Cool3, is thekohser apparently Options

[Alex]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[MZMcBride]

Always good to copy and paste the relevant text. You remember what happened with Mr. Gerard.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...sop:_User:Cool3

Emergency desysop: User:Cool3

Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped because the account has been certified by checkusers as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. The desysop was done under emergency procedures and was in turn certified by Arbitrators Rlevse, Mailer diablo and SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...initely_blocked

Indefinitely blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user, Thekohser, certified by two checkusers. Roger Davies talk 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where'd Limey go?

[Jaranda]

?? the case so far, i trust their judgement. Cool3 edits are a bit suspitious, left 2006, coming back 2009, got adminship after a few months, became semi-active soon after, hmm...

Ok nevermind the ??

[Alex]

?? the case so far, i trust their judgement. Cool3 edits are a bit suspitious, left 2006, coming back 2009, got adminship after a few months, became semi-active soon after, hmm...

Ok nevermind the ??

Oh, they are probably right. But who cares? Arbcom saves the day by banning him, even though (as Cool3) he's only been useful. Arbcom does not like useful people who write articles.

Kudos to him for getting away with it for so long behind the incompetent arbcom's back, but it kind of goes against his "Wikipedia sucks" meme.

[SirFozzie]

Why do I have the feeling that if we had "let it slide", and it came out we knew about it, you'd be attacking us for that instead, Alex?

[Alex]

Why do I have the feeling that if we had "let it slide", and it came out we knew about it, you'd be attacking us for that instead, Alex?

I have no idea, I don't control your feelings. I would do no such thing.

[Milton Roe]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Wow, and editing like he was Cla68. Really a founder of WikiProject NATO? Who knew?

Here's the last RfA from June 09. Bland as they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/Cool3_4

I wonder what the emergency was, BTW? Wasn't Kohs banned for proposing to edit for money? What a sin. Jeeze, louise, you'd think they'd just discovered Cool3 was GRAWP.

What about WP:startover? Or whatever the WP redemption process is called? Whatever it is, hasn't Cool3 fulfilled it about as well as anybody could expect anybody to?

Yes, Wikipedia does indeed suck. Also, it is becoming my opinion that JulianColton and Roger Davies suck particularly.

[Apathetic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/Cool3_4

Nominated by none other than one of the newly seated arbs!

[Alex]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Wow, and editing like he was Cla68. Really a founder of WikiProject NATO? Who knew?

Here's the last RfA from June 09. Bland as they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/Cool3_4

I wonder what the emergency was, BTW? Wasn't Kohs banned for proposing to edit for money? What a sin. Jeeze, louise, you'd think they'd just discovered Cool3 was GRAWP.

What about WP:startover? Or whatever the WP redemption process is called? Whatever it is, hasn't Cool3 fulfilled it about as well as anybody could expect anybody to?

Yes, Wikipedia does indeed suck. Also, it is becoming my opinion that JulianColton and Roger Davies suck particularly.

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

[Jaranda]

It's possible that Cool3 might have been a sock of another banned user, and sold the account to thekohser. Let's see his reaction to this first? Any thoughts Greg?

[Alex]

This just goes to show that, yet again, RFA is a total farce and is completely meaningless.

[Fritz]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

[Alex]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

I have no idea what you're chatting about.

[Apathetic]

It's possible that Cool3 might have been a sock of another banned user, and sold the account to thekohser. Let's see his reaction to this first? Any thoughts Greg?

Well there was an admin account on the auction block a few months ago.

[Fritz]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

I have no idea what you're chatting about.

Ah, it was my response to your apparent omniscience in "knowing" that we desysopped for reasons of embarrassment, when you actually have no knowledge to back that up, bar your general (and sometimes understandable) disdain for things Arbcom-related. I'm certainly not feeling any embarrassment at present - not sure how you'd know/think otherwise.

[Alex]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

I have no idea what you're chatting about.

Ah, it was my response to your apparent omniscience in "knowing" that we desysopped for reasons of embarrassment, when you actually have no knowledge to back that up, bar your general (and sometimes understandable) disdain for things Arbcom-related. I'm certainly not feeling any embarrassment at present - not sure how you'd know/think otherwise.

No, I expect you're feeling quite pleased you've kicked off another good editor.

[Viridae]

Welcome Fritz. But who are you?

[Juliancolton]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Wow, and editing like he was Cla68. Really a founder of WikiProject NATO? Who knew?

Here's the last RfA from June 09. Bland as they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/Cool3_4

I wonder what the emergency was, BTW? Wasn't Kohs banned for proposing to edit for money? What a sin. Jeeze, louise, you'd think they'd just discovered Cool3 was GRAWP.

What about WP:startover? Or whatever the WP redemption process is called? Whatever it is, hasn't Cool3 fulfilled it about as well as anybody could expect anybody to?

Yes, Wikipedia does indeed suck. Also, it is becoming my opinion that JulianColton and Roger Davies suck particularly.

Pong.

On a side note, I worked with Cool3 on a number of articles, some of which are featured. Where am I going to get offline sources now? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Fritz]

Welcome Fritz. But who are you?

Fritzpoll - one of the new Arbs. Call me Fred, it is my name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

To Majorly: not really - why would it make me happy? Why would I be pleased? What do you know about my personality, thoughts, and reactions to situations that makes you have these peculiarly inaccurate insights into my temperament? No, no, don't answer or we'll be going around in circles all night! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Alex]

On a side note, I worked with Cool3 on a number of articles, some of which are featured. Where am I going to get offline sources now? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Certainly no arbitrator will bother helping, just like they won't create Ottava's articles. They have won The Game, that's all that matters here.

To Majorly: not really - why would it make me happy? Why would I be pleased? What do you know about my personality, thoughts, and reactions to situations that makes you have these peculiarly inaccurate insights into my temperament? No, no, don't answer or we'll be going around in circles all night! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I have no idea who you are, but clearly, you must be satisfied with how this evening's disaster went?

[The Wales Hunter]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Alex]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

My thoughts precisely.

Arbcom are not interested in protecting the project. Deleting Cool3 is not protecting it, it is damaging it.

[gomi]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Nominated by none other than one of the newly seated arbs!

It's possible that Cool3 might have been a sock of another banned user, and sold the account to thekohser. ...

I'll say it: good for Greg. Except for the amount of time needed to game the Wikipedia system (everyone needs a hobby, I suppose, but WP isn't mine), this is a stellar indictment of the "encyclopedia" anyone can edit, as well as become an administrator of! I wonder if it was Greg's poking of Lar in the other discussion* that precipitated this? Getting caught, however -- a major screw-up, unless intended. On the rare occasions that I sock I have much better quarantine procedures.



*(Not available to all, sadly, but a synopsis of which is: does it make sense to pre-emptively ban any account which is published together with its (possible/putative) password? Greg tweaked Lar by posting some obviously fake account/password combos as well as a couple of "real" ones.)

[The Wales Hunter]

I can't really see the justification for checkuser anyway (not that it needs must justification) - was Cool3 doing anything to attract attention?

Or, more likely, does this relate to a number of "larloveslego"-passworded accounts mentioned elsewhere? Was a crossover found?

[Viridae]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

My thoughts precisely.

Arbcom are not interested in protecting the project. Deleting Cool3 is not protecting it, it is damaging it.

Bullshit. You and I both know that when he wants, Greg can be a very productive editor - the man is a pretty good writer. But he can also be a huge time sink pain in the ass who does nothing but cause trouble. I strongly suspect that the only reason Greg was so productive with this account was so it could be used to build rep and subvert the system. He is hardly a dyed in the blood jumbo juice gargler. I don't doubt for a second that eventually Greg would have turned to causing mischief in the end. Like he did when he was unbanned a little while back, I suspect he can't help but poke the bear.

On another note, congratulations Greg, well played.

[Alex]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

My thoughts precisely.

Arbcom are not interested in protecting the project. Deleting Cool3 is not protecting it, it is damaging it.

Bullshit. You and I both know that when he wants, Greg can be a very productive editor - the man is a pretty good writer.

You assume too much about what I do or do not know.

[gomi]

To add insult to injury:

blocked Cool3 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

They don't want any backtalk! That's about right for WP.

[Milton Roe]

To add insult to injury:

blocked Cool3 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

They don't want any backtalk! That's about right for WP.

Real heretics like Giordano Bruno have to be gagged before taken to the stake to be burned (with their works). Don't want anybody corrupted by what they might say!

[The Wales Hunter]

Without wishing to second-guess, I can't imagine Greg wanted to use this account to "subvert the system".

1) There's little that can be done with an admin account

2) He wouldn't be able to do it as himself, which would seem to go against his modus operandi

It does show how RFA is a waste of time, as Alex said, though.

[Eva Destruction]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

What he said. Did the Cool3 account cause any disruption, whoever was behind it? This is just Arbcom posturing and trying to look tough. Pathetic. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Lar]

You assume too much about what I do or do not know.

There's a lot of that going around.

[Viridae]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

My thoughts precisely.

Arbcom are not interested in protecting the project. Deleting Cool3 is not protecting it, it is damaging it.

Bullshit. You and I both know that when he wants, Greg can be a very productive editor - the man is a pretty good writer.

You assume too much about what I do or do not know.

Don't be so petty Alex, you are complaining about a quality editor being blocked, so of course you think he is a decent writer.

[Alex]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

What he said. Did the Cool3 account cause any disruption, whoever was behind it? This is just Arbcom posturing and trying to look tough. Pathetic. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Yeah, same old same old. I'm really really sick and tired of their antics. It would be better all round if the arbcom was just abolished.

[Viridae]

Without wishing to second-guess, I can't imagine Greg wanted to use this account to "subvert the system".

1) There's little that can be done with an admin account

2) He wouldn't be able to do it as himself, which would seem to go against his modus operandi

It does show how RFA is a waste of time, as Alex said, though.

Have you met JzG? Or Jayjg? Admins throw a lot more authority around, and well handled, can get quite a rep up and use that to force their way.

[Cla68]

Pong.

On a side note, I worked with Cool3 on a number of articles, some of which are featured. Where am I going to get offline sources now? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Cruise on over to your local community or college library and access InfoTrac, NewsStand, or LexisNexis. If you don't have a few dollars to pay for printing out the articles you need, then get out a notebook and start writing. Or else pay for a home subscription to all or any of those since the WMF doesn't appear to be willing or able to provide access to those tools for active contributors.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. Why was Cool3 checkusered?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[The Wales Hunter]

Have you met JzG? Or Jayjg? Admins throw a lot more authority around, and well handled, can get quite a rep up and use that to force their way.

Works both ways. In terms of BLP, JzG is was one of the best admins.

Fair enough if Greg was trying to build an "admin army" to exert real influence, but in the current-era, things aren't like they were in 2005/6.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. Why was Cool3 checkusered?

From Cool3's userpage:

You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user, Thekohser, certified by two checkusers. Roger Davies talk 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[Viridae]

I'd say he came up in a CU of Greg as a resUlt of that account details thread mentioned earlier.

[TungstenCarbide]

On another note, congratulations Greg, well played.

Hear, hear. Come on out Greg and take a bow.

[The Wales Hunter]

Gets more ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sop:_User:Cool3

Has legal been contacted RE this issue? Hipocrite (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would they be? Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. § 1030. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't have the Unites States Code memorized (unlike myself, of course), we have an article at the inobvious name of Protected computer that explains what Hipocrite means. Given the history between Kohs and Jimbo, bringing this to Mike Godwin's attention is pretty reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Milton Roe]

I can't really see the justification for checkuser anyway (not that it needs must justification) - was Cool3 doing anything to attract attention?

Or, more likely, does this relate to a number of "larloveslego"-passworded accounts mentioned elsewhere? Was a crossover found?

That has to be it. Too much of a coincidence otherwise.

When is Mall Cop Davies going to get the Segway?

(IMG:http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/Shrlocc2/segway-chinese-police.jpg)

(IMG:http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/Shrlocc2/segway-dick.jpg)

[The Joy]

Pong.

On a side note, I worked with Cool3 on a number of articles, some of which are featured. Where am I going to get offline sources now? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Cruise on over to your local community or college library and access InfoTrac, NewsStand, or LexisNexis. If you don't have a few dollars to pay for printing out the articles you need, then get out a notebook and start writing. Or else pay for a home subscription to all or any of those since the WMF doesn't appear to be willing or able to provide access to those tools for active contributors.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. Why was Cool3 checkusered?

Certain databases also allow a registered user (a registered library patron, university student, etc.) to e-mail a copy of the article to them (make sure you adhere to fair-use and copyright laws in doing so).

As for Greg, well done! You've pwned them all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

If they are remotely serious about taking action against Greg under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, all hell will break loose.

Unless this was part of his game plan?

[everyking]

At one time I thought Greg should be allowed to edit, but recently he's been talking an awful lot about the virtues of vandalism, and in light of that I really don't see how he could be trusted.

[GlassBeadGame]

Gets more ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sop:_User:Cool3

Has legal been contacted RE this issue? Hipocrite (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would they be? Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. § 1030. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't have the Unites States Code memorized (unlike myself, of course), we have an article at the inobvious name of Protected computer that explains what Hipocrite means. Given the history between Kohs and Jimbo, bringing this to Mike Godwin's attention is pretty reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Nobody even violated any ToS. At most someone "violated" some rules consisting solely of some user generated content of no more dignity nor import than penis vandalism.

[Guido den Broeder]

Cool times three. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Bringing this to the attention of a third-class lawyer like Godwin will only increase the embarassment, so let them.

Makes one wonder, are there any admin accounts left that do NOT belong to someone with a hidden history? They certainly
haven't found my admin account yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

In response to:

Hypothetical question Would an account sold by one person to another be labelled a "compromised account"? On a second note, where is the evidence this account was going any damage to Wikipedia? GTD 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=337915553

It's not material, because both would have led to — essentially — the same result (though the procedure might have been slightly different if we had a way of distinguishing between the two). In this case, the person currently in control of the account is not the person who passed RfA; either it was compromised in which case it needs to be desysopped very swiftly, or it was given willingly in which case it also needs to be desysopped but "only" swiftly (because it's a banned user). We prefer to assume in good faith that the original owner has not given their consent. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

[Guido den Broeder]

We prefer to assume in good faith that the original owner has not given their consent. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the good faith of a porn prince. It might feel a tad weird. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Malleus]

Makes one wonder, are there any admin accounts left that do NOT belong to someone with a hidden history? They certainly
haven't found my admin account yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And nor will they try to, as admin is for life. Any sensible RfA candidate would start a new account explicitly for the purpose of passing the exam; I'm surprised that more don't. Or perhaps they do.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[The Joy]

At one time I thought Greg should be allowed to edit, but recently he's been talking an awful lot about the virtues of vandalism, and in light of that I really don't see how he could be trusted.

Many here seen Wikipedia as evil and useless. Any blow against Wikipedia would be a good thing.

I look forward to see what results Greg has for us in March from his experiment.

[Eva Destruction]

Stupid question, but do we actually know this was Greg and not some poor schmoe whose dynamic IP happened to shift to one used by Greg in the past? Greg would (and I assume still does) regularly ask people here with WP admin accounts to mail him the revision histories of deleted articles and so forth, which implies he didn't have admin access himself, and I can't see what he'd gain by fooling myself, Lara and Alison into thinking he did/didn't have an admin account himself, since none of us would care.

[Guido den Broeder]

Indeed, the checkuser outcome is in no way convincing.

By the way, note the small print where Mailer Diablo reveals that they do ROUTINE checkusers.

[The Joy]

Greg has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and is not completely liable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Poor Cool could be blocked for no good reason like 172 being blocked for being Cognition. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Krimpet]

Stupid question, but do we actually know this was Greg and not some poor schmoe whose dynamic IP happened to shift to one used by Greg in the past?

Well, for what it's worth, Cool3 was based in the UK at some point in the past:

[20:50] -NickServ- Information on Cool3 (account Cool3):
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Registered : Jun 13 06:49:12 2009 (30 weeks, 5 days, 19:01:17 ago)
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Last addr : n=chatzill@dhcp-163-1-214-112.seh.ox.ac.uk
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Last seen : Oct 16 20:25:49 2009 (12 weeks, 6 days, 05:24:40 ago)
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Flags : HideMail
-
[20:50] -NickServ- *** End of Info ***

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

This post has been edited by Krimpet:

[The Wales Hunter]

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

It's an Oxford University proxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:163.1.214.112

[Krimpet]

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

It's an Oxford University proxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:163.1.214.112

s/proxy/shared IP/. Note the "dhcp" in the hostname. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Well, for what it's worth, Cool3 was based in the UK at some point in the past:

You're saying he was a Limey?

[Eva Destruction]

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

It's an Oxford University proxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:163.1.214.112

I don't think I'm giving anything earth-shattering away by saying that Greg's IPs are invariably Comcast in PA. Unless Greg comes out now with his hands up, this looks like a case of "writing about the Czech Air Force in a similar way" to me. (Fozzie, what the hell are you doing leading this lynch mob? I was betting on at least three months before you "did a One" and fell into line with the cult.)

[The Wales Hunter]

s/proxy/shared IP/. Note the "dhcp" in the hostname. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I'm a fifth-rate hack journalist, not someone who knows about dhcps and the like!

From what has been posted, we can deduce the "original" account holder (the person who passed RFA) hasn't been in touch with Arbcom and Arbcom are assuming good faith the account wasn't sold.

But doesn't that mean they are assuming bad faith that the account was hacked? Or are they taking a neutral position?

[Juliancolton]

Greg has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and is not completely liable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Poor Cool could be blocked for no good reason like 172 being blocked for being Cognition. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I don't really think Cool was Greg, at least not in June or July when I spoke with him frequently.

[SirFozzie]

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

It's an Oxford University proxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:163.1.214.112

I don't think I'm giving anything earth-shattering away by saying that Greg's IPs are invariably Comcast in PA. Unless Greg comes out now with his hands up, this looks like a case of "writing about the Czech Air Force in a similar way" to me. (Fozzie, what the hell are you doing leading this lynch mob? I was betting on at least three months before you "did a One" and fell into line with the cult.)

Eva: Three Checkusers signed off on this, explicitly. We wouldn't have moved forward if we weren't sure on this. And no, it's not "Writing about the Czech Air Force in a similar way".

[Sarcasticidealist]

There are already instances where I think this ArbCom has been dramatically wrong. This isn't one of them: the evidence I've seen is very strong and, on principle, I think blocking (and de-adminning, as appropriate) socks of users who have a history of and an expressed interest in disrupting Wikipedia is quite appropriate (and again, this has always been my view so, while I'd welcome accusations of being an instrument of the status quo, I'd rather not be accused of having been corrupted since joining ArbCom).

[The Wales Hunter]

So was the ban related to information posted on another section of this site? Seems a fair question.

[Alison]

Well, for what it's worth, Cool3 was based in the UK at some point in the past:

[20:50] -NickServ- Information on Cool3 (account Cool3):
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Registered : Jun 13 06:49:12 2009 (30 weeks, 5 days, 19:01:17 ago)
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Last addr : n=chatzill@dhcp-163-1-214-112.seh.ox.ac.uk
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Last seen : Oct 16 20:25:49 2009 (12 weeks, 6 days, 05:24:40 ago)
-
[20:50] -NickServ- Flags : HideMail
-
[20:50] -NickServ- *** End of Info ***

So presumably his IP would be nowhere near Greg's, since he's based in the good old US of A.

Krimpet - you've just pretty-much told everyone where the previous account holder's location and college is. Errm, nice one (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) I'm guessing this is Limey, too ...

EDIT: and the last time someone edited from that IP was ... October 16.

[MBisanz]

Greg has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and is not completely liable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Poor Cool could be blocked for no good reason like 172 being blocked for being Cognition. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I don't really think Cool was Greg, at least not in June or July when I spoke with him frequently.

Given that Cool3's usual edit time would be 10AM-2AM Greg's time, and we know Greg has a job and a family, I think it is safe to assume that at some point Cool3 transferred the account to Greg and/or Greg gained control of the account and used it infrequently for things like opposing that AFD on the Weiss court case. Then Lar, in swatting Greg's socks from the other thread, accidentally discovered an overlap between the two.

[Krimpet]

Krimpet - you've just pretty-much told everyone where the previous account holder's location and college is. Errm, nice one (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) I'm guessing this is Limey, too ...

EDIT: and the last time someone edited from that IP was ... October 16.

It's public information, don't worry. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Log into freenode, type "/ns info Cool3".

[Wikicrusher2]

Is it possible that Cool3 was actually the account created by Peter Damian that was offered openly on this Board, later transferred to Greg (see this)?

[A Horse With No Name]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Look who's talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Makes one wonder, are there any admin accounts left that do NOT belong to someone with a hidden history? They certainly haven't found my admin account yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

That makes the fourth "banned" editor in four months to be revealed as a sock puppet (Law, AdjustShift and some other guy got there first). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Juliancolton]

Thekohser is more of a wikiaddict than he likes to let on, it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Look who's talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Makes one wonder, are there any admin accounts left that do NOT belong to someone with a hidden history? They certainly
haven't found my admin account yet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

That makes the fourth "banned" editor in four months to be revealed as a sock puppet (Law, AdjustShift and some other guy got there first). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

What happened with AdjustShift? I wasn't aware of any drama surrounding him, but he hasn't edited since October 22.

[A Horse With No Name]

What happened with AdjustShift? I wasn't aware of any drama surrounding him, but he hasn't edited since October 22.

He was fingered as a sockpuppet by an IP editor and abruptly vanished right after that.

[Malleus]

What happened with AdjustShift? I wasn't aware of any drama surrounding him, but he hasn't edited since October 22.

He was fingered as a sockpuppet by an IP editor and abruptly vanished right after that.

Perhaps one day I'll reveal that I too have an admin account. Then again, perhaps I won't.

[taiwopanfob]

Perhaps one day I'll reveal that I too have an admin account. Then again, perhaps I won't.

Maybe we should all reveal we have admin accounts.

Lar's brain would just explode in frustration! He'd have to test each admin account for symptoms of WRism, and, if it only marginally improved the wiki -- his criteria! -- block it.

Per Milton Roe, this could get quite amusing. Are all admins paranoid?

[The Joy]

Perhaps one day I'll reveal that I too have an admin account. Then again, perhaps I won't.

Maybe we should all reveal we have admin accounts.

Lar's brain would just explode in frustration! He'd have to test each admin account for symptoms of WRism, and, if it only marginally improved the wiki -- his criteria! -- block it.

Per Milton Roe, this could get quite amusing. Are all admins paranoid?

I'm not paranoid.

[tarantino]

What happened with AdjustShift? I wasn't aware of any drama surrounding him, but he hasn't edited since October 22.

So, why do you use proxies "AdjustShift"? What's your former username(s)?

Quite the talk page, eh? Benjiboi, AdjustShift and J who've all disappeared, talking about the now blocked user Shankbone.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Juliancolton]

Perhaps one day I'll reveal that I too have an admin account. Then again, perhaps I won't.

Maybe we should all reveal we have admin accounts.

Lar's brain would just explode in frustration! He'd have to test each admin account for symptoms of WRism, and, if it only marginally improved the wiki -- his criteria! -- block it.

Per Milton Roe, this could get quite amusing. Are all admins paranoid?

I'm not paranoid.

Hey, I have an admin account too.

[One]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

You're an arbitrator?

[A Horse With No Name]

Hey, I have an admin account too.

So, what brand of cigarette do you prefer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So, why do you use proxies "AdjustShift"? What's your former username(s)?

Yup, the IP helped to usher AdjustShift out the door! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Quite the talk page, eh? Benjiboi, AdjustShift and J who've all disappeared, talking about the now blocked user Shankbone.

Funny how the same names keep turning up. For a site with 10.5 million registered users, it seems like the same 20 people keep getting into mischief.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Viridae]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

You're an arbitrator?

Fritzpoll

[MBisanz]

It wasn't an emergency. It was embarrassment that Thekohser had fooled everyone.

But this is just embarrassing for Thekohser, with an editing history like this.

Was it? Thank heavens you told us - SirFozzie and I might have been thinking we'd done it for a completely different set of reasons otherwise. I truly bow before your ability to know what people are thinking through the internet.

You're an arbitrator?

I take it the budget cuts eliminated the annual team building exercise budget in addition to the clerks' pound cake budget.

[Lar]

Maybe we should all reveal we have admin accounts.

Go for it. Make sure it's convincing enough to get me to waste my time though. So far you haven't even been close.

I take it the budget cuts eliminated the annual team building exercise budget in addition to the clerks' pound cake budget.

And the CU's pound cake. But dude, neither you nor I need any pound cake.

[MBisanz]

I take it the budget cuts eliminated the annual team building exercise budget in addition to the clerks' pound cake budget.

And the CU's pound cake. But dude, neither you nor I need any pound cake.

I've lost 45 pounds in the last 9 months thank you very much.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Lar]

I'm not paranoid.

You're not an admin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (says me)

I've lost 45 pounds in the last 9 months thank you very much.

You're a better man than me!

[Malleus]

I'm not paranoid.

You're not an admin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (says me)

I've lost 45 pounds in the last 9 months thank you very much.

You're a better man than me!

i think you guys really ought to give some consideration to the rest of us. Your combined weight is beginning to tilt the planet on its axis, and as a result very likely causing the coldest winter we've had here for 40 years. Please, before another morsel passes your lips, think of my heating bill.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Lar]

i think you guys really ought to give some consideration to the rest of us. Your combined weight is beginning to tilt the planet on its axis, and as a result very likely causing the coldest winter we've had here for 40 years. Please, before another morsel passes your lips, think of my heating bill.

Not a bad Horsey impression but your heart isn't in it, I can tell.

[Malleus]

i think you guys really ought to give some consideration to the rest of us. Your combined weight is beginning to tilt the planet on its axis, and as a result very likely causing the coldest winter we've had here for 40 years. Please, before another morsel passes your lips, think of my heating bill.

Not a bad Horsey impression but your heart isn't in it, I can tell.

It's the cold, it's affecting my judgement.

[A Horse With No Name]

And the CU's pound cake. But dude, neither you nor I need any pound cake.

Can I have your pound cake? And if you have any strawberry ice cream, I'll take that too. And a big bottle of Dr. Pepper would be nice -- I'll take Mountain Dew if there's no Dr. Pepper, and carrot cake if there is no pound cake, and lemon sorbet if there is no strawberry ice cream. And some Dunhill Reds for Julian -- he's having a nic fit.

Not a bad Horsey impression but your heart isn't in it, I can tell.

There is only one Horsey, after all! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Say, can I count your money? I want to see if it makes financial sense to become your son-in-law. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I've lost 45 pounds in the last 9 months thank you very much.

You're a better man than me!

Lighter, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

It's the cold, it's affecting my judgement.

Think warm thoughts, Malley! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

Greg has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and is not completely liable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Poor Cool could be blocked for no good reason like 172 being blocked for being Cognition. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I don't really think Cool was Greg, at least not in June or July when I spoke with him frequently.

Given that Cool3's usual edit time would be 10AM-2AM Greg's time, and we know Greg has a job and a family, I think it is safe to assume that at some point Cool3 transferred the account to Greg and/or Greg gained control of the account and used it infrequently for things like opposing that AFD on the Weiss court case. Then Lar, in swatting Greg's socks from the other thread, accidentally discovered an overlap between the two.

Yes. The original Cool3 looks like a Scotsman. I don't know if he really went to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, as the IP suggests, but he started and did an awful lot of work on the biography of a UK surgeon, one Michael Woodruff, who did the first UK renal transplant in 1960. He said he knew Dr. Woodruff personally, and I believe it! If he wasn't family he was very close to the man. Woodruff spent 1957-2001 in Edinburgh and died there.

The Woodruff bio edits can be used to track the original Cool3, and his last addition to this bio is Feb. 27, 2009. It's almost as if he's saying goodbye. Previously, there's this long period of several years where very little editing happens, then a total edit gap between 12 Dec 2008 and 16 Feb 2009, at which point account editing takes off like a house-afire, and on mil-hist topic which is completely foreign to Cool3's previous interests: (Operation Deny Flight, which is Serbian war topic). So that's when the handoff happens, if it does. A large amount of military history editing later (but in real-time, only 4 months) and Cool3 is an admin (June 2009).

It's interesting that the last "original Cool3" edits happen in Feb 2009, but not EXACTLY when the military history stuff takes off. There's an overlap of 11 days. That's why I said it looks like the last Woodruff bio edits seem like a goodbye before the account is taken over by somebody else. Perhaps another family member, but somebody with a military interest, not a medical one.

Now, how the hell Kohs gets involved in this, I have no idea. He'd have to have a fierce interest in military topics he's never demonstrated here. So either it's a bad checkuser result, or else there's a second handoff. Because, yes, there's the matter of the fact that "military-Cool3," the guy whose post-Feb-2009 edits get him to admin status, doesn't edit on American time, as has been pointed out. So that's TWO differences from Kohs.

No, I see no sign of Peter Damien anywhere-- there's zero concordance between the old Cool3 of Oxford and anything Damien did under his own name.

As for Majorly being military Cool3, that's an interesting hypothesis. If so, he got the account from some UK geezer interested in Dr. Woodruff. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Lar]

Think warm thoughts, Malley! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Where do you find all that vintage pound cake (er, cheesecake)?

Say, can I count your money? I want to see if it makes financial sense to become your son-in-law. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

How much money you got? You need to be providing for your poor father-in-law in his dotage...

[Milton Roe]

Bullshit. You and I both know that when he wants, Greg can be a very productive editor - the man is a pretty good writer. But he can also be a huge time sink pain in the ass who does nothing but cause trouble. I strongly suspect that the only reason Greg was so productive with this account was so it could be used to build rep and subvert the system. He is hardly a dyed in the blood jumbo juice gargler. I don't doubt for a second that eventually Greg would have turned to causing mischief in the end. Like he did when he was unbanned a little while back, I suspect he can't help but poke the bear.

Perhaps, but using that same logic, isn't Kohs the kind of guy you want inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in?

Military-Cool3 was an admin account that seemed to be behaving itself and was taking up a lot of the user's time, productively building WP. But now, the best WP can have said to have done, is to to cut that user off. All the time this user spent productively editing WP now has no other use than to do something nasty to WP. And WP is not bulletproof, you know.

Really, it's the same principle of what you do when you find out some guy is a spy. Do you take him out? What for, if you can now watch his every move? If you take him out, his handlers just start up some other spy you know nothing of. But if you do nothing, they waste their time running a guy you've neutralized.

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Eva: Three Checkusers signed off on this, explicitly.

So, in other words, three checkusers were told to sign off on this or lose their bits. Gotcha.

[MBisanz]

I'm not paranoid.

You're not an admin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (says me)

I've lost 45 pounds in the last 9 months thank you very much.

You're a better man than me!

i think you guys really ought to give some consideration to the rest of us. Your combined weight is beginning to tilt the planet on its axis, and as a result very likely causing the coldest winter we've had here for 40 years. Please, before another morsel passes your lips, think of my heating bill.

Because Europeans are known for their svelte appearance.

[Kelly Martin]

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it.

But there's no drama in that, and no opportunity to Flex Muscle.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, ever accused the ArbCom of being smart. Honestly, I don't understand why people volunteer to have their reputations so thoroughly smeared by association. Lack of due diligence, I suppose. (And, yes, that's a mea culpa.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Perhaps, but using that same logic, isn't Kohs the kind of guy you want inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in?

Sure, but those aren't the options. He's going to piss in either way; at least the nylon gives us some shelter if we keep him out.

[Krimpet]

I definitely got a chuckle from this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[The Joy]

I definitely got a chuckle from this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And this!

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=1809284

[j.delanoy]

Eva: Three Checkusers signed off on this, explicitly.

So, in other words, three checkusers were told to sign off on this or lose their bits. Gotcha.

Sheesh, I stop looking at the wiki for ONE DAY and look what happens (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) Greg Kohs has an admin sock... No wait - checkusers are being forced on pain of death to sign off on The Cabalâ„¢'s evil plot to randomly desysop admins. With the "endorsement" of the mild-mannered CheckUser team, The Cabalâ„¢ can justify their actions by accusing the admin in question of being a sock of someone who has absolutely no reason at all to hate Wikipedia, and who has never done anything even remotely disruptive in the past (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Now I'm really glad I decided to spend most of today (well, yesterday...) pwning evil aliens instead of editing teh Wiki. What a narrow escape from being coerced myself (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Cla68]

I definitely got a chuckle from this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That reminds me, I'm still trying to decide if I should add my name to the speaker's list, as I would be the only person listed for the East Asia area. I'm just not sure if I want my real name linked directly to the WMF. I wonder how often any of those speakers actually get invited to speak somewhere on Wikipedia? If I was invited to speak, I definitely would have some colorful stories to tell, perhaps this being one of them.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[privatemusings]

Durova and I are now on the list! - I strongly suspect that page is not really used all that often - but we'll see, I guess :-)

[Cla68]

Durova and I are now on the list! - I strongly suspect that page is not really used all that often - but we'll see, I guess :-)

If you get invited to speak somewhere, please let us know how it went, especially if someone asks you for your take on "the Cool3 controversy."

[Milton Roe]

Eva: Three Checkusers signed off on this, explicitly.

So, in other words, three checkusers were told to sign off on this or lose their bits. Gotcha.

Sheesh, I stop looking at the wiki for ONE DAY and look what happens (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) Greg Kohs has an admin sock... No wait - checkusers are being forced on pain of death to sign off on The Cabalâ„¢'s evil plot to randomly desysop admins. With the "endorsement" of the mild-mannered CheckUser team, The Cabalâ„¢ can justify their actions by accusing the admin in question of being a sock of someone who has absolutely no reason at all to hate Wikipedia, and who has never done anything even remotely disruptive in the past (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Now I'm really glad I decided to spend most of today (well, yesterday...) pwning evil aliens instead of editing teh Wiki. What a narrow escape from being coerced myself (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Whoever this is, he started out diffidently in 2005, probably at Oxford, editing on spelling and science topics, like the bio of some obscure UK surgeon, and doing it on UK time. Then, 11 months ago after editing a few times a year and not at all in the previous 2 months, he suddenly reinvented himself as an expert on NATO and topics military, achieving rapid adminship in 4 months, after several previously failed RfAs. But still on UK time.

Then, he turned into Greg Kohs of Philadelphia, commerical cable network expert and tweeker of self-important weenies on WP. Somebody so horrific he had to be blocked for teh good of the wiki, when even pornographers manage to slip through.

Personally, I'd like to see what the League of Extraordinary Gentleman here has to say for itself. If there's no coercion going on any place, what's the big ArbCom emergency, and why is nobody on WP willing to let user:Cool3 have a say on his own TALK page? Hmmm?

[SB_Johnny]

Eva: Three Checkusers signed off on this, explicitly.

So, in other words, three checkusers were told to sign off on this or lose their bits. Gotcha.

Probably wasn't necessary in this case, though otherwise that wouldn't be much of a surprise.

[Basil]

...

Really, it's the same principle of what you do when you find out some guy is a spy. Do you take him out? What for, if you can now watch his every move? If you take him out, his handlers just start up some other spy you know nothing of. But if you do nothing, they waste their time running a guy you've neutralized.

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Telling isn't it. The wikipolitical animals that inhabit the hallowed halls of wikiworld have all the skills to obtain the chains of office, but no idea of how to use the power these offices bestow. Much as I disliked him, for this very reason (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) , the current arbs could have learnt a thing or two from FT2.

[taiwopanfob]

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

See what I mean now, Lar? Brainlessly enforcing The Rules is for a non-thinking robot, not a human being.

[dtobias]

Durova and I are now on the list! - I strongly suspect that page is not really used all that often - but we'll see, I guess :-)

Go by the side of a highway with a sign "Will Speak For Food"!

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Pointless removal of rights.

This is about saving face rather than "protecting" the project. Bad move.

This way there be dragons.

My thoughts precisely.

Arbcom are not interested in protecting the project. Deleting Cool3 is not protecting it, it is damaging it.

he can also be a huge time sink pain in the ass who does nothing but cause trouble.

The same can be said of most of the inhabitants of Wikimedia's smoke-filled rooms and narrow corridors of power. Except that they are far less capable of contributing quality content.

If Greg Kohs is an enemy of the Wiki-state, it is mainly because the Wiki-state has made him thus.

There are basically two ways to get rid of an enemy-
1) Eliminate him.
2) Turn him into a friend.
With Greg, it has failed miserably at the first.
And that it does not seriously pursue the second is yet another example of what a meaningless mantra all this trust, forgiveness, second chances, good faith wiki-luv Jimboistic pile of crap really is.

[Text]

I think Thekohser should stick with Wikipedia Review for his stuff (alternative resource), and with Akahele for the stuff that can interest the public (criticism) who wants to know more about problems about the net (not only wikipedia but facebook, twitter, youtube and other web 2.0 sites as well).
Having an admin account is not useful: apart from deleting pages, what can it do? You could attempt to create a character with the same "power" as Jayjg or similar users, but that would require years, and this plan is very fragile and there is little to gain in the long term.

The only real things one can do:

- inform your friends/people you know about the problems of the site, tell them to be careful about what they read
- boycott the product
- hope for a massive uprising with the cooperation of every single person who is unsatisfied by the service

[A Horse With No Name]

Now I'm really glad I decided to spend most of today (well, yesterday...) pwning evil aliens instead of editing teh Wiki. What a narrow escape from being coerced myself (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

You're a bore, Delanoy! And even worse -- you're indifferent to the fate of the environment. Do you realize that each year, thousands of seashell species teeter on the brink of extinction? Instead of playing games on the computer, you should be working to preserve the ocean's endangered seashell species -- like this dedicated and concerned marine biologist! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Friday]

Really, Majorly, really? You're using this as Further Proof That Whatever Arbcom Does Is Evil? Is this really the position you want to take?

You have apparently progressed to the stage of being a parody of yourself.

[Eva Destruction]

Really, Majorly, really? You're using this as Further Proof That Whatever Arbcom Does Is Evil? Is this really the position you want to take?

You have apparently progressed to the stage of being a parody of yourself.

I can't speak for Majorly, but I'm using this as Further Proof That Most Of What Arbcom Does Is Badly Thought Through And Invariably Mismanaged So As To Create Pointless Drama. If this really was Greg (and I'm not convinced - it's only two days since he last asked me to provide him with the text of a deleted article, which he wouldn't have needed if he had admin access himself), a quiet "Greg, we're on to you" would have stopped him. If this isn't Greg, then the Defenders Of The Wiki have just flamed a perfectly good contributor off the project for the heinous sin of sharing an ISP with Greg.

[Friday]

Really, Majorly, really? You're using this as Further Proof That Whatever Arbcom Does Is Evil? Is this really the position you want to take?

You have apparently progressed to the stage of being a parody of yourself.

I can't speak for Majorly, but I'm using this as Further Proof That Most Of What Arbcom Does Is Badly Thought Through And Invariably Mismanaged So As To Create Pointless Drama. If this really was Greg (and I'm not convinced - it's only two days since he last asked me to provide him with the text of a deleted article, which he wouldn't have needed if he had admin access himself), a quiet "Greg, we're on to you" would have stopped him. If this isn't Greg, then the Defenders Of The Wiki have just flamed a perfectly good contributor off the project for the heinous sin of sharing an ISP with Greg.

A quiet "we're onto you" followed by a removal of access is what you really mean, right? Is this so different from what actually happened? You realistically probably can't remove sysop access without announcing it - it's bound to be noticed.

Edit: if it really was a mistake and this can be shown, it'll be fixed and no real harm done, right? (I agree that they're foolish if they did not _already_ make reasonable assurances that they're right about this.) Maybe it's just me, but I don't see removal of access from some website as some kind of major human rights violation.

This post has been edited by gomi:

[Eva Destruction]

Now, how the hell Kohs gets involved in this, I have no idea. He'd have to have a fierce interest in military topics he's never demonstrated here.

That's possible; one of the few things I do know about Greg's background is that his Ph.D. thesis was on Czech military aviation, so presumably he does have an interest.

[Apathetic]

f this really was Greg (and I'm not convinced - it's only two days since he last asked me to provide him with the text of a deleted article,

Curious: How does he expect you to fulfill the request?

[SB_Johnny]

Now, how the hell Kohs gets involved in this, I have no idea. He'd have to have a fierce interest in military topics he's never demonstrated here.

That's possible; one of the few things I do know about Greg's background is that his Ph.D. thesis was on Czech military aviation, so presumably he does have an interest.

Uh, didn't he already fess?

Bit of a dumb move using his home terminal, if that's how they pixie dusted him (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

Ai, big mistake then. Wikipedia doesn't permit you to write about things that you actually know something about.

[Eva Destruction]

A quiet "we're onto you" followed by a removal of access is what you really mean, right? Is this so different from what actually happened? You realistically probably can't remove sysop access without announcing it - it's bound to be noticed.

Edit: if it really was a mistake and this can be shown, it'll be fixed and no real harm done, right? (I agree that they're foolish if they did not _already_ make reasonable assurances that they're right about this.) Maybe it's just me, but I don't see removal of access from some website as some kind of major human rights violation.

No, that's not what happened; he was blocked, "You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user, Thekohser, certified by two checkusers" was plastered on his talkpage, and he was immediately banned from sending emails, banned from account creation, banned from IP editing and banned from editing his own talkpage. If this isn't Greg, then short of coming here and starting a thread, it is literally impossible for him to appeal in any way.

f this really was Greg (and I'm not convinced - it's only two days since he last asked me to provide him with the text of a deleted article,

Curious: How does he expect you to fulfill the request?

He didn't know I'd resigned.

[A Horse With No Name]

No, that's not what happened; he was blocked, "You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user, Thekohser, certified by two checkusers" was plastered on his talkpage, and he was immediately banned from sending emails, banned from account creation, banned from IP editing and banned from editing his own talkpage.

Simple Wikipedia translation: we don't want you playing in our sandbox. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see removal of access from some website as some kind of major human rights violation.

Ah, but can you see your feet, chubby? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Friday]

A quiet "we're onto you" followed by a removal of access is what you really mean, right? Is this so different from what actually happened? You realistically probably can't remove sysop access without announcing it - it's bound to be noticed.

Edit: if it really was a mistake and this can be shown, it'll be fixed and no real harm done, right? (I agree that they're foolish if they did not _already_ make reasonable assurances that they're right about this.) Maybe it's just me, but I don't see removal of access from some website as some kind of major human rights violation.

No, that's not what happened; he was blocked, "You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user, Thekohser, certified by two checkusers" was plastered on his talkpage, and he was immediately banned from sending emails, banned from account creation, banned from IP editing and banned from editing his own talkpage. If this isn't Greg, then short of coming here and starting a thread, it is literally impossible for him to appeal in any way.

If a private communication had occurred first, we wouldn't necessarily know it just from reading the public statement, right? Such things have happened before.

And yeah, it does look like he's already admitted it: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...v&oldid=1809273

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

[A Horse With No Name]

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Mods,

Please toss, er, un-invite Friday out of here — he is too st00pid to be wasting any more of our time.

Thanks,

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Friday]

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Sure, until they get themselves uninvited. Just like a pub. It's open to the public, but if you piss on the floor, the manager may well kick you out.

[Jon Awbrey]

Sure, until they get themselves uninvited. Just like a pub. It's open to the public, but if you piss on the floor, the manager may well kick you out.

You're pissing on our floor. Please leave.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Please toss, er, un-invite Friday out of here — he is too st00pid to be wasting any more of our time.

Aww, c'mon -- what do you think this is, Wikipedia? We don't ban people because they're silly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Besides, Friday is tons of fun! He's the Fatty Arbuckle of the 21st century! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Besides, I can't wait for him and Alex to go after each other (again). Those guys remind of these guys:

[SB_Johnny]

Sure, until they get themselves uninvited. Just like a pub. It's open to the public, but if you piss on the floor, the manager may well kick you out.

You're pissing on our floor. Please leave.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Well, I was going to ask about the smell, but didn't want to be impolite.

[GlassBeadGame]

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

I'd agree if it was true. But it is not true. They are not the people who manage the site. That would be WMF. If WMF wants to disallow multiple accounts, account transfers, disruption etc they are free to do so and Greg should shut up about that, although they still don't need to throw in gratuitous defamation. But WMF does not disallow anything but copy-vio. The rest is just user generated content. If some group of users want to pretend they are the masters of Wikipedia because they are the high scorers in the MMORPG, fine. But there is no reason why anyone should pay any attention to their "rules." Their high scores and user privileges can enforce their will in the game but it is not the same as "managing the site." Of course there is no good reason why people who don't play the game should care about Greg's grievances either, at least as player himself. Only innocent people, like BLP victims, have any standing to complain as far as I'm concerned. Greg has some cred as BLP victim though. As for the other stuff he can, well...take the floor for himself.

[Anonymous editor]

"Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped..."

Now I'm confused. What's temporary about this?

[The Wales Hunter]

"Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped..."

Now I'm confused. What's temporary about this?

Probably on the same grounds somebody who shoots dead a child in front of 40,000 people is then arrested "on suspicion of"...

[j.delanoy]

"Cool3 (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped..."

Now I'm confused. What's temporary about this?

Probably on the same grounds somebody who shoots dead a child in front of 40,000 people is then arrested "on suspicion of"...

See here, just before the thread outdents the first time. So yeah, I guess you pretty much nailed it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by gomi:

[Anonymous editor]

"Saddam Hussein has temporarily received the death penalty while we work out the details."

[Juliancolton]

Edit: if it really was a mistake and this can be shown, it'll be fixed and no real harm done, right?

Oh, certainly. Being desysopped, blocked, and publicly humiliated is a simple mistake. No harm, I'm sure he'd just laugh it off. Hahahah!

This post has been edited by Juliancolton:

[Lar]

Personally, I'd like to see what the League of Extraordinary Gentleman here has to say for itself. If there's no coercion going on any place, what's the big ArbCom emergency, and why is nobody on WP willing to let user:Cool3 have a say on his own TALK page? Hmmm?

I'd tell you all about it, but my Lips are Sealed® on pain of death.

Oops, I shouldn't even have told you that much. I better go build a fort out of LEGO® elements before the death squads arrive.

PS, Jimbo was in GR today. Coincidence? I think not. Is that a black helicopter I see circling over my house already????

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

See what I mean now, Lar? Brainlessly enforcing The Rules is for a non-thinking robot, not a human being.

Whatever you say... I vas chust vollowing orders!

Durova and I are now on the list! - I strongly suspect that page is not really used all that often - but we'll see, I guess :-)

Go by the side of a highway with a sign "Will Speak For Food"!

Some of the speakers on that list... I'd pay not to speak!

Ah, but can you see your feet, chubby? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

That "Friday is fat" schtick was a "funny once"...

Use it once, you're a wit. Use it twice and you're a halfwit. The progression is geometric.

[victim of censorship]

Personally, I'd like to see what the League of Extraordinary Gentleman here has to say for itself. If there's no coercion going on any place, what's the big ArbCom emergency, and why is nobody on WP willing to let user:Cool3 have a say on his own TALK page? Hmmm?

I'd tell you all about it, but my Lips are Sealed® on pain of death.

Oops, I shouldn't even have told you that much. I better go build a fort out of LEGO® elements before the death squads arrive.

PS, Jimbo was in GR today. Coincidence? I think not. Is that a black helicopter I see circling over my house already????

So, dumb move. Arbcom should have let Cool3 slip under the radar while continuing to keep tabs on it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

See what I mean now, Lar? Brainlessly enforcing The Rules is for a non-thinking robot, not a human being.

Whatever you say... I vas chust vollowing orders!

Durova and I are now on the list! - I strongly suspect that page is not really used all that often - but we'll see, I guess :-)

Go by the side of a highway with a sign "Will Speak For Food"!

Some of the speakers on that list... I'd pay not to speak!

Ah, but can you see your feet, chubby? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

That "Friday is fat" schtick was a "funny once"...

Use it once, you're a wit. Use it twice and you're a halfwit. The progression is geometric.

JIMMY WALES is an enemy of humanity with the founding and the exploitation of Wikpeida.

ALL JIMMY and his kind do is TAKE TAKE TAKE as a blood sucking parasite.

PS I am withdrawing my financial support for Calvin as a result of Calvin giving aid and comfort to such a fail and destructive enterprise as Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Milton Roe]

Now, how the hell Kohs gets involved in this, I have no idea. He'd have to have a fierce interest in military topics he's never demonstrated here.

That's possible; one of the few things I do know about Greg's background is that his Ph.D. thesis was on Czech military aviation, so presumably he does have an interest.

Ahhhhh! Fascinating! Which would mean he didn't take over a sysop account, but merely an inactive one with a long history, which made sysop on the basis of Greg's own military history edits. A lot of work.

Well, as I said, merde à tous, WMF. Now he's got that much extra time to plot a next trick, which really probably won't be so nice as improving your articles on Bosnia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Go by the side of a highway with a sign "Will Speak For Food"!

Some of the speakers on that list... I'd pay not to speak!

I guess the assumption is that some of them might be more eloquent when talking with food in their mouths?

Ah, but can you see your feet, chubby? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

That "Friday is fat" schtick was a "funny once"...

Use it once, you're a wit. Use it twice and you're a halfwit. The progression is geometric.

I thought it was "once a wit, twice a twit". According to my uncle, anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Personally, I'd like to see what the League of Extraordinary Gentleman here has to say for itself. If there's no coercion going on any place, what's the big ArbCom emergency, and why is nobody on WP willing to let user:Cool3 have a say on his own TALK page? Hmmm?

I'd tell you all about it, but my Lips are Sealed® on pain of death.

Do they really think Greg has something so damaging to say about Jimbo or WMF that if virgin readers get it from his TALK page, they'll immediately come over here to WR and start to be perverted and corrupted?

How sweet. Greg, that's actually kind of a compliment! If you think about it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I think Thekohser should stick with Wikipedia Review for his stuff (alternative resource), and with Akahele for the stuff that can interest the public (criticism) who wants to know more about problems about the net (not only wikipedia but facebook, twitter, youtube and other web 2.0 sites as well).
Having an admin account is not useful: apart from deleting pages, what can it do? You could attempt to create a character with the same "power" as Jayjg or similar users, but that would require years, and this plan is very fragile and there is little to gain in the long term.

The only real things one can do:

- inform your friends/people you know about the problems of the site, tell them to be careful about what they read
- boycott the product
- hope for a massive uprising with the cooperation of every single person who is unsatisfied by the service

I had the same thought. So why did ArbCom practically poop its pants at the thought of the Kohser having the admin button? Perhaps they didn't think this one through, either?

Perhaps they thought they'd take a day off like jdelanoy and come back to find Cool3 a steward. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Damn! One more thing to get off the list-of-stuff-to-do held by the refrigerator door magnet. Like salting the Carolyn Doran bio. You can't watch this stuff all the time-- it eats your life. That's for dummies who have a BLP up and no juice to keep it tidy.

[Mackan]

I can't see why people think this is some big crime. It's just some folks who manage a website, making decisions about who is allowed on the website. Why do people think Wikipedia has some obligation to never un-invite editors?

I see at least a few reasons for this. First is that Wikipedia presents itself as the "free encyclopedia," which supposedly anyone can edit. If that's how you present yourself, then presumably you should live up to the image as far as possible. Or you should clarify that that is not what you are.

Second you have Wikipedia's prominence, and its reputation, both of which create a public interest in the way it operates. That doesn't mean it can't exclude people at all, but if they're excluding people for bad reasons, it may be a concern as much as it may be with any other publication.

Third, Wikipedia is different from other publications in that it doesn't take editorial responsibility for its content, or even for the decisions of whom to exclude. At least to me, creating a platform where the public finds ways to work together is an interesting idea. Providing a platform where pseudonyms fight it out survival-of-the-fittest style for who even gets to participate, without accountability or formal processes, is a bit different. This is presumably why ArbCom feels obligated to hear appeals from blocked editors, although that process and its implications are still a bit muddled.

[Lar]

PS I am withdrawing my financial support for Calvin as a result of Calvin giving aid and comfort to such a fail and destructive enterprise as Wikipedia.

You gave money to Calvin College?

Why am I not surprised? Just tell me you don't give money to Hope College, Cornerstone University and Promisekeepers too, please.

[CharlotteWebb]

PS, Jimbo was in GR today. Coincidence? I think not. Is that a black helicopter I see circling over my house already????

Wheeeeeeee!
(IMG:http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqcls4.jpg)

JIMMY WALES is an enemy of humanity with the founding and the exploitation of Wikpeida.

Things like this should make him glad he's only a co-founder.

PS I am withdrawing my financial support for Calvin as a result of Calvin giving ad and comfort to such a fail and destructive enterprise as Wikipedia.

Gosh, I'd better withdraw mine too. Thanks for reminding me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqcls4.jpg)

LEGOâ„¢ My BLP Free !!!

I think we should make this our official squadron photo.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[gomi]

Some back-pedaling is going on:

* 15:15, 15 January 2010 Roger Davies (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Cool3 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Do not unblock without ArbCom consent)
* 23:24, 14 January 2010 Roger Davies (talk | contribs) blocked Cool3 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Sockpuppet of a banned user)

So the block log no longer refers to Greg, though he is still implicated in the Talk page messages. But (if I read the block logs correctly), whoever runs the account can now edit the Talk page. I doubt he or she will, the fun has largely all been had by now.

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqcls4.jpg)

LEGOâ„¢ My BLP Free !!!

I think we should make this our official squadron photo.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Cute. It kind of reminds me of Team America: World Police. Only in this case it's Team Smallbits: Wikipedia Police. But agree it doesn't work without something manipulated by strings from above. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Did you ever see Fireball XL5? Sometimes I think many of the higherup WMF people are actual products of supermarionation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Friday]

Edit: if it really was a mistake and this can be shown, it'll be fixed and no real harm done, right?

Oh, certainly. Being desysopped, blocked, and publicly humiliated is a simple mistake. No harm, I'm sure he'd just laugh it off. Hahahah!

Are people really this dramatic? It really surprises me to read stuff like this.

If it turned out they were wrong, it would be arbcom who would be humiliated, not Cool3.

[Jon Awbrey]

Are people really this dramatic? It really surprises me to read stuff like this.

If it turned out they were wrong, it would be arbcom who would be humiliated, not Cool3.

Second Warning. Stop pissing on our rug, Rube.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

You gave money to Calvin College?

I think he means the money he used to lend to Calvin Cool3dge. Foot-long cigars were expensive, even back then.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Jon Awbrey]

Please toss, er, un-invite Friday out of here — he is too st00pid to be wasting any more of our time.

Aww, c'mon — what do you think this is, Wikipedia? We don't ban people because they're silly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sorry, I meant to say —

All signs point to the fact that Friday's education is grossly lacking, and he/she needs to be taught the meaning of a Categorical Imperative.

How's that?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Alex]

Really, Majorly, really? You're using this as Further Proof That Whatever Arbcom Does Is Evil? Is this really the position you want to take?

You have apparently progressed to the stage of being a parody of yourself.

Go away. I'm not interested in what you have to say.

[CharlotteWebb]

(IMG:http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqcls4.jpg)
   BLPocalypse Now    

I think we should make this our official squadron photo.

Only I can't find any youtubulae for "Here Come the Choppers" by Loudon Wainwright III so Wagner will have to suffice (just hum to yourselves I guess).

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Viridae]

Personally, I'd like to see what the League of Extraordinary Gentleman here has to say for itself. If there's no coercion going on any place, what's the big ArbCom emergency, and why is nobody on WP willing to let user:Cool3 have a say on his own TALK page? Hmmm?

I'd tell you all about it, but my Lips are Sealed® on pain of death.

Do they really think Greg has something so damaging to say about Jimbo or WMF that if virgin readers get it from his TALK page, they'll immediately come over here to WR and start to be perverted and corrupted?

How sweet. Greg, that's actually kind of a compliment! If you think about it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I think Thekohser should stick with Wikipedia Review for his stuff (alternative resource), and with Akahele for the stuff that can interest the public (criticism) who wants to know more about problems about the net (not only wikipedia but facebook, twitter, youtube and other web 2.0 sites as well).
Having an admin account is not useful: apart from deleting pages, what can it do? You could attempt to create a character with the same "power" as Jayjg or similar users, but that would require years, and this plan is very fragile and there is little to gain in the long term.

The only real things one can do:

- inform your friends/people you know about the problems of the site, tell them to be careful about what they read
- boycott the product
- hope for a massive uprising with the cooperation of every single person who is unsatisfied by the service

I had the same thought. So why did ArbCom practically poop its pants at the thought of the Kohser having the admin button? Perhaps they didn't think this one through, either?

Perhaps they thought they'd take a day off like jdelanoy and come back to find Cool3 a steward. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Damn! One more thing to get off the list-of-stuff-to-do held by the refrigerator door magnet. Like salting the Carolyn Doran bio. You can't watch this stuff all the time-- it eats your life. That's for dummies who have a BLP up and no juice to keep it tidy.

It was pretty much the same response that would have occurred in the case of any admin account being compromised. Don't fool yourself into thinking there was any special fanfare here.

[A Horse With No Name]

Sorry, I meant to say —

All signs point to the fact that Friday's education is grossly lacking, and he/she needs to be taught the meaning of a Categorical Imperative.

How's that?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Works for me. Carry on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh, wait...if Friday is a he/she, does that mean he/she looks like this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[GlassBeadGame]

(IMG:http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqcls4.jpg)
   BLPocalypse Now    

I think we should make this our official squadron photo.

Only I can't find any youtubulae for "Here Come the Choppers" by Loudon Wainwright III so Wagner will have to suffice (just hum to yourselves I guess).

Except you have to fly it while other "builders" snap blocks in and out at random.

[No one of consequence]

This entire thread has been depressingly predictable. I want my 15 minutes back.

[Milton Roe]

Having an admin account is not useful: apart from deleting pages, what can it do? You could attempt to create a character with the same "power" as Jayjg or similar users, but that would require years, and this plan is very fragile and there is little to gain in the long term.

The only real things one can do:

- inform your friends/people you know about the problems of the site, tell them to be careful about what they read
- boycott the product
- hope for a massive uprising with the cooperation of every single person who is unsatisfied by the service

I had the same thought. So why did ArbCom practically poop its pants at the thought of the Kohser having the admin button? Perhaps they didn't think this one through, either?

Perhaps they thought they'd take a day off like jdelanoy and come back to find Cool3 a steward. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Damn! One more thing to get off the list-of-stuff-to-do held by the refrigerator door magnet. Like salting the Carolyn Doran bio. You can't watch this stuff all the time-- it eats your life. That's for dummies who have a BLP up and no juice to keep it tidy.

It was pretty much the same response that would have occurred in the case of any admin account being compromised. Don't fool yourself into thinking there was any special fanfare here.

That's just another way of saying they do the same overdramatic thing they usually do, because they've always done it that way; it's policy.

Sort of begs the question.

[Jon Awbrey]

Except you have to fly it while other "builders" snap blocks in and out at random.

S.O.P. for a Wiki-Pentagon Project …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Shalom]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

[A Horse With No Name]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

For the sake of making lists, how many "banned" editors were later unmasked as active admins?

[anthony]

Having an admin account is not useful: apart from deleting pages, what can it do?

It can view deleted articles/revisions. That's the only thing I use my admin account for. I have someone else on the other side of the country use the account for everything else, so checkusers couldn't even catch me if they tried.

[Malleus]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole Baxter vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

For the sake of making lists, how many "banned" editors were later unmasked as active admins?

Welll, there's you for a start. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole Baxter vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

For the sake of making lists, how many "banned" editors were later unmasked as active admins?

Welll, there's you for a start. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Yes, well I do have a tendency to stand out in a crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Maybe we can get a new page going. In lieu of this charmless police blotter, perhaps we can start a List of Banned Editors Who Became Admins?

[Eva Destruction]

Maybe we can get a new page going. In lieu of this charmless police blotter, perhaps we can start a List of Banned Editors Who Became Admins?

Fill your boots.

[gomi]

Maybe we can get a new page going. In lieu of this charmless police blotter, perhaps we can start a List of Banned Editors Who Became Admins?

Fill your boots.

One of these days I'll have to write a little script to create List of Administrators with No Activity for [n] Months. That's an excellent place to troll for accounts to "compromise".

[Apathetic]

Maybe we can get a new page going. In lieu of this charmless police blotter, perhaps we can start a List of Banned Editors Who Became Admins?

Fill your boots.

One of these days I'll have to write a little script to create List of Administrators with No Activity for [n] Months. That's an excellent place to troll for accounts to "compromise".

Shouldn't be too hard, just compare Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...me=&group=sysop ... that being said, apparently the devs already ran a brute force attack against all the admin accounts to look for weak passwords.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Eva Destruction]

Maybe we can get a new page going. In lieu of this charmless police blotter, perhaps we can start a List of Banned Editors Who Became Admins?

Fill your boots.

One of these days I'll have to write a little script to create List of Administrators with No Activity for [n] Months. That's an excellent place to troll for accounts to "compromise".

Shouldn't be too hard, just compare Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...me=&group=sysop

Er, yeah... or you could just look at the automatically generated list of every admin in order of last edit. Or would that be cheating?

[Apathetic]

Er, yeah... or you could just look at the automatically generated list of every admin in order of last edit. Or would that be cheating?

Can't make it too easy , though!

[gomi]

Er, yeah... or you could just look at the automatically generated list of every admin in order of last edit. Or would that be cheating?

Handy, that. 345 inactive admins and another 471 "semi-active" admins, for a total of over 800 out of the total of about 1700. I.e. barely over 50% of admins play an active* part in Wikipedia today.

Of course, if I write my little script, it will also look at who has been editing but not using the admin tools (quite a few). Tell me again why admin rights don't lapse after a few months of inactivity?

* Active, for purposes of this count, is the low bar of 30 edits in two months.

[Eva Destruction]

Tell me again why admin rights don't lapse after a few months of inactivity?

Serious answer? Because when Jimmy and Larry set it up, it was a small feeder site to an insignificant offshoot of an insignificant porn site, and they could never have foreseen that it would (a) still be in existence ten years on, or (b) grown to such a size that everyone involved didn't know everyone else. By the time they realized, it was too late to make a change without people complaining.

(There is a valid argument for Wikipedia's structure sticking to the status quo as much as possible. For better or worse, it's phenomenally successful, and nobody - least of all Jimbo - really understands why it works when Knol et al, with megabucks behind them, failed. One never knows which bit of tinkering is going to kill the goose that's laying Jimbo's golden egg, and pretty much everyone who's involved in making decisions of that nature is at the top of the greasy pole, and has an obvious interest in keeping a structure in place which keeps them at the top.)

[RMHED]

(There is a valid argument for Wikipedia's structure sticking to the status quo as much as possible. For better or worse, it's phenomenally successful, and nobody - least of all Jimbo - really understands why it works when Knol et al, with megabucks behind them, failed. One never knows which bit of tinkering is going to kill the goose that's laying Jimbo's golden egg, and pretty much everyone who's involved in making decisions of that nature is at the top of the greasy pole, and has an obvious interest in keeping a structure in place which keeps them at the top.)

That is precisely why children will never be prohibited from editing or any sort of ID will ever be required to register. Either of these would kill Wikipedia stone dead, and Jimmy and the WMF would never allow that.

[Malleus]

(There is a valid argument for Wikipedia's structure sticking to the status quo as much as possible. For better or worse, it's phenomenally successful, and nobody - least of all Jimbo - really understands why it works when Knol et al, with megabucks behind them, failed. One never knows which bit of tinkering is going to kill the goose that's laying Jimbo's golden egg, and pretty much everyone who's involved in making decisions of that nature is at the top of the greasy pole, and has an obvious interest in keeping a structure in place which keeps them at the top.)

That is precisely why children will never be prohibited from editing or any sort of ID will ever be required to register. Either of these would kill Wikipedia stone dead, and Jimmy and the WMF would never allow that.

I don't see that follows at all. Children could easily be prohibited from editing with no ill effects whatsoever (not that I'm suggesting that they should be, I just think they shouldn't be administrators).

There is a valid argument for Wikipedia's structure sticking to the status quo as much as possible. For better or worse, it's phenomenally successful, and nobody - least of all Jimbo - really understands why it works when Knol et al, with megabucks behind them, failed. One never knows which bit of tinkering is going to kill the goose that's laying Jimbo's golden egg, and pretty much everyone who's involved in making decisions of that nature is at the top of the greasy pole, and has an obvious interest in keeping a structure in place which keeps them at the top.

Perhaps they ought to consider asking those of us at the bottom of their greasy pole what will kill their golden egg.

[RMHED]

(There is a valid argument for Wikipedia's structure sticking to the status quo as much as possible. For better or worse, it's phenomenally successful, and nobody - least of all Jimbo - really understands why it works when Knol et al, with megabucks behind them, failed. One never knows which bit of tinkering is going to kill the goose that's laying Jimbo's golden egg, and pretty much everyone who's involved in making decisions of that nature is at the top of the greasy pole, and has an obvious interest in keeping a structure in place which keeps them at the top.)

That is precisely why children will never be prohibited from editing or any sort of ID will ever be required to register. Either of these would kill Wikipedia stone dead, and Jimmy and the WMF would never allow that.

I don't see that follows at all. Children could easily be prohibited from editing with no ill effects whatsoever (not that I'm suggesting that they should be, I just think they shouldn't be administrators).

You really don't understand Wikipedia at all do you. The Children are the fuel that keeps the fire burning, it's the adults that are expendable.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Malleus]

You really don't understand Wikipedia at all do you. The Children are the fuel that keeps the fire burning, it's the adults that are expendable.

There are clearly many things that you don't understand, and life's too short to try and explain them all to you.

Tell me again why admin rights don't lapse after a few months of inactivity?

* Active, for purposes of this count, is the low bar of 30 edits in two months.

If you ever find out, be sure to let me know.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: PvP stuff moved to the Tar Pit, along with related commentary (19 posts).]

[thekohser]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

You have a very shallow understanding of the facts that underlie this situation. But, don't let my pointing that out get in the way of your hate-on for me.

[Somey]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

Comparing Kohs to MB is a bit like comparing Upton Sinclair to Aleister Crowley. Both of them were highly capable and talented, and would sometimes do things that were not entirely above-board to get things done that they felt were necessary, but you would never have asked Aleister Crowley to write a scorching expose of exploitative child-labor practices in the meat-packing industry.

Unless, of course, you'd completely failed to do a "background check"... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[MZMcBride]

Comparing Kohs to MB is a bit like comparing Upton Sinclair to Aleister Crowley.

Links, damn it.

[MBisanz]

Comparing Kohs to MB is a bit like comparing Upton Sinclair to Aleister Crowley.

Links, damn it.

Yes, and with those links I see that Aleister Crowley is covered to a far more extreme degree of detail than I would expect to find in any general reference text (or even a field specific text). I really can't believe there are that many people interested in him and that all of them found WP.

[Somey]

Yes, and with those links I see that Aleister Crowley is covered to a far more extreme degree of detail than I would expect to find in any general reference text (or even a field specific text). I really can't believe there are that many people interested in him and that all of them found WP.

But he was a sexual deviant...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Alison]

Yes, and with those links I see that Aleister Crowley is covered to a far more extreme degree of detail than I would expect to find in any general reference text (or even a field specific text). I really can't believe there are that many people interested in him and that all of them found WP.

You'd be surprised.

Crowley, though controversial in the extreme at the time, was a prolific writer & wrote a lot of texts that are considered important to modern Satanists, Pagans (capital-'P' here) and Thelemites. He was the guy who made popular Magick, with a 'k', amongst other things. A totally fascinating, though largely insane, character.

But he was a sexual deviant...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

"Boys tempt my lips to wanton use,
And show their tongues, and smile awry,
And wonder why I should refuse
Their buttocks on the sly,
And kiss their genitals, and cry:
'Ah! Ganymede, grant me o ne night!'
This is the one sweet mystery:
A strong man’s love is my delight!"

.... some lines from one of Crowley's better-known poems from his collection, White Stains. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) BTW, he was once described as "The Wickedest Man in the World".

[Somey]

.... some lines from one of Crowley's better-known poems from his collection, White Stains. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) BTW, he was once described as "The Wickedest Man in the World".

Okay, maybe Aleister Crowley wasn't the best person to use for that comparison.

How about Dame Edna (T-H-L-K-D) instead? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Shalom]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

You have a very shallow understanding of the facts that underlie this situation. But, don't let my pointing that out get in the way of your hate-on for me.

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months. If that is so, you lied because (1) RFA while banned is prima facie dishonest, never mind that you were not the first to pull it off, and (2) you appealed for unban while telling ArbCom that you would use only Thekohser. I remember this because I helped you prepare the unban request to ArbCom. The whole time, you were using Cool3. Even before Risker nailed you for contrarian edit summaries, you were already violating the conditions of your unban.

If it comes to light that you gained control of this account only in the last 2-3 months, then my understanding is deficient and you did not lie.

My point is, where others wish to congratulate you, I see nothing noble in beating the system.

[thekohser]

...my understanding is deficient...

Now you're on the right track, Shalom.

Oh, and if you think you're going to get more info from me about this episode, you're not. The Wikipediots are talking about bringing me up on federal electronic terrorism charges. I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment for the duration.

[cyofee]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

You have a very shallow understanding of the facts that underlie this situation. But, don't let my pointing that out get in the way of your hate-on for me.

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months. If that is so, you lied because (1) RFA while banned is prima facie dishonest, never mind that you were not the first to pull it off, and (2) you appealed for unban while telling ArbCom that you would use only Thekohser. I remember this because I helped you prepare the unban request to ArbCom. The whole time, you were using Cool3. Even before Risker nailed you for contrarian edit summaries, you were already violating the conditions of your unban.

If it comes to light that you gained control of this account only in the last 2-3 months, then my understanding is deficient and you did not lie.

My point is, where others wish to congratulate you, I see nothing noble in beating the system.

Shalom, haven't you by this time realized you shouldn't make statements like this?

[GlassBeadGame]

Comparing Kohs to MB is a bit like comparing Upton Sinclair to Aleister Crowley.

Links, damn it.

Lame.

[A Horse With No Name]

How about Dame Edna (T-H-L-K-D) instead? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I looooooooooove Dame Edna!

But I do not love the photos in that Wikipedia article. A picture of a billboard and a dark street? Come on, no one can get a decent photo of the dame? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Shalom]

This shocking revelation recasts the whole MB vs. Kohs brouhaha. Now we discover they both became sysops while banned, and both appealed for unban while actively editing anyway with other accounts. So much for your moral superiority, Greg -- you come off as just another liar.

You have a very shallow understanding of the facts that underlie this situation. But, don't let my pointing that out get in the way of your hate-on for me.

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months. If that is so, you lied because (1) RFA while banned is prima facie dishonest, never mind that you were not the first to pull it off, and (2) you appealed for unban while telling ArbCom that you would use only Thekohser. I remember this because I helped you prepare the unban request to ArbCom. The whole time, you were using Cool3. Even before Risker nailed you for contrarian edit summaries, you were already violating the conditions of your unban.

If it comes to light that you gained control of this account only in the last 2-3 months, then my understanding is deficient and you did not lie.

My point is, where others wish to congratulate you, I see nothing noble in beating the system.

Shalom, haven't you by this time realized you shouldn't make statements like this?

No. What's wrong with what I wrote? I'm stating an opinion that if Greg did what it appears he did, he should not have done it, and he deserves no praise.

Unless Greg has some private correspondence with a legal threat, he's probably referring to Hipocrite's idiotic request to notify Godwin. Ignore Hipocrite. Don't worry about him.

[gomi]

No. What's wrong with what I wrote? I'm stating an opinion that if Greg did what it appears he did, he should not have done it, and he deserves no praise.

Unless Greg has some private correspondence with a legal threat, he's probably referring to Hipocrite's idiotic request to notify Godwin. Ignore Hipocrite. Don't worry about him.

You're welcome to your opinion. Everybody has one, after all. But I believe the observation is that it seems to be uninformed, or at least not grounded in any objective reality that the rest of us can perceive. Cool3 seems to have done no harm in his tenure. Your charges of "lying", as though that was a problem, ring hollow. I might lie, as when I say "You seem to be an otherwise intelligent person", for the simple purpose of social politeness. Any lies told during RFA would be of that nature -- bright white.

[Somey]

Your charges of "lying", as though that was a problem, ring hollow. I might lie, as when I say "You seem to be an otherwise intelligent person", for the simple purpose of social politeness. Any lies told during RFA would be of that nature -- bright white.

And besides, if we're assuming Cool3 (T-C-L-K-R-D) was Mr. Limey's admin account originally, that account was "opped" in late June 2009, and the thread here about selling the account took place in November 2009. And I don't think there's any question that Greg would have had practically no interest in an account that was merely "primed for an RfA" - in fact, that's almost absurd. Why would anyone want to "buy" such an account?

So no, he didn't "lie" to anyone in that regard. And as for ignoring Hipocrite, well... Hipocrite may be a hot-head, but it's not like they deleted the post, is it?

[No one of consequence]

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months.

Whose theory is that? The lifespan of checkuser results is well known to people who pay attention to such things, anything earlier than that is mere speculation.

[Milton Roe]

...my understanding is deficient...

Now you're on the right track, Shalom.

Oh, and if you think you're going to get more info from me about this episode, you're not. The Wikipediots are talking about bringing me up on federal electronic terrorism charges. I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment for the duration.

Boy, that means they really ARE embarassed! For a bunch of guys who finally pwned you, they seem to be getting damn little satisfaction out of it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I suppose Weiss will be next, after you? He wasn't an admin, but his socks continued to edit abusively in defiance of COI, as well as ArbCom. All you did was edit in defiance of ArbCom, but made perfectly good and constructive edits. The difference is, you defied ArbCom longer and better. That's your real sin, you electronic terrorist, you. Defiance is unforgivable. Heretic! Traitor! Insubordinate malcontent!

At least ArbCom's use of the word "terrorist" corresponds with the standard US usage: "Terrorist: anybody anywhere who successfully resists the US in the violent course of doing whatever-the-hell the US wants to."

The US has its Brandts, too. But engages with them philosophically even less, as there is no world outside the "real one" to take the battle to, there (that was Brandt's trump card-- WP does not control the internets). The US figures it's already winning at the highest level available, so why talk? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Alison]

If it comes to light that you gained control of this account only in the last 2-3 months, then my understanding is deficient and you did not lie.

I've seen all the behind-the-curtains stuff around the Cool3 account and yes, your understanding is deficient (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Milton Roe]

If it comes to light that you gained control of this account only in the last 2-3 months, then my understanding is deficient and you did not lie.

I've seen all the behind-the-curtains stuff around the Cool3 account and yes, your understanding is deficient (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Indeed, the Feb, 2009 handoff (4 months before succesful RfA) was SO clear that Cool3 felt compelled to mention it on his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Come on, people!

[Shalom]

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months.

Whose theory is that? The lifespan of checkuser results is well known to people who pay attention to such things, anything earlier than that is mere speculation.

Good point.

[Milton Roe]

You have done nothing to explain "the facts that underlie this situation." The prevailing theory is that you acquired the account prior to passing RFA, shepherded it through RFA, and acted as an administrator for months.

Whose theory is that? The lifespan of checkuser results is well known to people who pay attention to such things, anything earlier than that is mere speculation.

Good point.

You don't need a checkuser weatherman to tell you that it's socking raining...

Unless Cool3 had a personality and knowledge transplant in Feb, 09, combined with a transatlantic change of address sometime between his start on WP and when he was nailed, the account changed hands then. If Kohs himself really has past expertise in NATO stuff, then he's boned and pwned, fair and square.

No shame in that; he was outnumbered and it was a very well played game. Well-played enough that the Attack-Shih Tzus of Arbcom yiped all the way home, egg on their brachycephalic faces and eyes popping. I think they're still running round and round in little circles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

You guys have to think harder about the difference between moral/ethical rulebreaking, vs. breaking of stupid silly rules, such as most of the ones related to Greg's banning on WP. Greg didn't post photos of a colleague on the net and claim to be her. He didn't even harm WP, but actually (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) improved it.

If he lied, well, truth-telling isn't required when you're talking to the mugger, or to a tryranical cop. WP is managed by a vast bunch of hypocritical and dishonest wankers who really don't care about actual damage they do in the real world; why the hell should we (or anybody else) care about damage-free nose-thumbing that happens to THEM, on their little virtual site?

Kohs isn't even much of a vandal on WP. He's simply The Scarlet Pimpernel or Robin Hood. Pursued by the ever-boring (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) Sheriffs of Nottingham. Who will hang him if they can. For poaching in the King's Forest. Or some other reason, which we've forgotten but no doubt has to do with his attitude toward The King's authority. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[Somey]

Indeed, the Feb, 2009 handoff (4 months before succesful RfA) was SO clear that Cool3 felt compelled to mention it on his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Where? I just went through all the February 2009 edits to both his user and user_talk pages and found nothing of the sort.

Admittedly, it's a bit odd that he would come back from a 2-1/2 year almost-hiatus and dive right into it, gain adminship, and then sell the account, but hey, maybe that was his plan all along, and there are probably sillier ways to try to make money on the internet. (I just can't think of any off the top of my head...)

[Milton Roe]

Indeed, the Feb, 2009 handoff (4 months before succesful RfA) was SO clear that Cool3 felt compelled to mention it on his userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Where? I just went through all the February 2009 edits to both his user and user_talk pages and found nothing of the sort.

Admittedly, it's a bit odd that he would come back from a 2-1/2 year almost-hiatus and dive right into it, gain adminship, and then sell the account, but hey, maybe that was his plan all along, and there are probably sillier ways to try to make money on the internet. (I just can't think of any off the top of my head...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295860807

See the description of himself that begins the page.

[Somey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295860807

See the description of himself that begins the page.

Other than the fact that he's referring to himself in the third person, I don't see anything there that indicates the account was handed off...? Did he not refer to himself in the third person prior to February 2009?

I mean, I could certainly see some validity to the theory that the original account-holder gave the account to a third party, who then did the necessary gnomish/vandal-fighter stuff required to pass the RfA, but it still makes absolutely no sense to me that Kohs would have done all that himself - if he were going to do all that, why not just start a new account? And why would he show any interest at all in buying an admin account in the WR thread started by Limey? Frankly, I don't think Kohs could have gotten through that whole leadup-to-RfA rigamarole without doing something to give himself away - the whole thing strikes me as way too mind-numbing and oppressive, not something he could handle for that amount of time. (I know I couldn't!)

[Milton Roe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295860807

See the description of himself that begins the page.

Other than the fact that he's referring to himself in the third person, I don't see anything there that indicates the account was handed off...? Did he not refer to himself in the third person prior to February 2009?

No, you misread because I didn't write clearly. I meant the change in style at the handoff in Feb was so severe that he apparently felt required to refer to it, for the benefit of other people who had noticed. Yeah, he ROARED back then, all right. Kind of like the dying man being reanimated by the discarnated space vapor, or damned soul. There was definately something unnatural about it.

[dogbiscuit]

I think the best thing I spotted on the talk page were the number of enthusiastic supports and congratulations and even barnstars from Wikipedians, including "notables" such as KillerChihuahua.

One thing that the exercise did prove was that Greg was not bluffing about being able to be a quality contributor.

The Wikipedian defence about the location change should simply have been a loud and brazen NO WP:OUTING, alluding to changes in personal circumstances that went along with the reinvigoration.

[Kelly Martin]

I don't see that follows at all. Children could easily be prohibited from editing with no ill effects whatsoever (not that I'm suggesting that they should be, I just think they shouldn't be administrators).

Children, on Wikipedia, do probably 90% of the vandalism patrol and other essential but mundane work required to keep the site from turning into a mass of "jeremy is gay lulz". Wikipedia would absolutely crash and burn without the massive amounts of volunteer child labor that keeps it going.

[A Horse With No Name]

No shame in that; he was outnumbered and it was a very well played game. Well-played enough that the Attack-Shih Tzus of Arbcom yiped all the way home, egg on their brachycephalic faces and eyes popping. I think they're still running round and round in little circles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Milton...you can write! My goodness, this is incredible wordplay. I kneel before you in awe. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Admittedly, it's a bit odd that he would come back from a 2-1/2 year almost-hiatus and dive right into it, gain adminship, and then sell the account, but hey, maybe that was his plan all along, and there are probably sillier ways to try to make money on the internet. (I just can't think of any off the top of my head...)

I suspect the sale was an after-the-fact happening. As many people discover, adminship is an annoying bore. Rather than walk away from the site with nothing to show for it or give back adminship (which makes no sense at all), why not make a few dollars/pounds/euros/yens/shekels?

Also, is there anything in the official policy that says an account cannot be transferred from one person to another?

[Jon Awbrey]

Also, is there anything in the official policy that says an account cannot be transferred from one person to another?

Wikipedia "Policies" are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Which means —

If anyone does it, it's already a Little Bit Policy (WP:LBP).

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[anthony]

I don't see that follows at all. Children could easily be prohibited from editing with no ill effects whatsoever (not that I'm suggesting that they should be, I just think they shouldn't be administrators).

Children, on Wikipedia, do probably 90% of the vandalism patrol and other essential but mundane work required to keep the site from turning into a mass of "jeremy is gay lulz". Wikipedia would absolutely crash and burn without the massive amounts of volunteer child labor that keeps it going.

But no ill effects whatsoever, right?

(Actually, I don't think that's necessarily what would happen. I think it's more likely that new techniques would be devised to fight vandalism more efficiently, at the cost of the site being less "open". There are plenty of examples where "everyone can edit" has lost out to "there aren't enough people to do the cleanup work". For instance, the blocking of open proxies, the ability to block new account creation, semi-protection, the ability to block an article from being created, the spam blacklist, etc. Get rid of the vandal fighters, and we'd probably see a decent version of "stable versions" quickly implemented. The people who do the mundane work of vandal fighting are just making things worse for everyone. They're a hindrance, not a help. Willy on Wheels, "the most prolific vandal" per ED, has likely done more to improve Wikipedia than the most prolific vandal-fighter, not that I condone of the actions of either of them. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is designed, the worst people are destined to rise to the top.)

This post has been edited by anthony:

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I suspect the sale was an after-the-fact happening. As many people discover, adminship is an annoying bore. Rather than walk away from the site with nothing to show for it or give back adminship (which makes no sense at all), why not make a few dollars/pounds/euros/yens/shekels?

Also, is there anything in the official policy that says an account cannot be transferred from one person to another?

If there isn't one, there probably will be soon and it will be made retroactive.

Originally adminionship really was no big deal. But as WP began to take off, it soon became the equivalent of being a mafia made-man (as opposed to just a maid); A licence to do almost anything.

Over the last two years though, it has become an



This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[MZMcBride]

I don't see that follows at all. Children could easily be prohibited from editing with no ill effects whatsoever (not that I'm suggesting that they should be, I just think they shouldn't be administrators).

Children, on Wikipedia, do probably 90% of the vandalism patrol and other essential but mundane work required to keep the site from turning into a mass of "jeremy is gay lulz". Wikipedia would absolutely crash and burn without the massive amounts of volunteer child labor that keeps it going.

I agree with Kelly that children do most of the vandalism patrolling. Perhaps Malleus' point is that if no children were editing at all, the vandalism would dramatically decrease as well? Seems like a reasonable theory to me.

[Somey]

I agree with Kelly that children do most of the vandalism patrolling. Perhaps Malleus' point is that if no children were editing at all, the vandalism would dramatically decrease as well? Seems like a reasonable theory to me.

It's probably easy for Malleus and others to believe that if they've been heavily exposed to internal WP culture that treats individuals who "vandalize" as children, and indeed most of the "so-and-so is a fag" edits probably are made by children. But most of the political, sports, porn, and pseudo-science vandalism is almost certainly done by adults, and I would think nearly all of the subtle/clever vandalism is done by adults. What's more, most of the "fag" vandalism can easily be picked up by bots, no?

Of course, none of the numbers involved can be verified, but I personally would think that if everyone under the age of 18 were to vanish from WP altogether, you'd still get plenty of vandalism, but it would be higher-quality vandalism, and you'd have less than 25 percent of the current RC patrol left to deal with it.

The other thing I suspect would happen is that if more vandalism is missed by RC patrollers, and the success rate for vandals goes up in terms of both number-of-articles and time-duration-per-edit, more people of all ages would vandalize, just to get in on the "fun."

[MZMcBride]

I agree with Kelly that children do most of the vandalism patrolling. Perhaps Malleus' point is that if no children were editing at all, the vandalism would dramatically decrease as well? Seems like a reasonable theory to me.

It's probably easy for Malleus and others to believe that if they've been heavily exposed to internal WP culture that treats individuals who "vandalize" as children, and indeed most of the "so-and-so is a fag" edits probably are made by children. But most of the political, sports, porn, and pseudo-science vandalism is almost certainly done by adults, and I would think nearly all of the subtle/clever vandalism is done by adults. What's more, most of the "fag" vandalism can easily be picked up by bots, no?

The bots are written and run mostly by... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

If we're getting a large amount of porn vandalism, I'm certainly not seeing it!

[Jon Awbrey]

If we're getting a large amount of porn vandalism, I'm certainly not seeing it!

He has all the Wiki-Porn on his watchlist, and carefully checks it every hour for vandalism …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Lar]

If we're getting a large amount of porn vandalism, I'm certainly not seeing it!

He has all the Wiki-Porn on his watchlist, and carefully checks it every hour for vandalism …

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

[Milton Roe]

Er, yeah... or you could just look at the automatically generated list of every admin in order of last edit. Or would that be cheating?

Handy, that. 345 inactive admins and another 471 "semi-active" admins, for a total of over 800 out of the total of about 1700. I.e. barely over 50% of admins play an active* part in Wikipedia today.

Of course, if I write my little script, it will also look at who has been editing but not using the admin tools (quite a few). Tell me again why admin rights don't lapse after a few months of inactivity?

* Active, for purposes of this count, is the low bar of 30 edits in two months.

There's another interesting stat that you can get right off special:statistics .

If no edits in the last 30 days defines inactivity, then only about 1 out of 79 nameusers who ever signed up for WP are still editing and active. 78 out of 79 are thus inactive.

Only about 145,000 registered users have edited in 30 days, out of about 11.5 million total registered users. So the number who edited last month is Springfield, MA or Kansas City, Kansas. A medium sized city. Out of 11.5 million which is the population of Ohio. If all the people who'd ever registered on en.wiki formed a state, it would be the 7th largest one in the U.S.

This suggests strongly that the average person who registers on WP does so for a specific purpose, and then quits after it's done. That 1 person in 80 or so get "addicted" and become a regular contributor.

It's also one (more) piece of weak evidence against the idea that if we block most IP users, there won't be anybody left to edit. 11.5 million people managed to register! The reason we have so few regular editors is that almost 99% of these people THEN quit. A pool of more than 11 million English speakers should be quite large enough. The argument that the whole things will collapse if we don't pull in IPs, looks a bit silly next to that gigantic number.

[John Limey]

This suggests strongly that the average person who registers on WP does so for a specific purpose, and then quits after it's done. That 1 person in 80 or so get "addicted" and become a regular contributor.

It's also one (more) piece of weak evidence against the idea that if we block most IP users, there won't be anybody left to edit. 11.5 million people managed to register! The reason we have so few regular editors is that almost 99% of these people THEN quit. A pool of more than 11 million English speakers should be quite large enough. The argument that the whole things will collapse if we don't pull in IPs, looks a bit silly next to that gigantic number.

Well, of course I think we all know that 1 account = 1 person is not even close to true. There are also a lot of accounts that register and then never make a single edit (for reasons known only to themselves). This doctoral thesis had a lot of interesting stats on how long Wikipedians stick around. The average contributor, on all language Wikipedias, last 200 days from first edit to last edit. Another interesting conclusion, and one that does fit quite well with your thesis Milton, is that more than 50% of highly active contributors spend less than one month among this "core" of most active editors (see page 119); however, former "core" authors don't tend to quit immediately after leaving the core.

[tarantino]

There's another interesting stat that you can get right off special:statistics .

If no edits in the last 30 days defines inactivity, then only about 1 out of 79 nameusers who ever signed up for WP are still editing and active. 78 out of 79 are thus inactive.

Only about 145,000 registered users have edited in 30 days, out of about 11.5 million total registered users.

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented for editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

[Jon Awbrey]

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented from editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

Yeah, but most of both numbers are me.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

This suggests strongly that the average person who registers on WP does so for a specific purpose, and then quits after it's done. That 1 person in 80 or so get "addicted" and become a regular contributor.

Before the account creation rate limiter and account creation captchas were put in, it was possible for someone to create thousands of accounts per minute via automation. This has actually been done, several times, and as a result there are quite a lot of accounts which were never intended to be used.

The relationship between persons and accounts on Wikipedia is not even remotely close to being one to one; never ever make inferences that rely on it even being a close approximation to that as you'll just end up driving off a cliff somewhere.

[gomi]

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented for editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

If that is the average rate, that is still only 60,000 blocked per year, or something far less than 500k over the life of the project -- i.e. about 4%. What percent of the remaining 11m or more are still editing?

[Milton Roe]

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented for editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

If that is the average rate, that is still only 60,000 blocked per year, or something far less than 500k over the life of the project -- i.e. about 4%. What percent of the remaining 11m or more are still editing?

As we said, on the order of 150,000. Something like 1.3% or perhaps a bit more if you allow more than 1 month between edits.

[Premier player]

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented for editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

If that is the average rate, that is still only 60,000 blocked per year, or something far less than 500k over the life of the project -- i.e. about 4%. What percent of the remaining 11m or more are still editing?

That is likely to be a gross overestimate. It is virtually certain that the number blocked has increased rapidly over time in line with the growth in the number of users, edits and indeed admins. Also, a number of indefinite blocks get reversed. I'd be surprised if the actual number still permanently blocked is more than a third of Gomi's estimate. Of course, many and many will have been blocked but not indefinitely, and as a result gone away and not come back.

[MZMcBride]

If we're getting a large amount of porn vandalism, I'm certainly not seeing it!

He has all the Wiki-Porn on his watchlist, and carefully checks it every hour for vandalism …

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

MediaWiki:Bad image list has 174 watchers. Hah.

[Skinny87]

Frankly, I know nothing about the ins and outs of this case. But it's bloody annoying that one of the few editors who was able to help in my branch of the wiki-woods (airborne warfare, gliders and such) has been banned and as such cannot be asked for further help in my researches. So thanks, whoever fucked that one up, whether it be Kohser, whoever was behind Cool3, or the both of you.

[Jon Awbrey]

Frankly, I know nothing about the ins and outs of this case. But it's bloody annoying that one of the few editors who was able to help in my branch of the wiki-woods (airborne warfare, gliders and such) has been banned and as such cannot be asked for further help in my researches. So thanks, whoever fucked that one up, whether it be Kohser, whoever was behind Cool3, or the both of you.

Waddayamean??? It's the encyclical that anyone can edit, right???

Like it's so hard to get another account …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Eva Destruction]

Frankly, I know nothing about the ins and outs of this case. But it's bloody annoying that one of the few editors who was able to help in my branch of the wiki-woods (airborne warfare, gliders and such) has been banned and as such cannot be asked for further help in my researches. So thanks, whoever fucked that one up, whether it be Kohser, whoever was behind Cool3, or the both of you.

You know, you can still talk to Greg even when he's banned from Wikipedia... Apparently, he has this website. I believe he's mentioned it once or twice.

[Skinny87]

Frankly, I know nothing about the ins and outs of this case. But it's bloody annoying that one of the few editors who was able to help in my branch of the wiki-woods (airborne warfare, gliders and such) has been banned and as such cannot be asked for further help in my researches. So thanks, whoever fucked that one up, whether it be Kohser, whoever was behind Cool3, or the both of you.

You know, you can still talk to Greg even when he's banned from Wikipedia... Apparently, he has this website. I believe he's mentioned it once or twice.

But I have no idea if it was Kohs or whoever was the original person behind Cool3 that helped me, though I suspect the latter, as they were able to go to several libraries in England and get information if I remember correctly.

[Eva Destruction]

Frankly, I know nothing about the ins and outs of this case. But it's bloody annoying that one of the few editors who was able to help in my branch of the wiki-woods (airborne warfare, gliders and such) has been banned and as such cannot be asked for further help in my researches. So thanks, whoever fucked that one up, whether it be Kohser, whoever was behind Cool3, or the both of you.

You know, you can still talk to Greg even when he's banned from Wikipedia... Apparently, he has this website. I believe he's mentioned it once or twice.

But I have no idea if it was Kohs or whoever was the original person behind Cool3 that helped me, though I suspect the latter, as they were able to go to several libraries in England and get information if I remember correctly.

(Shrugs). You could ask Greg if it was him or not. He's no reason to lie. Unless he's taking the "web of deceit" thing to a ridiculous level, his Phd thesis was on the Czech air force (and why would you lie about something like that?) so presumably his knowledge of aviation history is genuine.

[SB_Johnny]

(Shrugs). You could ask Greg if it was him or not. He's no reason to lie. Unless he's taking the "web of deceit" thing to a ridiculous level, his Phd thesis was on the Czech air force (and why would you lie about something like that?) so presumably his knowledge of aviation history is genuine.

Greg already said he's "taking the fifth", after some threat(s?) about legal action.

[Malleus]

(Shrugs). You could ask Greg if it was him or not. He's no reason to lie. Unless he's taking the "web of deceit" thing to a ridiculous level, his Phd thesis was on the Czech air force (and why would you lie about something like that?) so presumably his knowledge of aviation history is genuine.

Greg already said he's "taking the fifth", after some threat(s?) about legal action.

What's "illegal" about buying a WP admin account, or am I on the wrong channel?

[Kelly Martin]

Greg already said he's "taking the fifth", after some threat(s?) about legal action.

What's "illegal" about buying a WP admin account, or am I on the wrong channel?

Some of the more diehard wikicultists are suggesting that using a Wikipedia account that is not "yours" constitutes "unauthorized access to a protected computer system" under a federal statute that is supposed to apply mainly to the government's own computers, computers used by federal contractors, and computers involved in the regulated finance system. The federal definition of "protected computer system" is really broad, but I don't think it's broad enough to encompass Wikipedia's servers; furthermore, the WMF has no policy that prohibits account holders from transferring their accounts. They'd be relying on the community's ban of Greg to assert "unauthorized access", but for that to work the ban would have had to have come from the WMF itself (as server owner), not merely from the Wikipedia community, whatever that is.

It would be profoundly stupid for Wikipedia to seek a criminal prosecution of Greg for pulling off that trick, and I think it's very unlikely that the USAAG would be remotely interested in pursuing such a prosecution, but at the same time such would be very inconvenient for Greg.

[Peter Damian]

There's another interesting stat that you can get right off special:statistics .

If no edits in the last 30 days defines inactivity, then only about 1 out of 79 nameusers who ever signed up for WP are still editing and active. 78 out of 79 are thus inactive.

Only about 145,000 registered users have edited in 30 days, out of about 11.5 million total registered users.

Special:Statistics does not tell how many of 11.5 million registered user names are currently prevented for editing. 5,000 have been blocked indefinitely in the last 4 weeks.

That's a very interesting tool. A quick copy into Excel and a pivot shows the top 20 causes of blocks.

Dank (talk | 340
J.delanoy (talk | 326
PMDrive1061 (talk | 244
Edgar181 (talk | 238
Tnxman307 (talk | 182
Materialscientist (talk | 163
MuZemike (talk | 160
Nihonjoe (talk | 148
NuclearWarfare (talk | 115
NawlinWiki (talk | 113
NJA (talk | 109
Kuru (talk | 106
Ioeth (talk | 95
Orangemike (talk | 82
Willking1979 (talk | 78
Daniel Case (talk | 77
Zzuuzz (talk | 76
Nishkid64 (talk | 74
Cirt (talk | 72
Beeblebrox (talk | 69

If these admins were stopped then end of Wiki as we know it. Yes? They would have to move away from the principle that anyone can edit.

Interesting that Dank has a userbox saying 'I am a Wikipedian' (= "I am a nutter")

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

[Milton Roe]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

A rhetorical question? "Cool three" lasted just long enough to be indeffed as a Cool3 sock by PeterSymonds.

[CharlotteWebb]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

On the surface this appears to be an alternate account of the original account-holder.

If arbcom does believe he voluntarily sold or donated his main account to another person I doubt they'd want him to return under any name. But if they don't mind him coming back (with restrictions like "no RFA" etc) they should attempt in some fashion to make sure it's him.

I figure there's a very good chance both accounts were created with the same password. Obviously we'd hope that party_1 changed the second account's password before or after the first account [assumed new ownership for whatever reason] to avoid losing control of both accounts, but anything is possible.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Milton Roe]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

On the surface this appears to be an alternate account of the original account-holder.

If arbcom does believe he voluntarily sold or donated his main account to another person I doubt they'd want him to return under any name. But if they don't mind him coming back (with restrictions like "no RFA" etc) they should attempt in some fashion to make sure it's him.

I figure there's a very good chance both accounts were created with the same password. Obviously we'd hope that party_1 changed the second account's password before or after the first account [assumed new ownership for whatever reason] to avoid losing control of both accounts, but anything is possible.

Date of creation is 5 March, 2009, six days after our postulated last edit on Feb 27, for the original account holder, on his favorite doctor-bio, which he'd been working on for years. Cool3 (the new account user, I presume) had begun to edit furiously about NATO, 17 days before creation of Cool three. And quit editing his favorite doctor-bio forever, 6 days before. So, how come he needs to create an alternate account right here (even openly) to edit on some little-known would-be assassin? My guess that you are right and this (Cool three) indeed is the original account holder. Sucked up in the drama now and blocked as a sock of Cool3 who was supposedly checkusered as Kohs. Too bad. Cool three shouldn't have messed with Cool3's userpage.

[thekohser]

I find it delicious that "my" account was able to get "It is the fascist rule that is being tried" into the first big new article out of exile.

[Milton Roe]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

On the surface this appears to be an alternate account of the original account-holder.

If arbcom does believe he voluntarily sold or donated his main account to another person I doubt they'd want him to return under any name. But if they don't mind him coming back (with restrictions like "no RFA" etc) they should attempt in some fashion to make sure it's him.

I figure there's a very good chance both accounts were created with the same password. Obviously we'd hope that party_1 changed the second account's password before or after the first account [assumed new ownership for whatever reason] to avoid losing control of both accounts, but anything is possible.

Date of creation is 5 March, 2009, six days after our postulated last edit on Feb 27, for the original account holder, on his favorite doctor-bio, which he'd been working on for years. Cool3 (the new account user, I presume) had begun to edit furiously about NATO, 17 days before creation of Cool three. And quit editing his favorite doctor-bio forever, 6 days before. So, how come he needs to create an alternate account right here (even openly) to edit on some little-known would-be assassin? My guess that you are right and this (Cool three) indeed is the original account holder. Sucked up in the drama now and blocked as a sock of Cool3 who was supposedly checkusered as Kohs. Too bad. Cool three shouldn't have messed with Cool3's userpage.

[Edit] Unless "Cool three" is a deliberately created UK alternate account to keep Cool3's original posting location, and thus to thumb nose at Checkusers? Methinks Cool three will now protest that he lives in the UK (provably, since he always did and does) thus cannot be Kohs. Let us see.

[IN278S]

Now at RfA.

[CharlotteWebb]

Now at RfA.

Oh wow. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Cool3 is back, or is he?

On the surface this appears to be an alternate account of the original account-holder.

If arbcom does believe he voluntarily sold or donated his main account to another person I doubt they'd want him to return under any name. But if they don't mind him coming back (with restrictions like "no RFA" etc) they should attempt in some fashion to make sure it's him.

I figure there's a very good chance both accounts were created with the same password. Obviously we'd hope that party_1 changed the second account's password before or after the first account [assumed new ownership for whatever reason] to avoid losing control of both accounts, but anything is possible.

Date of creation is 5 March, 2009, six days after our postulated last edit on Feb 27, for the original account holder, on his favorite doctor-bio, which he'd been working on for years. Cool3 (the new account user, I presume) had begun to edit furiously about NATO, 17 days before creation of Cool three. And quit editing his favorite doctor-bio forever, 6 days before. So, how come he needs to create an alternate account right here (even openly) to edit on some little-known would-be assassin? My guess that you are right and this (Cool three) indeed is the original account holder. Sucked up in the drama now and blocked as a sock of Cool3 who was supposedly checkusered as Kohs. Too bad. Cool three shouldn't have messed with Cool3's userpage.

[Edit] Unless "Cool three" is a deliberately created UK alternate account to keep Cool3's original posting location, and thus to thumb nose at Checkusers? Methinks Cool three will now protest that he lives in the UK (provably, since he always did and does) thus cannot be Kohs. Let us see.

Did I call it or what?

Optional question from Jujutacular
5. Do you now use a strong password for your account?
A (Cool three): Yes. Believe me, I learned that lesson. My current password is randomized and contains both numbers and letters. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone else out there, particularly administrators, to use a strong password and change it periodically. If you don't, you could end up in this same unfortunate situation, or worse. The only good part of my experience is that Thekohser didn't use the account to do anything particularly nefarious; you might not be so lucky.'

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ah, god.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

He passed RfA with a flurry of new knowledge on NATO. Only to come back in late January, just 2 weeks ago, and find himself (gasp) desysopped. And going back, he knew the account was compromised several months ago, due to this bold edit, putting the e before i AFTER the c. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327460104

[CharlotteWebb]

[Edit] Unless "Cool three" is a deliberately created UK alternate account to keep Cool3's original posting location, and thus to thumb nose at Checkusers? Methinks Cool three will now protest that he lives in the UK (provably, since he always did and does) thus cannot be Kohs. Let us see.

Did I call it or what?

Uh, no. You didn't say anything about the operator of the account (whoever that is) being dumb enough to think that account would pass RFA.

It's a double-edged sword anyway, now he needs to prove he's not poet-guy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Optional question from Jujutacular
5. Do you now use a strong password for your account?
A (Cool three): Yes. Believe me, I learned that lesson. My current password is randomized and contains both numbers and letters. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone else out there, particularly administrators, to use a strong password and change it periodically. If you don't, you could end up in this same unfortunate situation, or worse. The only good part of my experience is that Thekohser didn't use the account to do anything particularly nefarious; you might not be so lucky.'

Not that it matters as this has no chance of passing, but I wonder why nobody is asking what kind of password Cool3 had beforehand. That is, I have to assume the users supporting him take him seriously when he says does not know how teh kohser allegedly acquired his other account. Obviously a stronger password will never hurt, but it seems like they'd want to figure out the answer to that question before assuming it will solve everything.

But yes, I'm sure some of them just don't care anymore.

[Milton Roe]

Not that it matters as this has no chance of passing, but I wonder why nobody is asking what kind of password Cool3 had beforehand. That is, I have to assume the users supporting him take him seriously when he says does not know how teh kohser allegedly acquired his other account. Obviously a stronger password will never hurt, but it seems like they'd want to figure out the answer to that question before assuming it will solve everything.

But yes, I'm sure some of them just don't care anymore.

But I've got the perfect dog ate my homework answer:

Aouuu, buggerall. You see, mates, I 'ave to admit that oye DID use "cool3" for me password. Oye know, 'is a royal cockup idn it?

[Coffee]

Now at RfA.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif) If I may give you a picture of what this RFA will look like:


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

But I've got the perfect dog ate my homework answer:

Aouuu, buggerall. You see, mates, I 'ave to admit that oye DID use "cool3" for me password. Oye know, 'is a royal cockup idn it?

FAIL

From the great hall of #mw-trivia (feel free to repost in the unlikely event that cool3 makes the above claim):

Since April 2007 it has not been possible to log in to any account where password matches user-name. So even if this would otherwise be the correct password, entering it produces an error message indistinguishable from a bad guess.

That's because this feature was added in response to a certain banned user who used a bot to identify from Special:Listusers accounts whose password matched the name. This allowed him to borrow other people's accounts in order to bypass a "soft" range-block (i.e. one where IP editing and account creation are disabled, but pre-existing accounts can still edit). Apparently someone raised an eyebrow upon noticing a flood of "socks" which mysteriously pre-dated the user's original account.

This also affected some active editors who complained of being suddenly unable to log in because… well, you know. Now why anyone have their user-name as a password, much less admit to it, even after the fact, is beyond me. Some were able to chose a new password via e-mail, but the rest were shit outta luck.

[A Horse With No Name]

Now at RfA.

Nice display of bad faith from the Oppose crowd, particularly from a certain admin who allowed his account to be taken over in a borrow-my-mop game and later bypassed RfA completely to get the worthless tools back. (No names, of course -- we're all friends here!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[anthony]

Not that it matters as this has no chance of passing, but I wonder why nobody is asking what kind of password Cool3 had beforehand.

CoolCoolCool

[Milton Roe]

But I've got the perfect dog ate my homework answer:

Aouuu, buggerall. You see, mates, I 'ave to admit that oye DID use "cool3" for me password. Oye know, 'is a royal cockup idn it?

FAIL

From the great hall of #mw-trivia (feel free to repost in the unlikely event that cool3 makes the above claim):

Since April 2007 it has not been possible to log in to any account where password matches user-name. So even if this would otherwise be the correct password, entering it produces an error message indistinguishable from a bad guess.

That's because this feature was added in response to a certain banned user who used a bot to identify from Special:Listusers accounts whose password matched the name. This allowed him to borrow other people's accounts in order to bypass a "soft" range-block (i.e. one where IP editing and account creation are disabled, but pre-existing accounts can still edit). Apparently someone raised an eyebrow upon noticing a flood of "socks" which mysteriously pre-dated the user's original account.

This also affected some active editors who complained of being suddenly unable to log in because… well, you know. Now why anyone have their user-name as a password, much less admit to it, even after the fact, is beyond me. Some were able to chose a new password via e-mail, but the rest were shit outta luck.

Okay, "Coolthree", then. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[anthony]

Optional question from Jujutacular
5. Do you now use a strong password for your account?
A (Cool three): Yes. Believe me, I learned that lesson. My current password is randomized and contains both numbers and letters.

I can confirm that this is true (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

"I have interacted with both editors. I assure you that Cool3 and Thekohser are not the same person." –Juliancolton (who also assured us that he never posted sex advice on a teen-oriented site, that Colton is not his surname, and that the information on HiveMind regarding his birthday and place of residence is 100% wrong) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg already said he's "taking the fifth", after some threat(s?) about legal action.

What's "illegal" about buying a WP admin account, or am I on the wrong channel?

Some of the more diehard wikicultists are suggesting that using a Wikipedia account that is not "yours" constitutes "unauthorized access to a protected computer system" under a federal statute that is supposed to apply mainly to the government's own computers, computers used by federal contractors, and computers involved in the regulated finance system. The federal definition of "protected computer system" is really broad, but I don't think it's broad enough to encompass Wikipedia's servers; furthermore, the WMF has no policy that prohibits account holders from transferring their accounts. They'd be relying on the community's ban of Greg to assert "unauthorized access", but for that to work the ban would have had to have come from the WMF itself (as server owner), not merely from the Wikipedia community, whatever that is.

It would be profoundly stupid for Wikipedia to seek a criminal prosecution of Greg for pulling off that trick, and I think it's very unlikely that the USAAG would be remotely interested in pursuing such a prosecution, but at the same time such would be very inconvenient for Greg.

Exactly right analysis, Kelly.

[Jon Awbrey]

Greg already said he's "taking the fifth", after some threat(s?) about legal action.

What's "illegal" about buying a WP admin account, or am I on the wrong channel?

Some of the more diehard wikicultists are suggesting that using a Wikipedia account that is not "yours" constitutes "unauthorized access to a protected computer system" under a federal statute that is supposed to apply mainly to the government's own computers, computers used by federal contractors, and computers involved in the regulated finance system. The federal definition of "protected computer system" is really broad, but I don't think it's broad enough to encompass Wikipedia's servers; furthermore, the WMF has no policy that prohibits account holders from transferring their accounts. They'd be relying on the community's ban of Greg to assert "unauthorized access", but for that to work the ban would have had to have come from the WMF itself (as server owner), not merely from the Wikipedia community, whatever that is.

It would be profoundly stupid for Wikipedia to seek a criminal prosecution of Greg for pulling off that trick, and I think it's very unlikely that the USAAG would be remotely interested in pursuing such a prosecution, but at the same time such would be very inconvenient for Greg.

Exactly right analysis, Kelly.

Except for the fact that anyone who mentions taking legal action should be banned immediately — if  there were any consistency at all in their own "rules".

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Is there a specific policy that states that a person is prohibited from either selling an admin account, or giving it away, or letting one's friend(s) take it for a spin? And if not for self-identification or the sleuthing of Tarantino and David Brandt, we would have no idea which person is behind what account. For all we know, other accounts have been transferred for fun and/or profit.

[Jon Awbrey]

Is there a specific policy that states that a person is prohibited from either selling an admin account, or giving it away, or letting one's friend(s) take it for a spin? And if not for self-identification or the sleuthing of Tarantino and David Brandt, we would have no idea which person is behind what account. For all we know, other accounts have been transferred for fun and/or profit.

It doesn't really matter what gets written on that website, nor whether some user writes "policy" in its neighborhood or not.

There is no such thing as a legally enforceable Wikipedia policy — there are only those things that the law demands in any case.

Jon Awbrey (NALJAL)

[BelovedFox]

Does anyone actually think Kohs received legal threats? He's certainly smart enough to realize no one could do jack, and while there might be people foolish enough to wantonly threaten to sic "their lawyers" on you, those are the people who will never do so (or would be capable thereof).

He's practicing the same method William Shatner uses when asked about his toupee--make a wise remark, deflect, never answer.

[anthony]

Does anyone actually think Kohs received legal threats?

I'd say most likely he has.

He's certainly smart enough to realize no one could do jack

I dunno. It's not clear to me whether he 1) hacked the account / guessed the password; 2) bought the account from someone he knew to have hacked the account / guessed the password; 3) bought the account from someone other than the original owner under the impression that s/he was the original owner; or 4) bought the account from the original owner. In cases 1 and 2 I suppose technically he could be convicted of a crime (*). In cases 3 and 4 I doubt it (per the explanation of Kelly, i.e. there is no official WMF policy against it, and "some moron added a guideline about it to a wiki page" doesn't likely count). Of course, in all 4 cases he committed a wikicrime, and might want to leave doubt in people's minds in case he ever wants to appeal his ban (again).

(*) Or I suppose it's also possible that none of these are true.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Shalom]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

[A Horse With No Name]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

Please provide evidence that Greg is a thief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

(IMG:http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd347/richdaw/laughing.gif)

[Somey]

Please provide evidence that Greg is a thief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Or "depraved" and "despicable," for that matter. I know there are plenty of people who would say just the opposite. The fact is, Shalom, most (if not all) Wikipedia admins have proven themselves unwilling to do anything to provide statistical evidence of the scope and nature of the BLP problem that can be freely used by journalists, politicians, and so on. Some have shown plenty of willingness to fix problems once they're brought to their attention, and to support policy changes that could help, but they're not producing actual numbers.

If WP were serious about the BLP problem, they'd restore his admin rights immediately. It seems that instead, most of them are interested primarily in turd-polishing and ass-covering.

[Shalom]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

Please provide evidence that Greg is a thief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Does "identity thief" count as a "thief" for you? How would you like it if Greg stole your credit card number or debit card number? How would you like it if he hacked into your email account? How would he like it if he made a mess on your property that caused no permanent damage but required hours of your time to clean up?

Hacking an admin account (or obtaining and using the login info from another person who has hacked the account) is stealing a person's electronic identity. An admin account on Wikipedia has no real value the way credit and debit cards do, but it's worth something to the person who has it. Stealing the account is like razing a child's sand castle or snow fort because those things have no real value but are worth something to the children who made them.

I am comparing the action to wanton destruction aside from stealing. I understand these are not equivalent concepts. I think stealing is a closer comparison. I am using the analogy of wanton destruction to escape the problem that what Greg has "stolen" is an access void of real value, so he has "destroyed" the pleasure experience enjoyed by Cool3 in the course of his routine activities. However you parse it, Greg has done harm to Cool3 and owes him an apology.
_________________

Somey, WTF? Why does everything have to be about the BLP problem?

[Jon Awbrey]

Well, at least we now know who Wikidefender was —

Shalom, Out …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password.

Oh, mercy me, the effort... the EFFORT!

...he did this despicable act of sabotage.

...what Greg has "stolen" is an access void of real value...

Wait, I thought Lar said this account cost me at least a hundred bucks!?

Can you guys please get your stories straight? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

...Greg has done harm to Cool3 and owes him an apology.

Hey, Cool3... I'm sorry you participate within a wiki community that doesn't trust you!

[anthony]

...he did this despicable act of sabotage.

These things happen. Watertower (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[Shalom]

Oh, mercy me, the effort... the EFFORT!

Your point??
_________________

Then you post a video of Shatner saying "sabotage." Again, your point??

...what Greg has "stolen" is an access void of real value...

Wait, I thought Lar said this account cost me at least a hundred bucks!?

Can you guys please get your stories straight? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I didn't say you paid nothing for it.

...Greg has done harm to Cool3 and owes him an apology.

Hey, Cool3... I'm sorry you participate within a wiki community that doesn't trust you!

You know that's not an apology. Greg, I'm sorry you lack the moral judgment to understand that your actions have disrupted the life of a real individual who did nothing to harm you.

[tarantino]

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3.

How many accounts would you have used?

[cyofee]

It looks like Shalom is nerdraging at Greg cause he got blocked for socking at WP (again).

I am blocking you for a week for creating socks and using them to disrupt an RFA. The next time you're caught using socks, given your history, you are probably looking at a block of months rather than weeks, and that's if the checkuser is feeling benevolent. Risker (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Permalink

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[Milton Roe]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

Shalom, when those guys from Nigeria contact you about needing to transfer $25 million USD into the US secretly, though your bank account,

IT'S A TRICK.

Helpfully,

Miltie

[Shalom]

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3.

How many accounts would you have used?

One.

I understand the hint in the question. J04n's RFA was the only time in my life I have ever double voted on Wikipedia. One forceful support is worth more than three cheap sock-votes.

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

Shalom, when those guys from Nigeria contact you about needing to transfer $25 million USD into the US secretly, though your bank account,

IT'S A TRICK.

Helpfully,

Miltie

I know that...how stupid do you think I am?

The Nigerian scammers commit identity theft.

[Milton Roe]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

Shalom, when those guys from Nigeria contact you about needing to transfer $25 million USD into the US secretly, though your bank account,

IT'S A TRICK.

Helpfully,

Miltie

I know that...how stupid do you think I am?

Do you want an honest answer? Right now you're dumb enough to be an MB troll, trolling us for dumbth.

[Shalom]

Greg, I'm blocked from WP at the moment so I'll just say it here. You are a depraved thief. You stole this person's login and caused him and dozens of other Wikipedia users countless wasted hours with your disruption.

I wish I could enthusiastically state my support for Cool3. My block expires tomorrow but by then the RFA will likely be withdrawn or snowed. His story seems entirely credible to me. If his password was what he says it was, I would hardly call it a "weak" password. You would need to undertake substantial effort to guess it, or have a computer hacking program, or inside "social engineering" information, to guess that Cool3's password was the title of a wiki article he wrote (without spaces and with the second word capitalized, he says). To me, that's a strong password. Yes, it could have been guessed, but I don't fault him for not suspecting any threat.

Look at how hard Cool3 is trying to give his side of the story to clear his name and recover the admin access he rightfully earned just like every other admin on the site. (Some admins were appointed, not elected, but don't nitpick.) How can he prove that he didn't sell the account to Greg, or to a third party who sold it to Greg? He lives with the assumption of guilt foisted upon him, all because Greg Kohs, this selfish despicable thief, decided to go for a joyride with his admin account. No he should not be sued (that's ridiculous, Hipocrite) but he should be shamed, and his name on Google searches linked to the fact that he did this despicable act of sabotage. PWNED!

Shalom, when those guys from Nigeria contact you about needing to transfer $25 million USD into the US secretly, though your bank account,

IT'S A TRICK.

Helpfully,

Miltie

I know that...how stupid do you think I am?

Do you want an honest answer? Right now you're dumb enough to be an MB troll, trolling us for dumbth.

WTF? Are you implying I'm MB? Have we not gone down this road before? It can be demonstrated convincingly that MB and I are two different individuals living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Please don't make me prove this because it will take a long time for no purpose. That said, I discovered that ED think's I'm Blissyu2! (Lookup Blissyu2's ED article, that's my photo.)

If you're not implying I'm MB, then what makes you think I'm "trolling"?

[A Horse With No Name]

How would he like it if he made a mess on your property that caused no permanent damage but required hours of your time to clean up?

I don't believe in cleaning -- I have a serene relationship with dust. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It looks like Shalom is nerdraging at Greg cause he got blocked for socking at WP (again).

I am blocking you for a week for creating socks and using them to disrupt an RFA. The next time you're caught using socks, given your history, you are probably looking at a block of months rather than weeks, and that's if the checkuser is feeling benevolent. Risker (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Permalink

Next time, pretend that you're James Blunt -- I think Risker will be a lot more friendly to you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Greg, I'm sorry you lack the moral judgment to understand that your actions have disrupted the life of a real individual who did nothing to harm you.

For they could not love you...but still your love was true. And when no hope was left in sight on that starry, starry night, you took...

Oh, sorry, I thought that was a cue for some vintage Don McLean. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[One]

Do you want an honest answer? Right now you're dumb enough to be an MB troll, trolling us for dumbth.

WTF? Are you implying I'm MB? Have we not gone down this road before? It can be demonstrated convincingly that MB and I are two different individuals living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Please don't make me prove this because it will take a long time for no purpose. That said, I discovered that ED think's I'm Blissyu2! (Lookup Blissyu2's ED article, that's my photo.)

If you're not implying I'm MB, then what makes you think I'm "trolling"?

Responding to an obvious joke with "how stupid do you think I am?" makes you seem insanely unsavvy, or perhaps like someone pretending to be slow for the "lulz."

You always seem so earnest though; it's easier for me to imagine you as an eternal straight man than as a troll.

[A Horse With No Name]

You always seem so earnest though; it's easier for me to imagine you as an eternal straight man than as a troll.

Greg and Shalom in action:

[Shalom]

WTF? Are you implying I'm MB? Have we not gone down this road before? It can be demonstrated convincingly that MB and I are two different individuals living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Please don't make me prove this because it will take a long time for no purpose. That said, I discovered that ED think's I'm Blissyu2! (Lookup Blissyu2's ED article, that's my photo.)

If you're not implying I'm MB, then what makes you think I'm "trolling"?

Responding to an obvious joke with "how stupid do you think I am?" makes you seem insanely unsavvy, or perhaps like someone pretending to be slow for the "lulz."

You always seem so earnest though; it's easier for me to imagine you as an eternal straight man than as a troll.

I did not understand what Milton's joke was, so I interpreted it as if to say "you're wrong."

[A Horse With No Name]

"Can't take the risk that this account might have been offered for sale to Thekohser." -- GlassCobra

Hmmm...isn't this the same fat shmuck who knowingly nominated a sock puppet for adminship, wound up losing his tools when he was caught, and then got the tools back four months later in bypassing RfA and begging directly to Arbcom? Obviously, he is someone who can be trusted with adminship! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[The Joy]

Mod note: Discussion about our "old friend" moved to Tar Pit. - The Joy

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Sure, until they get themselves uninvited. Just like a pub. It's open to the public, but if you piss on the floor, the manager may well kick you out.

An better equivalent would be ...

if you mention in public that the crooked manager of a bent establishment is incompetent, fiddling his books and abusing his staff (which includes children) then, equally, he and his enforcers may well try and exclude you at any cost.

Let us not live under any pretense. It is a sad truth about human psychology that even a considerable proportion of those being abused will trade a blind eye and some denial for a 'strong or famous leader' to guide and 'protect' them, and supply their addictions.

Never mind, its only a mobocracy with little sense of wit or humor. I love the Shih Tzu analogy.

Again, one has to ask ... who was the 'yet-another-wikipedia-snitch' that spilt the beans and how did they find out? A checkuser abusing their privileges doing some private snooping perhaps?

The result ... more paranoia amongst the drama queens and a loss of face to the "authorities. You'll never know who is who on the Wikipedia.

If you want to pick a war, any excuse will do.

We agree on something to do with warring and international relations at last! You are right, if you want to pick a war, any excuse will do. If you want to pick a war, it fairly easy to manoeuver other nations into appearing to start a war by working through proxies and screwing them with unequal treaties. And if you want someone else to go down in history as appearing to start a war, most folks will be dumb enough to swallow, any propaganda will do.

(*Try, 'Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics' by OSS founder Miles Copeland snr.)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[IN278S]

I don't believe in cleaning -- I have a serene relationship with dust. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Quentin Crisp was right. If you can go four years without cleaning, the dust doesn't get any worse after that.

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, the demolition derby has ended and Mr. Cool said goodbye.

I gotta love this sign-off: "Goodbye to the decent people and the article writers. Good riddance to the scum who have turned Wikipedia into one of the circles of hell."

[Shalom]

Well, the demolition derby has ended and Mr. Cool said goodbye.

I gotta love this sign-off: "Goodbye to the decent people and the article writers. Good riddance to the scum who have turned Wikipedia into one of the circles of hell."

I don't blame him. Good riddance to you, Thekohser -- still unapologetic for the distress you have caused this fellow.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I don't blame him. Good riddance to you, Thekohser -- still unapologetic for the distress you have caused this fellow.

Come on ... get a life!

As any ful cud see ... User:Cool_three is in on it and was only trying to get admin status back so he could give it over to TheKosher again.

It is a wind up. And even if it is not a wind up ... its another chapter of the general ineptness for the forthcoming book on the Wikipedia.

[thekohser]

I don't blame him. Good riddance to you, Thekohser -- still unapologetic for the distress you have caused this fellow.

How do you know Cool3 is a "fellow"? That's awfully sexist of you.

[Milton Roe]

I don't blame him. Good riddance to you, Thekohser -- still unapologetic for the distress you have caused this fellow.

How do you know Cool3 is a "fellow"? That's awfully sexist of you.

90% of the people on Wikipedia are "fellows." That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction. It works better than flipping a coin, if you have some prior info.

[Trick cyclist]

How do you know Cool3 is a "fellow"? That's awfully sexist of you.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives many meanings of "fellow", mostly unisex, including "a person regarded with contempt" and "a contemporary".

That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction.

Following your exraordinary attempts to belittle my knowledge of anything can I point out that theres no such thing as Baysian induction?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inductio...#SubBayIndDeFin

[Milton Roe]

That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction.

Following your exraordinary attempts to belittle my knowledge of anything can I point out that theres no such thing as Baysian induction?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inductio...#SubBayIndDeFin

The page you reference says no such thing. And of course there is. Many Baysian systems have ways of generating various kinds of inferences about hypotheses, and although they have been criticized, the Baysian models are very similar to, and to some extent explain, the hypothetico-deductive model that science actually uses. You know-- the one that demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? That's Baysian induction.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/

You yourself, I suspect, would demand a somewhat higher standard of evidence before you'd give up belief in the constancy of the speed of light, or the conservation of energy and linear and angular momentum. But your belief in these things is an inductive one (what else would it be?). Demand for a higher standard of evidence in disproving them, is a very Baysian process, depending on your prior assumptions about likelihood of confimation under test, and also involves your inductive beliefs about the laws themselves. So what else would you call it? None of this would go on, in tests of some class of star or other, which you'd far more likely give up if several sets of people hopped up with data to contradict what you previously believed. If they did that with conservation of momentum, you'd just tell them to go back and find their error.

[anthony]

That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction.

Aren't all the isms Bayesian induction gone astray?

You yourself, I suspect, would demand a somewhat higher standard of evidence before you'd give up belief in the constancy of the speed of light, or the conservation of energy and linear and angular momentum.

Me too, but I've never held the belief that they're true a mere 90% of the time.

can I point out that theres no such thing as Baysian induction?

"Bayesian induction", on the other hand...

[Milton Roe]

That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction.

Aren't all the isms Bayesian induction gone astray?

You yourself, I suspect, would demand a somewhat higher standard of evidence before you'd give up belief in the constancy of the speed of light, or the conservation of energy and linear and angular momentum.

Me too, but I've never held the belief that they're true a mere 90% of the time.

can I point out that theres no such thing as Baysian induction?

"Bayesian induction", on the other hand...

Oh, frick, is this all about a missing e? I get more understanding from Google.

[taiwopanfob]

I don't blame him. Good riddance to you, Thekohser -- still unapologetic for the distress you have caused this fellow.

Wow.

Is Wikipedia the largest collection of marks on the net today? And not just everyday marks, but ones practically begging to be used?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[thekohser]

90% of the people on Wikipedia are "fellows." That's not sexism, it's Baysian induction. It works better than flipping a coin, if you have some prior info.

That's neat, Milton! Do you think we could use Bayesian (or Baysian, or Elysian if you want) induction to determine what proportion of women from Illinois who were born in 1912 are still alive today?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

P.S. If you really want to take a crack at that question in a Fermi problem sort of way, I'd be interested in hearing your estimate. I'd say 2.5%, but that's just a hunch without looking up age cohorts in the census or anything.

This post has been edited by thekohser: