very much Triptych for taking the trouble to respond. Really appreciated.

You're right. I had never really thought about the issue. I just assumed they were somehow known to the Wikimedia foundation. But of course they're not.

I'm happy to shed light on this matter. If you want more, I think I read that the checkuser weapon as implemented on Meta also reveals the email address of anyone that has used that function there. I'd be interested to know if that is also the case case on English (and the others I guess) Wikipedia. I keep up with this stuff as if deranged, do you suppose average Wikipedia editors know it?

Thanks for this Triptych. I can't really contribute further because I frankly don't much know much about Wikipedia. I just contribute to it obsessively on the subject of Vincent van Gogh and "(shall we say) underage human sexuality" (not zoophilia then, so it's not all bad) to quote a certain Wikipedia editor's SPI request on my good mate C1cada (T-C-L). I did tip off Eric Barbour in a private communication last year that C1cada would be one of ours, so that's fair ... .

Some radio silence from me in order I think. Keep up the good work everyone. I'll message Eric in the unlikely event I identify bbb23 (Eric did express an interest), but I can tell you now that's not going to happen. Still I'll throw everything I have at his account and see what I can come up with.

Apologies to Zoloft on a misjudged speculation which I'm sure he was quite right to edit out.

Just in case a certain editor is looking in, there's no such things as underage sexuality i.e. infant sexuality (the editor concerned rather more challenged by English than he's prepared to admit) in my view and of very many others. Of course the concept emerged with Freud, who was anxious to provide (through the Oedipus complex) a rationale for the acquisition of morality. In later life he himself regretted that he had not paid more attention to the possibility of seduction scenarios (abuse) when analyzing his patients' infant recollections. The cigar really was a dick all along.

[Triptych]

Off topic! But it's been drifting a bit now. If a moderator sees fit to split the semi-on-topic posts relating to access to non-public information policy, it's okay with me. Also on that question I noticed James Alexander responding to an editor, about the now-15-months delay on implementing the new, worse, policy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ac ... ementation.

I too hoped to have this done long long ago. Because the current implementation "works" until we're ready to roll out this has, for better or worse, not been the top priority. It has been a victim of the enormous amount of work that both the legal and CA side have been dealing with (on my side for example the past couple months have ranged from election issues, that caused a fair bit of work for me during my vacation, to worse then average community safety issues). I don't want to promise any specific time frame at this point but I will promise that I REALLY want to get it done and that I want to get it done as soon as physically possible. Hopefully that means I'll be able to get around to it in the very immediate future ( I am certainly not trying to slack off on it for what it's worth, I'm in the office today, and likely tomorrow, doing sadly unrelated work). Jalexander--WMF 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I read somewhere else where he did mention a "specific time frame" when he commented last year, he said basically "goal is three months from now." I think it's been a full year now since that target passed. But I'm not saying James Alexander is the (main) hold-up. He's also said they can't sort out the software, which would mean WMF either doesn't have a capable engineer or is intentionally delaying it, both plausible. But even just generally I think the higher-ups of an organization must be involved when a board-passed new policy goes 15 months and isn't implemented.

[Marinka]

Off topic! But it's been drifting a bit now. If a moderator sees fit to split the semi-on-topic posts relating to access to non-public information policy, it's okay with me. Also on that question I noticed James Alexander responding to an editor, about the now-15-months delay on implementing the new, worse, policy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ac ... ementation.

I too hoped to have this done long long ago. Because the current implementation "works" until we're ready to roll out this has, for better or worse, not been the top priority. It has been a victim of the enormous amount of work that both the legal and CA side have been dealing with (on my side for example the past couple months have ranged from election issues, that caused a fair bit of work for me during my vacation, to worse then average community safety issues). I don't want to promise any specific time frame at this point but I will promise that I REALLY want to get it done and that I want to get it done as soon as physically possible. Hopefully that means I'll be able to get around to it in the very immediate future ( I am certainly not trying to slack off on it for what it's worth, I'm in the office today, and likely tomorrow, doing sadly unrelated work). Jalexander--WMF 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I read somewhere else where he did mention a "specific time frame" when he commented last year, he said basically "goal is three months from now." I think it's been a full year now since that target passed. But I'm not saying James Alexander is the (main) hold-up. He's also said they can't sort out the software, which would mean WMF either doesn't have a capable engineer or is intentionally delaying it, both plausible. But even just generally I think the higher-ups of an organization must be involved when a board-passed new policy goes 15 months and isn't implemented.

OK with me too if you find present company embarrassing . I did appreciate your contribution nevertheless. Is this really the first time the site has debated it?

When Wikipedia recently published its revised privacy policy we went to some trouble to let the Wikimedia foundation know that it didn't in fact meet the legal requirements in California. Needless to say our remarks were entirely ignored. That's the thing with the law, no one really pays the slightest attention to it.

I have an off-topic remark to make about Schrems and Facebook here, and then I'm on my way. Thank you all for putting me up with. I'm afraid I'll probably be back, but not for a while promise.

[Triptych]

OK with me too if you find present company embarrassing . I did appreciate your contribution nevertheless. Is this really the first time the site has debated it?

When Wikipedia recently published its revised privacy policy we went to some trouble to let the Wikimedia foudation know that it didn't in fact meet the legal requirements in California. Needless to say our remarks were entirely ignored. That's the thing with the law, no one really pays the slightest attention to it.

I have an off-topic remark to make about Schrems and Facebook here, and then I'm on my way. Thank you all for putting me up with. I'm afraid I'll probably be back, but not for a while promise.

"Off topic!" is just a half-humorous half-huffy comment people make here all the time. Most use the mad-smiley image. The management here does want the thread-content to have to do with the thread title.

This is not the first time the revised non-public information policy matter was discussed here, but it's murky to keep up with, and getting murkier all the time. Some disagree with me that it represents a real problem that WMF accords those accesses to entities that are largely anonymous.

[Marinka]

OK with me too if you find present company embarrassing . I did appreciate your contribution nevertheless. Is this really the first time the site has debated it?

When Wikipedia recently published its revised privacy policy we went to some trouble to let the Wikimedia foudation know that it didn't in fact meet the legal requirements in California. Needless to say our remarks were entirely ignored. That's the thing with the law, no one really pays the slightest attention to it.

I have an off-topic remark to make about Schrems and Facebook here, and then I'm on my way. Thank you all for putting me up with. I'm afraid I'll probably be back, but not for a while promise.

"Off topic!" is just a half-humorous half-huffy comment people make here all the time. Most use the mad-smiley image. The management here does want the thread-content to have to do with the thread title.

This is not the first time the revised non-public information policy matter was discussed here, but it's murky to keep up with, and getting murkier all the time. Some disagree with me that it represents a real problem that WMF accords those accesses to entities that are largely anonymous.

Strikes me as a massive problem. See my Facebook post in the Off-topic section section of the forum. Ciao for now. Pleasant.