Russavia-Fae proxying reaching new extremes

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:22 pm

Jim wrote:I think you should give him about half an hour to do that to himself even more anusingly.

He's proven quite good at that.

If that's a typo, it's easily the best Freudian slip i've seen lately!

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:43 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:I think you should give him about half an hour to do that to himself even more anusingly.

He's proven quite good at that.
If that's a typo, it's easily the best Freudian slip i've seen lately!

It was a typo. 'n' is next to 'm' on my keyboard. I think that's fairly connom.

But I'm prepared to claim it was deliberate too, now it's been pointed out, and is funny. I have no shame.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:01 pm

The Adversary wrote:At this rate, it will be at least Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(101) before we have any chance of seeing Archangel Vigilant.

I love the way that, after 2 days of everyone saying "No, obviously not -fuck off", these things get left to drift gently onto the rocks upon which they were always destined to smash, for the entire rest of the week.

Just that "performance art" thing, I guess.

I don't really know why that amuses me, but it does.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:00 pm

Oh. look.

The mean people have hurt Ashley's feelings so much he may need to change his sock again.

In truth I have not done much for at least 3 months and have been pondering the benefits of abandoning "Fae", there are many.

Yeah, that's the spirit, Ash. You'll blend straight in like OrangeMike at a chartered accountant's convention. You have such restraint that detection would be impossible.

Pro tip: User:YooHoo-OverHere-LookItsMeAgain is possibly available.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:14 pm

Jim wrote:Oh. look.

The mean people have hurt Ashley's feelings so much he may need to change his sock again.
In truth I have not done much for at least 3 months and have been pondering the benefits of abandoning "Fae", there are many.
Yeah, that's the spirit, Ash. You'll blend straight in like OrangeMike at a chartered accountant's convention. You have such restraint that detection would be impossible.

Pro tip: User:YooHoo-OverHere-LookItsMeAgain is possibly available.

He should stay with letters/language he understands, at least.

I don't think he has much understanding of the Scandinavian languages: "Fæ" means "fool" in my mother´s tongue.
(Scandinavian-lesson for today: "Fæ" or "Fe" can also mean "cattle", but you can be pretty sure that if someone usees that word, especially as a "stand-alone-word", in a Scandinavian town or city: it has been used to indicate someones....eh, intelligence-level.) I hope "Fæ" is not a SUL-account?

Or perhaps he does know.. .and has more insight that we have credited him with?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:24 pm

The Adversary wrote:Or perhaps he does know.. .and has more insight that we have credited him with?

Now you're just being silly.

But I like:

"Fæ" means "fool" in my mother´s tongue.

because he was just trying to be twee and set up something un-googleable with that diphthong.
How'd that go, Ash? It's more google-able. Duh.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:52 pm

The Adversary wrote:I hope "Fæ" is not a SUL-account?

Certainly it is. 2,359,666 edits in 46 projects (nearly all Commons, of course).

http://tools.wmflabs.org/quentinv57-too ... me=F%C3%A6

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:42 pm

Fae is also an alternative spelling of fay, or fairy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:13 pm

tarantino wrote:Fae is also an alternative spelling of fay, or fairy.

And he knows. He mentioned it in the early going of his account.

It's not his intellect that's the problem.
It's his sense of entitlement, his need for attention, the perpetual victim complex and his underlying tendencies to bully others when he feels he has a leg up that get him in continuous trouble.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:59 pm

And he's back on en.wp wiggling to get around the single account restriction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t:_F.C3.A6

Statement by Fæ

This request is to have the one account restriction placed on me in 2012, amended to permit bot accounts, i.e. specialized accounts with an authorized bot flag. These would be linked on my main user account pages to show that I am an operator/maintainer and responsible for maintaining them within their community agreed scope. It seems sensible to make this a one-off request rather than coming back for an Arbcom decision for every possible future projects where I am operating or co-operating a bot account. As my edits to Wikipedia continue to be scrutinized by multiple users, I believe Arbcom can be reassured that any potential issue would be flagged early.

In the past two and a half years since the Arbcom case, my many projects for images have needed non-bot changes using tools (e.g. batch using VisualFileChange), such as filename corrections, which have affected and improved Wikipedia and many other projects, however it was always within conventions for cross-project/global improvements to be implemented using my single editing account. The project to take the User:Commons fair use upload bot and migrate it to WMFlabs, after the operator recently had their accounts blocked, has brought this to a head as this was an established bot task that would be fully automated. I would like to get this running within a few weeks and then promote it again as a service that benefits Wikipedia as it is an easy way to copy files from Commons when their local use can be justified under a Fair Use rationale, most often when a group deletion request on Commons is likely to make photographs or scans unavailable on Wikipedia in multiple languages. At the current time, users either give up and let images vanish from articles or have the complexity of doing local uploads manually. At times this causes delays meaning deletion requests are closed by the time they get around to it, creating work for Commons administrators to undelete and redelete, rather than simply templating the file for a bot to handle it.

As my various bot projects have been mainly focused on images for the last three years, I cannot imagine a situation where anyone would confuse bot accounts with editors, or editing using my single non-bot account, which would remain the only one used for making edits to English Wikipedia pages not marked as bot edits. At the time of the one-account restriction I was new to creating bot projects, I do not believe it was ever Arbcom's intention to deter me from extending these community supported projects to improving the English Wikipedia as this was not an issue in 2012 and has not been in the years since.

Related links:

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_9#Commons_fair_use_upload_bot_and_future_bot_projects
User:Fæ/privacy statement of accounts
Current bot accounts not used on the English Wikipedia: User:Faebot (mostly GLAM related work on Commons, plus various maintained reports such as c:User:Fæ/BLP_overwrites and meta:WMF Advanced Permissions), User:Noaabot (daily USA weather maps)

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:49 pm

Vigilant wrote: when he feels he has a leg up

Bleach. Stat.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:29 am

I wonder if I should mention the email Fae recently sent to WO's sysop.....

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:41 am

EricBarbour wrote:I wonder if I should mention the email Fae recently sent to WO's sysop.....

Only to the technical support staff at your spam filtering provider.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:44 am

Jim wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:I wonder if I should mention the email Fae recently sent to WO's sysop.....
Only to the technical support staff at your spam filtering provider.

I'm not sure they want to hear what the WO sysop got.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:44 am

EricBarbour wrote:I wonder if I should mention the email Fae recently sent to WO's sysop.....

No, Eric, you really shouldn't.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:39 am

EricBarbour wrote:I wonder if I should mention the email Fae recently sent to WO's sysop.....

I promise not to tell.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:41 am

The Adversary wrote: He should stay with letters/language he understands, at least.

I don't think he has much understanding of the Scandinavian languages: "Fæ" means "fool" in my mother´s tongue.
(Scandinavian-lesson for today: "Fæ" or "Fe" can also mean "cattle", but you can be pretty sure that if someone usees that word, especially as a "stand-alone-word", in a Scandinavian town or city: it has been used to indicate someones....eh, intelligence-level.) I hope "Fæ" is not a SUL-account?

Or perhaps he does know.. .and has more insight that we have credited him with?

It's not just me, then! I always read his name as "fä" (pronounced as "feh") and wondered if he knew his name meant "cattle" in Swedish. I assume he was going for "Fay", so it's nice to see his incompetence spreads to typography as well!

Vad djävlar skit.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:11 am

AL1 wrote:
The Adversary wrote: He should stay with letters/language he understands, at least.

I don't think he has much understanding of the Scandinavian languages: "Fæ" means "fool" in my mother´s tongue.
(Scandinavian-lesson for today: "Fæ" or "Fe" can also mean "cattle", but you can be pretty sure that if someone usees that word, especially as a "stand-alone-word", in a Scandinavian town or city: it has been used to indicate someones....eh, intelligence-level.) I hope "Fæ" is not a SUL-account?

Or perhaps he does know.. .and has more insight that we have credited him with?
It's not just me, then! I always read his name as "fä" (pronounced as "feh") and wondered if he knew his name meant "cattle" in Swedish. I assume he was going for "Fay", so it's nice to see his incompetence spreads to typography as well!

Vad djävlar skit.

It's Fæ as in færie. Also, the ligature of the vowels a and e is called Ash (T-C-L).

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:14 pm

Jim wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Or perhaps he does know.. .and has more insight that we have credited him with?
Now you're just being silly.

AL1 wrote:Vad djävlar skit.

Velkommen, søta bror!

tarantino wrote:It's Fæ as in færie. Also, the ligature of the vowels a and e is called Ash (T-C-L).

Thanks, now I learned something. It is also mentioned in the article Ash (T-H-L)

Vigilant wrote: It's not his intellect that's the problem.
It's his sense of entitlement, his need for attention, the perpetual victim complex and his underlying tendencies to bully others when he feels he has a leg up that get him in continuous trouble.

(My bolding)
Just checked. Account Look at me! (T-C-L) is still not registered; what about it, Fæ?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:34 pm

The Adversary wrote:Just checked. Account Look at me! (T-C-L) is still not registered?

But Look at me (T-C-L) is.
No edits, though, he could WP:USURP (T-H-L) for added Streisand.

If I were him, I'd go for something cunningly untraceable, like NotSpeedoBloke (T-C-L) That's free.

Then his ability to avoid controversial areas, and not create dramah would ensure it went unnoticed.

But seriously, if he did what I said in the line above, who'd give a shit? Not me.

Can't, though.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:17 pm

Even if he went for a completely random username, a random string of numbers and letters, everyone would know who he is within 100 edits.

He has very nearly no self control.

This shit has been constant for TEN YEARS.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:48 pm

Vigilant wrote:Even if he went for a completely random username, a random string of numbers and letters, everyone would know who he is within 100 edits.

He knows that. That's what burns.

Because it means that it, undeniably, isn't who he is, but what he does, that makes him a pariah.
And it means that swapping handles whilst continuing to be a gigantic fool won't change a thing.
It never did and it never will.

The oft attempted Ashophobia meme is dead and long buried.
Actually, I'd contend it was pretty much stillborn, all those years ago. Yet he grieves for it.

Have a look at the supporters in that RFA. Kaldari, the 2 stalkers of MoiraMoira, Scott Bibby, etc...
It's the misfit club.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Jim wrote:the 2 stalkers of MoiraMoira

Which is extremely interesting. Those two little punks are becoming the next FT2/Chris Owen/Gary Weiss mannequins, right before our eyes.
Being "de-stewarded" makes little boys evil and crazy?

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:39 pm

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)
Support = 23; Oppose = 26; Neutral = 0 – 47% Result: Unsuccessful

Fæ!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:22 pm

The Adversary wrote:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)
Support = 23; Oppose = 26; Neutral = 0 – 47% Result: Unsuccessful

Fæ!

Bring on the Fæ(6) timing pool!

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:55 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Jim wrote:the 2 stalkers of MoiraMoira
Which is extremely interesting. Those two little punks are becoming the next FT2/Chris Owen/Gary Weiss mannequins, right before our eyes.
Being "de-stewarded" makes little boys evil and crazy?

They are young, and impressionable, and their pride is hurt after their unacceptable behaviour was called out and "punished".
So the lunatic fringe comforts them, and clucks about how unjust this all was, and welcomes them into the "rebel" fold.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:33 pm

Jim wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Jim wrote:the 2 stalkers of MoiraMoira
Which is extremely interesting. Those two little punks are becoming the next FT2/Chris Owen/Gary Weiss mannequins, right before our eyes.
Being "de-stewarded" makes little boys evil and crazy?
They are young, and impressionable, and their pride is hurt after their unacceptable behaviour was called out and "punished".
So the lunatic fringe comforts them, and clucks about how unjust this all was, and welcomes them into the "rebel" fold.

I wonder which one of the welcoming accounts is DemiWit?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:40 pm

Vigilant wrote: I wonder which one of the welcoming accounts is DemiWit?

Global ban. So it *should* not be any of them. If it is either report it or let someone know who will.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:45 pm

Anroth wrote:
Vigilant wrote: I wonder which one of the welcoming accounts is DemiWit?
Global ban. So it *should* not be any of them. If it is either report it or let someone know who will.

If it's not one of them now, check back in a month or two.
He'll be there.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:03 am

I believe its 6 months for that poor excuse for a checkuser tool to go 'stale'

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:40 pm

Anroth wrote:I believe its 6 months for that poor excuse for a checkuser tool to go 'stale'

It used to be three months. But of course checkusers may keep records indefinitely, though they aren't supposed to.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:15 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Anroth wrote:I believe its 6 months for that poor excuse for a checkuser tool to go 'stale'
It used to be three months. But of course checkusers may keep records indefinitely, though they aren't supposed to.

Its a violation of UK and EU data privacy law if they do with UK/EU citizens. If they are resident in the UK or not.

I have been meaning to compile a list of UK/EU admins with access to 'Private' (in the UK/EU legal sense of the word) data in order to advise them what they can and cant keep record-wise.

Merely keeping a list of IP's for example would fall foul of a number of rules depending on the circumstances as IP's are 'Private' data records.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:40 pm

Anroth wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Anroth wrote:I believe its 6 months for that poor excuse for a checkuser tool to go 'stale'
It used to be three months. But of course checkusers may keep records indefinitely, though they aren't supposed to.
Its a violation of UK and EU data privacy law if they do with UK/EU citizens. If they are resident in the UK or not.

I have been meaning to compile a list of UK/EU admins with access to 'Private' (in the UK/EU legal sense of the word) data in order to advise them what they can and cant keep record-wise.

Merely keeping a list of IP's for example would fall foul of a number of rules depending on the circumstances as IP's are 'Private' data records.

I would be extremely surprised if every checkuser wasn't guilty of doing this.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:02 pm

Vigilant wrote:I would be extremely surprised if every checkuser wasn't guilty of doing this.

And even if they don't, IPs get bandied about on the private Checkuser and Steward mailing lists.

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:40 pm

Vigilant wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)
Support = 23; Oppose = 26; Neutral = 0 – 47% Result: Unsuccessful

Fæ!
Bring on the Fæ(6) timing pool!

He's already planning it.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:09 am

Silent Editor wrote: He's already planning it.

That's just a theatrical, pouting "response" to Vigilant's comment.

If you want to jerk Ashley's strings, this forum is the best place to post, to be sure he'll read it.

I think I'll support #6. With a well crafted rationale. Opposing is so last year.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:07 pm

Jim wrote:
Silent Editor wrote: He's already planning it.
That's just a theatrical, pouting "response" to Vigilant's comment.

If you want to jerk Ashley's strings, this forum is the best place to post, to be sure he'll read it.

I think I'll support #6. With a well crafted rationale. Opposing is so last year.

I hope he does get it at 6.
Then I'll drop the hammer.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:13 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
Silent Editor wrote: He's already planning it.
That's just a theatrical, pouting "response" to Vigilant's comment.

If you want to jerk Ashley's strings, this forum is the best place to post, to be sure he'll read it.

I think I'll support #6. With a well crafted rationale. Opposing is so last year.
I hope he does get it at 6.
Then I'll drop the hammer.

The odds were always long. But I'm moving the line to 50-1 that he ever gets it (under the current alias) now.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:30 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
Silent Editor wrote: He's already planning it.
That's just a theatrical, pouting "response" to Vigilant's comment.

If you want to jerk Ashley's strings, this forum is the best place to post, to be sure he'll read it.

I think I'll support #6. With a well crafted rationale. Opposing is so last year.
I hope he does get it at 6.
Then I'll drop the hammer.
The odds were always long. But I'm moving the line to 50-1 that he ever gets it (under the current alias) now.

Make it 500:1 and I'll take $1.

I've never forgotten this: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2001/a ... et.comment

I don't think that was a fix by the way, I think it was:

"Two of the lads gambled - not because they want to bet against their team but because the odds were too good to miss."

The odds were stupid in a 2 horse race and no bookie has offered anything like that on a Test Match since - and it was long before match-fixing scandals were a "thing"

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:48 pm

Jim wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
Silent Editor wrote: He's already planning it.
That's just a theatrical, pouting "response" to Vigilant's comment.

If you want to jerk Ashley's strings, this forum is the best place to post, to be sure he'll read it.

I think I'll support #6. With a well crafted rationale. Opposing is so last year.
I hope he does get it at 6.
Then I'll drop the hammer.
The odds were always long. But I'm moving the line to 50-1 that he ever gets it (under the current alias) now.
Make it 500:1 and I'll take $1.

I've never forgotten this: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2001/a ... et.comment

I don't think that was a fix by the way, I think it was:
"Two of the lads gambled - not because they want to bet against their team but because the odds were too good to miss."
The odds were stupid in a 2 horse race and no bookie has offered anything like that on a Test Match since - and it was long before match-fixing scandals were a "thing"

I will not make the same mistake as Ladbrokes. Not booked.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:55 pm

DanMurphy wrote:I will not make the same mistake as Ladbrokes. Not booked.

Damn.

I was going to enjoy nominating and running the campaign so much, too.

bobrayner · Unread post by **bobrayner** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:09 pm

Anroth wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Anroth wrote:I believe its 6 months for that poor excuse for a checkuser tool to go 'stale'
It used to be three months. But of course checkusers may keep records indefinitely, though they aren't supposed to.
Its a violation of UK and EU data privacy law if they do with UK/EU citizens. If they are resident in the UK or not.

I have been meaning to compile a list of UK/EU admins with access to 'Private' (in the UK/EU legal sense of the word) data in order to advise them what they can and cant keep record-wise.

Merely keeping a list of IP's for example would fall foul of a number of rules depending on the circumstances as IP's are 'Private' data records.

I am skeptical of this legal interpretation: There are two gaps in the chain. Firstly, there's a big difference between what wikipedians consider "personal" data, versus what EC law calls personal data. Secondly, of course, the fifth data protection principle says that you can keep personal data as long as you can justify some kind of need for it. There's probably a third but I haven't had much caffeine yet today, and those first two are the most common stumbling blocks, in my experience.

In your UK example, do you think the ICO is going to push any further after an admin explains to them that the selective retention of technical data - no name or address - is used to deal with long term abuse?

We might need a separate thread for this, if you want to discuss the point any further. I'm not so interested in gossiping about individuals.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:41 pm

bobrayner wrote:In your UK example, do you think the ICO is going to push any further after an admin explains to them that the selective retention of technical data - no name or address - is used to deal with long term abuse?

If the data retained is:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal + list of other IPs known to use - then no issue
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal Dave David from Merthyr Tydfil + list of other IPs - there is a big problem if this is kept with no end exit-strategy.

Although you are right ICO wouldnt have an issue with data kept regarding ongoing vandalism. Its only an issue when you are keeping things forever.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:44 pm

Anroth wrote:
bobrayner wrote:In your UK example, do you think the ICO is going to push any further after an admin explains to them that the selective retention of technical data - no name or address - is used to deal with long term abuse?
If the data retained is:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal + list of other IPs known to use - then no issue
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal Dave David from Merthyr Tydfil + list of other IPs - there is a big problem if this is kept with no end exit-strategy.

Although you are right ICO wouldnt have an issue with data kept regarding ongoing vandalism. Its only an issue when you are keeping things forever.

How could anyone possibly police this with offsite lists compiled by the checkusers and their lackeys?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:53 pm

Vigilant wrote: How could anyone possibly police this with offsite lists compiled by the checkusers and their lackeys?

You dont. Because in sane organisations you dont allow your employees with access to personal data take it home. It would be a gross misconduct offence and instant dismissal in the UK (assuming HR knew what they were doing) were anyone to take customer's records (as in data record) home.

Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation, the usual safeguards (threat of firing, referring to the police/ombudsman) are completely ineffective. Even more so now the WMF doesnt actually require any proof of identity or age before allowing people access to personal data.

bobrayner · Unread post by **bobrayner** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:46 pm

Anroth wrote:
bobrayner wrote:In your UK example, do you think the ICO is going to push any further after an admin explains to them that the selective retention of technical data - no name or address - is used to deal with long term abuse?
If the data retained is:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal + list of other IPs known to use - then no issue
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx long term vandal Dave David from Merthyr Tydfil + list of other IPs - there is a big problem if this is kept with no end exit-strategy.

Although you are right ICO wouldnt have an issue with data kept regarding ongoing vandalism. Its only an issue when you are keeping things forever.

Really? European data protection legislation does not forbid keeping personal data forever. It forbids keeping personal data longer than you need it. With the "need" being rather loosely defined; it certainly isn't limited to preventing vandalism.

Anroth wrote:Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation, the usual safeguards (threat of firing, referring to the police/ombudsman) are completely ineffective. Even more so now the WMF doesnt actually require any proof of identity or age before allowing people access to personal data.

+1

Admittedly, most editors are sufficiently keen on editing that the threat of not being able to edit any more is quite compelling; many people are interested in protecting their online reputation too, and so on. (If I got fired from my day job, I could easily spin it another way, and few others would raise an eyebrow. If I got tarred and feathered on en.wikipedia, that's much harder to live down in the 21st century goldfish-bowl).

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:58 pm

bobrayner wrote: Really? European data protection legislation does not forbid keeping personal data forever. It forbids keeping personal data longer than you need it. With the "need" being rather loosely defined; it certainly isn't limited to preventing vandalism.

Technically yes, but you will be hard-pressed to justify 'need' in an EU court against a customer's will if its getting into the 'years' length of time - unless they have done something wrong

The UK has codified the timings a bit more rigidly as well as what are acceptable 'needs' regarding different types of data.