Jimbo (or someone) trying to hide Jimbo's IP address?

[thekohser]

Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =623173131

https://archive.today/nLM6c

What's going on with that removal of User info?

Jimbo... Barbra Streisand has a message for you here:

General IP Information

IP: 90.197.157.137
Decimal: 1522900361
Hostname: 5ac59d89.bb.sky.com
ISP: Sky Broadband
Organization: Sky Broadband
Services: None detected
Type: Broadband
Assignment: Dynamic IP
Blacklist:
Geolocation Information

Country: United Kingdom gb flag
State/Region: London, City of
City: London
Latitude: 51.4954 (51° 29′ 43.44″ N)
Longitude: -0.136 (0° 8′ 9.60″ W)
Postal Code: SW1P

[Alison]

It's pretty common to suppress edits for people who edit whilst logged out as the IP often relates to geolocation - it's in the Oversight policy. Jimbo is no exception, although what happened here was someone suppressed the IP address details but forgot the text which contained ... the IP address :p

[Zoloft]

*toys idly wth domain tools*
Since our informal policy is to protect the privacy of our members, and Jimbo is not a member, my hands are figuratively tied.

[Jim]

*toys idly wth domain tools*
Since our informal policy is to protect the privacy of our members, and Jimbo is not a member, my hands are figuratively tied.

Well, as a compromise, you could go the wikipedia way and just strike it through. Then it was never said, and cannot be used...

is not a member

my hands are figuratively tied.

[Jim]

what happened here was someone suppressed the IP address details but forgot the text which contained ... the IP address :p

Delicious.

[thekohser]

I do have a serious question about this.

Is there a way to "see" who oversighted the IP address clumsily the first time? And is there a way to "see" who came along more recently and shoved it more thoroughly down the memory hole? Which Wikipedians are entitled to this sort of view into who is oversighting what?

Wikipedians wax prolifically about how "transparent" their processes are, but this seems quite opaque to me here.

[Jim]

I do have a serious question about this.

Is there a way to "see" who oversighted the IP address clumsily the first time? And is there a way to "see" who came along more recently and shoved it more thoroughly down the memory hole? Which Wikipedians are entitled to this sort of view into who is oversighting what?

Wikipedians wax prolifically about how "transparent" their processes are, but this seems quite opaque to me here.

I think there's an "Oversight Log" - which other Oversighters can see, and then there's some sort of "Ombudsman", the "Audit subcomittee" to rule on (ab)use.

A bit like Checkuser - they are supposed to "police" each other...

[thekohser]

If what Jim says is correct, would some Wikipedia editor (or admin) in good standing please inquire about this particular case?

[Jim]

Here you go:

Wikipedia:Oversight
Logging
Revisions that have been suppressed using Oversight are logged at Special:Oversight.
The RevisionDelete extension can be used by both oversighters and administrators. Oversighters may select whether RevisionDelete will be used as a suppression action that prevents administrator access, or as an administrator action that any administrator can see and modify; administrators only have access to the latter. The action will be logged in the suppression log or deletion log accordingly.
Page revisions and logged events that have been suppressed using the "also hide from administrators" checkbox are logged in the suppression log.
Page revisions and logged events that have been deleted by an oversighter without using the "hide from administrators" checkbox or by an administrator, are logged in the deletion log.
Accounts which are blocked with the "suppress user name from lists" checkbox are logged in the suppression log.
The logs list who made the removal, when, from which page, and a provided comment. A diff link to compare the previous live revision to the hidden one is available.

I don't think you'll get names, though - what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Privacy, you see...

[Alison]

Is there a way to "see" who oversighted the IP address clumsily the first time? And is there a way to "see" who came along more recently and shoved it more thoroughly down the memory hole? Which Wikipedians are entitled to this sort of view into who is over sighting what?

I can't tell, and I can see both - privacy policy, sorry. I signed up, so have to stick to my word.

[thekohser]

Is there a way to "see" who oversighted the IP address clumsily the first time? And is there a way to "see" who came along more recently and shoved it more thoroughly down the memory hole? Which Wikipedians are entitled to this sort of view into who is over sighting what?

I can't tell, and I can see both - privacy policy, sorry. I signed up, so have to stick to my word.

Which Wikipedians are able to see the identity of these particular actors? Is it all admins? Only CheckUsers? Only Oversighters?

[Triptych]

Is there a way to "see" who oversighted the IP address clumsily the first time? And is there a way to "see" who came along more recently and shoved it more thoroughly down the memory hole? Which Wikipedians are entitled to this sort of view into who is over sighting what?

I can't tell, and I can see both - privacy policy, sorry. I signed up, so have to stick to my word.

The privacy policy is supposed to protect those on whom the advanced tools are used, not those who use the advanced tools.

[Alison]

Which Wikipedians are able to see the identity of these particular actors? Is it all admins? Only CheckUsers? Only Oversighters?

Only Oversighters.

[Alison]

The privacy policy is supposed to protect those on whom the advanced tools are used, not those who use the advanced tools.

Tell that to the Ombudsman Commission. Not all "privacy-related information" relates to the actual information being suppressed. I've already been dinged for posting a Useragent string on Wikipedia once. Yes, it's that bad.

[EricBarbour]

Tell that to the Ombudsman Commission.

How comical is it that the "free and open" encyclopedia needs an "Ombudsman Commission"? And all they do is try to keep checkusers from revealing "private" information, which tends to translate into "cover-ups of scandals". The bureaucracy must grow.

Wanna see what they "do"? Here's their latest "report". That's it. Everything else is a huge secret.

Where were they in 2005-08 when FT2, Gerard, Essjay, Raul654 and others were abusing checkuser on a regular basis? "Oh, well, that was a long time ago".

[thekohser]

The privacy policy is supposed to protect those on whom the advanced tools are used, not those who use the advanced tools.

Tell that to the Ombudsman Commission. Not all "privacy-related information" relates to the actual information being suppressed. I've already been dinged for posting a Useragent string on Wikipedia once. Yes, it's that bad.

The Privacy Policy states:

When you make a contribution to any Wikimedia Site, including on user or discussion pages, you are creating a permanent, public record of every piece of content added, removed, or altered by you. The page history will show when your contribution or deletion was made, as well as your username (if you are signed in) or your IP address (if you are not signed in).

Yet, in this case, the action(s) of one (or more) Oversighter(s) is contradicting what the Privacy Policy states. The page history was deliberately made not to show the IP address of the editor. While we may not be entitled to see that Jimbo was using IP address 90.197.157.137, it stands to reason that if an Oversighter is going to deny us an ability that is enshrined in the Privacy Policy, we should be able to learn who is acting to deny us.

[AndyTheGrump]

Ah, Wikilawyering - can't escape it, even here...

By the way, how's the Streisand effect going, Kohs? Has 'Jimbo-forgets-to-sign-in-gate' made the front page of the New York Times yet? Has Harrison Ford been signed up for the inevitable movie version of this ongoing drama?

[thekohser]

By the way, how's the Streisand effect going, Kohs? Has 'Jimbo-forgets-to-sign-in-gate' made the front page of the New York Times yet? Has Harrison Ford been signed up for the inevitable movie version of this ongoing drama?

Have you done anything productive in life yet? I ask the question with all seriousness.

[Hex]

The privacy policy is supposed to protect those on whom the advanced tools are used, not those who use the advanced tools.

Tell that to the Ombudsman Commission. Not all "privacy-related information" relates to the actual information being suppressed. I've already been dinged for posting a Useragent string on Wikipedia once. Yes, it's that bad.

Every time I try to avoid using the word Kafkaesque, I just can't.

[Zoloft]

The privacy policy is supposed to protect those on whom the advanced tools are used, not those who use the advanced tools.

Tell that to the Ombudsman Commission. Not all "privacy-related information" relates to the actual information being suppressed. I've already been dinged for posting a Useragent string on Wikipedia once. Yes, it's that bad.

Every time I try to avoid using the word Kafkaesque, I just can't.

Franz Kafka by Jeff Stahl - His Deviant Art: linkhttp://jeffstahl.deviantart.com/[/link]

He takes commissions... I think with a little input from us, he could really 'capture' Jimbo Wales...