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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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:

[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:

[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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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.

[jorge]

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.

The question is, do Durova, GeorgeWilliamHerbert and JzG really believe that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are not accounts run by Gary Weiss, or, are they just liars?

[Amarkov]

This is an opportunity to get some experience points by attacking people associated with WR. They probably don't know or care if the allegations are really true.

[Derktar]

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.

The question is, do Durova, GeorgeWilliamHerbert and JzG really believe that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are not accounts run by Gary Weiss, or, are they just liars?

I particularly liked this retort:

The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who truly knows how to roll up her sleeves, dig through the diffs, and come up with completely off-base accusations against dedicated contributors to the encyclopedia. Fozzie, this truly is amazing how it's drawing out all the best Wikipedia has to offer, and apparently offering them about 12 feet of self-threading noose-quality rope. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bam.

[Kato]

HeerresJzG

Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5.

What? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

No policy states that.

Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question.

What? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Judd Bagley is "a vicious agenda-driven troll"????

Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case;

What? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

You banned Piperdown on the East Coast, some guy in Basingstoke England, and accused Cla68 in Japan of being Wordbomb because they edited on naked short selling.

It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wordbomb politely requested a checkuser. How is that a problem, and how is that obviously "off in laa-laa land on this subject?"

If I was a devoted Wikipedian, I would be forcing JzG off the project by now. He's just a walking nightmare for the site. As I'm not, he provides a textbook study of all that is wrong with the place. Reading him is like those chapters in Management Training Manuals where they run through all the ways not to behave.

[dtobias]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

[jorge]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked or having their wiki reputation damaged to do anything about it.

[Amarkov]

I would've been willing to bring it up, if someone had showed me the evidence on the checkuser page.

[Derktar]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked to doing anything about it.

One way or another, the usual BADSITES crowd would have shouted down whoever made the request.

"a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a proxy for a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a WR regular made the request it's not valid!"
"a party with an agenda made the request it's not valid!"

[Amarkov]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked to doing anything about it.

One way or another, the usual BADSITES crowd would have shouted down whoever made the request.

"a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a proxy for a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a WR regular made the request it's not valid!"
"a party with an agenda made the request it's not valid!"

True, but there is a rule that quite explicitly says banned users aren't allowed to do anything. Their rule that WR regulars aren't allowed to do anything isn't written down anywhere, so it's harder to pull it off.

[Robster]

You could bring an ironclad case, with IP address matches, conclusive editing patterns, and fingerprints on keyboards, and it wouldn't matter.

Wikipedia is protecting Gary Weiss.

The operative question now is -- why? What's in it for WP, exactly?

[jorge]

You could bring an ironclad case, with IP address matches, conclusive editing patterns, and fingerprints on keyboards, and it wouldn't matter.

Wikipedia is protecting Gary Weiss.

The operative question now is -- why? What's in it for WP, exactly?

Well, the question is WHO is protecting him? Look at Samiharris' page and who do we find, but Jayjg and SlimVirgin.

[WordBomb]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet.

I disagree. For the first time, the eminently rational "If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway?" argument has been posited by more than one established editor. This is the point I've been trying to make since July of 2006. This, in turn, opens up the door to examine my other previously-dismissed-out-of-hand claims.

Which is exactly why JzG is working up a sweat as he is.

If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier)...

If the user had been a truly unrelated party, it never would have happened. Not many folks are willing to throw away a productive account. I don't care. Furthermore, where were they "proceeding"? How was one on the outside to know one way or the other?

Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

Again, I refer to my earlier point: I think pretty much everybody now sees that the central premise of ASM is true. If they want to leave Gary Weiss onboard like the crazy aunt in the room upstairs that nobody talks about, at least everybody knows that's what they're doing.

My decision is a principled one: as long as I'm open to trashing by Weiss and his fellow-traveling band of corrupt sidekicks with no opportunity for rebuttal, WordBomb will continue roaming the countryside.

As soon as Weiss is gone, I'll be gone.

[dogbiscuit]

Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired by WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).


...But George is a gem, isn't he?

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

[WordBomb]

Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired my WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).


...But George is a gem, isn't he?

Good point, well taken.

But one last thing: will someone please encourage MONGO to "refactor" this "history of fabrication of evidence" bullshit? I don't think he has any idea what he's saying. Just please ask him to back that up with a single shred of anything other than JzG spittle.

[Derktar]

Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."

[jorge]

Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired by WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).

...But George is a gem, isn't he?

Sorry, but nothing is going to happen. Jimbo Wales obviously knows what has been going on with Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Weiss and he is going to allow it to continue.

Wikipedia is corrupt.

[Nathan]

Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5.

Well if that's the case, I'm still waiting for that one article I created to be deleted.
*whistles innocently*

[Piperdown]

Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

As in the lying scum who is doing gymnastics to close up any CU. Funny how that works.

Lar seems to be the only admin being allowed to opine on this matter that wasn't already compromised by previous actions (Baudy, Thatcher, SlumVersion, FloByNight, etc).

Note all the diversion by the BritneySpears-stage JzG (never go public when under personal distress - Chris Crocker vids to "leave Manny Moresocks alone! pending). So.....Samiharris uses a proxy.

Why?

Because he is Mantanmoreland. And a good checkuser will find IP evidence of that. Sami surely didn't edit under a different proxy than Manny every time.

Since the late January brou-ha-ha? Sure, I'll wager he was very very careful. Before? He was the belle of the untouchable ball, and anyone with any balls will find common IP editing between those two if they go back far enough.

Spineless wonders abound in WP Adminville. And you should step forward (more than you already have to your credit) Alison.

When one is in the right with the facts, might does not make right.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Derktar]

Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

Ah my mistake, thought I had gotten something wrong, thanks much for the correction.

[Piperdown]

Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

Ah my mistake, thought I had gotten something wrong, thanks much for the correction.

well, you're right too. Thatcer was quoting the ever quotable Fred.

Who was always happy to tell the truth about Mantanmoreland.

I might just go digg up those diffs where "both" Gary's had the exact same hysterical reaction during separate talk page threads.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: