Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence

message: SlimVirgin's contribution appears to be an essay rather than evidence, and probably does not belong on the evidence page.  It strictly gives her opinion and line of argument on the issue, without citing any actual events or diffs.  Daniel Brandt's contribution is similarly mostly in the nature of a statement of opinion, though it does at least make some references to actual events.  These statements would be better placed on a talk page, or as proposed principles or remedies on the Workshop page, than on the evidence page. *Dan T.* 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that, since I wrote the above, several other additions, coming from "both sides" of the issue, also seem to be more essays and opinion pieces than presentations of evidence.  Perhaps I'm wrong about the intended purpose of the evidence page? *Dan T.* 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure. I thought that the evidence section was meant for both concrete evidence regarding the happenings in the case, and for your general thoughts about the case. I could be wrong, though; if there's a more appropriate place to "essay-ish" opinions on the issue, I'd gladly move my evidence there. Melsaran (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence or essay? 

message: Regarding Mantanmoreland's evidence link (to an attack site attacking the attacker who made an attack site!  how neat!) where it alleges "spyware" on WordBomb's part:  I'm a techie geek myself, so I'll comment that, while the technique used by WordBomb to pretend to be somebody else and do a sneaky technique to gain information about others was not very kosher, it wasn't as all-powerful as the critics would like to scare everybody into thinking.  He didn't embed viruses, trojan-horses, or spyware on Slim's computer, in the sense that those things are generally regarded by computer professionals.  What he did was send an HTML file that included an embedded image on his server, which, if opened in a web browser on the end user's computer, will cause the graphic to be requested and thus a log entry made at the server's computer giving the IP address of the requester, and possibly some other information such as a referrer URL where the image was embedded.  This could reveal some personal information, but it won't scan the user's hard drive and transmit information from it to the sender, as implied by the comments.  Probably the writer is referring to how, if a referrer URL is given to the file on the recipient's local hard drive, that would reveal facts about their directory structure, but at least the browser I use has the good sense not to send private files like that in its referer data; perhaps this might vary for other browsers.  Anyway, good sense in safe computing, in this time of widespread viruses, spambots, and the like, is to be highly wary about opening any files that come to you in ZIP archives from people you don't know well. *Dan T.* 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's your IP address?  I'm sure you'll be happy to share since its no big deal. Thatcher131 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't. Mine is 65.102.1.93 Zurishaddai 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any time I go to any website, I'm revealing my IP to its system administrator, if they choose to look at the logs.  If it's a blog, forum, or wiki, and I make any sort of post there leaving my name, I'm letting the admin connect my name to the IP.  Since I'm not a privacy freak (I use my real name anyway), it is no big deal to me. *Dan T.* 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe in forcing your attitude on others involuntarily?  Are you in favor of discarding the privacy policy and granting checkuser access to every admin? Thatcher131 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the use of this technique was a good, nice, friendly, desirable thing to do... just that it wasn't "installing spyware on her system" or any sort of absolutely unspeakably evil thing worthy of a horrendous arch-villain. *Dan T.* 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like so absolutely unspeakably evil as removing a link to a site that enables stalkers to find out where someone lives, or to a site where they discuss an administrator's underwear and whether she thinks about being raped. ElinorD (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unreasonable to assume that any genuine stalker is so unenterprising as to be stymied by the removal of a link to a site that Google indexes. Mangoe 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Web bug. All good email clients should automatically block them. And this is my ip -> 166.166.224.24 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, your ip address is normally included in the email headers, so if you don't want your ip known, make sure that your email client isn't sending out your ip. 166.166.224.24 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest deal for most users about revealing an IP address is the possibility of a DDOS attack, which means you can't edit wikipedia for a while due to clogged tubes.   That may be a good thing?  If you have a dynamic IP it's even less of a big deal.   61.99.151.93 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyware 

message: I am puzzled by what was up with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FAttack_sites%2FEvidence&diff=159318236&oldid=159233886, in which comments by someone going by "Name Redacted" were removed on the basis that the person speaking was a banned user. Since the individual hadn't come to the point yet, it wasn't clear what he intended to say. But it seems a bit off-key to censor such comments in what is essentially a discussion of censorship. --Pleasantville 12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not up to speed on this particular user, but here's a complete list Fred Bauder 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section of evidence given by  "Name Redacted" 

message: I am disturbed by the tone adopted by some editors in discussion of Teresa Nielsen Hayden and of Making Light in the context of te various discussion pages of this Request for Arbitration. I request that contributors to this discussion refrain from snide remarks and use of deragotory terms such as "kooky", in keeping with the spirit of WPCIVIL and WPNPA. --Pleasantville 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Civility in Discussions of Making Light and Teresa Nielsen Hayden 

message: How much evidence has been submitted privately in regards to this case?
How much private discussion has occurred between individuals with interest in this case and the arbitors?
None, Some, Lots?
This case appears to be a public airing of grievances and evidence, but is a large amount of private pleading taking place off Wiki? Uncle uncle uncle 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will not be known publicly. Those who know privately are either keen to keep it private (otherwise it would have been produced in public) or are under an obligation to keep it private. One can only trust that there are excellent reasons to avoid wider scrutiny, ironically an application of AGF usually absent from the situations that engender the submitting of evidence privately. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have been more comfortable submitted the correspondence I submitted privately. It would have been nice if that option were generally known if in fact it is in use. --Pleasantville 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Private Evidence?