![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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! |
![]() ![]() |
everyking |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,368 Joined: Member No.: 81 ![]() |
While 172 has so far said nothing, Cognition did deny the accusation on his talk page. It would be curious, if the sockpuppeting theory were correct, for 172 to deny the accusation in his role as Cognition, while remaining silent about the fate of his much more valuable main account. Someone should send both of these accounts invitations to participate here on WR so we can hear in detail what they have to say about the situation.
|
Kato |
![]()
Post
#3
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
In late 2005, Cognition writes to Raul:
QUOTE(Cognition) Thank you for the notice on my talk page. While I'm in strong disagreement with the recent arbcom decision ruling against me, I look forward to meeting you in person in mid-January at the St. Petersburg meetup, where I can share with you my concerns over synarchist control of some articles on Wikipedia and what I perceive to be an unfair arbcom decision. If you're up for it, I'd gladly buy you a drink at a downtown establishment or perhaps at St. Petersburg's nearby famous dogtrack, Derby Lane. Your friend, [[User:Cognition|Cognition]] 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC) he writes a similar thing to Phil Sandifer (and accidentally logs on with his IP): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32416238 _________________ After the St Petersburg meet-up, Raul updates the page to imply that Cognition attended. _________________ Why aren't Raul and Sandifer commenting on this and protesting 172's innocence? Hersfold, the blocking admin, writes: QUOTE(Hersfold) The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence. |
One |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,553 Joined: Member No.: 4,284 ![]() |
QUOTE(Hersfold) The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence. Y'know, neither of the IPs was a University either. They shared two IPs and have only used those two IPs in the last few months. I can understand skepticism if one or both of the accounts used a lot of unshared addresses (suggesting that they might rove through a lot of wi-fi), but they have two direct hits between them. Anyhow, I'm guessing you have some friendly history with 172, especially given your ludicrous description of his editing (hint: 172 was a prolific edit warrior who fought a futile war with 3RR, wrote hagiography about communism--with not one FA standing the test of time--and who lost his bit for warring back in 2005--for a second time--when bit busting was rare and awkward). |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#5
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
QUOTE(Hersfold) The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence. Y'know, neither of the IPs was a University either. They shared two IPs and have only used those two IPs in the last few months. I can understand skepticism if one or both of the accounts used a lot of unshared addresses (suggesting that they might rove through a lot of wi-fi), but they have two direct hits between them. I still don't understand this "IPs were not Universities" gambit. Do all IPs go around with huge labels on them? The shared IPs could be from a department or sub-department or private campus or library or countless areas which do not broadcast what they are in BIG BOLD LETTERS. Anyhow, I'm guessing you have some friendly history with 172, especially given your ludicrous description of his editing (hint: 172 was a prolific edit warrior who fought a futile war with 3RR, wrote hagiography about communism--with not one FA standing the test of time--and who lost his bit for warring back in 2005--for a second time--when bit busting was rare and awkward). Not at all. 172 was a very well known editor and a notorious jackass, even his defenders on WP after this block acknowledge that he was bad news. Him getting indefinitely blocked in this manner is poetic justice. But 172 isn't your typical half-witted amateur Wikipedio. He was certainly one of the best content editors on WP. He's a professor of some sort, and one of the only editors with anything like a scholarly grounding in areas like History and Politics. I was hoping that Cognition did turn out to be 172, manipulating WP. It would explain a lot and perhaps create some closure on the LaRouche witch-hunts. But I don't think that's the case. I think the reality is that this is a bizarre but funny coincidence. It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge. |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge. Indeed, 172 was one of the major early architects of Wikipedia's community and culture. He fell out of favor as the community moved in directions inconsistent with his vision. |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#7
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge. Indeed, 172 was one of the major early architects of Wikipedia's community and culture. He fell out of favor as the community moved in directions inconsistent with his vision.The 172 who returned this year is certainly the same as the 172 of old. He immediately starts catching up with old friends like Slrubenstein, for example. And the Cognition who resurfaced this year is very, very likely to be the Cognition of old. What with the St Petersburg meet appearance, the consistent IPs of Cognition over 4 years, the genuine looking spelling mistakes on Cognition's old user page (which 172 just wouldn't even think to do), plus the whole demeanour of 172 on WP over years (sockpuppetry just wasn't his style), and it all points to the fact that they are not and never were connected. All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172. I still don't understand this "IPs were not Universities" gambit. Do all IPs go around with huge labels on them? Those owned by US universities, yes. You've already made your point multiple times that the situation is very different in the UK and it's a lot harder to tell who owns an IP address / where it is located. I just made that UK point in passing, rather than repeatedly. Other people more knowledgeable than me debunked the IP labelling in the US thing. Yet it was trotted out again. And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life. |
One |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,553 Joined: Member No.: 4,284 ![]() |
And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life. Two of 'em, and no others. And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l. This post has been edited by One: |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l. And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#10
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l. And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta. And Poetlister never used sockpuppets, right, Kelly? All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172. And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life. Whatever. I am checkuser, hear me roar. I am both a dangerous fool and a deliberate malefactor, and I spend all my time figuring out how to ban good contributors for no reason. Not only that, I corrupted Hersfold's checkuser training and I bribed Lar with a rare mint-in-box Lego kit from my childhood that I found in my basement. I have the power, you don't. I win, you lose. Happy now? |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#11
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172. And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life. Whatever. I am checkuser, hear me roar. I am both a dangerous fool and a deliberate malefactor, and I spend all my time figuring out how to ban good contributors for no reason. Not only that, I corrupted Hersfold's checkuser training and I bribed Lar with a rare mint-in-box Lego kit from my childhood that I found in my basement. I have the power, you don't. I win, you lose. Happy now? Er, what? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) I was satisfied that Checkusers had made a hasty mistake due to lack of attention to detail. But if you want to make a wild-eyed confession, be my guest! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I don't give a shit who has "the power", I'm just pointing out that I think you've made a mistake. And that in any reasonable project, Hersfold wouldn't be slamming sockpuppet block notices on editors as notorious and well known as 172 without irrefutable evidence. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |