Stewards/confirm/2010/Pathoschild

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

• I love you ... okay, just a joke. ;) Excellent steward, very helpful on all areas. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• we need him --Jan eissfeldt 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Exceptional steward, incredibly knowledgeable; confirm. Katerenka (d) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• thanks for all Your work, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. I'm not quite in love with you but otherwise DerHexer stole the words out of my fingers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• very good steward, has to be confirmed --Church of emacs talk 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Competent, available, and a valuable asset. Ottava Rima 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep, per all other comments ;-) —Innv {ru-ws} 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Another steward without which the projects would asplode. Keep. Kylu 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keeper. -- Avi 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Enslave him! --Jyothis 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• We all love him. Great toolsmith, unflappable, tireless contributor, and manages to put up with Shanel. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Excellent steward! --Holder 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• psh, I'm not joking I do love you ;) /me fights shanel.... loses :( tireless steward who apprently doesn't actually sleep. James (T C) 06:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Too lazy. ;) Excellent steward; echo James. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep MoiraMoira 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Very good and active steward. Of course: reconfirm. --Bsadowski1 07:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Foundation will do what it wants, but I don't trust this user. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Quintessential. —Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Good job. –Ejs-80 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep If not he, who then?! --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• useful, helpful... what else? :)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• ..., versatile, always coming up with useful tools/scripts, ... --Erwin 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. Ruy Pugliesi ^◥ 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• OK. Marcus Cyron 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Done great things as a steward. Techman224 ^Talk 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• helpful and friendly but please promise not to go for long wiki-breaks , when i can't find you on irc , lots my questions get unanswered --Mardetanha ^talk 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep Nakor 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Obelix 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep.--Jusjih 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• One of our most active stewards. Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep, without a doubt --FiliP ██ 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Stefan64 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. Half human, half robot... one great steward - εΔ ω 22:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Promote to quality image. bastique ^demandez! 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oversaturated, but maybe promote to valued image. Definitely a Keep Keep as it is within scope and in use at several projects. Finn Rindahl 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Favorite steward, definite keep. Razor flame 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Christian Giersing 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - Dust Spinner 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• supported by --Sargoth 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Plot Spoiler 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• tag as copyvio of shanel. —Dark ^talk 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep, in fact chain him down. In high regard billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• hasn't done enough work yet... which is why we MUST keep him ! Alphos ^{[bother me]} 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep remove so the rest of us can do something too! ;) Laaknor 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• mreow ! mreoooow *javascriptally purrrrrrrrrr* DarkoNeko 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Thanks very much. Lymantria 12:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. -Xqt 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep speedy: redundant image of Shanny. --Aphaia 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep pretty obvious. --EgmontaZ ♤ 11:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Vituzzu 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep per all the above keeps. Durova 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep — Jack Merridew 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. We would have many problems without his active work on steward tools. --Millosh 13:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Annabel 07:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep Clearly helps out general coordination and clear benefits to keeping as a Steward. JoshuaZ 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Will Beback 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• definitely Keep Keep --Stepro 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Oppose. Responsible for leaking large amounts of personal information (addresses, phone numbers, ...) by maintaining lists of hidden (for a reason) SUL accounts in a now-deleted "sandbox" that's now irreversably mirrored on external sites. Stewards are entrusted with the most intimate data on Wikimedia projects; slip-ups like these are wholly unacceptable (particularly if they happen repeatedly; see below). Fran Rogers 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Correction: the personal information was restored; it's still there in the page history. Lovely. Fran Rogers 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  After a discussion with Pathoschild on IRC, I found that he restored the local copies of the list on Meta by mistake on February 11. So this was not just a one-time mistake. Fran Rogers 07:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hello Fran. I sincerely apologize for the mirrored information, which occurred due to an oversight regarding spam mirrors not retaining the __NOINDEX__ directive. Globally hidden accounts were not oversighted at the time, and I was using the list to bulk-oversight them on all wikis. I have oversighted the sandbox revisions, and am contacting the operators of the mirror domain to have the mirror updated or removed. (I do understand why you oppose my steward access.) —Pathoschild 07:49:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I'm still concerned you might make another mistake like this again with private information - especially considering your restoration as recently as February 11, ten days ago, when you mistakenly restored the deleted copies of the list here on Meta. Our stewards need to treat private data with the utmost security, especially when designing and using software that manipulates that data. Fran Rogers 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  I've also been informed of another incident in late January where Pathoschild uploaded locked-account data to the toolserver, and the personal info and defamatory claims within ended up as top results for a person's real name in Google before they contacted Pathoschild to remove it. Fran Rogers 11:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose for the same reason as Fran Rogers. harej 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Fran, Pathoschild StewardBot is basically the only way the stewards were able to keep up with the oversighting of such abusive usernames. You are not really accomplishing anything by opposing this request. Say he was not reconfirmed. The issue with such usernames being made available to the public would only be increased. And confirm on that basis. NW (Talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Note: There's also a gadget for that issue: MediaWiki:Gadget-hideuser.js. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  There is now. But you made that just six or eight months ago, I do believe. And Pathoschild's script is still far more efficient than anything else's. Plus, Fran, do you honestly believe that no steward has ever made any mistake? With the volume of work that Pathoschild does, it isn't totally unexpected for there to be a few errors. There would have been no matter who did it; that's simply human nature. NW (Talk) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  It was at least earlier stable than Pathoschild's one. However, both things are useful. And each steward can use the one which he prefers. So I where I can do that on my own and not by bot. But both scripts will not be anylonger needed when vvv's bugfix gets online. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  NuclearWarfare, it's understandable that stewards are only human, and humans make errors. But this chain of mistakes seems to indicate that Pathoschild is irresponsible at handling data even when others ask him to be careful. He was asked to keep his lists of sensitive data off Meta because Google was picking up and prominently displaying damaging information on there; so he moved it to his wiki pathos.ca, only to be informed Google was picking it up again; so he moved it to the Toolserver, only to be informed yet again that it was ranking high in Google for persons' names. And now, less than two weeks ago, he undeleted the copy on Meta again. That is at least four strikes, after each of which he was informed of his mistakes, but he still repeats them; a professional programmer would likely be looking at termination. He just doesn't seem to understand that peoples' livelihoods and reputations could be jeopardized by his mishandling of data. Fran Rogers 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Some of the listed names were sensitive—which is why I moved the list to increasingly private locations—but not private. The names listed contained information taken from public sources, like the personal résumé you maintain on your personal website and indexed by Google. Furthermore, the names were available from MediaWiki itself at the time the list existed—I was using the list to remedy that problem.

  Google never indexed my sandbox page, because it contained a __NOINDEX__ directive. The problem occurred when a spam mirror copied pages from Meta, then stripped __NOINDEX__ directives to increase its page hits. The undeletion of the sandbox did not increase the list's visibility, since the revisions were deep in its edit history.

  While I am sorry that the list was indexed, and I am certainly more wary of indexing now, I do not agree that livelihoods and reputations were at risk—certainly no more than they were by their user pages being indexed (another problem only resolved relatively recently) or the original sources being indexed. —Pathoschild 05:33:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  That my own information is on the lists is beside the point; while my own contact information is readily available (though I find it rather intrusive that you linked it in this discussion), there are dozens of other folks' names and contact information on that list for which this isn't the case, and I personally know of two other users this has seriously impacted. Fran Rogers 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  For what it's worth, I have a very high opinion of our stewards in general and of Pathoschild in particular -- the accomplishments and endorsements listed above are sure signs of a vibrant career as a volunteer in the WMF sphere -- but I'm also more than a little concerned by the apparent thought process that seems to have led to the posting and later restoration of what sounds like very sensitive information, and that by someone who is specifically tasked with accessing, safeguarding and protecting that very same sort of data on a regular basis. It seems like a no-brainer that we should strive to avoid publicly posting or reposting information that may have been used, or may continue to be used, in systematic harassment or outing of upstanding community members. Perhaps this can't be fully discussed in a public setting, but if it is possible to do so, I'm sure I'm not the only one who might appreciate a slightly more complete explanation of how and why that information wound up on a WMF site. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hello Luna Santin. The user names listed were publicly available at the time from MediaWiki's automated lists, Toolserver tools, and some of their user pages. Many of the names had been publicly available for many months. I created a temporary, __NOINDEX__'d list of these public user names so that I could perform bulk oversight using StewardBot. Hundreds of these attack names disappeared from every wiki (and their mirrors) during this process.

  While the page never appeared in search engines due to the __NOINDEX__ directive, a problem occurred when a spam mirror website copied pages from Meta and stripped __NOINDEX__ directives to increase its search engine rankings. That mirrored page appeared in search results, and quickly led to the disappearance of the original list. Only a single page was indexed, instead of the many indexed pages that appeared before I began oversighting; I have contacted the owners of the domain to have the mirror page updated or removed.

  I do sincerely apologize for the indexing of a copy of the list due to my oversight. —Pathoschild 12:32:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  The personal information about me (which is on that site and searchable through Google) was never made public willingly. I was outed on several websites after dealing with a certain banned user. Moreover, I do not agree with the way that you cavalierly refer to a list of account names like "<real name> rapes little kids." "<real name> = child molestor," "<real name> is a supporter of pedophilia," "<real name> has Asperger's syndrome," and "<real name> was abused by his Parents," which you posted to the wiki, as not having the potential to cause those individuals harm. Surely that's not what you are actually saying? Dominic 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hello Dominic. Indeed, that is not what I am saying. The user names were already published by MediaWiki's automated lists and their user pages. Many of these were top search results, because of Wikimedia's high search engine ranking. (For example, some real names still match a few old mirrored user pages from those days in top results.)

  These highly visible names virtually disappeared as a result of my oversighting project; the mirrored list itself is typically so far back in search engine results that it's hidden by Google's "omitted some entries very similar to the n already displayed" feature. If all goes well, that too will disappear soon. I agree the names themselves are detrimental, and I'm sorry a mirror of the list was indexed; however, my actions greatly reduced the visibility of these names. —Pathoschild 14:02:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Keep --Kaster 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmations 2010