Gary Weiss = Samiharris = Mantanmoreland, Here's how I know. Options

[Piperdown]

and let's talk about Mark Devlin (Sparkzilla).

This man was outed on WP, banned from editing at all, even after acknowledging that his publication and his WP editing crossed paths on the same heatedissue, and so his editing of that article should stop (reasonable). Then he wants to only be allowed to edit on the talk page of that article to give a counter-voice to what he felt was an equally and opposite COI dominating that article - but during this he angers Queen Slimmy. So she bans him.

No violins for that, but Mantanmoreland gets a free sockmaster pass? Sparkzilla didn't put on a sockshow to drive off other editors in a consensus scam. The heatissuepuppet puppets Slim's side of the argument get the run of the place, with their COI's and socks in place. Just like Mantamoreland.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 27th January 2008, 7:59pm

[Kato]

and let's talk about Mark Devlin (Sparkzilla).

And here's the man himself on The Review

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13505&hl=

as well as his own essay on the epsiode :

http://www.markdevlin.com/Wikipedia/default.htm

[Piperdown]

and let's talk about Mark Devlin (Sparkzilla).

And here's the man himself on The Review

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13505&hl=

as well as his own essay on the epsiode :

http://www.markdevlin.com/Wikipedia/default.htm

excellent followup Kato. And Devlin has nothing to do with stocks, overstock, Byrne, or Bagley.

and yet I bring up the wrongs on WP that have occurred in his case.

I'm just a meat puppet for ethics and decency I guess.

[Piperdown]

The short version

• On January 21, 2008, User:Samiharris was using the IP address 151.202.103.104.
• On January 21, 2008, Gary Weiss was using the IP address 151.202.103.104.

Given this is a Verizon residential dsl account, which assigns a single IP per subscriber, we can safely conclude that Gary Weiss and Samiharris use the same computer, and are most likely the same person.

I doubt this comes as much of a surprise to anybody, much less Jimbo. But we'll see what happens from here...whether Wikipedia manages to police itself for once, or whether I need to work this out in the media again.

Looks like its going to be the media again, word. There's a marathon <crickets> match going on in WP that doesn't seem to be ending its game anytime soon.

WP admins reading this, how's it feel to let this go on when you know you can stop it? Do you feel good letting some people get away with worse than what others get banned for? How do you wikisleep? Essjay, Seigenthaler, Doran, how many more of these does WP have to be embarrassed by from outside first?

[One]

This man is the only person on Wikipedia who is being allowed to do these things and no one WP Admin has the guts to stand up about it.

Not one.

I think this is too harsh.

It's hard because Weiss is not just backed by SV and her fellow travelers, but by Jimbo himself. Admins really stuck their necks out when they sided with you. I bet Alison feels a little burned, and it deters mop-loving admins from taking your cause in the future.

[Piperdown]

This man is the only person on Wikipedia who is being allowed to do these things and no one WP Admin has the guts to stand up about it.

Not one.

I think this is too harsh.

It's hard because Weiss is not just backed by SV and her fellow travelers, but by Jimbo himself. Admins really stuck their necks out when they sided with you. I bet Alison feels a little burned, and it deters mop-loving admins from taking your cause in the future.

Burned by what? thats bullshit. Admins stuck their neck out by telling the truth? That as a lot to say about something that 'admins' should correct. What sort of ethics does the WP Communuty support? Lies over submissive privilege?

Jimbo backed Ryan Jordan and Carolyn Doran too. That went well in the media.

And the database shows this - Jimmy Wales lied on October 2006 when he blanked a talk page discussion and declared that Mantanmoreland ( and his Bauder-Thatcher verified socks of LastExit/TomStoner) was not Gary Weiss. Lied.

He lied when he wrote on WP that he would investigate the Jayjg oversight abuse and "transparently" communicate what WP was going to do about that abuse. He did nothing, he didn't intend to do anything, and Jayjg is a bizarre POV SPA bot running batch edits every day, lol.

Wikipedia, you don't answer to Jimmy Wales. He answers to you. Most of the time he waits to correct himself after this crap hits the media first. When he has too.

Without the thousands of volunteers comprising Wikipedia, Wikipedia is nothing. Gone. Without Jimmy, it would still be wikipedia. He doesn't even give a hoot about WP any more, if you haven't noticed. His concern is Wikimedia.

Heal thyself, WP.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 27th January 2008, 9:34pm

[One]

C'mon man. And most admins supporting you seemed to think you actually wanted to return. They were willing to push on this issue, but you announce instead that you just want an account so you can symbolically sever your ties. They earned the wrath of SV & co. for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'm disappointed in you, but only because you could have and should have won.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 27th January 2008, 9:35pm

[Piperdown]

C'mon man. And most admins supporting you seemed to think you actually wanted to return. They were willing to push on this issue, but you announce instead that you just want an account so you can symbolically sever your ties. They earned the wrath of SV & co. for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'm disappointed in you.

Then they didn't read my initial and subsequent requests to investigate my ban, lift it, and apply WP rules to what caused the incident.

I'm disappointed in your reading skills, but when you don't allow the banned (unjustly) to defend themselves and it has to be done on W-Review instead, well that's just sad for WP. Innocent misintrepreations and intentional twisting of truths will occur. Expected that.



This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 27th January 2008, 9:40pm

[One]

C'mon man. And most admins supporting you seemed to think you actually wanted to return. They were willing to push on this issue, but you announce instead that you just want an account so you can symbolically sever your ties. They earned the wrath of SV & co. for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'm disappointed in you.

Then they didn't read my initial and subsequent requests to investigate my ban, lift it, and apply WP rules to what caused the incident.

I'm disappointed in your reading skills.

...which implies you wanted to be unblocked. You said nothing about being unblocked so you could retire. I'm pretty sure no one would have gone through that ordeal if they knew that this was the potential payoff.

[Piperdown]

C'mon man. And most admins supporting you seemed to think you actually wanted to return. They were willing to push on this issue, but you announce instead that you just want an account so you can symbolically sever your ties. They earned the wrath of SV & co. for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'm disappointed in you.

Then they didn't read my initial and subsequent requests to investigate my ban, lift it, and apply WP rules to what caused the incident.

I'm disappointed in your reading skills.

...which implies you wanted to be unblocked. You said nothing about being unblocked so you could retire. I'm pretty sure no one would have gone through that ordeal if they knew that this was the potential payoff.

I was blocked because I was banned. Wrongly. I wanted that ban corrected. Which means a block would be lifted by definition.

It was win-win and you still fucked it up, WP. What are you scared of?

You saw I wrongly banned (thanks Ali), I said I would retire and scramble my account and never come back here or WP again, and the same people who are abusing WP initimidate the ones who even think about acknowledging it. They just can't help themselves.

Un-ban me, I retire (which someone already did for me), I give up my account by scrambling the password because I want nothing to do with Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia (its obvious its volunteers don't realise its they who are WP, not Jimmy), and everyone gets what they want. I have been consistent and clear on wanting the ban investigated, and my account cleared of wrongdoing. Turning around and saying me getting angry about it after the ban-fact on WR is not a reason to say the ban was just prior to that. How Kafka-esque can a kangaroo court get, lol.

If I'm a WP admin, and I read that AN thread, my intelligence is insulted not by what started it, but what passed off as a resolution.

Let so me try to summarise your position, One (One, the higher law? I love that song). It would have been perfectly OK to allow an unjust ban stand, just because the banned would not be contributing in the future.

So in effect it's OK to ban someone for something they didn't do wrong, but decided because of that incident, that they don't want to be a contributor to the site that banned them unjustly in the first place.

News just in, Death Row prisoner, let off by DNA evidence, decides not to take job offer cleaning death row toilets. Film at ten!

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 27th January 2008, 10:17pm

[WhispersOfWisdom]

And so even though:

a checkuser will show that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have edited from the same IP at the same time

he has talked to himself on WP talk pages to falsely give an illusion of collaborateive editing and consensus

he has used this to give himself 6RR vs 3RR editing advantage to bully others

has edited his own BLP with more than one acccount at the same time, nevermind just one

has waged an on and off WP campaign against Patrick Byrne long before Judd Bagley showed up on WP

Was already given a private rebuke from Arbcom after being caught doing the same thing he's doing now, but back in 2006 under the same main account but with at least two other sock accounts, none of which were blocked either



This man is the only person on Wikipedia who is being allowed to do these things and no one WP Admin has the guts to stand up about it.

Not one.

Sorry...but...he is clearly not the only one that is doing such things on WP, and that is, in fact, one of the real life reasons why there is virtually no credibility at that site. I could go on there as an anon. editor, from where I am now, in Colorado, and no one knows anything about anything. I could operate from all over the world and act as dozens of different people. That is also what perpetuates the paranoid tendencies of so many editors at WP. Clinically, most paranoid people are a reflection of their own failed ability to be straight forward and honest. The puppets and fake profiles are, indeed, paranoid that everyone is doing the same wrong things as they are.

[One]

I'm sorry Piperdown. I know the block was bunk, but I think that if you played differently you could have been unblocked without so much as a topic ban. I guess I'm saying that you could have been a contender, and the grassroots support you got proved it.

But instead, they took the first exit available, slapped "retired" on you, and no longer risk contemplating Mantanmoreland's blatant socking. I don't think that's cowardice so much as the natural administrative urge to stamp "RESOLVED" and move on.

[dogbiscuit]

Let so me try to summarise your position, One (One, the higher law? I love that song). It would have been perfectly OK to allow an unjust ban stand, just because the banned would not be contributing in the future.

So in effect it's OK to ban someone for something they didn't do wrong, but decided because of that incident, that they don't want to be a contributor to the site that banned them unjustly in the first place.

News just in, Death Row prisoner, let off by DNA evidence, decides not to take job offer cleaning death row toilets. Film at ten!

I'm with One. I think you've let your principles get in the way of a more pragmatic view. You were winning friends and influencing people there. But they were arguing for bringing back someone who could contribute. Why would they put that effort in to a process where the only result was to rub some noses in the dirt and rescue the good nameanonymity of someone who would be entirely un-notable outside the deranged world of WP?

What did you really, really want to achieve? Was it revenge? Was it simply clearing your good name? Was it Wikipedia reform? I think I know why I am here (on a good day). I'm not so sure why you are here now. That is to say, I think you have been treated atrociously, and this little episode just underlines it, but you've probably taken a step back, not forwards.

But sorry, this is probably far too harsh. I shouldn't expect people to be perfect game players when the game is so rigged. I guess you actually thought this was the end game, and it wasn't - it just got flung back in your face.

[Piperdown]

I'm sorry Piperdown. I know the block was bunk, but I think that if you played differently you could have been unblocked without so much as a topic ban. I guess I'm saying that you could have been a contender, and the grassroots support you got proved it.

But instead, they took the first exit available, slapped "retired" on you, and no longer risk contemplating Mantanmoreland's blatant socking. I don't think that's cowardice so much as the natural administrative urge to stamp "RESOLVED" and move on.

I wasn't trying to be a contender. I don't give a damn about collecting points on WP in a MUD game. I don't compromise ethics to advance. I don't care about virtual power. I feel sorry for those who do, and WP appears to be filled with them. In some sort of twisted Darwinism (that to give WP some slack, isn't unusual in real organizations, not just scam ones), the ones who advance in Wikipedia are the ones who do so for the wrong reasons. So you have people like Cla68 and Giano who are either relegated to having to quit or going to the media to right wrongs, even though they've contributed more to wikipedia in one month than people like Gerard and Wales have in their whole poser careers.

I'm with One. I think you've let your principles get in the way of a more pragmatic view. You were winning friends and influencing people there. But they were arguing for bringing back someone who could contribute. Why would they put that effort in to a process where the only result was to rub some noses in the dirt and rescue the good nameanonymity of someone who would be entirely un-notable outside the deranged world of WP?

What did you really, really want to achieve? Was it revenge? Was it simply clearing your good name? Was it Wikipedia reform? I think I know why I am here (on a good day). I'm not so sure why you are here now. That is to say, I think you have been treated atrociously, and this little episode just underlines it, but you've probably taken a step back, not forwards.

But sorry, this is probably far too harsh. I shouldn't expect people to be perfect game players when the game is so rigged. I guess you actually thought this was the end game, and it wasn't - it just got flung back in your face.

again, I wasn't playing a game. Whats to be pragmatic about? Do you think everyone edits wikipedia so they can get adminship and win arguments via the hammer?

I guess this is the way the asskissers think who feel it's more important to them to become admins than it is to stand up for what's right.

When people like Cla68 (and others who have stood up - he did it under his real name which went farther than I even thought he would) do advance to become admins on merit, try not to look them directly in the wikieye when you kiss their asses to try to advance too. Aldebaer, I'm talking to you. And perhaps I should have claimed I was drinking Portugese Wine every time I quoted Gerard and JzG's F-bombs on WR these past few postban months.

[LamontStormstar]

And so even though:

a checkuser will show that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have edited from the same IP at the same time

he has talked to himself on WP talk pages to falsely give an illusion of collaborateive editing and consensus

he has used this to give himself 6RR vs 3RR editing advantage to bully others

has edited his own BLP with more than one acccount at the same time, nevermind just one

has waged an on and off WP campaign against Patrick Byrne long before Judd Bagley showed up on WP

Was already given a private rebuke from Arbcom after being caught doing the same thing he's doing now, but back in 2006 under the same main account but with at least two other sock accounts, none of which were blocked either



This man is the only person on Wikipedia who is being allowed to do these things and no one WP Admin has the guts to stand up about it.

Not one.

Yeah anyone really intent and crazy on socking will talk to themselves. If someone is extremely intent on it they will have both socks on IRC at the same time. One sock through the normal IP on IRC and the other sock through a VPN and a different IRC chat program.

[One]

I wasn't trying to be a contender. I don't give a damn about collecting points on WP in a MUD game. ...

I just misunderstood your goal then. I thought that contesting the block months later meant that you were returning. All of your administrative support seems to have assumed that was your aim. Having been burned, they'll be more reluctant to back unjustly blocked users in the future.

I don't mean that you would have "won" points as in a game, but that you would have been reinstated, and that the momentum would have shifted in favor of reform. Folks are sick of abuses like Gerard's block. They'll just have to wait for a more ambitious cause célèbre.

This post has been edited by One: Mon 28th January 2008, 1:34am

[dogbiscuit]

again, I wasn't playing a game. Whats to be pragmatic about? Do you think everyone edits wikipedia so they can get adminship and win arguments via the hammer?

I guess this is the way the asskissers think who feel it's more important to them to become admins than it is to stand up for what's right.

Hmm, WP seems to be a game for many, my point (for we are in a forum that allows points to be made without acquiring a ban for suggesting such an unholy thing) was that it would be pragmatic to play along with the game to achieve your goal.

What I am still not clear on is what that goal is. Do you value Wikipedia's opinion of you so much that it is important to be absolved of all sin by them? I doubt it. Were you hoping to return to fix the wrongs that were done to various articles? It appears not. Did you want to put those who wronged you in their place? Well, clearly so, but given the weight of power that could be ranged against you, it was going to need deft footwork to achieve that... and you nearly did it too. That was quite an outpouring of unjustified bile you stirred up over there. Good to see that Slim and Crum can't resist the old double act, even in full view of other administrators.

You've been cross at Wikipedia too long for this just to be about getting your block overturned. I'm concerned because you are troubled and I don't see how you are going to get a resolution on your terms now - yesterday it seemed one more push could do it.

[dtobias]

You've got to understand that from the Wikipedian point of view, even when you strip away the clique idiocy, the primary thing is how something helps or hurts the project; they explicitly say that something being "fair" or "unfair" to individuals is irrelevant except as it impacts the encyclopedia positively or negatively. In fact, much of the opposition to clique idiocy is on the grounds that it adversely impacts the encyclopedia by putting the agenda of the cliqueistas over it. So, when you come in and try to get un-banned, the main thing most Wikipedians will be looking at is not whether your ban was fair or unfair, but whether letting you back in will help or hurt the project. If the ban was unfair, then most likely reversing it would be good for the project, so the two standards are in sync... except when you then start saying that all you'll do upon being un-banned would be to immediately quit, in which case people will decide that there's no point to jumping into all of this contentious politics just to help you prove a point that will ultimately have no positive benefit for the project. So they stop being interested in your case.

[Proabivouac]

You've got to understand that from the Wikipedian point of view, even when you strip away the clique idiocy, the primary thing is how something helps or hurts the project; they explicitly say that something being "fair" or "unfair" to individuals is irrelevant except as it impacts the encyclopedia positively or negatively.

This neglects the very strong probability that the appearance of unfairness in itself has a negative impact on the project.

[Piperdown]

About 3 more weeks left for WP to run a checkuser on Samiharris - Mantanmoreland for edits made in Dec-Jan but prior to this past week when sockboy realised he would have to start separating his orgination.

So he's counting on that now. Let some time go by, have someone run a CU on those 2 accounts for edits in the past week only, where I'm sure he's made a point to edit on account at one IP and another at another IP spot. Looks like he did make a cameo edit today just for that sort of convenient RFCU review.

Well CU that guy for before last week. Or just ask Fred Bauder what Manny Moresocks has been up to. Fred's an honest guy when pressed to answer something.