Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, One editor is using "open proxies" Options

[Kato]

Here's a link to the check user made on

# Samiharris (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
# Mantanmoreland (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Case/Samiharris

Conclusion:

I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo [who made the request] is a curious bystander who just happened across this request. However, based on the standards I usually use, and pretending I don't know the history here, the evidence is sufficient to run a check. The answer is Inconclusive because one of these editors has only edited via open proxies. Thatcher 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Armed Blowfish get banned for edited via open proxies?

[Derktar]

* Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? ViridaeTalk 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - Alison ❤ 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Thanks Ali. ViridaeTalk 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We should see what develops in the next week or two.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

[gomi]

More evidence here of a double-standard. Slim, Jayjg, Ryulong, and other do not hesitate to ban any user caught using an open proxy -- yes once of Samiharris or Mantanmoreland was certainly doing so, yet neither is banned.

Shame, Wikipedia, shame.

[Viridae]

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned. However Open proxies are banned from editing wikipedia, so are blocked when found. AB can't edit I think because she runs a Tor node, and her ip is therefore blocked.

[Kato]

Oh deary me...

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

[dogbiscuit]

Oh deary me...

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

There are times though that he actually is trying to do the right thing - but he still can't get it right. He tries to delete some paedophile pages, and gets accused of wheel-warring by the Defenders of the Faith.
ANI link

I'll leave other comments for another time. He announced that today is the day of the funeral.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Wed 6th February 2008, 11:10am

[Robster]

Editing via open proxies may not be banned -- but isn't editing via open proxies to hide sockpuppetry worthy of a ban?

Oh, wait, we're talking about a favorite of the Sole Flounder. Silly me.

[Lar]

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

No. Your recourse is to ask another checkuser to review the evidence or talk to the ombudsmen. You'll want to make the request with some alacrity as the information in the log does eventually get pushed out by newer stuff. I confess I'm surprised you asked, I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

This post has been edited by Lar: Wed 6th February 2008, 12:50pm

[Kato]

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

No. Your recourse is to ask another checkuser to review the evidence or talk to the ombudsmen. You'll want to make the request with some alacrity as the information in the log does eventually get pushed out by newer stuff. I confess I'm surprised you asked, I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

Not common knowledge at all unfortunately.

But how would someone like Herschelkrustofsky request another checkuser to review the evidence back at that time? With him being ideologically profiled as a Lyndon LaRouche supporter -- like a lot of other people were back then due to the edicts given out to protect Chip Berlet's agenda (albeit at least Hersch actually is a Lyndon LaRouche supporter but very few others were, even Nobs got rounded up for chrissake!) -- Hersch was vigorously beaten off the site and told never to call again. Despite not actually doing anything wrong in the first place, I might add.

[LamontStormstar]

You know I've seen enough socks banned for answering a talk comment of another sock like in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160230353 that Gary Weiss's socks both should have been blocked as for people who aren't friends of Jimbo that normally it's enough to prove things.

[guy]

If they can't get a positive Checkuser they use sophisticated linguistic analysis or the legendary "living in England in a similar way" technique. The ombudsman won't argue with those.

[WordBomb]

Oh deary me...

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

[LamontStormstar]

If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

There's others made by banned users. I don't think that reason enough is for deleting an article.

[gomi]

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned.

Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg:

* 23:38, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Abcse (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Ovmy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Egtlyvi (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Kitjoqka54 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Atdso (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 07:06, 22 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Famey415 (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy using harassment sock)
* 01:06, 11 March 2007 Jayjg blocked "Bigteenagemonster (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet created with TOR proxy

He made his position clear in this one:

* 06:59, 22 February 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.154.39.13 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (TOR proxy - TOR proxies are blocked, period, no "loggedin users")

So don't BS here. You are stating your opinion. Admins can -- and do -- block for any reason they care to, on the thinnest of pretexts.

[guy]

I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

He was a Jewish economist, wasn't he? You know what Wikipedia thinks of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cat...wish_Economists

[Aloft]

Looks like the party has moved to WP:AN now.

[Derktar]

Looks like the party has moved to WP:AN now.

Quicklink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:RfCU_result.29

[jorge]

The hypocrisy is quite incredible. If these accounts were not operated by someone, i.e. Gary Weiss that was in favour with Mr. James Wales they would have been blocked a very long, long time ago.

Wikipedia is not the "encyclopedia" anyone can edit. It is the "encyclopedia" you can edit using multiple accounts as long as you are "friends" with those that have influence in Wikipedia.

[Amarkov]

Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.