The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Links to MyWikBiz, Summa Logicae
Peter Damian
post Sun 12th September 2010, 7:56pm
Post #21


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) *

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.


The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...CUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 13th September 2010, 3:34am
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th September 2010, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) *

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.


The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...CUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.
That's rude, eh? Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.

Yes, I noticed you'd called attention to this. What I couldn't tell quickly, and what is more important, is which of the copies is more complete. I don't think Wikipedia should get into the issue of whether or not the material on Wikisource is legitimate, that should be handled at Wikisource. If the copies are complementary, then both should be linked to. If one includes the other, then the larger one. Except that if the smaller is more correct, then, once again, maybe both.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 13th September 2010, 8:41pm
Post #23


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *

Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.


If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 13th September 2010, 8:42pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 13th September 2010, 8:55pm
Post #24


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



To show exactly how much it is to correct these pages, I show the original scan, then the Wikisource version, then my version at MWB. The latter two are identical. It could be that someone else corrected the Wikisource version. But then why are all the errors in the MWB version also in the Wikisource version?

A further amusing oddity is that my version conforms to the Aqua Clara practice of using the 'v', not the 'u'. But books I and II and IV in Wikisource were taken from a source which converted 'v's to 'u's.



---------------- VERSION AS ORIGINALLY SCANNED

[CAP. 8. QUOD MAIOR IN PRIMA FIGURA POSSIT CONVENIENTER
BSSE SINGULARIS ET SEQUETUR EADEM CONCLUSIO QUAE
SEQUERETUR SI ESSET UNIVERSALIS]

Scicndum cst ctiam quod sicut arguitur evidcntcr poncndo talcm
universalem airirmativam vej ncgativam pro maiori in prirna figura, ita 5
etiam sequitur cvidcnter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vcl ncgativa.
Bcne cnim scquitur 'Sortes cst albus; omnis homo est Sortcs; igitur
omnis homo est albus\ SimiJiter bcne scquitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis
Jiomo cst Sortcs; igitur nullus liomo currit\ Et ita scquitur 'Sortes non
currit; aliquod album est Sortcs; igitur ahquod album non currit'. Et io
ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit af-
firmativa, subicctum non potest dici dc aliquo nisi de eo dicatur prae-
dicatum; si sit ncgativa, non potcst rcmovcri ab aliquo nisi ab eo re-
movcatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut illc qui
rcguJatur pcr dici dc omni vcj de nuJlo, et hoc quia sicut subiectum uni- 15
versaJis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subicctum
singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat
nisi unum.
Et regulae, quac dictae sunt p r i u s \ quando maior cst uiiivcr-
salis, sunt etiam servandac quando maior est singularis. Et proptcr hoc 20
ulis discursus non vaJet 'Sortes est animal; tantum homo est Sortes;

------------------------- WIKISOURCE VERSION

Sciendum est etiam quod sicut arguitur evidenter ponendo talem universalem affirmativam vel negativam pro maiori in prima figura, ita etiam sequitur evidenter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vel negativa. Bene enim sequitur 'Sortes est albus; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur omnis homo est albus'. Similiter bene sequitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur nullus homo currit'. Et ita sequitur 'Sortes non currit; aliquod album est Sortes; igitur aliquod album non currit'. Et ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit affirmativa, subiectum non potest dici de aliquo nisi de eo dicatur praedicatum; si sit negativa, non potest removeri ab aliquo nisi ab eo removeatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut ille qui regulatur per dici de omni vel de nullo et hoc quia sicut subiectum universalis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subiectum singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat nisi unum.

Et regulae, quae dictae sunt prius, quando maior est universalis, sunt etiam servandae quando maior est singularis. Et propter hoc talis discursus non valet 'Sortes est animal, tantum homo est Sortes;


------------------------- LOGIC MUSEUM VERSION

Sciendum est etiam quod sicut arguitur evidenter ponendo talem universalem affirmativam vel negativam pro maiori in prima figura, ita etiam sequitur evidenter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vel negativa. Bene enim sequitur 'Sortes est albus; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur omnis homo est albus'. Similiter bene sequitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur nullus homo currit'. Et ita sequitur 'Sortes non currit; aliquod album est Sortes; igitur aliquod album non currit'. Et ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit affirmativa, subiectum non potest dici de aliquo nisi de eo dicatur praedicatum; si sit negativa, non potest removeri ab aliquo nisi ab eo removeatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut ille qui regulatur per dici de omni vel de nullo et hoc quia sicut subiectum universalis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subiectum singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat nisi unum.

Et regulae, quae dictae sunt prius[1], quando maior est universalis, sunt etiam servandae quando maior est singularis. Et propter hoc talis discursus non valet 'Sortes est animal, tantum homo est Sortes;

------------------ WIKISOURCE VERSION USING U INSTEAD OF V

Postquam dicta sunt aliqua de terminis, nunc secundo dicendum est de propositionibus. Et primo ponendae sunt aliquae diuisiones; secundo uidendum est quid ad ueritatem propositionum requiritur et sufficit; tertio de conuersione propositionum sunt aliqua pertractanda.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 13th September 2010, 9:00pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 13th September 2010, 8:56pm
Post #25


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:41pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *

Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.


If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.


“Credit Where Credit Is Due” applies to any use of another's work.

Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 13th September 2010, 9:08pm
Post #26


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 9:56pm) *


Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey


Admittedly I did write a macro to make the obvious and clear-cut corrections. E.g. 'cst' is always 'est' and 'ctiam' always 'etiam'. Still, it took the best part of a week.

And of course this has put me off putting anything else onto the net. What's the point? A small reward, such as recognition of the fact it was your work, is a small price. But if they won't allow that, why bother? This is all harming 'free knowledge'.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 13th September 2010, 9:24pm
Post #27


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 9:56pm) *

Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey


Admittedly I did write a macro to make the obvious and clear-cut corrections. E.g. 'cst' is always 'est' and 'ctiam' always 'etiam'. Still, it took the best part of a week.

And of course this has put me off putting anything else onto the net. What's the point? A small reward, such as recognition of the fact it was your work, is a small price. But if they won't allow that, why bother? This is all harming 'free knowledge'.


It goes way beyond what people owe to any one person.

It goes to what people owe to the truth.

It's bad enough that Wikipediots so arrogantly flaunt their intellectual dishonesty, but they deform developing characters to fit in with a whole culture of intellectual dishonesty.

That is a gross disservice, not only to the individuals involved but to the entire society.

Jon Awbrey
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 13th September 2010, 11:00pm
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:41pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *
Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.
If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.
You are expecting politeness?

(Wild, hysterical laughing)

I'll note on Wikisource that you claim to have done the scanning, and I'll provide the evidence you've provided, perhaps I'll link to here. At least it will be on the Talk page. And we'll see what those who put up the pages say. It's not illegal for them to have put it up, and I won't be screaming at them, so let's see what they say about it, if they are around.

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 13th September 2010, 11:03pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 14th September 2010, 3:13am
Post #29


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Okay, I posted it., permanent link.

I see that my edit on the Wikipedia article was reverted by someone named Mr. Ollie, I assume that nobody here will be shocked to hear that, but I'm a little offended that Mr. Ollie ignored my polite request that he explain the revert in Talk. Sooner or later he will surely stub his toe and my laugh will haunt him.

All hell appears to have broken loose. My my, all that fuss over a effing external link. I have a feeling that there is one or more of these people just itching to be blocked, or, what is more painful, for, not being blocked, the community to chew them up and spit them out.

WikiuserNI seems to be a class A jerk. This is the one who -- very incorrectly -- seemed to think that external links need to be "reliable source." And then he rejected a reasonably polite request on his Talk, and promptly yanked the link, with a totally wrong-headed and backwards edit summary.

For this type of Wikipediot, "banned editor" means that they would erase the name from history if they could, and benefit to the readers means absolutely nothing. If you are banned, you must be a Very Bad Person, and any web site that would host your crap probably hosts browser viruses, copyright violations, and child pornography.

However, at the moment, it looks like some kind of sanity is prevailing. It happens at Wikipedia from time to time.

As usual, when someone comes in and makes sensible edits in a way that a banned editor did, there is a claim of sock puppetry. However, the heavy lifting is being done by Skomorokh, no lightweight. 51,000 live edits. Think he can handle the situation?

Meanwhile, Mr. Ollie took time from his busy day pouring over Recent Changes to user-page tag The Man On The Clapham Omnibus, as a suspected sock puppet of Peter. But he didn't take the time to actually file an investigation, and, my guess, it's pretty thin. But, then again, you never know, or, maybe, it's who you know. Who is this Ollie jerk, anyway, his MO is pretty familiar, but, then again, if you've seen one asshole, you've seen them all. Maybe Ollie would disagree with me on that.

I'd have removed that tag in better days, but, while that MYOB ban is still in place, I'm sure I'd get nailed for it. I'm saving getting nailed for better purposes, like, saving the whole of humanity or something like that....

One of these days, Peter, you ought to look at self-reversion. It can really drive someone like Mr. Ollie up the wall if you self-revert, leaving him completely powerless. You can self-revert any edit to any article that isn't semi'd, and it would be astonishing if the RfPP admins would consider that any kind of a problem at all. "Why don't you just ignore it, Mr. Ollie?" "But, other editors are restoring the edits!" "Okay, Mr. Ollie, and the problem with that is?"

"But he's banned! He shouldn't be doing this!" "Mr. Ollie, get over it. Perhaps you need to take a break."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 14th September 2010, 3:28am
Post #30


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's Twinkle-Toed Sock. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon hrmph.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 14th September 2010, 4:37am
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 11:28pm) *
MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's Twinkle-Toed Sock. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon hrmph.gif
This particular behavior I noticed for MrOllie is so familiar. Revert warring on Sum of Logic.
17:10, 12 September 2010 bald revert (of me), no discussion, no edit summary.
19:13, 12 September 2010 revert of IP
19:18, 12 September 2010 Requested page protection, claiming ''Frequent target for editing by sock puppets of a banned user.''
22:09, 12 September 2010 RfPP denied.
23:09, 12 September 2010 revert of The Man On The Clapham Omnibus

This guy also tagged the User page of Omnibus as being a suspected sock puppet of Jon Aubrey, no notice on Talk page of sock puppet investigation report. That was done at 19:20, 12 September 2010 (which is when Omnibus reverted Mr. Ollie's revert. But he waited until the RfPP report was denied, he didn't want them to see his third revert.

This guy knows how to game RfPP. It didn't work, but it often does. Luck of the draw. For some reason, I haven't yet seen them notice that the complainant is the revert warrior, they just accept or deny. Even if the gaming is totally blatant.

Except I did just recently nail Verbal on this one. He'd been revert warring with me on my effing *user page*, and then made his revert and went right to RfPP. But I happened to look and his contribs and saw it, and filed a quick report (for me!) of what was happening, having reverted *him*. They full protected the page, in my state. I think it's indef. Verbal: Fail! Admin had the sense to suggest maybe they should investigate Verbal's claims.

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 14th September 2010, 10:20am
Post #32


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) got into the act right after the Last Big Failure of the BADSITES Movement, and he's basically just doing all the same BAD OPS on a more covert, pseudo-official basis.

Look at the warning that our Twinkle-Twitchy-Fingered-Fanatic runs around pinning on the talk pages of hapless users as fast as he can punch his video game buttons:

QUOTE

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the [[Wikipedia : External links | external links]] you added do not comply with our [[Wikipedia : External links | guidelines for external links]] and have been removed. [[Wikipedia : What Wikipedia is not#LINK | Wikipedia is not a collection of links]]; nor should it be used as a platform for [[Wikipedia : Spam | advertising]] or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses [[nofollow]] tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the [[Wikipedia : Welcome | welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [[Category : User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices | {{PAGENAME}}]] <!-- Template:uw-spam1 --> [[User : MrOllie | MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie | talk]])


It's basically just a form of intimidation, with no due proceeding or even a hint of factual finding to back it up. The purpose is apparently nothing other than Keeping Wikipedia Pure, free of all those annoying suggestions that anything of value ever came from the outside world, much less all those bothersome acknowledgments of credit or gratitude for work begged, borrowed, or stolen.

Cf. In-Url Retentiveness

Jon dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tarantino
post Wed 15th September 2010, 12:44am
Post #33


the Dude abides
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,440
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 11:41pm
Member No.: 2,143



QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 14th September 2010, 4:37am) *

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.


It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 15th September 2010, 3:17am
Post #34


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 14th September 2010, 4:37am) *

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.


It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.
Ehheh doesn't start at all looking like a newbie, this person, I'd say, already knew his way around when first editing in 2006.. Within a month he's acting like he owns the place. (By the way, the article now reads "1993," the year he was revert warring, with threats, to keep as "1994." Of course, we all know that this proves it really was 1993.

Ehheh was running Twinkle, doing RCP right up to the last edit April 21, 2008.
MrOllie starts up April 16, also doing RCP, looks like. First use of Twinkle, 29 April.

Last edit to User talk:Ehheh was a bit of a reprimand from DGG about excessive use of speedy deletion tags.

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 15th September 2010, 4:02am
Post #35


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



Another DennyColt/David Spart weirdo? unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tarantino
post Wed 15th September 2010, 4:58am
Post #36


the Dude abides
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,440
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 11:41pm
Member No.: 2,143



QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th September 2010, 3:17am) *

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?


MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of Ehheh's last edits. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in Muds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Wed 15th September 2010, 7:57am
Post #37


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:58am) *

MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of Ehheh's last edits. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in Muds.

Those are roughly the summer daylight hours (to wit 6:00 to 6:00) in Kentucky (home of Ehheh's suspected uridentität).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 15th September 2010, 8:20am
Post #38


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 5:44pm) *
It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Beautiful work, Tarantino. Their edit patterns correspond almost perfectly.
And they're both deeply interested in MMORPGs, MUDs, and computing-related subjects--
how many others random WP editors would know what twinking is?
Those two HAVE to be the same person.

QUOTE
I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.

I would count on these accounts being socks of someone else. Who was banned or forced
out of WP in January 2006, and is obsessed with online role-playing games?

And I quote:
QUOTE
Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Wikipedia by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which seems unlikely, as Nandesuka and MrOllie's edit patterns don't coincide.
Jlambert has different patterns, but practically all he edits are, yes, online-gaming subjects.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 15th September 2010, 3:18pm
Post #39


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 5:44pm) *
It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Beautiful work, Tarantino. Their edit patterns correspond almost perfectly.
And they're both deeply interested in MMORPGs, MUDs, and computing-related subjects--
how many others random WP editors would know what twinking is?
Those two HAVE to be the same person.

QUOTE
I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.
I would count on these accounts being socks of someone else. Who was banned or forced
out of WP in January 2006, and is obsessed with online role-playing games?

And I quote:
QUOTE
Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Wikipedia by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Which seems unlikely, as Nandesuka and MrOllie's edit patterns don't coincide.
Jlambert has different patterns, but practically all he edits are, yes, online-gaming subjects.
Naive users get slaughtered by making sock allegations without proof, and often probably assuming the same thing that the cabal assumes: coincidence of POV and mutual support means "sock." What is likely, however, is that Nandesuka or Jlambert knew who Ehheh was. This might show up in a review of those edit histories.

It's a huge task, I'm totally impressed that Tarantino saw the connection, the sockmasters depend on their activity being concealed by the flood of data. However, I think I know how you did it, Tarantino. Let me guess. You looked at contribs of MrOllie, then you looked for other editors showing up in those pages more than once or twice. There is actually an IP where both Mr. Ollie and Ehheh warned the same IP, but that, by itself, wouldn't be more than a crumb. But there are plenty of coincident pages, enough that if there were a sock investigation on MrOllie, on an accusation of being Ehheh, it might pass the duck test. But Ehheh was under no sanction. There was a reference to an ArbComm case, but he wasn't a primary party, and I saw no sanction. However, it's possible that there was another sock who was sanctioned, so Ehheh was taking precautions by abandoning both.

A new account may have been used here to cover up prior contentious behavior, and quite possibly, as well, clues that would lead to an identification of the sockmaster, who, I suspect, could indeed be an admin. Once a suspect is known, and if both accounts are active, there are ways to penetrate the veil that all but the most determined of sockmasters would find difficult to prevent. AFAIK, none have ever thought it necessary to take precautions on a scale that would evade this. Evading checkuser detection is not difficult, it just takes discipline.

This post has been edited by Abd: Wed 15th September 2010, 3:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 15th September 2010, 3:34pm
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 15th September 2010, 3:57am) *
[...]Ehheh's suspected uridentität).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.
A sophisticated sockmaster could make it look like this. However, a closer statistical analysis of the edit timings will reveal, if there is a single user behind two accounts that overlap in edit timing, more than just a few edits, a very different pattern than for random coincidence. Random coincidence will show a range of timings between edits of one user and edits of the other, and, except where they are editing the same page, in response to each other or the like, will show time difference ranging from zero on up. If it's the same user, normally, very short times will be rare.

Note, however, that a sophisticated user can put up two edits within seconds of each other, even with the two edits being from different IP. However, to withstand sophisticated analysis, it would probably be necessary to control timings from a random number generator. That's a lot of work, all for what gain? The very unlikely possibility that someone sufficiently sophisticated will penetrate the veil?

The fact is that I've known how to do it for a long time, but wasn't motivated enough to put in the hours required. There are only a few users who would know how to do this kind of analysis. And when they have done it, it was done (though not the full algorithm I hint at) with Mantanmoreland, to what effect? If you have an ArbComm or Founder who are just going to run by the seat of their pants, discounting mere "statistical evidence" (which can be much more likely to be correct in conclusion than "seat of the pants"), it's pretty useless. However, once we identify a sockmaster, off-wiki, it's possible to watch much more closely.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses multiple accounts. I care if the accounts are used to abuse other users and to push a POV, and if a sockmaster behaves with the main account, and only is abusive with a bad-hand account, it isn't a crying emergency. The relevance, though, is that an admin who will do this is also quite likely to abuse the admin account, too, but in a more subtle way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 10 14, 11:52pm