Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Who is Cbrick77 (aka "Chris)?

Posted by: Jagärdu

Who is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrick77 (aka "Chris") and why is this newbie so interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Cbrick77 at the arbitration case between Cirt and Jayen? It certainly has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop&diff=442354773&oldid=441570276 and I can't imagine anyone is convinced by the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop&diff=442394379&oldid=442354773 that this is his first account. So who the hell is he? A returned former admin or Arb who left the project with his tails between his legs? Another manifestation of ChrisO -- which would be funny for a number of reasons. Imagine ChrisO thinking to himself that signing his name "Chris" is like hiding in plain sight and therefore a wonderful disguise. I know there are people here who want to play this guessing game so let's hear it.

Posted by: Hipocrite

John254/Kristen Eriksen?

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 4:24pm) *

John254/Kristen Eriksen?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#John254. It is also quite plausible. If it is true I really hope that he uses a second account to make contradicting proposals like he did last time.

Posted by: -DS-

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?

Posted by: Hipocrite

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 7:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


You sure you didn't confuse that second diff with something else? I'm pretty sure Sophie wasn't Mr. John254.

Posted by: Hipocrite

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 6:03pm) *

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 7:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


You sure you didn't confuse that second diff with something else? I'm pretty sure Sophie wasn't Mr. John254.


I'll take that bet.

EDIT: On further research, I wouldn't take that bet. (ref http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29340&st=40)

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.


That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 6:47pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.


That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?


Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 10:57pm) *

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?


If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.

Mantanmoreland used to use long distance dial up accounts to make it appear his alternate accounts were editing from a different metropolitan area. It only takes one slip up to get caught, though.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 1:58am) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 10:57pm) *

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?


If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.

Mantanmoreland used to use long distance dial up accounts to make it appear his alternate accounts were editing from a different metropolitan area. It only takes one slip up to get caught, though.


Mathsci there is just too much circumstantial evidence here not to consider something of the nature that tarantino suggests. Cbrick did not edit often prior to this. Basically on a handful of days in prolonged sessions. It would be very easy not to have slipped up in such a scenario. Currently there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrick77#Scripts going on between Cbrick and Off2riorob on Cbrick's talk page. Cbrick apparently claims to be a 16 year old screen writer.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 3:58am) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 10:57pm) *

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?


If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.


I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 3:45am) *

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.


I agree with that.

In the MMN case, when Chester Markel appeared to be too quick off the gun with his proposals, his responses made it even more evident that something fishy was going on.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 6:47pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 5:03pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Kristen+Eriksen&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Hmmmmm.....


So making a reverting vandalism edit at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance article is his call sign?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=428286135&oldid=428286054 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=362673273&oldid=362673255 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=330263475.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)


OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.


That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?


Well it's the morning and I don't see any moves to block the account or move his bogus proposals.

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 3:45am) *

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.


I'm not sure how the arbs and/or clerks don't get suspicious enough to at least check the edit history of an account that shows up out of the blue to make workshop proposals without any prior engagement with the issues being discussed. That alone should smell foul enough to get someone to investigate. But of course it's not like there are any sockmasters out there who love to make disruptive workshop proposals at arbitration ... I mean its not like there's a precedent to be suspicious ... right? What do you say John254?

Posted by: Mathsci

Is it normal that a 16 year old would discuss a pornographic anime image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&diff=prev&oldid=441986550
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&diff=prev&oldid=442623582

All the editing is a bit odd.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 11:52am) *

Is it normal that a 16 year old would discuss a pornographic anime image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&diff=prev&oldid=441986550
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&diff=prev&oldid=442623582

All the editing is a bit odd.


Quite clearly not the comments of a 16 year old, or the type of concern that a 16 year old would have. Once again it baffles the mind to consider how little concern anyone has really expressed about this on-wiki. You have to imagine that one of the arbs has stumbled upon this thread at this point.

Also note these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Anderson&diff=432529765&oldid=431390798 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Anderson&diff=432530485&oldid=432529765 to the infamous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Anderson entry of Cirt's pufftastic political campaigning days. Hardly a coincidence.

Here's another topic that you expect a lot of 16 year olds to take interest in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_induction&diff=439653881&oldid=418702600.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 8:05am) *

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Any thoughts on http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=John254&user2=Some+Wiki+Editor&user3=Kristen+Eriksen&user4=Cbrick77&user5=Peter+Karlsen&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=? No Harlem Renaissance edit but some odd overlap. One of the other socks reverted this account, can't remember where I saw it.

Or even better. Here's another editor claiming to be 16 years old who has significant overlap with known John254 socks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kinaro - http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Peter+Karlsen&user2=John254&user3=Kristen+Eriksen&user4=Kinaro&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 8:05am) *

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.


Alas, my IPs change very rarely. I've only gone through four since I moved house.

I guess the second then.

(Oh, and you want to know the best part? That same CU is perfectly happy to block accounts as confirmed socks when they edit from anonymous proxies geolocating thousands of miles away from where I actually live)

EDIT: Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=442865633.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 8:05am) *

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.


Alas, my IPs change very rarely. I've only gone through four since I moved house.

I guess the second then.

(Oh, and you want to know the best part? That same CU is perfectly happy to block accounts as confirmed socks when they edit from anonymous proxies geolocating thousands of miles away from where I actually live)

EDIT: Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=442865633.


Now here's one for your Crotalus, checkusers and co. I started thinking why John only showed up at the Arbitration case and why not at the RfC. Now there were a few editors at the RfC whose presence was a bit strange, but it became clear to me after Prioryman was unmasked that they were all climate change buddies of ChrisO/Prioryman. But there was one other odd addition to the party, one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quigley. Here's how Quigley stacks up against known socks of John's. http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Quigley&user2=John254&user3=Peter+Karlsen&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=. That's a serious amount of overlap if you ask me. Note that Quigley made several comments during the RfC that relayed an indepth knowledge of Cirt's past editing fueds going back well before Quigley started editing. Now clearly the overlap could just be coincidence, but why did Quigley know so much about Cirt's history? If not John I have a hard time imagining that he's not some other returned user or sock.

Posted by: -DS-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=442894281

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 8:37pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=442894281

Quite a party there.

Posted by: -DS-

Hm.....


I see a pattern.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 4th August 2011, 2:55am) *

Hm.....
  • John254
  • Erik9
  • Andrea105
  • Cbrick77 (aka "Chris")
I see a pattern.

It's like a Fibonacci Sequence, only before Fibonacci actually took any upper-level math courses.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Is Count Iblis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=442930815&oldid=442930630 with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=442955445&oldid=442954953? In the second link he suggests that Cbrick77 might in fact be Coren just because Coren is recused from the case. So failed joke or serious idiocy?

Posted by: Jagärdu

Maybe NuclearWarfare cares to explain http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=442928636&oldid=442928425 very suspicious comment, in which he thanks Cbrick77 for the "heads up" after reading an email sent in about this situation. "Heads up?" Oh whatever did you mean NW?

Note:NW is a clerk for Arbcom, which is relevant because I haven't seen him relay any information to anyone about this "heads up" at AN/I or any other public discussion of the matter.

Posted by: InkBlot

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 8:07am) *

Maybe NuclearWarfare cares to explain http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=442928636&oldid=442928425 very suspicious comment, in which he thanks Cbrick77 for the "heads up" after reading an email sent in about this situation. "Heads up?" Oh whatever did you mean NW?

Note:NW is a clerk for Arbcom, which is relevant because I haven't seen him relay any information to anyone about this "heads up" at AN/I or any other public discussion of the matter.

  1. CBrick77 sends him an email.
  2. CBrick77 leaves a "You've got mail!" template on NW's talk page. A "heads up," if you will.
  3. NW removes template, and thanks CBrick77 for pointing out on-wiki that he's sent him email.
  4. Profit!!!

OK, maybe that last step doesn't necessarily follow...

Posted by: -DS-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=442895571.

You know, maybe the guy isn't so bad after all.....

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 4th August 2011, 12:55am) *

Hm.....
  • John254
  • Erik9
  • Andrea105
  • Cbrick77 (aka "Chris")
I see a pattern.

Yeah, probably a lot of people using their banking login passwords as usernames. ohmy.gif

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 4:24pm) *

John254/Kristen Eriksen?


And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=443082577&oldid=443079900 Hipocrite lost the game. Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 11:13pm) *

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 5th August 2011, 3:27am) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 11:13pm) *

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.


Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=443088306&oldid=443050072

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 5th August 2011, 1:13am) *

QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 4:24pm) *

John254/Kristen Eriksen?


And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=443082577&oldid=443079900 Hipocrite lost the game.


Bullshit. MuZemike is the most incompetent CU I have ever seen (and probably a sockpuppet himself, but that's not relevant right now). I wouldn't take any CU results from him at face value.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 5th August 2011, 7:09am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 5th August 2011, 3:27am) *

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.


Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=443088306&oldid=443050072

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

I was always leery of people who would helicopter in to a situation and announce that they had the perfect solution because they were so much smarter than everyone else even though they had not been previously involved, so I'm trying not to go too far in that direction myself. smile.gif I'm not willing to invest the extra time needed to make a more strenuous intervention credible. I'm already spending too much time thinking about WP matters than is good for me, and I probably need to go back in my corner. I've already made my point here and on AN/I; enough people read those places that if they think my ideas on Amicus participation are worthy, they can follow up.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 5th August 2011, 7:09am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 5th August 2011, 3:27am) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 11:13pm) *

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.


Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=443088306&oldid=443050072

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.


Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=443162866 on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443163245, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443165096 requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 5th August 2011, 1:37pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 5th August 2011, 7:09am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 5th August 2011, 3:27am) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 11:13pm) *

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.


Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=443088306&oldid=443050072

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.


Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=443162866 on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443163245, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443165096 requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=next&oldid=443165096

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 5th August 2011, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 5th August 2011, 1:37pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 5th August 2011, 7:09am) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 5th August 2011, 3:27am) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 4th August 2011, 11:13pm) *

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_John254 as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.


Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=443088306&oldid=443050072

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.


Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=443162866 on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443163245, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=443165096 requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=next&oldid=443165096


Well then hop to it. smile.gif

Posted by: Mathsci

Again Cla68's attempts to broaden the scope of this case to include others, this time Prioryman (another Chris), have been thwarted. The clerks removed the header in his section on the evidence page.

Posted by: Mathsci

Common sense seems to have prevailed, probably in response to Thatcher's suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=443527999&oldid=443522194


Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 7th August 2011, 4:55pm) *

Common sense seems to have prevailed, probably in response to Thatcher's suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=443527999&oldid=443522194


Seems like much more trouble than its worth. If Arbcom and it's clerks just did their job something like this wouldn't be needed. So who the hell is Cbrick77 at the end of the day? We'll never know for sure it seems, but as Thatcher has pointed out repeatedly his proposals should be removed. That neither the arbs nor admins like NuclearWarefare who have communicated with the editor directly over email, should have insisted that he remove them himself is the real problem. In the end, when the actors are incompetent you simply can't rewrite the script to satisfaction.

Addendum: And you as well, Mathsci, have apparently not asked this editor to remove his entries, despite your insistence to Cla68 that he remove his evidence.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 8th August 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 7th August 2011, 4:55pm) *

Common sense seems to have prevailed, probably in response to Thatcher's suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=443527999&oldid=443522194


Seems like much more trouble than its worth. If Arbcom and it's clerks just did their job something like this wouldn't be needed.

Would it surprise you to learn that Arbitrators can be quite bitchy if their pages are messed up without permission? I know of a few occasions where a clerk was bold and did something entirely sensible, only to get reamed out by an arbitrator.

There doesn't need to be a formal rule with an edit count and a waiver procedure, but there at least needs to be an understanding between the arbitrators and the clerks that a clerk can remove proposals for good cause, and that understanding needs to include thinking about what kinds of things good cause might be, as well as a commitment from all the arbitrators that they won't publicly flog a clerk who tried to do something sensible that the arbitrator later disagreed with.

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 8th August 2011, 6:26pm) *

Would it surprise you to learn that Arbitrators can be quite bitchy if their pages are messed up without permission? I know of a few occasions where a clerk was bold and did something entirely sensible, only to get reamed out by an arbitrator.

Nothing they do surprises me at this point.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 8th August 2011, 1:26pm) *
There doesn't need to be a formal rule with an edit count and a waiver procedure, but there at least needs to be an understanding between the arbitrators and the clerks that a clerk can remove proposals for good cause, and that understanding needs to include thinking about what kinds of things good cause might be, as well as a commitment from all the arbitrators that they won't publicly flog a clerk who tried to do something sensible that the arbitrator later disagreed with.

Personally, I'd say that would be much better than basing things like that on "edit counts" - I mean, if the case involved an article about a living person or extant organization, and the article subject wanted to make a formal statement about it, to remove that statement solely on the grounds of having fewer than 1000 edits would be the height of stupidity, not to mention arrogance, etc.

And you wouldn't be deleting the comments from uninvolved parties, you'd be moving them to the talk page, or else a subpage called "Statements by Uninvolved Parties," right? I mean, assuming they weren't malicious or just-plain-dumb statements to begin with.

As always, I'd be wary of such rules being used to silence people who go against the party line... but IMO there are definitely positive benefits to be gained by making ArbCom case pages more readable, more focused, and more succinct. I myself can barely get through most of them at all, as things stand now.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 8th August 2011, 1:26pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 8th August 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 7th August 2011, 4:55pm) *

Common sense seems to have prevailed, probably in response to Thatcher's suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=443527999&oldid=443522194


Seems like much more trouble than its worth. If Arbcom and it's clerks just did their job something like this wouldn't be needed.

Would it surprise you to learn that Arbitrators can be quite bitchy if their pages are messed up without permission? I know of a few occasions where a clerk was bold and did something entirely sensible, only to get reamed out by an arbitrator.

There doesn't need to be a formal rule with an edit count and a waiver procedure, but there at least needs to be an understanding between the arbitrators and the clerks that a clerk can remove proposals for good cause, and that understanding needs to include thinking about what kinds of things good cause might be, as well as a commitment from all the arbitrators that they won't publicly flog a clerk who tried to do something sensible that the arbitrator later disagreed with.


I think this is something Manning mentioned before too. There does seem to be at least a bit of a landlord-servant relationship here, with the understanding that if the clerk performs their tasks meekly and to the masters' liking then they get put into the future-ArbCommer que (and then get to abuse their own clerks). Sort of like grad school.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 8th August 2011, 7:46pm) *

And you wouldn't be deleting the comments from uninvolved parties, you'd be moving them to the talk page, or else a subpage called "Statements by Uninvolved Parties," right? I mean, assuming they weren't malicious or just-plain-dumb statements to begin with.

Even "statements from uninvolved parties" on a sub-page or talk page is more complicated than I would want, and just shifts the drama and the arbitrator's attention, which is limited anyway. Were I making the rules, I would start with something like this:

QUOTE

New accounts that (1) have no significant interaction with the parties, (2) have no significant experience editing articles in the area of dispute, and (3) have no significant experience with dispute resolution, are not permitted to add evidence or workshop proposals. Such accounts may comment on the associated talk pages. Evidence or proposals left by such accounts will be transferred to their user talk pages with a polite note of "thanks, but no thanks." Such editors may ask any Arbitrator for a waiver of this rule, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The reason for this is that new accounts with no prior interaction with the parties or topic of conflict are often alternate accounts of other users, who are either under some kind of restriction or who are trying to avoid accountability for their participation. The use of alternate accounts in Arbitration proceedings is not allowed. In the case of true new users who have a good-faith interest in dispute resolution, we thank you for your interest and ask that you try your hand at one of the other steps in the process where the stakes aren't so high.


That would be my starting point for a negotiation/discussion.

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 8th August 2011, 7:46pm) *

As always, I'd be wary of such rules being used to silence people who go against the party line...

That's the argument for a bright-line edit count-based rule, so that discretion can't be abused. (It's also the argument for zero tolerance policies in US schools that result in kids getting expelled for bringing an ibuprofen capsule to school without a parent's note and turning it over to the school nurse. It's a stupid argument, necessary only because even stupider people sometimes abuse their discretion.)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 8th August 2011, 7:58pm) *

There does seem to be at least a bit of a landlord-servant relationship here, with the understanding that if the clerk performs their tasks meekly and to the masters' liking then they get put into the future-ArbCommer que (and then get to abuse their own clerks). Sort of like grad school.

1. Yes, except that the overly complicated and drawn-out election process means that clerks only have a slight edge, which comes from being seen as responsible in a highly visible arena.

2. Under the right circumstances, the right clerk can get the arbitrators to meekly follow him. wink.gif (But it's pretty rare.)

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 8th August 2011, 3:22pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 8th August 2011, 7:58pm) *

There does seem to be at least a bit of a landlord-servant relationship here, with the understanding that if the clerk performs their tasks meekly and to the masters' liking then they get put into the future-ArbCommer que (and then get to abuse their own clerks). Sort of like grad school.

1. Yes, except that the overly complicated and drawn-out election process means that clerks only have a slight edge, which comes from being seen as responsible in a highly visible arena.

2. Under the right circumstances, the right clerk can get the arbitrators to meekly follow him. wink.gif (But it's pretty rare.)


Don't you dare touch the overly complicated and drawn-out election process! That's the best fun we have all year.

Posted by: Mathsci

Who is RickK2?

He has been blocked as an imposter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop#IP_editors_and_socks_on_the_Workshop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.131.14.150

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sat 6th August 2011, 7:39am) *

Again Cla68's attempts to broaden the scope of this case to include others, this time Prioryman (another Chris), have been thwarted. The clerks removed the header in his section on the evidence page.

And now that it has been moved to "Manipulation of BLPs," there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs/Evidence&oldid=445355043#Since_when_is_it_OK_to_edit_the_remarks_of_others.3F

Posted by: EricBarbour

And meanwhile, while you nerds argue and rubberneck, your "encyclopedia" burns.

Remember that "encyclopedia" business?

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 17th August 2011, 9:43pm) *

And meanwhile, while you nerds argue and rubberneck, your "encyclopedia" burns.

Remember that "encyclopedia" business?

Encyclopedia sales? I try to stay away from that business myself. The only notable encyclopedia salesman I'm familiar with has had a pretty rough go of it on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Mathsci

Cirt has now added his evidence and agrees with Cbrick77's proposals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence&oldid=445458367#Evidence_presented_by_Cirt



Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 18th August 2011, 7:33am) *

Cirt has now added his evidence and agrees with Cbrick77's proposals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence&oldid=445458367#Evidence_presented_by_Cirt

Now that's just downright cute. Cbrick is clearly illegitimate in one way or another, whether or not he's John. Also, Cirt appears to the be missing the fact that the topic bans he's agreeing to are in fact not Cbrick's but Off2riorob's. Cbrick copied rob's proposals about topic bans and simply wrote "unchanged," as the descriptions.