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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

13 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The idiocy and the irony, banning nonsense goes full circle
Somey
post Sat 5th September 2009, 6:34pm
Post #41


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 5th September 2009, 1:29pm) *
I would disagree strongly there. No criticism that uses terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic" is likely to be convincing (of anybody other than the "choir" who already agrees with your side). I admit that there is a cathartic venting aspect to criticism that is more satisfying the stronger the language that is used, and I sometimes feel like using such terms to describe whoever I'm against at the moment, but it's not a particularly useful tactic.

I see your point, but something more erudite-sounding, like "highly indicative of serious mental disturbance and/or intellectual deficiency"... that's just too wordy, isn't it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Sat 5th September 2009, 6:43pm
Post #42


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th September 2009, 7:19pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 12:50pm) *
This is interesting because Cognition wrote in 2005 of his willingness to attend the Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2.

Apparently, Cognition claims to have made it to the event (or so it says in the current version of the Meetup page). And there's even a group photo, with Jimbo, Angela, and Danny Wool - and also Phil Sandifer, who was one of the more vociferous of those trying to get Cognition banned.

Here's another one, with Raul654 pictured more clearly (I believe his face is obscured in the first one). laugh.gif

You know, maybe it is an outrageous coincidence. And both Cognition and 172 ended up editing from the same internet point in the St Petersburg area? That would be hilarious, if true.

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 5th September 2009, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 1:23pm) *

I will ignore. Convincing Wikipedia criticism is not possible without using terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic". Don't blame the critics, blame Wikipedia.


I would disagree strongly there. No criticism that uses terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic" is likely to be convincing (of anybody other than the "choir" who already agrees with your side). I admit that there is a cathartic venting aspect to criticism that is more satisfying the stronger the language that is used, and I sometimes feel like using such terms to describe whoever I'm against at the moment, but it's not a particularly useful tactic.

Well I'll criticise in my way, you in yours Dan. We could perhaps hold a vote to see whose criticism at this site has actually had more impact over the years?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 5th September 2009, 7:17pm
Post #43


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



Is there anyway for the CheckUsers to look at data from months ago and see if 172 and Cognition were editing from the same place?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Grep
post Sat 5th September 2009, 7:51pm
Post #44


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat 18th Oct 2008, 4:45pm
Member No.: 8,638



There's another way in which CU results can give a surprising and apparently impossible result -- namely, when they are simply fabricated. This has certainly happened in the past, and seems an economical explanation here too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sat 5th September 2009, 8:01pm
Post #45


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



From my perspective, the most ludicrous aspect of the whole situation is that 172 was blocked indefinitely. Even if we assume he is guilty of this sockpuppet scheme that's being alleged, this is a case where the user should have been notified by e-mail that the deception had been detected and that it would be publicized if he persisted. That way, 172 could have been retained as an editor and wouldn't have even had to lose face, while the sockpuppeting problem would have been solved. But most Wikipedia admins simply don't care if the project loses a hard-working contributor, if X number of articles go unwritten for X amount of time because of that person's absence. They think of themselves as enforcers, not problem-solvers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 5th September 2009, 8:13pm
Post #46


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Grep @ Sat 5th September 2009, 2:51pm) *
There's another way in which CU results can give a surprising and apparently impossible result -- namely, when they are simply fabricated. This has certainly happened in the past, and seems an economical explanation here too.

Okay, but... by whom, to what end, and why User:172? As long as you're going to do that, why not go after a higher-value target, like SlimVirgin or Will Beback, or even Phil Sandifer?

Or are you thinking that someone happened to remember that 172 was posting edits from the St. Petersburg area too, and figured a match to those other users would be implausible?

IMO it doesn't make any sense that they'd resort to skullduggery to do something like this - 172 is one of theirs, not one of "ours." If anything, it's surprising Hersfold (T-C-L-K-R-D) didn't ignore the CU data and assume a mistake had been made, rather than indefinitely block him right away. Like Everyking says, that would be a overreaction even if 172 had been a pro-Larouche editor, and no matter what the explanation is, this makes Wikipedia look bad, bad, bad.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LessHorrid vanU
post Sat 5th September 2009, 8:29pm
Post #47


Devils Advocaat
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu 11th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
Member No.: 3,466

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 7:43pm) *


...

Well I'll criticise in my way, you in yours Dan. We could perhaps hold a vote to see whose criticism at this site has actually had more impact over the years?


Eh? That would be akin to deciding which film has had the most effect on the history of motion pictures by ranking ticket sales.

Whose criticism has most impact is surely only measurable by its effect, and it should be noted that the majority of Dan's criticism (and much of Dan's input cannot be called that) has been directed toward Wikipedia Review and then you have to compare the structures of the two targets; on Wikipedia there are some major players who read Wikipedia Review on the basis that WP can be improved and are tended to look carefully at reasoned (if sometimes a bit sweary) argument. On WR there is a tendency to believe only negative criticism of WP is valid (and there are a couple of contributors who bemoan anyone who does anything other than deprecate WP) and that criticism of WR is therefore ignorable.

Of course, I am assuming such a poll will be held at WR.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sat 5th September 2009, 8:47pm
Post #48


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 8:45am) *

Cognition's behaviour looks typical LaRouche and fakeable. Unless there is something in his profile that is simply too LaRouchesque for an imposter like 172 to fake, then surely the "black-ops" theory is the most likely? Hersch?
As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced that the Cognition that was editing before I was banned is no fake. It is not that easy to become conversant in LaRouche's theories, as Cognition clearly was. A person who was posing as a LaRouchista would inevitably sound like a Berlet or SlimVirgin parody of LaRouche.


QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 5th September 2009, 11:29am) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 1:23pm) *

I will ignore. Convincing Wikipedia criticism is not possible without using terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic". Don't blame the critics, blame Wikipedia.


I would disagree strongly there. No criticism that uses terms like "lunatic" and "idiotic" is likely to be convincing (of anybody other than the "choir" who already agrees with your side). I admit that there is a cathartic venting aspect to criticism that is more satisfying the stronger the language that is used, and I sometimes feel like using such terms to describe whoever I'm against at the moment, but it's not a particularly useful tactic.
I actually think that your own style of criticizing Wikipedia is quite effective, and I'd like to propose that you preserve How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps as an essay, a sort of companion piece to WP:SAUCE. Except, don't you think you could make it a 12-step program? Then it could probably be included in wads of categories. I know that Will Beback finds WP:SAUCE to be a major irritant, so you're on a roll.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Sat 5th September 2009, 8:58pm
Post #49


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 6:43pm) *

You know, maybe it is an outrageous coincidence. And both Cognition and 172 ended up editing from the same internet point in the St Petersburg area? That would be hilarious, if true.

Who knows?

Just so everyone is clear on this point: checkuser only holds information from the last few months. The match is between Cognition's edits in his recent and unexpected request to be unblocked, and in 172's recent edits this summer (after 14 months or so of hardly editing at all). Cognition's request triggered the checkuser, which is why the theory about compromised accounts is sound.

Everyking: do you think potentially-compromised accounts should not be blocked indefinitely?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sat 5th September 2009, 9:57pm
Post #50


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th September 2009, 9:58pm) *

Everyking: do you think potentially-compromised accounts should not be blocked indefinitely?


If there is a reasonable basis to do so, yes, but in this case there is no change in the user's behavior to indicate a compromised account, making that appear to be a quite implausible theory. I have worked alongside 172 in the past--he was actually the person who first nominated me for adminship, way back in May 2004--and I know his style and interests; a cursory examination of his edits over the last few months leaves no doubt that the account is still being operated by the same person. It's preposterous to imagine that a LaRouche supporter would take over 172's account and then use it in exactly the same way 172 did, pursuing the same interests with the same style.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Sat 5th September 2009, 10:01pm
Post #51


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



You and SlimVirgin seem to disagree about what is preposterous. Actually, lots of people do. I would bet on the bad hand theory you seem to support, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sat 5th September 2009, 10:31pm
Post #52


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 5th September 2009, 12:18pm) *
So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.
Perhaps it would help if there were fewer administrative actions on Wikipedia that turn out, on deeper examination, to be idiotic actions taken by lunatics.


QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 5th September 2009, 1:43pm) *
You know, maybe it is an outrageous coincidence. And both Cognition and 172 ended up editing from the same internet point in the St Petersburg area? That would be hilarious, if true.
If Cognition is the creepy-crazy LaRouchian who went to the 2005 St Pete meetup, I'd not put it past him to actively stalk 172, hack his residential wireless, or arrange to use the same public access point, especially if he thought doing so would result in 172 being silenced on Wikipedia.

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Sun 6th September 2009, 12:24am
Post #53


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th September 2009, 9:13pm) *

If anything, it's surprising Hersfold (T-C-L-K-R-D) didn't ignore the CU data and assume a mistake had been made, rather than indefinitely block him right away. Like Everyking says, that would be a overreaction even if 172 had been a pro-Larouche editor, and no matter what the explanation is, this makes Wikipedia look bad, bad, bad.

Exactly. That's what prompted my original post. I guess newer Wikipedians don't remember 172, but in his day he was a prominent and influential Wikipedio, there's even a Encylopedia Dramatica entry about him. The idea that he has been banned so unceremoniously at the foot of a list of other sockpuppets is strikingly ridiculous. It's a bit like JzG getting banned three years from now as a Jon Awbrey sockpuppet and nobody saying a word.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sun 6th September 2009, 1:00am
Post #54


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 5th September 2009, 11:31pm) *

If Cognition is the creepy-crazy LaRouchian who went to the 2005 St Pete meetup, I'd not put it past him to actively stalk 172, hack his residential wireless, or arrange to use the same public access point, especially if he thought doing so would result in 172 being silenced on Wikipedia.

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.


So you're saying you actually saw a LaRouchite at that meetup? I think that would change things quite a bit.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:00am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Sun 6th September 2009, 1:19am
Post #55


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th September 2009, 4:50pm) *

First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.

There was a server clock error at one point many years ago where about a half a day's edits got the wrong time stamps. There are no new errors that I am aware of.

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 5th September 2009, 7:17pm) *

Is there anyway for the CheckUsers to look at data from months ago and see if 172 and Cognition were editing from the same place?

Depends on how many months you are talking about. We've looked at all the currently available data. A lot of thought went into this including examination by many people.

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 5th September 2009, 8:01pm) *

From my perspective, the most ludicrous aspect of the whole situation is that 172 was blocked indefinitely. Even if we assume he is guilty of this sockpuppet scheme that's being alleged, this is a case where the user should have been notified by e-mail that the deception had been detected and that it would be publicized if he persisted. That way, 172 could have been retained as an editor and wouldn't have even had to lose face, while the sockpuppeting problem would have been solved. But most Wikipedia admins simply don't care if the project loses a hard-working contributor, if X number of articles go unwritten for X amount of time because of that person's absence. They think of themselves as enforcers, not problem-solvers.

He was. He didn't reply.

This case is far too simple for all this drama. They edit from the same residential IP and the same non-residential IP. Either they are the same person, or 172 hacked Cognition's account, or Cognition hacked 172's account. In any of those scenarios, the correct response is to block pending further information.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:24am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Sun 6th September 2009, 1:36am
Post #56


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 5th September 2009, 2:01pm) *

From my perspective, the most ludicrous aspect of the whole situation is that 172 was blocked indefinitely. Even if we assume he is guilty of this sockpuppet scheme that's being alleged, this is a case where the user should have been notified by e-mail that the deception had been detected and that it would be publicized if he persisted. That way, 172 could have been retained as an editor and wouldn't have even had to lose face, while the sockpuppeting problem would have been solved. But most Wikipedia admins simply don't care if the project loses a hard-working contributor, if X number of articles go unwritten for X amount of time because of that person's absence. They think of themselves as enforcers, not problem-solvers.


You fail to grasp the intellectual dishonesty of putting words in the mouth of your opponent with a puppet-provocateur. As long as fingers are pressing keys to create "content" you will always be happy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TungstenCarbide
post Sun 6th September 2009, 1:41am
Post #57


Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sat 14th Mar 2009, 6:12am
Member No.: 10,787

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 5th September 2009, 10:31pm) *
If Cognition is the creepy-crazy LaRouchian who went to the 2005 St Pete meetup, I'd not put it past him to actively stalk 172, hack his residential wireless, or arrange to use the same public access point, especially if he thought doing so would result in 172 being silenced on Wikipedia.

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.


Actually, that's not far fetched. Say you live near someone who pissed on you, find out who he is and decide to have a little fun as Kelly describes. Certainly not as far fetched as say MB, who spent years impersonating females on wide swaths of the internet, even using pictures of his hired cross-dressing consultants.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tarantino
post Sun 6th September 2009, 1:56am
Post #58


the Dude abides
******

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



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 6th September 2009, 1:19am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th September 2009, 4:50pm) *

First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.

There was a server clock error at one point many years ago where about a half a days edits got the wrong time stamps. There are no new errors that I am aware of.


If you look at the earliest edits to 172's user and talk pages you'll see that the oldid's are sequentially numbered.

CODE
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271814
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271813
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271812
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271811
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271810


Normally, every edit to the wiki is numbered in the order in which it was received and you would never see consecutively numbered edits on the same page unless they occurred milliseconds apart. I think what happened was there was an early migration of the database and some pages weren't moved until a later date, and that happened all at once. I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but I can't find the reference right now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sun 6th September 2009, 2:02am
Post #59


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 6th September 2009, 2:19am) *

He was. He didn't reply.

This case is far too simple for all this drama. They edit from the same residential IP and the same non-residential IP. Either they are the same person, or 172 hacked Cognition's account, or Cognition hacked 172's account. In any of those scenarios, the correct response is to block pending further information.


He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MBisanz
post Sun 6th September 2009, 2:39am
Post #60


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun 13th Apr 2008, 6:00am
Member No.: 5,693

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 6th September 2009, 2:56am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 6th September 2009, 1:19am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th September 2009, 4:50pm) *

First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.

There was a server clock error at one point many years ago where about a half a days edits got the wrong time stamps. There are no new errors that I am aware of.


If you look at the earliest edits to 172's user and talk pages you'll see that the oldid's are sequentially numbered.

CODE
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271814
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271813
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271812
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271811
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&oldid=3271810


Normally, every edit to the wiki is numbered in the order in which it was received and you would never see consecutively numbered edits on the same page unless they occurred milliseconds apart. I think what happened was there was an early migration of the database and some pages weren't moved until a later date, and that happened all at once. I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but I can't find the reference right now.


I believe it is when they re-did the way oldids are assigned that was changed in version 1.5 of the old table. Really anything before mid-2005 is likely to have some sort of bug related to changes in logging/edit assignment/etc.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

13 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th 3 17, 9:00pm