Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 20 November 2008

Thatcher is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Thanks again

for your help. I hope its not inappropriate to thank you on your page for your thoughtful advice to a novice of wiki. Aruhnka (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Osxdude Checkuser

So there would be no way to tell between the edits which were actually his and which came from the user who stole the password? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 01:22

IP Blocking Problem

I seem to have a problem with my IP address also I am not exactly sure if I am putting this in the wrong place. I do have a user account and it works but when I am not logged on I am blocked from posting. I have gone through the help pages and descriptions of reasons why I am blocked and I am unable to find the reason why. I am at home and no one else uses this computer. You are the Admin who blocked my IP so I thought I would ask you what might be the cause. Another tidbit of information is that this has happened to me once before. Sorry if i am putting this in the wrong place, if I am could you direct me to where i should put this? Bobanole (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As it states in the block message, there is a particular user in your area who has been banned for very good reason, but who continues to try and edit using public wi-fi spots. Some IPs in your area are blocked for anonymous editing but not logged-in editing, and some are blocked for all editing, due to this individual. I have temporarily given you an IP block exemption to allow you to edit from any location, even if the IP is blocked. Thatcher 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Man, those were some good questions. I'm tempted to run for ArbCom just to take a crack at answering them! But actually, numbers 3 and 4 pegged the reasons why I've thought better of the whole thing. Curious to see what people have to say, though. MastCell  19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole attack page 2008 edition

Hi Thatcher,

Since Gene Poole is a perennial behavior problem, another round of high maintenance is needed.

Gene's 2007 on-wiki attack page was deleted, followed by his migration of it to a 2007 external attack page discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Gene Poole and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jun#Storm in a teacup.

Gene is back with the 2008 edition of his attack page. Prior to the 2007 suppression of it, NewYorkBrad said that he would appreciate other views. You've worked the Gene Poole cases before, so I request that you re-suppress the 2008 edition on wiki, and again externally if it comes to that. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Illicit check using

Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept the premise that use of checkuser was "illicit." Catherine de Burgh may have been an "open secret" among your circle, but I was not aware, nor were the people I contacted privately. In fact, I asked if this was an open secret and noted that I was reluctant to take action. I also attempted to contact you privately and you flipped me off. Thatcher 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you have asked if it were an open secret if no one suspected or knew it was open secret, and if you did not know it was open secret why be reluctant to take action - you don't seem to be making much sense Thatcher. You now say you checkueserd me months ago and knew, Gerard checkusered 2 years and knew, it appears not to be tmaking much sense. The truth, appears to me, to be that you just wanted to see what you coud find out. So we now have 5 checkusers who all knew months, if not years ago. Including you who knew in June that I had a sock, and yet you somehow managed to forget about it. Not looking good really - is it? Giano (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, when I checked Catherine de Burgh in June I did not find you behind the account. There are a number of potential reasons for this, including but not limited to dynamic IP addressing and/or failure on my part to pursue the matter deeply enough. In my email to Jimbo, David and Newyorkbrad I said I wanted to "tread gently" in this matter, because you were involved and because a comparison of the edits of your accounts found very little article overlap. In point of fact only two checkusers have ever checked User:Giano II (including myself) and only those two plus one more have ever checked User:Catherine de Burgh. For more specific information you will have to contact the ombudsman commission. As to why David G. allowed Catherine to pass unremarked two years ago but blocked the account now, he can speak for himself. I find it amazing but not surprising that while you and your circle have been vehement opponents of a particular admin clique on IRC, I am now faulted for not recognizing the inside games and jokes perpetrated by your clique. Thatcher 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. After reviewing the entire checkuser log for the June check, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on User:Grawp today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) Thatcher 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never released or used private information about anyone, no matter who they are. Lady Catherine has never been attacked to such a degree that she reqiested checkuser. I have never edited lady Catherine on any IP other than my general one. That anyone could not see she was a spoof is amazing, and I would realy question their worldliness. Giano edits from IPs all over the place, but mainly one in London, the same one that Lady C has always and unfailingly used. It is inconceivable that a checkuser on her would not lead to me. Inconceivable! It is alos inconceivable that a checkuser would not know edits were likely to be stale, if so why run the checkuser? Now who are the other chckusers? Giano (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No Giano, sorry, I think you are missing one point here: checkuser IP info is only stored for a couple of weeks or something, and when Thatcher checked her in June, Catherine had been inactive for a while, so it's entirely natural the records didn't lead to you at the time. Thatcher is right about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, I do realise that, which is why I repeat (as above)"It is aloso inconceivable that a checkuser would not know edits were likely to be stale, if so why run the checkuser?" Giano (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many times checkusers run checks of accounts whose edits are stale. For one thing, it is simply easier (lazier) to click the "check" button and let the system tell me whether there are any results, rather than first checking contribution history, especially when checking a lot of accounts. For another, the checkuser tables include deleted edits and the sending of emails through the special:email function, neither of which shows up in a quick check of contribs (although deleted edits would show if I looked at both the live and deleted contrib pages). As far as the oversighted edits, I'll cover that in email with Giano. Thatcher 11:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano/CDB checkuser

I think you misunderstood my question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at my clarification. Specifically, I think you interpreted my question as being much more hostile than I'd intended it to be. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I answered the question ("Right" -- as, it was not David G. who asked me for an opinion on Catherine de Burgh) and then added an additional comment; while I did not interpret your question as hostile, I do interpret many of the other statements as hostile. Thatcher 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'd interpreted the "right" as being sarcastic. For whatever it's worth, provided that the other checkuser was also unaware of CDB's identity (which I find quite plausible, provided it wasn't David Gerard) I find your explanation entirely satisfactory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on WP:RfAr, I can confirm that Thatcher sent an e-mail to me, which if I'd been online and seen it would have nipped this situation in the bud; unfortunately I took an uncharacteristic night off (I was at a location where I could not check my blackberry for several hours) and missed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RCU clarification

In the CdeB case, under which of the acceptable criteria listed on that page are you justifying your use of Checkuser? I can see that the unacceptable reason Vote fraud, ongoing vote might disallow the use of Checkuser, but apart from the wishy-washy catch-all of G, I can't see any of the other reasons allowing its use. It would be handy if somebody with Checkuser could edit that page to reflect the actual use of the tool, so as not to mislead. I have removed the bolded statement in the header, as it does not reflect reality - I have seen at least two instances of you using Checkuser as a first resort, and the statements from the Arbs in the David Gerard request are overwhelming supporting the use of Checkuser in this manner. Yomangani 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Use of checkuser is covered in the checkuser policy at Misplaced Pages:CheckUser, specifically, "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project". The page Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser was created as a centralized place for editors to request checkuser investigation, and the instructions there are written to try and help editors understand what kinds of checks are usually run and what kind are usually declined. Only a fraction of checkuser investigations are requested through the RFCU page. Checkusers may run checks based on private requests (email, talk page or other contact methods) or at their own initiative if they see something funny going on. For example, I have run of number of checks related to discussions on the admin noticeboards, where I thought there was an issue that would benefit from a checkuser investigation. I provided the following statistics to Misplaced Pages Review a few months ago, I meant to post them here but never did. Here they are if you are interested.
  

• 693 contained the automatic summary indicating they were run directly off a report at RFCU (about 70 separate cases).
• 186 contained the automatic summary indicating they were run directly off the IP check section of RFCU (these are usually requests to identify vandal sleepers and apply rangeblocks).
• 330 involved either a public checkuser case (without the auto summary) or one of the major named vandals (Grawp, Avril Lavigne vandal, etc). I don't particularly care about giving vandals the right tag but I do like to block sleepers.
• 6 were for cases reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets.
• 4 were investigations of autoblocks.
• 173 contained either "recheck", "unblock" or "review" in the summary; either I was rechecking my own findings in response to an unblock request or complaint that I had gotten a check wrong, or I was checking for someone else.
• 35 were checks of requested rangeblocks for potential collateral damage.
• 22 were in response to emailed requests.
• 56 were in response to threads at the admin noticeboards, the results were reported there if there was anything relevant.
• 7 related to enforcement of arbitration rulings (mostly allegations of logging out to avoid editing restrictions).

Hope this answers your question. Thatcher 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I can't say it provides a particularly satisfactory answer. I get the general idea that the criteria listed on WP:RCU would appear regarded by the Checkusers as little more than advisory, and since the acceptable reason "G" provides a get-out clause anyway, there is little point in having them listed as Acceptable and Unacceptable other than giving a false impression of the stringency applied to requests for CU. As to The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project, vague as it is, I wonder which part of that you believe justifies the check on Lady C? On a related note, are there any rules or guidelines governing the use of checkuser, or are you free to checkuser as often and as randomly as you like? Yomangani 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady C was playing games with the Arbcom election. That falls under "limiting disruption". Thatcher 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a broad definition of disruption. Please don't think I'm attacking you; I picked on you because of past experience and the current case, but I just want to see how somebody operates in the role of checkuser so the appropriate pages can be edited to reflect reality rather than misleading non-Checkusers as to the likelihood of them being checkusered and opening those with CU up to claims of abuse. Yomangani 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for a check user, they all knew who it was. They abused their powers to find out who I was - and for what purpose? Giano (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the checkuser who ran the original check, and Thatcher, apparently did not know who it was. I always thought it was pretty obvious, but if these two people say they did not know, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that the abusing powers argument doesn't hold much water (other than perhaps on the grounds of personal ethics). I too thought—and hoped—that the requirements for use of Checkuser were more demanding, but it appears that once granted it can be used with impunity, so you can't blame Thatcher for exercising this ability within that framework (or lack of framework). The information on the various policy pages was misleading at best; I've started work on rewording them to make the lack of protection for the average user clearer, though what we really need is some regulation and accountability for the use of the tool. Yomangani 16:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also completed this essay, which discusses various privacy-related issues as they pertain to Misplaced Pages. I won't say that it reflects best practice, simply that it reflects current practice and perceptions. It would no doubt benefit from your gentle editing touch, Yomangan. Risker (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatal!ty

He is requesting unblock, professing remorse. Since you were the blocking admin and this guy was a major sockpuppeteer, how do you feel? Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• His IP is clean, so either he has been behaving himself or he got better at hiding it. I would not object to a second chance. Thatcher 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)