JB/Looch: "A couple things" Options

[Looch]

In one of my recent posts on this board (recent meaning almost a year ago, LOL), I wrote that as many people as there are who I know about who have been wrongly blocked as a sockpuppet of myself on Wikipedia (the most notable one is Burntsauce, a very good editor who can no longer edit Wikipedia due to people thinking he/she is me), what was worse to think about is how many people have probably been blocked for being a sockpuppet of myself who I DON'T know about. And it looks like I was right. In a 2 minute yahoo search, I've discovered that all these users have also been banned for being accused sockpuppets of myself, and none of them were. It sucks that Wikipedia continues to go by Durova's line in my signature (even years after I've stopped editing Wikipedia), and also to ignore the tons and tons and tons of positive contributions I made to Wikipedia during my time there years ago.

http://old.nabble.com/What-exactly-is-Duro...td20640520.html

Alkivar
Eyrian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Eyrian/Evidence
Jonas Rand (the guy at the above URL)

So, I say the same thing again. It is unfortunate that so many people who I KNOW OF have been banned as sockpuppets of myself. It's even more unfortunate to think about the people I DON'T KNOW OF.

On a side note, is Durova an admin?

Also, here is something Durova wrote that is entirely news to me: "And pure coincidence prompted you to create
the sock account that started a hoax wrestling
biography the day before the arbitration committee finished voting to
desysop Alkivar for helping JB's vandalism? "

Could somebody please fill me in on that???????????????????????? Alkivar got desysopped because of something I did???????????????????

Thanks, everybody.

This post has been edited by Looch: Mon 2nd November 2009, 3:59am

[The Joy]

Durova resigned as an administrator. She botched a sockpuppet investigation and blocked a prominent editor with a lot of powerful friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...itration/Durova

[Happy drinker]

Durova meant well. Detecting sockpuppets does often require great skill and by the nature of things it cannot be an exact science. Mistakes do get made. Two unrelated people happen to use the same IP because they work for the same firm or whatever. Two different people may edit the same articles and have apparently similar stylistic quirks.

However, Wikipedia doesn't and can't work like a court of criminal law. If someone is erroneously blocked it's not like he or she has wrongly gone to prison. It's a sad loss to the project if a good and innocent contributor is blocked, but the occasional error is a fair price to pay to stop a lot of abusive sockpuppetry.

[gomi]

Durova meant well.

No, Durova did not mean well. She was attempting the kind of admin intimidation that represents the worst of Wikipedia, and that Happy Drinker is the worst kind of know-nothing apologist for.

Detecting sockpuppets does often require great skill and by the nature of things it cannot be an exact science.

No. Determining whether two or more accounts on an anonymous Internet service map to a single human being is by definition impossible. Therefore, admins exempt those with whom they are friendly, punish those with whom they are not on the most minor excuses, and generally run rampant, creating an environment where balanced editing is impossible.

...the occasional error is a fair price to pay to stop a lot of abusive sockpuppetry.

No. The frequent and often deliberate errors are the source of admin control on Wikipedia. Many so-called "sockpuppets" get blocked for behaviour which no one in their right mind would call "abusive".

Oh, and if you haven't gotten the message yet, Happy Drinker is an idiot.

[Happy drinker]

Detecting sockpuppets does often require great skill and by the nature of things it cannot be an exact science.

No. Determining whether two or more accounts on an anonymous Internet service map to a single human being is by definition impossible.

We seem to be in agreement. It is impossible to get things 100% right beyond all possible doubt. Even if someone confesses, he/she may be protecting someone else. (And the same thing is true of courts of law, of course.) However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

[Kelly Martin]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

However, no admin on Wikipedia can be bothered to exercise such care. An example would be when David Gerard misidentified two editors as socks of one another based on the "convincing" evidence that they both had IP addresses that geolocated to the same US state. Frankly I think the reason Gerard sacked those editors is that they annoyed him in some way, and he used his "infalliability" at detecting sockpuppetry as a convenient vehicle to eliminate people he disliked from Wikipedia. We've seen him do the same thing with respect to alleged pro-Scientology editors, and we've seen Raul654 (recently defrocked of checkuser) do it with respect to global warming.

[Milton Roe]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

However, no admin on Wikipedia can be bothered to exercise such care. An example would be when David Gerard misidentified two editors as socks of one another based on the "convincing" evidence that they both had IP addresses that geolocated to the same US state. Frankly I think the reason Gerard sacked those editors is that they annoyed him in some way, and he used his "infalliability" at detecting sockpuppetry as a convenient vehicle to eliminate people he disliked from Wikipedia. We've seen him do the same thing with respect to alleged pro-Scientology editors, and we've seen Raul654 (recently defrocked of checkuser) do it with respect to global warming.

By Order of the Holy See, the only WP former-admin it's permissable to use the word "defrocked" for, is Essjay.

He once touched me inappropriately, you know.

[Somey]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

This is probably the best evidence yet that Mr. Drinker is here for the purpose of parody...

[gomi]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

Prior to your arrival, I would have thought it impossible for even a Wikipidiot to be wrong nearly every time, but you seem to be managing it.

[Cla68]

Durova meant well.

Remember, also, that Durova was participating in an invite-only, email list with a secret membership whose members were covertly engaging in sockpuppet investigations, making plans to suppress, bully, harass, or intimidate "enemy editors", "fix" Wikipedia policy, including the infamous "Badsites" proposal, and otherwise try to game Wikipedia for their own ends. I believe two of Gary Weiss' socks were members. Wikipedians were justly outraged when the existence of the list and what was going on in it were revealed. One of the darkest chapters in Wikipedia's history and I believe you must be joking around when you try to defend it.

Did you notice that when the list's existence was revealed that only a few of its members or ex-members had the integrity to own up to it? The list's creator's name was immediately removed from its Wikia page, none of the arbitrators who were members of the list, as far as I know, ever admitted that they were members in spite of repeated questioning from a lot of people, and few other admins or regular editors also ever admitted that they were members.

[GlassBeadGame]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

This is probably the best evidence yet that Mr. Drinker is here for the purpose of parody...

I think of him/her as the T-Ball coach for newbie critics. HD doesn't just pitch softballs, but gingerly places them on a stand. Swing away.

[Cla68]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

This is probably the best evidence yet that Mr. Drinker is here for the purpose of parody...

I think of him/her as the T-Ball coach for newbie critics. HD doesn't just pitch softballs, but gingerly places them on a stand. Swing away.

I think you're right. Probably best not to respond in the future.

[GlassBeadGame]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

This is probably the best evidence yet that Mr. Drinker is here for the purpose of parody...

I think of him/her as the T-Ball coach for newbie critics. HD doesn't just pitch softballs, but gingerly places them on a stand. Swing away.

I think you're right. Probably best not to respond in the future.

But a lot of Reviewers need the practice. You can get hurt in LL were they throw the ball in your general direction.

[Jon Awbrey]

However, it is possible with care to be right nearly all the time.

This is probably the best evidence yet that Mr. Drinker is here for the purpose of parody…

I think of him/her as the T-Ball coach for newbie critics. HD doesn't just pitch softballs, but gingerly places them on a stand. Swing away.

I think you're right. Probably best not to respond in the future.

Strychnine Chugger is one of the reasons why the WR board provides the option of ignoring selected posters. I used to have over 50 names on my Ignore List — it's kind of redundant for me these days as I hardly read much of anything that's here anymore, but it really did save me a lot of grief back in the day. Until the WR Management sees the wisdom of creating a Kiddie Pool for all these Wiki-Pam Sniffers to entertain each other in, there's not much else you can do to keep them at bay.

Try It, You'll Like It …

Jon

[victim of censorship]

Durova meant well. Detecting sockpuppets does often require great skill and by the nature of things it cannot be an exact science. Mistakes do get made. Two unrelated people happen to use the same IP because they work for the same firm or whatever. Two different people may edit the same articles and have apparently similar stylistic quirks.

However, Wikipedia doesn't and can't work like a court of criminal law. If someone is erroneously blocked it's not like he or she has wrongly gone to prison. It's a sad loss to the project if a good and innocent contributor is blocked, but the occasional error is a fair price to pay to stop a lot of abusive sockpuppetry.

Durova was a class "A" nutball, a few cans short of a sixpack. Arrogant, power drunk - an out control thug.

Can you pick Durova out of this photo of the wikileet


This post has been edited by Somey: Thu 12th November 2009, 8:19am

[CharlotteWebb]

[…]an invite-only, email list with a secret membership […] I believe two of Gary Weiss' socks were members.

That would sure cast a strange light on Slim's suggestion that Samiharris was in fact an elaborate joe-job by WordBomb.

Did you notice that when the list's existence was revealed that only a few of its members or ex-members had the integrity to own up to it? The list's creator's name was immediately removed from its Wikia page, none of the arbitrators who were members of the list, as far as I know, ever admitted that they were members in spite of repeated questioning from a lot of people, and few other admins or regular editors also ever admitted that they were members.

Yeah. I wanted to mention that many of the folks who let their knickers twist over the easterneurope-l shit have a rather selective medium-term memory.

[Milton Roe]

Can you pick Durova out of this photo of the wikileet

Lovely job. Needs Kool-Aid there on the left, instead of beer... (yes, I know it wasn't actually Kool-Aid at Jonestown).

John Wayne Gacy there on the right (triangular blue eye marks and a pointy-cornered smile) is a nice addition.

There's a whole WP article on evil clowns. Which incredibly in its pop culture section does not include Krusty the clown,* even though he has an entire wiki to himself (and of course is included in the pic above). Clearly a wiki-continuity failure (get to work, you trivia editors).


* Full name Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofski. Or HerschelKrustofski for short. Available as an avatar, as our own evil WR member uses a clown from Shakespeare.

[CharlotteWebb]

Can you pick Durova out of this photo of the wikileet
[img]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/Josephhazelton/pictureofthewikileet.jpg[/img]

Lovely job. Needs Kool-Aid there on the left, instead of beer... (yes, I know it wasn't actually Kool-Aid at Jonestown).

John Wayne Gacy there on the right (triangular blue eye marks and a pointy-cornered smile) is a nice addition.

Interview with the painter can be found here.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 3rd November 2009, 6:09pm

[Happy drinker]

Did you notice that when the list's existence was revealed that only a few of its members or ex-members had the integrity to own up to it? The list's creator's name was immediately removed from its Wikia page, none of the arbitrators who were members of the list, as far as I know, ever admitted that they were members in spite of repeated questioning from a lot of people, and few other admins or regular editors also ever admitted that they were members.

I was not, I repeat categorically I was not, a member of that list nor did I know about it.

I think of him/her as the T-Ball coach for newbie critics. HD doesn't just pitch softballs, but gingerly places them on a stand. Swing away.

I don't play rounders (US: Baseball).

Strychnine Chugger is one of the reasons why the WR board provides the option of ignoring selected posters.

I never thought I'd convert Mr. Awbrey.

[CharlotteWebb]

I was not, I repeat categorically I was not, a member of that list nor did I know about it.

I didn't see where anyone made that accusation, but ok.

However I'm not sure what purpose this statement serves because (a) nobody can vouch for it, not knowing what name you would have used in the mailing list if you were a member (b) nobody really cares.

I don't play rounders (US: Baseball).

If you'd like to make yourself useful you can start by explaining cricket. That is, I once attempted to read the cricket (sport) article but began nodding off midway. But at least now I know what a crumpet is (!) so I figure I have a firmer grasp than most folks in the western hemisphere.