Would "bitches" allow russavia back?

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:02 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:Interesting to see Poetlister on the list now. Did they contact you about this, PL?

Tisane says that the WMF only contacted him after the ban was in place:

This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation has globally banned you from Wikimedia Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by WMF, WMF Labs, and the Wikimedia blog). You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists without permission. This ban is placed against you, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”).

We are taking this action based upon because of a history of legal concerns as well as other violations of our Terms of Use.

This action is permanent and non-appealable.

Sincerely,

Philippe Beaudette

Director, Community Advocacy

The bans come without warning.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:08 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:This is a threat to freedom on and off Wikimedia.

Not sure if you are trolling? You dont have a right to edit wikipedia so your freedo's are not inhibited in any way...

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:51 pm

It seems to me the ban of Scott Bibby (main Wikipedia alias: "Russavia") by the new WMF director's regime can be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. They've decided to step in and weed out the slam dunk cases when it comes to content abusers (pushing racist agendas; filling their servers with porn and nudity, none of it with model consent forms, etc...). Mr. Bibby certainly fits into this category.

OR

2. It would be entirely in keeping with Bibby's long term character and behavior for him to have emailed or phoned in a very nasty threat of violence, or something like that, to a rival. The kind of thing that they couldn't ignore if it was brought to their attention. It's also possible that he's involved in online scams and fraud again, and that may have been brought to their attention. Even though some of his closest collaborators on Wikipedia sites were the ones who pushed the "pedophiles are just misunderstood" line, I don't think that's the reason in Bibby's case.

If it's 1, expect a few more actions effecting commons regulars soon (Odder and Mattbuck would be top of mind). This option would mean that Lila is going to use WMF power to at least clean up the worst abuses at Commons (which is their biggest running sore AND their biggest source of potential legal liability). It might mean she's going to take some action at the big show. Whether it will work, who knows? But I'd have to give credit for at least trying, well, something after the simpering Sue Gardner do-nothing years.

If it's 2, it doesn't mean much other than they're a little more willing to take action against the nastiest fringe of their participant base, and will mean nothing for the content of the sites they host.

As an aside, poor Ashley Van Haeften (main Wikipedia alias: "Fae.") He doesn't seem to realize that now would be a good time to quietly disassociate himself from his long time running mate Bibby.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:57 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:"First they came" comes to mind.

And Godwin's law is proven to be infallible yet again.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:04 pm

Hex wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:"First they came" comes to mind.

And Godwin's law is proven to be infallible yet again.

Well, yeah - but we do have:

Hell, what is going on here? First, they banned Dcoetzee (incl. his Commons fair use bot), now Russavia. Who is next? --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I love it when they put the answer they fear right at the end of the question...

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:06 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Interesting to see Poetlister on the list now. Did they contact you about this, PL?
Tisane says that the WMF only contacted him after the ban was in place:

This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation has globally banned you from Wikimedia Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at http://www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by WMF, WMF Labs, and the Wikimedia blog). You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists without permission. This ban is placed against you, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”).

We are taking this action based upon because of a history of legal concerns as well as other violations of our Terms of Use.

This action is permanent and non-appealable.

Sincerely,

Philippe Beaudette

Director, Community Advocacy

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:08 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote: hmm, why now ... is Lila starting to clean house?

If this is the result of some internal policy decision by Lila - and I find it hard to imagine at what other level a move of this magnitude could have been triggered - then it's the first thing I've seen to actually give me any confidence in her. Of course, I'll be completely unsurprised if the WMF will never admit that if it is the case, because it's a psychotically paranoid organization. So I'm just going to keep on being unimpressed by her until she stands up and announces something about how this is going to be the attitude they take from now on. Or demonstrates some ability to completely transform the engineering side, but there's no hint of that either.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:19 pm

Hex wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote: hmm, why now ... is Lila starting to clean house?
If this is the result of some internal policy decision by Lila - and I find it hard to imagine at what other level a move of this magnitude could have been triggered - then it's the first thing I've seen to actually give me any confidence in her.

Well, remember, Whisky and Steel Wool is gone, Walling is gone, Oberstgruppenführer Moller was shuffled from Software to Grand Soothsayer. I've said before there may be hidden depths to Lila, and that I may have misjudged her initially.
It's a huge mess to fix, and may well be beyond anyone, but this is not the first sign that she might be, at least, trying.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:35 pm

Hex wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote: hmm, why now ... is Lila starting to clean house?
If this is the result of some internal policy decision by Lila - and I find it hard to imagine at what other level a move of this magnitude could have been triggered - then it's the first thing I've seen to actually give me any confidence in her. Of course, I'll be completely unsurprised if the WMF will never admit that if it is the case, because it's a psychotically paranoid organization. So I'm just going to keep on being unimpressed by her until she stands up and announces something about how this is going to be the attitude they take from now on. Or demonstrates some ability to completely transform the engineering side, but there's no hint of that either.

That's a good point.

Let's take a look at the List of Global Bans placed by the Wikimedia Foundation (my comments in italics).

Beta M, since 15 March 2012 (publicly identified pedophilia advocate who did time in jail for underage porn distribution)
Demiurge1000, since 3 December 2014. (Shown on this website and elsewhere to have very creepy interactions with self-identified minors on Wikipedia projects for years before ban placed.)
Dcoetzee, since 3 December 2014. (Self-identified advocate for "normalization of incest" and for allowing self-declared pedophiles on Wikimedia projects).
Amorrow since 17 January 2015. (Unhinged personality who's done multiple stretches in jail for threats of violence/stalking (actual stalking, not the debased use of the word on Wikimedia) of Wikimedia contributors and others. "Globally banned," at least de facto, long ago.)
Leucosticte ‎ since 17 January 2015. (Pedophilia advocate banned on Wikipedia by one of its anonymous voluneteers long ago as "Tisane;" that this account on Wikimedia sites was controlled by the same person was pointed out long ago on this website).
Poetlister since 17 January 2015. (Stole and used images of women without their consent to impersonate them on Wikimedia websites; de facto "globally banned" long ago.)
Russavia since 17 January 2015. (Pushed a racist agenda on multiple WMF websites for years; also a major defender/pusher of 'porn extremism' on Wikimedia commons and elsewhere; commissioned a painting of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales being painted with a man's penis, uploaded image and a "making off" video to troll Wales; defender and editing ally of Coetzee and Demiurge; used at least a dozen "sockpuppets" after being banned from the English Wikipedia to push his agenda, but was allowed to remain by the "community" at Commons - Wikimedia's image repository - as one of its volunteer administrators.)

The Wikimedia Foundation has long been a poorly-run organization, filled with unqualified people. However, it has a professional structure, named people, and legal accountability for its actions. Worries about an unfair banning spree are ridiculous, given the thousands of accounts effectively banned from Wikipedia by tiny gangs of anonymous volunteers over the years, some for edits that were clear improvements to the so-called encyclopedia. But without the in-house political capital that protected accounts like "Demiurge1000" for years. Just two days ago Yaktaur (T-C-L), for instance, was de facto banned on the whim of HJ Mitchell (T-C-L).

ADDING:

One thing it would be good for the public/press to know if this gets attention in the wider world: There is nothing to prevent any of the people behind these accounts from editing any Wikimedia website they please, whenever they please. They just need a tiny bit of cleverness about IP addresses.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:37 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
List of Global Bans placed by the Wikimedia Foundation
Beta M, since 15 March 2012
Demiurge1000, since 3 December 2014.
Dcoetzee, since 3 December 2014.
Amorrow since 17 January 2015.
Leucosticte ‎ since 17 January 2015.
Poetlister since 17 January 2015.
Russavia since 17 January 2015.

hmm, why now ... is Lila starting to clean house?

This is a first rolling out of the mechanism that will be used to permaban paid COI editors, I suspect.

I'm a little curious why they popped Poetlister for (apparently) ancient crimes but haven't put the mark of Satan on Mr. Kohs.

Not that they should, because they should not. Still: it is curious.

RfB

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:45 pm

Oh yeah: Seems obvious to me this unusual banning/listing of banning spree by the WMF needs a thread of its own.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:46 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I'm a little curious why they popped Poetlister for (apparently) ancient crimes

Well, if you look here, you'll see that Mr. Poetlister is, in fact, now the "New York, New York" of global bans - "So good they banned him twice".

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:00 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Oh yeah: Seems obvious to me this unusual banning/listing of banning spree by the WMF needs a thread of its own.

There is one in Governance subforum. I quoted you there.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:08 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:...

Great post, Tim

WMF says they aren't gonna comment on centrally-imposed site blocks. I'm sure it doesn't P take R too I awful C much C to A read S between S the O lines to figure out the primary source of this action. You Commonsers did your friend no favors by allowing him to continue to taunt and flaunt through this venue. I'd like to think it's a good first step to turning around the culture of this place, but sadly I rather doubt it will be. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:03 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:This is bad news. If they can ban Russavia, then they can ban anyone. Although I advocated desysopping Russavia several times, I never advocated banning him. "First they came" comes to mind. This should be something we should be fighting against. Plus, if left unchecked, this ban will have chilling effects. This is a threat to freedom on and off Wikimedia.

Bullshit. Wikipedia is not some political soapbox ... Oh!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:09 pm

One of my favorite English-language Wikipedia Arbitration Committee moments. For posterity.

The Arbitration Committee has approved the following motion, which decides your recent block appeal:
On 3 April 2012, Russavia was blocked for six months and topic-banned from all pages and discussions relating to Eastern Europe across all namespaces. On 13 May 2012, the six month block was extended to one year on the basis that this comment—made by Russavia on his talk page while he was blocked—violated his Eastern Europe topic ban. In January 2013, Russavia appealed his block and topic-ban to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, vacates the six-month block and the one-year block that replaced it, but retains the Eastern Europe topic ban. We remind Russavia that, if he makes any further edits mentioning Polandball and similar cartoons (broadly construed), he will again be in violation of his topic ban and may be summarily re-blocked by any administrator in line with the usual methods of enforcing a discretionary sanction.

Supporting motion: Coren, NuclearWarfare, Hersfold, SilkTork, AGK (proposing), David Fuchs, Courcelles, and Worm That Turned.
Opposing: (none).
Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, and Roger Davies.
Inactive: Risker, Salvio guiliano.
Recused: Timotheus Canens.

I have unblocked your account, but remind you (as explained in the motion) that your earlier topic ban remains in effect and that you may be blocked again if you violate that ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This was immediately greeted by Mr. Bibby with, upon his Ali-like return to the ring, "Hey bitches I'm back."

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:21 pm

I was surprised to watch how Russavia has attacked a mighty Herbythyme on Commons and...won.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... e_returned.....

Code: Select all

Would you care to explain the CU abuse from 26/27 April 2013? The OC tried contacting you but you didn't respond, and I was told you were uncontactable.

I should make it clear that Trijnstel managed to cover the abuse up quite nicely by refusing to even tell me if CU was run. The log action had only to contact you for reason. Seriously, what gave you the right to invade my privacy by abusing the CU tool.

You owe an explanation here. russavia (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will also state, that you posted this pompous self-serving statement not long after I asked Trijnstel if a CU was run on me, and you fled Commons. Very odd and curious timing, wouldn't you say? I have logs from IRC where Trijnstel said that she knew nothing about why you ran the CU (she clearly was not telling the truth then), and then later said she the knew the reason why but would not be telling anyone. All done to protect you. So would you care to answer the following:

    On what basis did you abusively run a CU on my account on 26/27 April 2013?
    How was the running of that CU inline with policy?
    Why did you not see fit to notify myself or the community about the running of that CU?
    Why did you flee Commons like a gutless cowards when I started asking questions?
    What makes you think you have any right to participate in this community given the enormous breach of trust that was placed in you? If these questions aren't answered satisfactorily, I will ask that you be indefinitely blocked on this project.

You really should have stayed away from this project entirely. It is not acceptable for you to be uncontactable when your abuse is under investigation, and then think you can waltz back in and not answer for your actions. The OC and WMF Legal will now be contacted again also. russavia (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

48 hours have now passed and you have not commented here. I have written to OC and WMF Legal and have asked them to re-open the case due to your sudden re-appearance on this project.

I realise that being caught abusing the tools on this project, and hence invading my privacy, is obviously something that you do not want to face. But your re-appearance has made this necessary. So in order to give you enough time to give a considered response, I will give you another 72 hours to respond. If not, I will take this to COM:AN/U and ask that you be indefinitely blocked/banned on this project. Evidence from the stewards private channel will also be publicly introduced at that time of my CU data being shared with others.

I'm sorry if it comes to that, but this is all your own doing and you need to man up and take responsibility for what you did. russavia (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And now Herbythyme "trusts" that he will be allowed to make minor contributions to Commons. Oh my!

I have now had the conclusions from the Ombudsman Commission in the case reffered to by Russavia and I felt in appropriate to place that here so that the community and those interested can be aware of them.

In their email to me they state "our conclusion is that the Privacy Policy has not been violated". I fully accept their findings.

I feel it worth adding that as I have not used any communication channels other than on wiki posting and email in many years it is quite impossible for me to have been responsible for any mention on those channels.

I trust I will be allowed to continue to make minor contributions to Commons as and when I have the time without any further interference. I will not be online for a week or so anyway. --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(my bolding)

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:49 pm

Given that exchange on Herbythyme's talk page, perhaps someone at WMF Legal or OC got a tingly feeling about the extent to which russavia 'doth protest' about being checkusered.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:02 pm

Sparky wrote:Given that exchange on Herbythyme's talk page, perhaps someone at WMF Legal or OC got a tingly feeling about the extent to which russavia 'doth protest' about being checkusered.

Well, he and Fae both "went on about it" a lot, in multiple places, even to the extent of trying to get CUs relieved of their tools, and blathering about "policy". So you may have a well made point here.

Quite the "shot in the foot" if so.
Like that would be new...

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:28 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:This is bad news. If they can ban Russavia, then they can ban anyone. Although I advocated desysopping Russavia several times, I never advocated banning him. "First they came" comes to mind. This should be something we should be fighting against. Plus, if left unchecked, this ban will have chilling effects. This is a threat to freedom on and off Wikimedia.

Yeah that's totally what's going on here...

First they came for the paedophiles, but I didn't speak up as I wasn't a paedophile
Then they came for the stalkers, but I didn't speak up as I wasn't a stalker
Then they came for the serial impersonators, but I didn't speak up as I'd never impersonated anyone, not even once
Then they came for me, and we all couldn't figure out whymust have just been a mistake
I think they probably went after some abusive admins after that, shit, I don't know

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:38 pm

AL1 wrote:First they came for the paedophiles, but I didn't speak up as I wasn't a paedophile
Then they came for the stalkers, but I didn't speak up as I wasn't a stalker
Then they came for the serial impersonators, but I didn't speak up as I'd never impersonated anyone, not even once
Then they came for me, and we all couldn't figure out whymust have just been a mistake
I think they probably went after some abusive admins after that, shit, I don't know

That'll do. Post of the day.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:05 pm

Mr. Bibby appears to have uploaded the email from the WMF (though there's a non-zero chance it's a hoax). One of his Commons defenders posted the link over there.

Emphasis, obviously, mine.

Dear Mr. Bibby,

This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation has globally banned you from Wikimedia Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at http://www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by WMF, WMF Labs, and the Wikimedia blog). You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists without permission. This ban is placed against you, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”).

We are taking this action based upon because of a history of sockpuppetry and legal concerns as well as other violations of our Terms of Use.

This action is permanent and non-appealable.

Sincerely,

Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy

ADDING: The "We are taking this action based upon because of" howler is repeated in both this and the "Tisane" email mentioned further up this thread. Hmmm.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:21 pm

A discussion on "opting-out" of the Wikimedia Foundations Global Ban Policy has gotten underway at Wikimedia Commons. Favorite comments so far:

I agree with calling this a disappearance. The issue is not whether this is a human right or not, but the opaqueness of the process. Suddenly two major Commons users just disappear and a chilling “big brother” note replaces their user pages, with not even a link to a discussion process. This is terrifying and unacceptable. Anything else, most of the discussion on this page included, is moot: This is yet another proof (the worst so far, upon a mounting pile) that the WMF has been hijacked by the Blue Meanies and needs to be wrestled back into good hands. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And:

We are witnessing an absolutely extraordinary situation. The Foundation single-handedly — that is, without any open consultation process at all — implements a global banning policy, only to use it a few days later on long-term contributors, including a Commons administrator, without any right to appeal, and without informing the community at all about their reasoning. Sadly, the extraordinariness is something that is being repeated – with first the superprotect scandal, and now this. I said before, and will repeat it now, that the way that the Wikimedia Foundation has been treating us, the volunteer community, suggests that they are no longer interested in hearing from us, and prefer making decisions that can (and do) influence us directly behind closed doors and without our involvement. Today is a very sad day for Wikimedia Commons, and a huge milestone in getting rid of the last remnants of trust and cooperation between the volunteer community of Wikimedia and the San Francisco office. odder (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this:

Support No comment for obvious reasons. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:27 pm

While they cannot override WMF, I believe they still retain the right to fork. When they get the first bill for the server space, they may decide to unload a few thousand penises.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:48 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:This is bad news. If they can ban Russavia, then they can ban anyone. Although I advocated desysopping Russavia several times, I never advocated banning him. "First they came" comes to mind. This should be something we should be fighting against. Plus, if left unchecked, this ban will have chilling effects. This is a threat to freedom on and off Wikimedia.

And it's not even September.

--

Eternally yrs,
Notvelty

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:09 am

DanMurphy wrote:A discussion on "opting-out" of the Wikimedia Foundations Global Ban Policy has gotten underway at Wikimedia Commons. Favorite comments so far:
I agree with calling this a disappearance. The issue is not whether this is a human right or not, but the opaqueness of the process. Suddenly two major Commons users just disappear and a chilling “big brother” note replaces their user pages, with not even a link to a discussion process. This is terrifying and unacceptable. Anything else, most of the discussion on this page included, is moot: This is yet another proof (the worst so far, upon a mounting pile) that the WMF has been hijacked by the Blue Meanies and needs to be wrestled back into good hands. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And:
We are witnessing an absolutely extraordinary situation. The Foundation single-handedly — that is, without any open consultation process at all — implements a global banning policy, only to use it a few days later on long-term contributors, including a Commons administrator, without any right to appeal, and without informing the community at all about their reasoning. Sadly, the extraordinariness is something that is being repeated – with first the superprotect scandal, and now this. I said before, and will repeat it now, that the way that the Wikimedia Foundation has been treating us, the volunteer community, suggests that they are no longer interested in hearing from us, and prefer making decisions that can (and do) influence us directly behind closed doors and without our involvement. Today is a very sad day for Wikimedia Commons, and a huge milestone in getting rid of the last remnants of trust and cooperation between the volunteer community of Wikimedia and the San Francisco office. odder (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and this:
Support No comment for obvious reasons. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:14 am

Good to see Abd is still letting that freak flag fly.

Also, I like Fæ's use of "No comment" in his vote, followed by a paragraph-long comment at the bottom of the page. Someone might want to point out the inconsistencies there.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:17 am

Sparky wrote:While they cannot override WMF, I believe they still retain the right to fork. When they get the first bill for the server space, they may decide to unload a few thousand penises.

My post of the day.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:27 am

Jim wrote:
Sparky wrote:Given that exchange on Herbythyme's talk page, perhaps someone at WMF Legal or OC got a tingly feeling about the extent to which russavia 'doth protest' about being checkusered.
Well, he and Fae both "went on about it" a lot, in multiple places, even to the extent of trying to get CUs relieved of their tools, and blathering about "policy". So you may have a well made point here.

Quite the "shot in the foot" if so.
Like that would be new...

Russavia did something similar to me, back last June, when after this oblique threat was made, I was reported to the Ombudsman Commission for revealing part of Russavia's doctored useragent in this edit on a SPI case. Clearly, it was a deliberate breaching experiment, and I took the bait. I never discussed it publicly at the time and, ultimately, the complaint fell through (tho' not without some behind-the-scenes drama).

Clearly "Fuck Off, CheckUser Browser/1.0 (It's Me; ru)" is a massive privacy breach

tl;dr - Russavia is not averse to going after someone's CU bit or whatever, if it suits his ends.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:57 am

On a long flight recently I was reduced to watching a Tom Cruise movie, Edge of tomorrow. It's basically a post-apocalyptic Groundhog day[/i] where the hero gets to come back and repeatedly relive the day he dies trying to destroy the baddies until, learning from his many failures, he succeeds.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:52 am

Alison wrote: Clearly "Fuck Off, CheckUser Browser/1.0 (It's Me; ru)" is a massive privacy breach .

Well realistically no. However legally its dodgy. No idea about the US/Australia etc, but in the EU it falls under personal/private data - technical data regarding a persons browser, hardware etc is always 'private' data unless they have waived their rights. There is nothing wrong with you knowing it, but publishing it to parties who dont have the rights to view it is a no-no.

In that case, employees of the WMF would be fine as would be other CU's etc.

There are some odd rules about data breaches in the UK - scale of the breach also depends on what potential harm could come from it. I cant see anything in this case that could cause alarm because its a spoofed browser agent. Its not actually giving legitimate information about his setup.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:12 am

Philippe's en.Wikipedia talk page:

Dear Mr Beaudette,

This communication is to notify you that I confirm receipt of your communication in which you communicated to me that I have been globally banned from the Wikimedia Foundation websites and platforms.

I would like to communicate to you that I have indeed socked on English Wikipedia and created some pretty good content in the process. But as to your history of legal concerns and other violations of your ToU, without clarification I call bullshit. For this is what the WMF says to editors who are globally locked under suspicion of being, or being confirmed as, paedophiles. It is done this way to in order for the WMF to make the accusation without being legally responsible for it being made. Brilliant huh? Is the WMF accusing me of being a paedophile Mr Beaudette? You will need to publicly clarify this Mr Beaudette.

After carefully considering your communication, I am here to communicate to you that I will be ignoring your communication in its entirety. I have taken clear steps this morning in order to protect my privacy, especially given the WMF has refused to, as it relates to the ISP I am using when I edit these projects; this includes keeping my current ISP for all websites, and a throwaway mobile broadband account to edit Wikipedia.

The end game of this is clearly to get the WMF to take me to court here in Australia. I'd love my day in court with you bastards.

Fuck you and game on moles,

Mr Bibby

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:20 am

I hope they permaban every single account that speaks against the Russavia banning.
It's not like commons hasn't had multiple chances to straighten up.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:19 am

Oh - shots fired!

Odder re-instates Russavia's admin bit, stating, "Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation"

Saffron Blaze · Unread post by **Saffron Blaze** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:21 am

We are taking this action based upon because of a history of sockpuppetry and legal concerns as well as other violations of our Terms of Use.

So, does one get more annoyed about the ban or the fact they think so little of you they don't bother to proof-read their ban notice?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:26 am

Alison wrote:Oh - shots fired!

Odder re-instates Russavia's admin bit, stating, "Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation"

That's a twofer for the good guys.

What's the bag limit on common commons assholes these days?
Is there a tag and release program?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:33 am

Sparky wrote:...they may decide to unload a few thousand penises.

Quite a messy jam that WMF has gotten themselves into...

RfB

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:00 am

Alison wrote:Oh - shots fired!

Odder re-instates Russavia's admin bit, stating, "Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation"

I've seen some futile gestures in my time but that surely takes the biscuit. Try reading it in the voice of a ten-year-old boy huffing and stamping his foot after Papa has laid down the law in some fashion and walked off; that's what it amounts to.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Jim wrote:Isn't it a lot more likely it's due to a long term pattern of trolling, and being a dick, on multiple projects, with no remorse? Sorry, just trying to use Occam's razor here. Begoon - talk 21:18, 17 January 2015

Bless you for trying to demonstrate some basic logic to these shitheels.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:17 am

Even if it is physically impossible to completely prevent Scott Bibby from editing the projects, the WMF has now made the acct of doing so for him fast more difficult and even also expensive; and every time he tries it will be incredible for him not to have in his mind the fact that he has been designated persona non grata; and he will never be able to openly interact with his little buddies on Commons again. That, for me, is a definite result.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:40 am

Alison wrote:Oh - shots fired!

Odder re-instates Russavia's admin bit, stating, "Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation"

No harm done. Obviously, he can't use his awesome powers, and Odder demonstrates to the world what a brilliant functionary he is.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:00 pm

Anroth wrote:
Alison wrote: Clearly "Fuck Off, CheckUser Browser/1.0 (It's Me; ru)" is a massive privacy breach .
Well realistically no. However legally its dodgy. No idea about the US/Australia etc, but in the EU it falls under personal/private data - technical data regarding a persons browser, hardware etc is always 'private' data unless they have waived their rights. There is nothing wrong with you knowing it, but publishing it to parties who dont have the rights to view it is a no-no.

In that case, employees of the WMF would be fine as would be other CU's etc.

There are some odd rules about data breaches in the UK - scale of the breach also depends on what potential harm could come from it. I cant see anything in this case that could cause alarm because its a spoofed browser agent. Its not actually giving legitimate information about his setup.

This isn't consistent with the advice that I have (on a separate matter). Can you direct me to the law on this?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:30 pm

The WMF has a problem here. The Commons people are not going to enforce the WMF's ban, and might even work against it. Are WMF employees going to be on daily Bibby patrol? What will they do when the every penis is sacred brigade reverts them?

Of course, if they're smart, this could also prove a wonderful opportunity (dump the core of about 20 or so regulars, put in your own admins there, try to reset the culture).

Go, odder, go!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:54 pm

Odder is adorable. He thinks his "community" of about 20 people have some say in all this.

@Philippe (WMF), WMFOffice, Jalexander-WMF:: This is just to inform you that earlier today, I have restored administrator privileges for the account of russavia on this wiki. As you should be aware, the only body with the authority to assign and remove admin privileges here is the volunteer community of Wikimedia Commons; neither the Terms of Use nor the privacy policy allow the Wikimedia Foundation to remove admin privileges from anyone; and as the Commons community never agreed to remove russavia as an administrator, they should remain one until such time that the community decides otherwise.

With that said, and unless someone beats me to it, I will start a de-adminship procedure for russavia as soon as I get back home this evening, so as to allow the community to reach an independent and binding decision on the matter; I urge you, your team, and everyone involved to respect the outcome of that discussion, and also promise to do that myself. I further urge you not to revert my restoration either by yourself or by proxy, and instead allow the community to reach its own conclusion -- although your involvement in that discussion is very welcome and, I feel, could be crucial to its outcome. I also ask that you refrain from unilaterelly banning and de-sysopping any Commons administrators in the future without first consulting it with the Commons community; I believe it will help us avoid situations like the one we find ourselves in at the moment.

I shall, of course, let you know as soon as I start that discussion by leaving you a link to it on this page.

Until that time, I remain yours most sincerely, odder (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably time to point out that Tomas Koslowski (Wikipedia codename: "Odder") butted heads with the Wikimedia Foundation in 2014.

Then, two of the Wikimedia Foundation's senior volunteers (a global "Steward" and an administrator of commons and the Dutch Wikipedia), both teenagers, used their advanced permissions to track a female editor of the Dutch Wikipedia, making crank calls to her home and eventually traveling to her home by train. This was sufficiently creepy for the Wikimedia Foundation to unilaterally remove the teenage Commons administrator's advanced permissions (since the Commons "community" was not going to take action).

Mr. Koslowski then unilaterally restored the teenager stalker's Wikimedia Commons administrative rights. Not once, but twice. Other defenders of the teen stalker "JurgenNL" were Russavia and Fae.

Koslowski is and was a "bureaucrat" on Commons (a more elite type of administrator), and a referendum was held on his actions to maintain the teen as one of the website's most powerful and trusted users. His actions were overwhelmingly approved by the Commons regulars. Only a short time before Mr. Bibby had lost his bureaucrat role, and the commoners were getting a tad nervous. This vote of, uhm, confidence for Koslowski probably summed up the mood best.

Keep Beta_M, Russavia, JurgenNL, odder... Who will be the next? ( --A.Savin 11:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And then there's this.

Keep Until such time as there is an analogous de-steward discussion on Meta for the steward who wheel-warred, this is just another example of a political witchhunt. The WMF erred greatly with their actions, and those who are voting removal based upon what the WMF did really need to take their collective heads out of the WMF's arse. Sorry, call it as I see it. russavia (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the WMF people have an actual strategy (or desire) to deal with the Commons mess (which, unlike the mess at the English-language Wikipedia and most of the others, is a real easy fix) or if they've just blundered into this. Commons' independent role is neither valuable, nor necessary, and is a source of tremendous legal and ethical liability for them. It is run by teens and snotty adults; a large percentage of the photos are scrapped from soon-to-be-deleted flickr accts by bots and individuals with names like "Mrhappyfeet12," and the Wikimedia Foundation then licenses the images for commercial redistribution on their say-so.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:43 pm

Jimbo says he had no hand in the ban, but "wishes he did":

Have you anything to do with the global banning and locking of Russavia? KonveyorBelt 19:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I have nothing to do with it. I wish I did as it was richly deserved and long overdue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, if i may ask, could you explain why it was "Deserved"? LorTalk 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppeting alone is enough. We don't even have to get into his extensive abuse of other users, but that alone, too, would be enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See, the thing is, Jimmy, that just begs the question "why didn't you?"
I guess "Constitutional Monarchs" wouldn't want to be seen grubbing around in governance - and I guess it could be argued he was too "involved".

But Jimmy has been aware of the wider Commons problem for a long time, with never more than vague hints that something would be done - never resulting in action.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:16 pm

Jim wrote:See, the thing is, Jimmy, that just begs the question "why didn't you?"
I guess "Constitutional Monarchs" wouldn't want to be seen grubbing around in governance - and I guess it could be argued he was too "involved".

But Jimmy has been aware of the wider Commons problem for a long time, with never more than vague hints that something would be done - never resulting in action.

We've been waiting for the foundation to do something. It would be inappropriate for an individual board member to reach in and manage the problem himself. Hopefully we're watching a more proactive ED at work.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:18 pm

Now, if I was the WMF, I'd turn around and say "You don't want to play by our rules? Fine, odder, we'll call your bluff, and ban you and your moronic friends. Bye!"... but I seriously doubt they have the balls to do that.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:26 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:Now, if I was the WMF, I'd turn around and say "You don't want to play by our rules? Fine, odder, we'll call your bluff, and ban you and your moronic friends. Bye!"... but I seriously doubt they have the balls to do that.

A quiet word explaining the reality of the situation should bring odder around. But in Philippe's or Lila's shoes, I'd be hoping he digs his heels in to facilitate a speedier clean-out. I'd be hoping he incites a little revolt of the weirdos, for the same reason.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:54 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:It would be inappropriate for an individual board member to reach in and manage the problem himself. Hopefully we're watching a more proactive ED at work.

Well, there was this time.

I agree with you, though, he shouldn't manage it directly, rather use his influence to get it addressed.

My real point, though was that saying "No, I have nothing to do with it, but I wish I had", without explaining why, and what he did do, will inevitably lead some to say "why didn't you, then?"
There were better ways to answer the question.

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, there are a few signs Lila is making a difference. I hope they continue.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:51 pm

It will be interesting to see if The Gruesome Twosome go down like Butch and Sundance under a newly-contrived WMF Sooper-dooper Mega-protect Global Ban, or whether the WMF is pusillanimous enough to let Koslowski get away with it. The many, many abuses of "Indonesiaball" and "Odder" are well-known and proven. The depth of the determination of the WMF to actually do something to stop them remains to seen.

either way