![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#1
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
A few months ago, I was arguing here with Slim about how, back in the old days, she and others were targeting just about anyone as being a LaRouchie, and I described the chaos that witchhunt had caused. I especially noted an incident when herself and long time user (and another anti-LaRouche figure) 172Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
discussed banning a totally innocent guy as a "New LaRouche editor" back in 2007.
Here is my post, Slim simply batted this incident off by not addressing it specifically - claiming that people weren't banned as LaRouchies without good reason. Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense. In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) : QUOTE(User:172) New LaRouche editor This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor. A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place. Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence". So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172! |
![]() ![]() |
One |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,553 Joined: Member No.: 4,284 ![]() |
Two identical IPs on two services and no other IPs between them. What would the mods of this site think if two accounts did that (say one address is an apparent DSL and the other is a large corporation)? We're not trying to convict someone for murder, just get rid of trivial sock gaming.
If you don't think Wikipedia should even try to stop trivial socking, just say so. Incidentally, I don't recall anyone here defending JoshuaZ's similar claims. Or for that matter, Mantanmoreland's. If Kelly thinks that IPs can be easily spoofed, how do we know the Bassettcat stunt wasn't done by Wordbomb? After all, Wordbomb actually was able to obtain Mantanmoreland's IP addresses--probably unlike the average Larouchian. This post has been edited by One: |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
Incidentally, I don't recall anyone here defending JoshuaZ's similar claims. Or for that matter, Mantanmoreland's. If Kelly thinks that IPs can be easily spoofed, how do we know the Bassettcat stunt wasn't done by Wordbomb? After all, Wordbomb actually was able to obtain Mantanmoreland's IP addresses--probably unlike the average Larouchian. My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence, when in fact a lot of the time the IP evidence is shot through with holes, largely because the people interpreting it have no real idea what they're doing. However, since you refuse to make the evidence available for public review, all we have to go on is your word, which (given Wikipedia's track record) we cannot fairly trust. I don't think you're lying about the two IPs, but I have no reason to trust your conclusion as to one of those IPs being "residential" and the other not, and your comments indicate to me that you have serious deficiencies in your understanding how the Internet works. If you'd care to share those IPs, I could review your conclusion for reasonability. We can do that privately if you prefer.It's not that I think you're wrong; I just think you've completely failed to make your case, and that your clueless comments have made matters worse for you, rather than better. I still think the most likely conclusion is that 172's account was compromised. Mediawiki transmits passwords in plaintext, so if you log into Wikipedia via an unencrypted public wireless service (which is most Internet cafes) you're broadcasting your username and password for the whole world to see. Most editors don't realize this. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#4
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence, when in fact a lot of the time the IP evidence is shot through with holes, largely because the people interpreting it have no real idea what they're doing. However, since you refuse to make the evidence available for public review, all we have to go on is your word, which (given Wikipedia's track record) we cannot fairly trust. I don't think you're lying about the two IPs, but I have no reason to trust your conclusion as to one of those IPs being "residential" and the other not, and your comments indicate to me that you have serious deficiencies in your understanding how the Internet works. If you'd care to share those IPs, I could review your conclusion for reasonability. We can do that privately if you prefer. Here's the thing. The second IP is clearly non-residential with semi-public access, and is clearly labeled as such. Let's assume that the first IP is not, in fact, residential, and is a coffee shop, cafe, library or other small business. Then we have at least 4 editors (172, Cognition, Mrs. Breedlove and Tha-HGlsrqNA) who, within the time span of the checkuser table, edit from the same school/business, and from the same coffee shop/library, and from nowhere else (no home, no wi-fi, no mobile services). That's a pretty big coincidence if they are unrelated. It also means that on July 6, 172Â (T-C-L-K-R-D) spent almost 24 hours at this coffee shop and on July 8, he edited from there at 1 AM local time. This is true for most of the major ISPs, but is not true for some smaller community-level ISPs, some of which do not assign public IPs to their customers by default. Instead, they get RFC 1918 private IPs and the ISP translates these onto one or more public IPs owned by the ISP. In this sort of situation, you may end up sharing an IP in real-time with another customer of the ISP. This used to be more common but most of the smaller ISPs that did this sort of thing have gone under or been bought up by larger ISPs who don't do this. Serving RFC 1918 IPs to end customers is unpopular with customers (for several reasons), and today I'd say that this is likely only to be found in captive-market situations (e.g. nursing homes, dormitories). As far as I know no "large" ISP is doing this. That's quite informative, thank you. In this case, the ISP is in fact, "large." This post has been edited by No one of consequence: |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
|
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#6
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
The second IP is clearly non-residential with semi-public access, and is clearly labeled as such. Labeled as such by whom? ARIN doesn't require people to declare how they plan to use their IPs.There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence? |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence? It could be used by an only-vaguely-related business under a sharing or releasing agreement. I've not heard of Best Buy providing such services, but it's possible that they do so under the aegis of their GeekSquad product, which of late has been offering some sort of B2B services.Unless you know exactly how a given business entity has structured its network, and you know exactly every line of business that entity is involved in, you had best be quite circumspect in concluding anything about who or what might be using one of its ranges. ARIN doesn't have a flag for "This IP is residential/commercial/government"; all they tell you is who registered it and who the responsible party (as far as they're concerned) for it is. You've certainly never heard me say any such thing ever, and I dispute that Thatcher or CHL have said any such thing here in this thread. Not in so many words, y'all just act as if the evidence were infalliable, whether or not you actually say it is. |
Achromatic |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 191 Joined: From: Washington State Member No.: 4,185 ![]() |
There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence? It could be used by an only-vaguely-related business under a sharing or releasing agreement. I've not heard of Best Buy providing such services, but it's possible that they do so under the aegis of their GeekSquad product, which of late has been offering some sort of B2B services.Unless you know exactly how a given business entity has structured its network, and you know exactly every line of business that entity is involved in, you had best be quite circumspect in concluding anything about who or what might be using one of its ranges. ARIN doesn't have a flag for "This IP is residential/commercial/government"; all they tell you is who registered it and who the responsible party (as far as they're concerned) for it is. Exactly. Using the Best Buy example - they recently bought SpeakEasy, a "large ISP", and offer businesses VOIP and ISP connectivity. Do /you/ as a checkuser know that they've changed the IP address registration with ARIN for none/some/all of their existing addresses? Have new blocks been assigned to Best Buy, or Speakeasy, for the purposes of this new venture? Have existing blocks owned by Best Buy been assigned to Speakeasy for same? You don't. And yet as Kelly says, you have no problem making proclamations from upon high that you have observed something, and it "seems likely" that it matches what you assume. In my examples, an IP address "belonging" to Best Buy could very well be a small business using Best Buy/Speakeasy as their ISP. And you, despite your claims of confidence would have little to no idea of how accurate your claim is - and then there's a dozen variations of same... home users who are VPN'ed to their office. IPv6 tunnels. All sorts of things, you name it. |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
In my examples, an IP address "belonging" to Best Buy could very well be a small business using Best Buy/Speakeasy as their ISP. Speakeasy was a residential DSL provider in at least the Chicago area, too; at least they used to be a couple years ago. So a Best Buy IP could, possibly, be a residential DSL customer.I've seen some really strange behaviors when people are on corporate VPN clients, especially if they're the type that rely on client proxies for browser redirection, because of bugs in various browsers and/or the VPN client that result in inconsistent use of the proxy. Similar problems happen with the transparent caching proxies used by some ISPs, and then there's all those silly "web accelerator" products out there. Maybe we should start calling all checkusers "Horatio". I'm leaning towards the bizarre coincidence theory. My fallback theory, if the hijack theory proves false, is that 172 was stalked by Cognition with the deliberate intent to get 172's account shut down by the Wikipediot Management as a sockpuppet. That's consistent with LaRouchian behavior; LaRouchians are not known for their commitment to ethical behavior. |
Herschelkrustofsky |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,199 Joined: From: Kalifornia Member No.: 130 ![]() |
LaRouchians are not known for their commitment to ethical behavior. I've just examined the back and forth at User talk:Cognition. Using my Exceptionally Well-Honed Linguistic Analytic Skillsâ„¢ I was unable to make a conclusive determination, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that the person petitioning to be unblocked is not the original Cognition. There is a sort of emotional flatness in the pleading for reconciliation that reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of the novel. I just dredged up an old email address that I had for Cognition and attempted to contact him or her, but it bounced back. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |