QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 5th September 2009, 8:00pm)
So you're saying you actually saw a LaRouchite at that meetup? I think that would change things quite a bit.
Danny did, and I have no reason to distrust his word on this issue.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th September 2009, 8:56pm)
Normally, every edit to the wiki is numbered in the order in which it was received and you would never see consecutively numbered edits on the same page unless they occurred milliseconds apart. I think what happened was there was an early migration of the database and some pages weren't moved until a later date, and that happened all at once. I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but I can't find the reference right now.
This was caused by one of the web front ends getting its clock seriously messed up. Since then they've added a "chronology protector" to the code to prevent these sorts of errors. This is discussed in more detail
here.
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 5th September 2009, 9:02pm)
He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.
It generated drama, which is, of course, always a legitimate reason to do anything on Wikipedia. Also, it's very important that everyone know
who is to be venerated and who is to be abhorred, and blocks like this help with that.
QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th September 2009, 11:41pm)
Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g.
Throbbing Stallion.
The assumption that 172 is Cognition remains subject to some dispute. Cognition could readily be a complete asshole running dozens of socks, and 172 might still have nothing to do with that. As 172's identity is at least somewhat known, I think you run the risk of defaming him (BLP, anyone?) by making such comments in public while there remains some uncertainty as to his active participation in whatever shenanigans are in play.