| Revision as of 22:56, 28 May 2015 view sourceGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →ips, SPIs, and outing: The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to:on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Misplaced Pages← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:29, 3 June 2015 view source Lightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{semi-retired|date=May 2015|mms=no}} | {{semi-retired|date=May 2015|mms=no}} | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| == ips, SPIs, and outing == | |||
| Here are two conversations I coincidentally had in the past about ips, SPIs, and outing that may be of interest to you in terms of what is or is not outing. Its not directly on point, as its more about with in article space and not administrative boards, but it does have some relevance ] (]) 20:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The most relevant bit I think is from the conversation with {{u|Dennis Brown}} that reads "When I'm connecting an IP to a registered account, I'm using my best guess and no technical proof, but it isn't for the purpose of outing them, it is to prevent future abuse. In those cases, they are really outing themselves by choosing to abuse the system while logged out in a way that make it obvious it is them. But again, it is done in the right venue, and not just a random statement on a talk page" - The core issue seems to be if an arbcom page qualifies as "the right venue" or not. ] (]) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's worth noting that none of the arbs or clerks removed the post linking the two or in any other way (that I saw) commented that its location might be inappropriate. There was a suggestion that it would be better suited for SPI, but that's different than saying "this was wrong, don't do that". Given that Lightbreather was sanctioned for her behavior and no admin has suggested that HiaB should be sanctioned for linking the accounts, accusations that he outed her or that he acted in any other way inappropriately are wrong, and continuing to post them is a personal attack, or, to be more specific, is casting (invalid) aspersions. ] (]) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Karanacs, first I have to be careful because of my iban, so I'll have to say "No comment" to some of your points, but I do have a question. Are you saying that if an editor has broken a rule (whether they meant to or not), then it's OK to identify private information about them? ] (]) 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My apologies - I wasn't thinking or I would have refrained from bringing up the iban stuff. The leeway on the Arbcom stuff confused me. I am saying that if an editor was socking on project pages by editing logged out (rather than editing logged out by accident), then it is not outing at all. The editor chose to give up their privacy. ] (]) 00:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you, Karanacs. All I can say is I've lost count of how many times I've read ] and ] since November 24, but I'm just not seeing how they add up to what you're saying. If what you say is true, I think those policies should be edited to make that clear. I won't pursue this legally, but I could see some people doing such a thing. Honestly, short of someone threatening someone else's life or property, I don't know if WMF legal would agree that it's OK to out someone's personal info, including their IP address. | |||
| :::::Further, if IPs aren't supposed to participate at ArbCom, why were so many allowed (over a dozen, I believe) at the GGTF ArbCom? And why was I the ''only'' one to be investigated? For heaven's sake, if IPs aren't supposed to participate at ArbCom, why not just protect ArbCom pages and save everyone some stress? ] (]) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And here's one I hadn't thought of before. Aren't blocks supposed to be ]? I'd stopped editing while logged out on November 25, but I was blocked on November 30. What was being prevented? I hadn't vandalized anything or ] anyone. (I realize it doesn't matter anymore, but I've got time to sit and contemplate these things now.) ] (]) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gaijin42, I can't imagine arbcom would always be the right venue, but in this case I think it's appropriate. However, it doesn't really matter, because I have retired. I'm just hanging around until the case is closed, in case an arb or clerk asks me something. ] (]) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} If we were talking about edit warring or something, probably not. When we are specifically talking about socking, and all of the relevant information (just add intuition) is on wiki, and even raising the question of suspected socking reveals the info? Yes. Also one additional note the SPI/CU page specifically says that for suspected socking during an arb case, to raise the issue in the case pages "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case - Request on the arbitration case pages that a checkuser be run." what was being prevented was the ongoing socking. I buy that you ''initially'' were not aware you were breaking the rules. But once confronted and presented with the rules you doubled down. you were already "outed" at that point, so the equivication didn't buy you anything except trouble. | |||
| {{ec}} If arbcom was an acceptable venue, then doesn't that invalidate your argument that it was inappropriate outing?] (]) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I misunderstood you there. I thought you were talking about my mentioning outing in the current arbcom. The other arbcom? What Callanecc said. ] (]) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :As for doubling-down, that's ''one'' way to look at it. But when I responded to the SPI notice I had already sent email to a checkuser and Oversight, and I still had some small hope of discussing the situation privately. I honestly thought some functionary would explain whether I had or had not truly broken a rule, and warn or sanction me if necessary - without officially connecting my IP address to my username. In hindsight, it was a hopelessly optimistic notion. ] (]) 00:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, ''what was being prevented was the ongoing socking''. The socking wasn't ongoing; it had stopped five days previously. ] (]) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It is, of course, your call whether to post your detailed explanation of the socking block. But I would recommend that you do. Otherwise the only detailed explanation will be provided by those who don't like you. I think Michael Dukakis found out that turns out badly. <small>(And I have just lost all the readers of this page not interested in the politics of a certain country or below a certain age, but I believe you share those factors with me... :-))</small> --] (]) 00:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I won't risk it here, because of my iban, and I really don't want to post it at the ArbCom, either. If you want to copy the info and do with it what you will, in good-faith, fine, but make sure it's your post and not mine. ] (]) 01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :And think long and hard about it, too. Seriously. Helping me is risky business for WP editors. ] (]) 01:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Unfortunately, I can't, not for it to have meaning. The whole value of the piece is "this is Lightbreather's explanation". If I have to post it as my own, then ... how the heck can I testify as to what your intentions were? <small>Ah, I know. I can return to my comment that I too am secretly one of your socks.... unfortunately that becomes less funny the third time. ;-( </small> I am fairly sure that it is not an IBan violation in the arbcom case, as, first, it's about you, not about anyone else, second those are specifically lifted for the case, and third, it's not an attack against anyone; it's not even an exoneration, it is merely an explanation. And I think it is needed. Remember, the goal here isn't to rehash the past, or to tar anyone else, or to exculpate you completely. Those trains have left. It's to keep you from being banned. I'm not the most diligent reader of the Arbcom mind, but I'm guessing that's not out of the question right now. --] (]) 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| responding to the "not seeing it in the policies" comment above - Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I think there are several portions of the policy(s) you may be overlooking. | |||
| {{collapse top|title=read before}} | |||
| * Using an alternative account in a discussion about another account operated by the same person. (you commented about yourself) | |||
| * it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions (self explanatory?) | |||
| * Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts (you contributed evidence as LB) | |||
| * Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project (which you were not aware of, but you say you don't see it when you read it now either) | |||
| * Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. | |||
| * Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy (partial match on the equivocation, but matches several of the illegit points) | |||
| * The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to:on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Misplaced Pages | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| As to GRubans point about trains having left, ironically the harassment against you may have helped you sufficiently to avoid a ban. Prior to that blow up I would have put good money on the end result being a ban, especially after your beating the dead horse accusing me of socking. But now, its a reasonable POV that your flaws were caused by undue stress from harassment. But an honest acknowledgement of where you have gone wrong is crucial. ] (]) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You say you're not trying to beat a ], but you are. I edited while logged out, and for that I was blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. At the time that I edited while logged out, I believed that it was OK, for several reasons that I've given before but won't go into again. (Discussions in ] will help if anyone wants to slog through them.) I was blocked for something I did, I served my time. My block was extended for another week for something I didn't do, and I served time for that, too. That's over and done. | |||
| :The not-seeing-it comment wasn't about my block. It was about whether or not ''any'' person who breaks a rule (whether they knew they were or not) by editing while logged out forfeits their right to privacy. What I said to Karanacs is that I see nothing on the "Editing while logged out" section of the ] policy, or anything in the "Posting of personal information" section of the ] policy, that supports that. That is probably why Callanecc said during the GGTF ArbCom, if you have evidence (of IP editors being logged-out editors), please email it. Would emailing the evidence prevent the editor from being blocked if they had done something wrong? No. | |||
| :The one exception I can think of would be if an editor posted, while logged in, "My IP address is 01.234.56.789" - and leaving that post un-revdeled. I believe editing while logged-out - on purpose or not - is not the same thing. However, if on Misplaced Pages editing while logged out ''is'' the same as explicitly connecting your username to your IP address, then that probably out to be spelled out in policy. ] (]) 21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::the last bullet point in the section you collapsed covers that I think, but could be more strongly worded. Its also covered in the quote from the discussion with Dennis (although I certainly admit that a conversation is not policy, but it does show that it is the standard understanding of the policy). ] (]) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
