The idiocy and the irony, banning nonsense goes full circle Options

[Kato]

A few months ago, I was arguing here with Slim about how, back in the old days, she and others were targeting just about anyone as being a LaRouchie, and I described the chaos that witchhunt had caused. I especially noted an incident when herself and long time user (and another anti-LaRouche figure) 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed banning a totally innocent guy as a "New LaRouche editor" back in 2007.

Here is my post, Slim simply batted this incident off by not addressing it specifically - claiming that people weren't banned as LaRouchies without good reason.

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172!

[Malleus]

Who is this LaRouche character, and why should I care?

[Kato]

Who is this LaRouche character, and why should I care?

I didn't know who he was either until I started paying attention to Wikipedia way back and noticed all manner of uncontroversial accounts and views being silenced due to allegations that the perpetrators were "LaRouchies". When they clearly weren't.

This has gone full circle, when one of the accusers, 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) - a former admin dating back to 2002 - has just been indefinately (and falsely) banned as a LaRouchie himself, demonstrating the kind of bald poetic justice and lunatic irony only Wikipedia can provide.

[gomi]

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch!

Almost certainly the latter. I was told confidentially that checkuser is (as it has always been) almost useless for any but the simplest forms of sockpuppetry. Many of these POV sock declarations derive from offline conversations among checkusers and other editors who keep files of old IP addresses for their nemeses, to use for later comparison. Never mind the half-life of a particular IP address, if the editor with the suspect POV edits from the same city, the same ISP, the same geographic area, or uses the same browser, computer, or operating system, from several years earlier then they feel that is enough for a "sock confirmed by checkuser" finding, effectively insulating it from question.

In a way, this is the most negative legacy of Poetlister. Wikipidiots were so aghast at having been led round the rosemary bush by PoetGuy, they have a hair-trigger now, and the gun cabinet isn't locked.

Of course, this isn't entirely new, either. Before he was defrocked, Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) was fond of banning editors who hadn't edited in over a year, claiming "sock confirmed by checkuser". He just didn't care what people thought, and I'll bet they don't care much more now. They ban whomever they please, all the rest is window-dressing.

[One]

Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172!

Actually, it doesn't look like there's any interleaving editing (a trait shared by Mantanmoreland/SamiHarris and PoetGang).

I don't get it either. But consider: what better way to exaggerate the Larouche peril than make your own evil sock master?

[A Horse With No Name]

Who is this LaRouche character, and why should I care?

You shouldn't -- no one on this side of the Atlantic cares. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Kato]

Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172!

Actually, it doesn't look like there's any interleaving editing (a trait shared by Mantanmoreland/SamiHarris and PoetGang).

I don't get it either. But consider: what better way to exaggerate the Larouche peril than make your own evil sock master?

It clearly isn't the same guy. 172 has been editing intermittently for a while but when he reappeared recently, Slim was the first to welcome him back.

172 was a major WP editor for years. The idea that he has been banned for being a sock of one of his many arch-nemeses is too funny even for WP's standards. It's a bit like JzG getting banned indefinitely for being a sock of Jon Awbrey, or Jimmy Wales being shown to be a sock of TheKohser.

There's simply too much satisfaction to be had from him getting wrongfully banned in this manner. Given that he did it so often to other people, and that Slim steadfastly batted away any such notions herself that such a mistake could happen, refusing to acknowledge an example which featured 172 himself as the accuser two years ago.

[No one of consequence]

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch!

Almost certainly the latter. I was told confidentially that checkuser is (as it has always been) almost useless for any but the simplest forms of sockpuppetry.

Yes and no. But that is what appears to have happened here. A number of accounts share a single IP, and their edits overlap in such a way that reassignment from one editor or group to another editor or group is not possible. It appears to be a residential IP. In some quantum alternate universe, perhaps, by an amazing coincidence, Cognition moved in next door to 172 and has been poaching his wi-fi.

[Kato]

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch!

Almost certainly the latter. I was told confidentially that checkuser is (as it has always been) almost useless for any but the simplest forms of sockpuppetry.

Yes and no. But that is what appears to have happened here. A number of accounts share a single IP, and their edits overlap in such a way that reassignment from one editor or group to another editor or group is not possible. It appears to be a residential IP. In some quantum alternate universe, perhaps, by an amazing coincidence, Cognition moved in next door to 172 and has been poaching his wi-fi.

Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship.

Cognition was a LaRouchie who believed the World Wildlife Fund were behind a genocidal scheme to oppress the third world.

[No one of consequence]

Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship.

Cognition was a LaRouchie who believed the World Wildlife Fund were behind a genocidal scheme to oppress the third world.

OK, and now they're sharing a single residential IP address. SlimVirgin thinks 172's account is compromised; if so, it happened before any of the edits currently in the checkuser database. If the account is compromised, a block is also in order until 172 can verify himself to a developer to get the password reset, in which case the account can also be unblocked.

[One]

Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship.

Cognition was a LaRouchie who believed the World Wildlife Fund were behind a genocidal scheme to oppress the third world.

172 was desysoped for his aggressive edit warring and POV pushing...twice! Is it really so inconceivable that he would create a ridiculous sock to be his nemesis and engender sympathy?

The only other credible explaination is that Cognition cracked his password after three years (and after 172 made only two edits over a 14 month period or so).

This post has been edited by One:

[Kato]

Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship.

Cognition was a LaRouchie who believed the World Wildlife Fund were behind a genocidal scheme to oppress the third world.

172 was desysoped for his aggressive edit warring and POV pushing...twice! Is it really so inconceivable that he would create a ridiculous sock to be his nemesis and engender sympathy?

Listen, this is 172

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privatiz...lain_accusation

The only other credible explaination is that Cognition cracked his password after three years (and after 172 made only two edits over a 14 month period or so).

Do you seriously think nobody ran an IP check on Cognition back in the day?

[One]

The only other credible explaination is that Cognition cracked his password after three years (and after 172 made only two edits over a 14 month period or so).

Do you seriously think nobody ran an IP check on Cognition back in the day?

People slip up.

Do you have another theory that involves Cognition using 172's current residential IP?

I'm interested on HK's thoughts about Cognition.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kato]

The only other credible explaination is that Cognition cracked his password after three years (and after 172 made only two edits over a 14 month period or so).

Do you seriously think nobody ran an IP check on Cognition back in the day?

There are logs; we don't have to speculate. People slip up.

Do you have another theory that involves Cognition using 172's current residential IP?

I'm interested on HK's thoughts about Cognition.

Indeed.

I guess, on reflection and reviewing Cognitions's edits, that he could have been a construct devised by 172 to shame and smear the LaRouchies and add to the atmosphere of battle. It certainly worked if it was, as the "LaRouchies under the bed" meme engulfed Wikipedia.

I'm surprised WillBeback hasn't caused more of a stink about 172 being linked to Cognition given that he was a close ally. Recall that famous revelation from JoshuaZ, who admitted to creating an account with WillBeback to discredit enemy Jason Gastrich:

I mentioned to Jayjg and Jimbo before there have been three accounts used by me previous. User:Rookwood was before I was an admin when I needed a fake individual to get in Jason Gastrich's good graces. User:CyberDalek was made with a similar idea in mind by me and Will Beback but it never got off the ground.

JoshuaZ resurfaces in the new discussion of the banning of Cognition. It's like old times.

[Somey]

I guess, on reflection and reviewing Cognitions's edits, that he could have been a construct devised by 172 to shame and smear the LaRouchies and add to the atmosphere of battle. It certainly worked if it was, as the "LaRouchies under the bed" meme engulfed Wikipedia.

I don't suppose anybody has brought up the possibility that the IP-contributor info in the database just got f**ked up somehow? That kind of subterfuge seems awfully elaborate, even for an early-adopting WP ex-admin.

Much of 172's contribs seem to indicate a general effort to remove the historical context from articles on communism, socialism, and totalitarianism - IMO, it looks like he wants to destigmatize both terms, and try and bring the relevant articles more into the realm of political philosophy, rather than history. He completely gutted the article on Totalitarianism, for example, removing all mention of the Nazis, and suggesting that the Soviet Union essentially abandoned totalitarianism after Stalin's death.

However, looking over his contribs, I don't see anything overtly pro-Larouchian... Admittedly, I didn't look at all of them.

Very curious indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[One]

I remember 172 vaguely, and surveying his work refreshes my recollection. Kato is right that there's no damn way he's pro-Larouchian.

Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure.

[Somey]

Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure.

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

OK, looking over Cognition's contribs, I'd say it's more likely that Cognition's account is the one that's been compromised, so maybe I'd tend to lean toward Option 1 after all - utterly insane though it may be. It's just not like a die-hard Larouche supporter to behave like this - like he's desperate to get the account unblocked and willing to say almost anything to make it happen.

There's something very weird going on here, but I must say, it's fairly entertaining at least!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship.

172 was one of the most over-the-top, delirious POV pushers I have ever encountered at WP.
Enjoy this additional irony where 172 threatens to block Cognition for participating in an Adam Carr RfC.

I'm interested on HK's thoughts about Cognition.

I believe Cognition to be young and female. I was unable to collaborate well with her, because she was famously hotheaded. But I liked her feistiness.


Here is an entertaining brawl between 172 and myself. Good times.

[Kato]

I remember 172 vaguely, and surveying his work refreshes my recollection. Kato is right that there's no damn way he's pro-Larouchian.

Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure.

I'm starting to think you guys are right, and Cognition was a phony account created to discredit LaRouchies. Which, if true, starts to explain many things from Wikipedia history. Also, if true, Slim knew nothing about it either and was out of the loop. But I doubt 172 worked alone.

I mean, Cognition really went out of his way to appear to be a pro-LaRouche crackpot.

The fourth option is the Somey one, where the new Cognition is the account which has been compromised.

[Lar]

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do.

CU data, and the CU who interprets it, lacks infallability. It helps to have multiple eyes but even then it's possible to be wrong. Nevertheless that option seems less likely... even less likely than a massive IP table error.

Sometimes the simpler explanation is better.

Here the simpler technical explanation points to a much more complicated social explanation though... that 172 ran a con for a long time is rather a complex (social) explanation.

[Kato]

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do.

Admittedly, that would be a major coincidence. 172 actually had a run-in with Cognition in 2006 according to diffs and the chances of the same two people now sharing a Wi-Fi network is minimal.

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP. 172 seemed to work in a small tight group which included Adam Carr and Will Beback, and these guys were adamant that WP had fallen into the hands of conspiracy theorists. They clearly co-ordinated their exploits, and saw their anti LaRouche activities as a war. This was in the old days, when there really was a cabal. Fred Bauder and even Jimbo Wales were on the periphery, overseeing the anti-LaRouche campaign. And it is on record that Will Beback plotted "black ops" accounts against enemies. Slim was influential, but was almost certainly not party to this, if true.

Here's Cognition editing the article of Michael Danby, Adam Carr's real life boss.

On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004.

Here, Cognition sarcastically gives Slim a barnstar. Is this a spoof or is this genuine? It seems hysterical even for a LaRouchie.

As I said, if this is true, then it explains a lot about the history of Wikipedia - and the McCarthyite atmosphere that prevailed. It may turn out that even the pro-LaRouche behavior was in part a fake. This is important, not because it concerns LaRouche, but because it had repercussions on governance throughout the site which still resonate today.

[taiwopanfob]

Here the simpler technical explanation points to a much more complicated social explanation though... that 172 ran a con for a long time is rather a complex (social) explanation.

The reaction of Wikipedia to the LaRouche contingent has always been ridiculously over-the-top. That one of the anti-LaRouche people has been attacking Wikipedia to egg on the assuming-good-faithful administration at Wikipedia isn't so much of a surprise when one considers Mantanmoreland, Essjay, and the like.

Ha ha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=311922201

You see? It's all a Cognition issue, not that Mr. BeBack and the rest of the screeching fanatics were conned ... for years. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest! Will Wikipedia's logo soon decorate the definition of "terminally credulous"?


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004.

And here, SV adds "ignorance" to Cognition's "areas of expertise."

[Kato]

Slim reckons the black ops / stalking horse theory "was already discredited".

I'm not so sure.

It still looks more credible than Slim's belief in the outrageous coincidence that 172 and his nemesis were both editing from the same terminal.

Cognition's behaviour looks typical LaRouche and fakeable. Unless there is something in his profile that is simply too LaRouchesque for an imposter like 172 to fake, then surely the "black-ops" theory is the most likely? Hersch?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is it possible that there is a huge technical glitch in the checkuser system?

[One]

It still looks more credible than Slim's belief in the outrageous coincidence that 172 and his nemesis were both editing from the same terminal.

Actually, it would have to be a "following each other around from terminal to terminal" theory, which pushes it beyond even unreasonable doubt--something like saying Cognition used the same home address and internet cafe. As Thatcher explains at the bottom of this section, the residential IP is considered a direct hit, but they also shared a more public access point.

It's a compromised account or Cognition really was a bad hand (or other increasingly unlikely events like IP table failure, etc.)

[Hell Freezes Over]

Cognition's behaviour looks typical LaRouche and fakeable. Unless there is something in his profile that is simply too LaRouchesque for an imposter like 172 to fake, then surely the "black-ops" theory is the most likely? Hersch?

I think it would be quite hard to fake this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

"Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[MBisanz]

I don't know anything about the current players in this particular incident, but I would tend to agree that multiple moving CU hits tends to establish a connection better than most other methods. If PoetGuy, RickK, Lightmouse, Mantanmoreland, et. al. have taught us anything, it is apparently very easy to maintain multiple accounts over a very long period of time without detection. If anything, I suspect CUs are on the cautious side and rarely check synchronicities they see (like similar editing times, similar topics, etc) unless there is an outside request, just because they tend to be swamped with other requests and their own editing.

Of course the other issue to look at is that 172 has not denied being Cognition or even asked for unblock. I often wonder why people insist on defending/appealing on the behalf of persons who can't even be bothered to deny the accusation. Aren't there enough people actively asking for unblock (via CAT:UNB, unblock-l, #-unblock, BASC, etc.) to fill the admin's workload? I do think so.

[Somey]

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

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

Nearly impossible for whom, though? I'd tend to disagree with this - someone like Adam Carr or Will Beback, or even King & Berlet, probably got at least some of their information by reading uncritical commentaries and essays written by Larouche supporters. At some point they might easily have reached the point where they could imitate it.

Also, the fact that he was mainly active only during that few weeks in Summer '05 actually makes it more likely to me that the account was a "stalking horse" sock puppet, not less. Remember to always look at the first article edit - in this case, changing the photo for the article on Immanuel Kant. I'll admit it's not out of the realm of possibility, but is that normal for an inexperienced first-time editor? I don't think it is, and the anti-Larouche people on WP must not have thought so either at the time, because they quickly assumed he was a sock puppet of either HK or someone named "C Colden." (Also, the account might have been active longer if it hadn't been banned, obviously.)

The thing about User:Cognition, based on a closer look at his contribs, is that s/he always got reverted, in most cases very quickly:

Chip Berlet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17992862

The Beatles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17880311

Australian Larouche Youth Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18529862

Moreover, Cognition was clearly Australian - his hours of activity were the same as Carr's, often responding to Carr's talk page entries within five minutes, whereas he sometimes took several hours to respond to SlimVirgin, who presumably was/is in Canada. Cognition's spelling is British (favored by Aussies), not American - s/he "apologises," and doesn't "apologize," for example.

Incidentally, this actually got me confused about HK, too, back in 2006 - because of Carr, the number of Larouche-related conflicts involving Australia was so much greater than one would have expected, I guessed (wrongly) that HK was also Australian. (I was a little less experienced at the time, of course.)

User:172 is clearly British, however - he generally seems to have avoided anything Aussie-related. So, my working crackpot theory would be that Cognition was Carr's brainchild, but that they shared the account among several WP'ers (including User:172) in need of a convenient stalking horse. Or else, when Carr got bored with WP he simply turned the account over to 172. Either way, 172 tried to revive the account, possibly for the same purpose it was used for before, but got caught. It sounds crazy, and it definitely is, but not many other explanations can account for all the facts here - even given that the database has been corrupted.

I think it would be quite hard to fake this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

On the contrary - the more over-the-top it is, the more likely it is to have been faked in order to make the Larouchies look like nutcases. (I'm not saying they're not nutcases, but let's try to be serious about this.)

Try to find a diff on WP where Herschelkrustofsky, whom we know to be genuine, says anything close to that - I don't believe you can.

[GlassBeadGame]

Cognition's behaviour looks typical LaRouche and fakeable. Unless there is something in his profile that is simply too LaRouchesque for an imposter like 172 to fake, then surely the "black-ops" theory is the most likely? Hersch?

I think it would be quite hard to fake this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

"Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Right. Impossible to fake an over the top rant using stilted language and references to every embarrassing crank idea that his supposed leader ever uttered? I don't pay much attention to internal Wikipedian edit wars and such but you have convinced me that this is an account created to discredit the views of an opponent by providing a vehicle to put his worst foot forward at every opportunity. I don't know what makes you look worse being duped by this ploy or being in on it. Don't you think that it time to just to leave and get something of value out of what is left to your life?

[Kato]

User:172 is clearly British, however

No, 172 is (was) in Miami. I can't find it now, but it was on his user page. He was a liberal scholar in economics and history.

So, my working crackpot theory would be that Cognition was Carr's brainchild, but that they shared the account among several WP'ers (including User:172) in need of a convenient stalking horse. Or else, when Carr got bored with WP he simply turned the account over to 172. Either way, 172 tried to revive the account, possibly for the same purpose it was used for before, but got caught. It sounds crazy, and it definitely is, but not many other explanations can account for all the facts here - even given that the database has been corrupted.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

[Newyorkbrad]

(background snipped)
Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

The original LaRouche controversy is well before my time on Wikipedia, and I think we've established that by my own admission I'm not an authority on technical aspects of checkuser or sockpuppetry investigations, so no direct comment from me on this block. So instead I'll comment on this WR thread itself.

Whatever disagreements exist between the checkuser team on Wikipedia and the longtime members of Wikipedia Review, I think there has been a trend recently for Wikipedians to recognize that valid comments and criticism sometimes appear on this site (amongst other posts that I won't characterize), and for Wikipedia Reviewers to recognize that many people on Wikipedia are trying to do their best. And this situation is an example. It may not be clear just what the relationship is among the accounts that were blocked, but several Persons Generally Recognized As Clueful have explained that the action that was taken was not arbitrary.

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

Of course, that's probably just my usual mamby-pambyism flaring up again, so feel free to ignore.

[Somey]

User:172 is clearly British, however

No, 172 is (was) in Miami.

I just meant that he seemed like a British (or I should probably say "English") person, regardless of where he was editing from - based on the sorts of articles he was interested in early on. (Though I have to wonder what someone in Miami would be doing editing WP at all, given all the beaches and nightclubs and late-night parties with women in bikinis. I know fr damn sure I'd be doing something other than edit-warring over Larouche propaganda if I lived in a place like that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) )

[Kato]

User:172 is clearly British, however

No, 172 is (was) in Miami.

I just meant that he seemed like a British (or I should probably say "English") person, regardless of where he was editing from - based on the sorts of articles he was interested in early on.

No, he was a Jewish-American and about as British as Groucho Marx.

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

Of course, that's probably just my usual mamby-pambyism flaring up again, so feel free to ignore.

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

[Somey]

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

But that's exactly what did happen, isn't it? To me, it looks like Kato's initial post treated the "stalking horse account" idea as rather far-fetched.

IMO it was actually One, aka arbitrator CHL, who got the ball rolling by stating, "I don't get it either... But consider: what better way to exaggerate the Larouche peril than make your own evil sock master?" Not that I'm blaming him, of course - I think he may have been right.

[Kato]

"Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It looks to me like it would be quite easy to fake that.

[Somey]

For more background, there's this thread, which User:172 obviously read at some point or other.

I guess I can accept the idea that he's actually from Miami, but his contribs indicate practically zero interest in local Florida/Miami issues, other than perhaps an edit like this one, which I'd missed earlier because it was posted under an IP address before 172 registered an account. It's a side issue, in any event - sorry I brought it up! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Kato]

The plot thickens.

Someone has corrected me on the Cognition talk page. I misremembered. 172 wasn't in Miami, he was in St Petersburg.

This is interesting because Cognition wrote in 2005 of his willingness to attend the Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2.

It's also interesting because, as we know, St Petersburg was the home of Wikipedia. Where's Danny Wool when you need him. Danny?

[Somey]

This is interesting because Cognition wrote in 2005 of his willingness to attend the Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2.

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

Here's another one, with Raul654 pictured more clearly (I believe his face is obscured in the first one). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[dtobias]

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

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

[Somey]

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

I see your point, but something more erudite-sounding, like "highly indicative of serious mental disturbance and/or intellectual deficiency"... that's just too wordy, isn't it?

[Kato]

This is interesting because Cognition wrote in 2005 of his willingness to attend the Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Petersburg2.

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

Here's another one, with Raul654 pictured more clearly (I believe his face is obscured in the first one). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

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

[The Joy]

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

[Grep]

There's another way in which CU results can give a surprising and apparently impossible result -- namely, when they are simply fabricated. This has certainly happened in the past, and seems an economical explanation here too.

[everyking]

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

[Somey]

There's another way in which CU results can give a surprising and apparently impossible result -- namely, when they are simply fabricated. This has certainly happened in the past, and seems an economical explanation here too.

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

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

IMO it doesn't make any sense that they'd resort to skullduggery to do something like this - 172 is one of theirs, not one of "ours." If anything, it's surprising Hersfold (T-C-L-K-R-D) didn't ignore the CU data and assume a mistake had been made, rather than indefinitely block him right away. Like Everyking says, that would be a overreaction even if 172 had been a pro-Larouche editor, and no matter what the explanation is, this makes Wikipedia look bad, bad, bad.

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

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

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

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

Of course, I am assuming such a poll will be held at WR.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cognition's behaviour looks typical LaRouche and fakeable. Unless there is something in his profile that is simply too LaRouchesque for an imposter like 172 to fake, then surely the "black-ops" theory is the most likely? Hersch?

As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced that the Cognition that was editing before I was banned is no fake. It is not that easy to become conversant in LaRouche's theories, as Cognition clearly was. A person who was posing as a LaRouchista would inevitably sound like a Berlet or SlimVirgin parody of LaRouche.

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

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

I actually think that your own style of criticizing Wikipedia is quite effective, and I'd like to propose that you preserve How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps as an essay, a sort of companion piece to WP:SAUCE. Except, don't you think you could make it a 12-step program? Then it could probably be included in wads of categories. I know that Will Beback finds WP:SAUCE to be a major irritant, so you're on a roll.

[One]

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

Who knows?

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

[One]

You and SlimVirgin seem to disagree about what is preposterous. Actually, lots of people do. I would bet on the bad hand theory you seem to support, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

[Kelly Martin]

So it just seems to me that it might have been better for this topic to have been opened by observing that a potentially unjustified and mistaken block had been made and required an explanation, if that was the poster's view. I don't quite see how starting out with an accusation that an idiotic action was taken by a lunatic advances the cause of healthy and convincing Wikipedia criticism.

Perhaps it would help if there were fewer administrative actions on Wikipedia that turn out, on deeper examination, to be idiotic actions taken by lunatics.

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

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

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.

[Kato]

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

Exactly. That's what prompted my original post. I guess newer Wikipedians don't remember 172, but in his day he was a prominent and influential Wikipedio, there's even a Encylopedia Dramatica entry about him. The idea that he has been banned so unceremoniously at the foot of a list of other sockpuppets is strikingly ridiculous. It's a bit like JzG getting banned three years from now as a Jon Awbrey sockpuppet and nobody saying a word.

[everyking]

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

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.

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

This post has been edited by everyking:

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

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

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

He was. He didn't reply.

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

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[GlassBeadGame]

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

You fail to grasp the intellectual dishonesty of putting words in the mouth of your opponent with a puppet-provocateur. As long as fingers are pressing keys to create "content" you will always be happy.

[TungstenCarbide]

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

Them LaRouchians are a scary lot.

Actually, that's not far fetched. Say you live near someone who pissed on you, find out who he is and decide to have a little fun as Kelly describes. Certainly not as far fetched as say MB, who spent years impersonating females on wide swaths of the internet, even using pictures of his hired cross-dressing consultants.

[tarantino]

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

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

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

CODE

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

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

[everyking]

He was. He didn't reply.

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

He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

CODE

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

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

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

[One]

He was. He didn't reply.

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

He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Is it your position that all editors should be given an inexhaustible supply of stalking horses and game accounts as long as they're contributing POV "content" from at least one of their mannequins?

[Kelly Martin]

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

Danny did, and I have no reason to distrust his word on this issue.

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

This was caused by one of the web front ends getting its clock seriously messed up. Since then they've added a "chronology protector" to the code to prevent these sorts of errors. This is discussed in more detail here.

He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.

It generated drama, which is, of course, always a legitimate reason to do anything on Wikipedia. Also, it's very important that everyone know who is to be venerated and who is to be abhorred, and blocks like this help with that.

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

The assumption that 172 is Cognition remains subject to some dispute. Cognition could readily be a complete asshole running dozens of socks, and 172 might still have nothing to do with that. As 172's identity is at least somewhat known, I think you run the risk of defaming him (BLP, anyone?) by making such comments in public while there remains some uncertainty as to his active participation in whatever shenanigans are in play.

[gomi]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

Is it your position that all editors should be given an inexhaustible supply of stalking horses and game accounts as long as they're contributing POV "content" from at least one of their mannequins?

If you mean "NPOV content", then yes, that should be the rule. Ban accounts that don't contribute, allow the ones that do. That way you get contribution without drama. Any other way and you get a clique "in" group and an underclass, which is, of course, what you've got -- an MMPORG.

[MBisanz]

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

Danny did, and I have no reason to distrust his word on this issue.

I heard a similar rumor from a different person. If might be worth me emailing that person to see if they remembered anything.

[Krimpet]

Assuming some folks at a meetup brought their laptops, found a Wi-Fi hotspot and started fiddling on Wikipedia, hijacking their accounts while sitting nearby would be so incredibly easy that I'm surprised there hasn't been several high-profile incidents already. (Word for the wise: use HTTPS. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif))

And as for database corruption, MediaWiki's architecture clearly adheres to the "New Jersey" ideal of software design. There's minimal checking for sanity and data integrity going on, no atomicity, logic and display code intertwined all over the place. The software's origin as a PHP script written by a college student certainly shines through; it tries to get its job done most of the time, but isn't too concerned about all the details and corner cases.

For example, you'll occasionally come across a user that's been blocked, but with no entries at all in the block log. This happens because the Apache server crashed halfway through the block - after blocking the user, but before recording the data in the log. (Transactions? We don't need no stinkin' transactions.)

[MBisanz]

Assuming some folks at a meetup brought their laptops, found a Wi-Fi hotspot and started fiddling on Wikipedia, hijacking their accounts while sitting nearby would be so incredibly easy that I'm surprised there hasn't been several high-profile incidents already. (Word for the wise: use HTTPS. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif))

And as for database corruption, MediaWiki's architecture clearly adheres to the "New Jersey" ideal of software design. There's minimal checking for sanity and data integrity going on, no atomicity, logic and display code intertwined all over the place. The software's origin as a PHP script written by a college student certainly shines through; it tries to get its job done most of the time, but isn't too concerned about all the details and corner cases.

For example, you'll occasionally come across a user that's been blocked, but with no entries at all in the block log. This happens because the Apache server crashed halfway through the block - after blocking the user, but before recording the data in the log. (Transactions? We don't need no stinkin' transactions.)

I've managed to delete an image so well that it cannot be recovered, I also break about half a dozen images whenever I run a category deletion, all of which are documented errors that cannot be easily fixed apparently.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

If this is legit, I would have to reconsider my assessment of Cognition. I don't think a bonafide LaRouchista would attend a meetup. I suppose it could have been someone who was on the periphery of the organization. There are no LaRouche offices in Florida.

[Cla68]

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

Danny did, and I have no reason to distrust his word on this issue.

I heard a similar rumor from a different person. If might be worth me emailing that person to see if they remembered anything.

If a LaRouchite showed up at a meetup, then that may be why some of Wikipedia's senior admins are so dedicated to keeping their boots on LaRouche and interested parties to his views who then try to edit Wikipedia about it. They might feel like they're actually, actively engaged in "saving" Wikipedia from LaRouche.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

I can vouch for that as well -- sock hunting at WP seems to be based more on innuendo than evidence, and calzaphobia has become a favored tactic for POV pushers. I think that DTobias' How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps should go in the hall of fame.

If a LaRouchite showed up at a meetup, then that may be why some of Wikipedia's senior admins are so dedicated to keeping their boots on LaRouche and interested parties to his views who then try to edit Wikipedia about it. They might feel like they're actually, actively engaged in "saving" Wikipedia from LaRouche.

The official LaRouche response to Wikipedia has been negligible, aside from an occasional snide comment in LaRouche publications.

[Kato]

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

Too simple for this drama?

On the contrary, this is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen at WP. One of the prominent early editors who wrote several key featured articles, and a known witchhunter with close links to Slim, Will Beback and is even familiar with Jimbo, gets unceremoniously banned as a LaRouchie at the foot of a list of obvious sockpuppets?

Something like that demands answers.

Either way, indefinite blocking is appropriate pending a satisfactory explanation, if it ever comes. Thatcher 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What you should have done is either email 172 and monitor the account, or quietly blocked him on some other premise. Adding him to the list of LaRouchie sockpuppets and placing a huge ban notice on his userpage only creates a lightening rod. That's why Hersfold was so foolish in the first place. Didn't he know that 172 was a notorious figure in WP history?

[Random832]

"Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't know - it almost hits too many buzzwords at once. I've never seen HK get to that level of density on here. (I never followed this crap on-wiki, so it could just be the different environments) On second thought, it seems so unlikely that you and HK would agree on, well, anything, that since I really don't know enough to say anything I'll defer to that.

In other news, welcome back to WR (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[TungstenCarbide]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

I can vouch for that as well -- sock hunting at WP seems to be based more on innuendo than evidence, and calzaphobia has become a favored tactic for POV pushers. I think that DTobias' How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps should go in the hall of fame.

Just for fun I made this comment at wp:ani and was blocked within four minutes. Of course it was an obvious sock account, but it is a little unsettling to see those idiots certain that I'm a Larouchian. I've never edited a LaRouche article in my life.

[No one of consequence]

What you should have done is either email 172 and monitor the account, or quietly blocked him on some other premise. Adding him to the list of LaRouchie sockpuppets and placing a huge ban notice on his userpage only creates a lightening rod. That's why Hersfold was so foolish in the first place. Didn't he know that 172 was a notorious figure in WP history?

We did email him, he did not reply. It's posssible Hersfold did not know of 172's "status" (although that leads back to the question should "high status" editors be treated differently?)

I agree it would have been less dramatic to block the account with a notice saying, "This account is suspected to be compromised or to be using sockpuppets in a disruptive manner--blocked pending explanation."

[Peter Damian]

I agree it would have been less dramatic to block the account with a notice saying, "This account is suspected to be compromised or to be using sockpuppets in a disruptive manner--blocked pending explanation."

When did this happen, Thatcher? Surely if the activity occurred in the past, then it is no longer relevant?

[Kato]

What you should have done is either email 172 and monitor the account, or quietly blocked him on some other premise. Adding him to the list of LaRouchie sockpuppets and placing a huge ban notice on his userpage only creates a lightening rod. That's why Hersfold was so foolish in the first place. Didn't he know that 172 was a notorious figure in WP history?

We did email him, he did not reply. It's posssible Hersfold did not know of 172's "status" (although that leads back to the question should "high status" editors be treated differently?)

This is a case where an editor who spent years pursuing LaRouchies on behalf of Arbcom and perhaps even Jimbo, has been labelled a notorious LaRouchie themselves.

Of course Hersfold should have known the history before he started slapping ban tags around, and of course that case should be treated differently.

As I said earlier, imagine if you just unceremoniously slapped a "this editor is a sockpuppet of Jon Awbrey" on JzG's user page, and walked away shrugging your shoulders uttering "nothing to see here"!

Something like this needs a serious explanation.

[No one of consequence]

I agree it would have been less dramatic to block the account with a notice saying, "This account is suspected to be compromised or to be using sockpuppets in a disruptive manner--blocked pending explanation."

When did this happen, Thatcher? Surely if the activity occurred in the past, then it is no longer relevant?

You're a very silly man and I'm not playing your game any longer.

[Kato]

Ok, so there are three options:

1. Bad hand / Black ops / Stalking horse 172, perhaps with the assistance of others, created the Cognition account to discredit LaRouchies and create an atmosphere of LaRouchie inflitration of WP, in order to strengthen his group's position and outlaw marginal points of view on a variety of subjects.
2. LaRouchies manage to compromise 172's account. Either by deliberately editing from the same IP or hacking his password.
3. Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

[No one of consequence]

Ok, so there are three options:

1. Bad hand / Black ops / Stalking horse 172, perhaps with the assistance of others, created the Cognition account to discredit LaRouchies and create an atmosphere of LaRouchie inflitration of WP, in order to strengthen his group's position and outlaw marginal points of view on a variety of subjects.
2. LaRouchies manage to compromise 172's account. Either by deliberately editing from the same IP or hacking his password.
3. Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

I think we can rule out #3. I'm taking the liberty of reposting a portion of Hersfold's evidence showing instances where more than one account edited from the same IP on the same day. This appears to be a residential address according to every IP tool I can find. If it is not, then these editors all work at the same employer (but not necessarily the same location) and all edit from the same second location and never edit from home (because there are only two IPs involved in the currently available data).

July 6: 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D)
July 8: 172 and Cognition
Aug. 1: 172 , Mrs. Breedlove (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tha-HGlsrqNA (T-C-L-K-R-D)
Aug. 16: Tha-HGlsrqNA and Mrs. Breedlove
Aug. 30: Mrs. Breedlove and Cognition
Sept. 2: Mrs. Breedlove and Cognition

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Kato]

172 said he was employed at a college in St Petersburg.

None of the edits by "Mrs Breedlove" imply a LaRouchie, and certainly not 172 either. But Mrs Breedlove's final edit before being banned as a Cognition sock was to advertise this set of college "hotels" in the St Petersburg area;

http://www.hiltongardensarasota.com/area-a...rea_schools.cfm

This may be where all those edits are coming from?

[No one of consequence]

172 said he was employed at a college in St Petersburg.

None of the edits by "Mrs Breedlove" imply a LaRouchie, and certainly not 172 either. But Mrs Breedlove's final edit before being banned as a Cognition sock was to advertise this set of college "hotels" in the St Petersburg area;

http://www.hiltongardensarasota.com/area-a...rea_schools.cfm

This may be where all those edits are coming from?

I can't discuss the exact location or other info for the IPs. All these editors are on two common IPs. One appears to be residential (belongs to a common residential provider and is not marked as a hotel, coffee shop, college, or other business in any whois, RNDS or geolocation search). The other is clearly non-residential (I can't say more) and has several additional editors on it. Some of these additional editors were spot-checked and they also have edits from residential IPs in widely different states, so that is definitely a shared IP across a wide geography and is not diagnostic by itself.

The purpose of showing the connection with Mrs. Breedlove is not that "she" is also a LaRouche editor, but to show that if A and B have the same IP on one day, and B and C have the same IP on another day, then the fact that A and C share an IP can not be written off as a coincidental reassignment.

[Kato]

One appears to be residential (belongs to a common residential provider and is not marked as a hotel, coffee shop, college, or other business in any whois, RNDS or geolocation search).

I don't know what that means. Why would an IP necessarily be marked as residential or a hotel or coffee shop?

When you look up an IP, does it say "Smokey's coffee house"?

Aren't hotels and coffee shops just using the same internet providers as Joe Schmo sitting in his basement?

Why aren't 172 and Cognition merely editing from a shared facility using wireless? Like millions of other people?

[One]

• Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

Shared two IPs, one residential, and one more public. Two IPs nearly exclusively. Over the past few months.

I didn't claim that Cognition was 172 classic, but Cognition is certainly the new formula 172. That's all I mean to convey by Cognition/172.

[Kato]

• Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

Shared two IPs, one residential, and one more public.

What does this mean though, "residential" and "public"?

Some dude selling badges edited WP on my current home IP (we've got wireless password protection as well). And when I checked WP some 6 months ago (on what must have been a slightly different IP address as it seems to change periodically) there was a guy editing Motor Racing articles! Neither have anything to do with me or the Kato clan.

I just don't buy into any of this checkuser mythology.

[Moulton]

Why would an IP necessarily be marked as residential or a hotel or coffee shop?

When you do a reverse domain name lookup on an IP, you obtain the registered name associated with an IP address. Most of the time, these names are recognizable as residential cable or DSL hostnames of an ISP, or hostnames of business establishment with an associated domain name.

[One]

• Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

Shared two IPs, one residential, and one more public.

What does this mean though "residential" and "public"?

In the United States, ISPs tend separate their blocks between residential and business. If you have a residential account with such an ISP, you are typically restricted from making a public network as in a coffee shop. This is an ordinary residential service IP from a well-known ISP. Businesses would tend to have IPs registered in their own names.

The other network is not residential, and it's unclear how widely the IPs were shared on it. This is why the residential matches are considered more reliable. As Hersford's table shows (repeated above), this address was apparently not reassigned because it shows Cognition sandwiched between 172.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

We did email him, he did not reply.

It's Labor Day weekend, did you consider he might be out having a life?

In the United States, ISPs tend separate their blocks between residential and business. If you have a residential account with such an ISP, you are typically restricted from making a public network as in a coffee shop. This is an ordinary residential service IP from a well-known ISP. Businesses would tend to have IPs registered in their own names.

Neither Comcast nor AT&T make any serious effort to separate their home and SOHO IP ranges, so your statement is simply false. Comcast's @Work service shares an IP pool with their residential cable modem service, and AT&T allocates home and SOHO business DSL IPs from the same pool as well, at least in some markets.

Businesses typically have their IP ranges registered with ARIN in their own name only if they have a /24 or larger or if they have an ASN, neither of which would be true for most businesses. Also, many businesses only register a reverse DNS lookup for the IPs used to send email, leaving the rest unregistered for "security reasons".

You've managed to convince me that you're full of shit on this issue. There's a lot of bullshit spewed out by the checkuser corps, and it seems you're swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

[One]

You've managed to convince me that you're full of shit on this issue.

I do try.

Even as a small business, it's quite a coincidence.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kato]

• Geographical coincidence. As both 172 and Cognition professed to edit from St Petersburg, Florida, the fact that they've shared an IP is a bizarre coincidence.

Shared two IPs, one residential, and one more public.

What does this mean though "residential" and "public"?

In the United States, ISPs tend separate their blocks between residential and business. If you have a residential account with such an ISP, you are typically restricted from making a public network as in a coffee shop. This is an ordinary residential service IP from a well-known ISP. Businesses would tend to have IPs registered in their own names.

The other network is not residential, and it's unclear how widely the IPs were shared on it. This is why the residential matches are considered more reliable. As Hersford's table shows (repeated above), this address was apparently not reassigned because it shows Cognition sandwiched between 172.

OK. Presumably the non-residential IP was New College of Florida, where I think 172 was based.

But don't random people share "residential" IPs as well? Especially with wireless everywhere?

[Kelly Martin]

Some dude selling badges edited WP on my current home IP (we've got wireless password protection as well). And when I checked WP some 6 months ago (on what must have been a slightly different IP address as it seems to change periodically) there was a guy editing Motor Racing articles! Neither have anything to do with me or the Kato clan.

I've heard rumors that there are ways to "fool" MediaWiki's XFF code into thinking you're editing from an IP other than the one you are actually editing on. If this is true, then the checkuser tool would be completely useless (except insofar as it captures other content from the headers as well).

You've managed to convince me that you're full of shit on this issue.

I do try.

I think it's been a while since they called it "@work" though.

I heard an ad for it (as @Work) on WBBM last week.

[GlassBeadGame]

The puppet-provocateur theory makes sense to me. Fanatic anti-LaRouchers seem ever bit as bad as fanatic LaRouchers, plus they have much more influence and "ownership" on WP. Once you have someone like Chip Berlet telling you what the words of LaRouche really mean the next step in the progression of dishonesty would seem to be just say whatever you want and attribute it to the LaRouche camp. The comedy of interest (H and Slim sitting in a tree...) ensues when it becomes hard to discern between LaRouche ideas and LaRouche parody and distortions.

[Kato]

Some dude selling badges edited WP on my current home IP (we've got wireless password protection as well). And when I checked WP some 6 months ago (on what must have been a slightly different IP address as it seems to change periodically) there was a guy editing Motor Racing articles! Neither have anything to do with me or the Kato clan.

I've heard rumors that there are ways to "fool" MediaWiki's XFF code into thinking you're editing from an IP other than the one you are actually editing on. If this is true, then the checkuser tool would be completely useless (except insofar as it captures other content from the headers as well).

I doubt badgeman and the motor racing guy are trying to fool anyone. I think IP allocation in the UK is completely different and virtually impossible to trace or figure out. For example, when I geo-located my own IP address on IP search websites, it said I was in three different cities. And I live in neither of these cities, I live in a different city again.

[Kato]

The puppet-provocateur theory makes sense to me. Fanatic anti-LaRouchers seem ever bit as bad as fanatic LaRouchers, plus they have much more influence and "ownership" on WP. Once you have someone like Chip Berlet telling you what the words of LaRouche really mean the next step in the progression of dishonesty would seem to be just say whatever you want and attribute it to the LaRouche camp. The comedy of interest (H and Slim sitting in a tree...) ensues when it becomes hard to discern between LaRouche ideas and LaRouche parody and distortions.

The thing about that is, wouldn't it have been spotted back in 2005? Checkusers were all over LaRouchies at that time.

Another thing is that both 172 and Cognition were fairly open about their location in Florida. Why would Cognition make such a play about being in St Petersburg?

[Ceoil]

Who knows. To be fair to elaborate sock puppeteers, they tend to be very clever people, and seem to revel in their complex layers of deceit. I amgine the Florida thing was motivated by a want to live dangerously, and get away with it.

[Kelly Martin]

Personally I'm leaning toward the "hijacked account" theory. I consider the checkuser "evidence" (which we are not permitted to see, and the incompetent ramblings of Thatcher and CHL are not helping at all on that front) unconvincing, and the "bad hand" theory is too conspiratorial in nature to be accepted without additional evidence.

I heard a bit on the radio the other day about AT&T's data network being overwhelmed by iPhone users in major metros; it occurs to me that I don't know how AT&T is allocating IPs for iPhone users. Verizon has a national pool for their 3G service (you get a different IP each time you connect and that pool is shared nationally); I have to wonder if the "nonresidential" IP that they're gibbling about is a 3G pool address. Some 3G devices with WLAN support will use WLAN if it's discovered and 3G if it's not, which leads to interesting IP switching behavior when there are open wireless networks in one's general area.

This episode has, if anything, given us yet another window into the psychological dysfunctions of the Wikipedia zealot.

[MBisanz]

Some dude selling badges edited WP on my current home IP (we've got wireless password protection as well). And when I checked WP some 6 months ago (on what must have been a slightly different IP address as it seems to change periodically) there was a guy editing Motor Racing articles! Neither have anything to do with me or the Kato clan.

I've heard rumors that there are ways to "fool" MediaWiki's XFF code into thinking you're editing from an IP other than the one you are actually editing on. If this is true, then the checkuser tool would be completely useless (except insofar as it captures other content from the headers as well).

You may be thinking of this bug from 2006, which was also fixed back then.

[One]

Two identical IPs on two services and no other IPs between them. What would the mods of this site think if two accounts did that (say one address is an apparent DSL and the other is a large corporation)? We're not trying to convict someone for murder, just get rid of trivial sock gaming.

If you don't think Wikipedia should even try to stop trivial socking, just say so.

Incidentally, I don't recall anyone here defending JoshuaZ's similar claims. Or for that matter, Mantanmoreland's. If Kelly thinks that IPs can be easily spoofed, how do we know the Bassettcat stunt wasn't done by Wordbomb? After all, Wordbomb actually was able to obtain Mantanmoreland's IP addresses--probably unlike the average Larouchian.

This post has been edited by One:

[No one of consequence]

Why would an IP necessarily be marked as residential or a hotel or coffee shop?

When you do a reverse domain name lookup on an IP, you obtain the registered name associated with an IP address. Most of the time, these names are recognizable as residential cable or DSL hostnames of an ISP, or hostnames of business establishment with an associated domain name.

Yes. For example, Roadrunner (an ISP provided by Time-Warner cable company in the US) usually has hostnames that resolve as res.nyc.rr.com or biz.nyc.rr.com, for their residential and business customers respectively. It is also fairly unusual for businesses to use residential internet providers like the cable TV company, because they can get better rates by going through a business-only provider.

[Kelly Martin]

Incidentally, I don't recall anyone here defending JoshuaZ's similar claims. Or for that matter, Mantanmoreland's. If Kelly thinks that IPs can be easily spoofed, how do we know the Bassettcat stunt wasn't done by Wordbomb? After all, Wordbomb actually was able to obtain Mantanmoreland's IP addresses--probably unlike the average Larouchian.

My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence, when in fact a lot of the time the IP evidence is shot through with holes, largely because the people interpreting it have no real idea what they're doing. However, since you refuse to make the evidence available for public review, all we have to go on is your word, which (given Wikipedia's track record) we cannot fairly trust. I don't think you're lying about the two IPs, but I have no reason to trust your conclusion as to one of those IPs being "residential" and the other not, and your comments indicate to me that you have serious deficiencies in your understanding how the Internet works. If you'd care to share those IPs, I could review your conclusion for reasonability. We can do that privately if you prefer.

It's not that I think you're wrong; I just think you've completely failed to make your case, and that your clueless comments have made matters worse for you, rather than better. I still think the most likely conclusion is that 172's account was compromised. Mediawiki transmits passwords in plaintext, so if you log into Wikipedia via an unencrypted public wireless service (which is most Internet cafes) you're broadcasting your username and password for the whole world to see. Most editors don't realize this.

[No one of consequence]

What does this mean though, "residential" and "public"?

Residential meaning, "an internet provider that most often provides access to private residences, such as the local telephone or cable company, and lacking any hallmarks of a public location, so probably and to the best we can determine, a residence."

Some dude selling badges edited WP on my current home IP (we've got wireless password protection as well). And when I checked WP some 6 months ago (on what must have been a slightly different IP address as it seems to change periodically) there was a guy editing Motor Racing articles! Neither have anything to do with me or the Kato clan.

Absolutely, and especially if you use British Telecom. We know this and watch for this.

I just don't buy into any of this checkuser mythology.

The mythology is a side-effect of the fact that I can't actually post the IPs (without permission of all the involved users). Maybe that level of privacy protection is silly when every visitor to every web site leaves their IP behind and most make no such promises, but Wikipedia has made such promises and I have agreed to be bound by them. If the info could be posted exactly as we see it, I think that would clear up the objections.

[One]

It's not that I think you're wrong; I just think you've completely failed to make your case, and that your clueless comments have made matters worse for you, rather than better. I still think the most likely conclusion is that 172's account was compromised. Mediawiki transmits passwords in plaintext, so if you log into Wikipedia via an unencrypted public wireless service (which is most Internet cafes) you're broadcasting your username and password for the whole world to see. Most editors don't realize this.

At this point I agree that's most likely. Cognition showing up again for an unblock request was the most effective way to get himself checkusered and trip up the commandeered 172 account. Maybe we'll hear from the "real" 172 about it some time.

[No one of consequence]

But don't random people share "residential" IPs as well? Especially with wireless everywhere?

Residential IPs are assigned one to one. For as long you have it it (which might be a day, a month, or the length of a single phone call on a modem) you are the only person with your IP. You can share it by setting up a router (without or without wireless) but that's limited to about 300 feet (I think), and can be protected, if you do it right.

Whenever your IP expires, it goes into a pool to be reassigned to the next customer, who might also be a Wikipedia editor. It is not unusual to find editor A on an IP in one month, and a different editor on the same IP in the next month. That doesn't make them sockpuppets.

[Kelly Martin]

Residential IPs are assigned one to one. For as long you have it it (which might be a day, a month, or the length of a single phone call on a modem) you are the only person with your IP. You can share it by setting up a router (without or without wireless) but that's limited to about 300 feet (I think), and can be protected, if you do it right.

Whenever your IP expires, it goes into a pool to be reassigned to the next customer, who might also be a Wikipedia editor. It is not unusual to find editor A on an IP in one month, and a different editor on the same IP in the next month. That doesn't make them sockpuppets.

This is true for most of the major ISPs, but is not true for some smaller community-level ISPs, some of which do not assign public IPs to their customers by default. Instead, they get RFC 1918 private IPs and the ISP translates these onto one or more public IPs owned by the ISP. In this sort of situation, you may end up sharing an IP in real-time with another customer of the ISP.

This used to be more common but most of the smaller ISPs that did this sort of thing have gone under or been bought up by larger ISPs who don't do this. Serving RFC 1918 IPs to end customers is unpopular with customers (for several reasons), and today I'd say that this is likely only to be found in captive-market situations (e.g. nursing homes, dormitories). As far as I know no "large" ISP is doing this.

Also, 802.11 can go a lot further than 300 feet. With a parabolic dish at one it's possible to make 802.11 connections over a mile or more, and with parabolics at both ends 802.11 connections spanning 30-50 miles have been accomplished. (The record is something like 200+ miles, but that was accomplished using powers that exceed the FCC limits for Part 15 and was done mountaintop to mountaintop.)

It's comments like that one that lead me to question the competence of Wikipedia's checkusers. It's obvious that y'all are not experts in TCP/IP internetworking, and yet you make thunder-from-the-mountaintop proclamations regarding these things that brook no challenge. I realize that Wikipedia's culture requires that you show no doubt, but really, this is getting quite silly.

[bambi]

I heard a bit on the radio the other day about AT&T's data network being overwhelmed by iPhone users in major metros...

That was from The New York Times, Customers Angered as iPhones Overload AT&T.

There's going to be a lot more of this IP churn in the future. I tried out Cricket mobile broadband a few months ago and ended up cancelling it. Cricket advertises it as unlimited mobile broadband, but the download speeds from Sprint (Cricket contracts to use Sprint cell-phone tower equipment) did not qualify as "broadband" according to the 2008 FCC definition of "broadband." It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, with the Google Android smartphone now using T-Mobile. Add to this the Kindle downloads via Sprint, and soon Sony is coming out with an e-book reader that uses AT&T.

There are a huge number of clueless webmasters out there who don't optimize their sites for bandwidth. For example, I just sent an email to a webmaster who uses a PNG image on his home page that is 27-fold more bytes than the same image in JPG format. The JPG version I attached to my email was almost equal in quality at the default size of his PNG version for the same image! He said that he made his PNG image bigger because if the user increases the font size, he didn't want the image to degrade as the image itself became bigger (he didn't use any size parameters in his IMG tag). This webmaster used to be a programmer for Microsoft, and is now a law school professor with a Harvard Law degree. I had to scold him for being stupid.

[No one of consequence]

My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence, when in fact a lot of the time the IP evidence is shot through with holes, largely because the people interpreting it have no real idea what they're doing. However, since you refuse to make the evidence available for public review, all we have to go on is your word, which (given Wikipedia's track record) we cannot fairly trust. I don't think you're lying about the two IPs, but I have no reason to trust your conclusion as to one of those IPs being "residential" and the other not, and your comments indicate to me that you have serious deficiencies in your understanding how the Internet works. If you'd care to share those IPs, I could review your conclusion for reasonability. We can do that privately if you prefer.

Here's the thing. The second IP is clearly non-residential with semi-public access, and is clearly labeled as such. Let's assume that the first IP is not, in fact, residential, and is a coffee shop, cafe, library or other small business. Then we have at least 4 editors (172, Cognition, Mrs. Breedlove and Tha-HGlsrqNA) who, within the time span of the checkuser table, edit from the same school/business, and from the same coffee shop/library, and from nowhere else (no home, no wi-fi, no mobile services). That's a pretty big coincidence if they are unrelated. It also means that on July 6, 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) spent almost 24 hours at this coffee shop and on July 8, he edited from there at 1 AM local time.

This is true for most of the major ISPs, but is not true for some smaller community-level ISPs, some of which do not assign public IPs to their customers by default. Instead, they get RFC 1918 private IPs and the ISP translates these onto one or more public IPs owned by the ISP. In this sort of situation, you may end up sharing an IP in real-time with another customer of the ISP.

This used to be more common but most of the smaller ISPs that did this sort of thing have gone under or been bought up by larger ISPs who don't do this. Serving RFC 1918 IPs to end customers is unpopular with customers (for several reasons), and today I'd say that this is likely only to be found in captive-market situations (e.g. nursing homes, dormitories). As far as I know no "large" ISP is doing this.

That's quite informative, thank you. In this case, the ISP is in fact, "large."

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Kelly Martin]

The second IP is clearly non-residential with semi-public access, and is clearly labeled as such.

Labeled as such by whom? ARIN doesn't require people to declare how they plan to use their IPs.

[No one of consequence]

The second IP is clearly non-residential with semi-public access, and is clearly labeled as such.

Labeled as such by whom? ARIN doesn't require people to declare how they plan to use their IPs.

There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence?

[bambi]

There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence?

I have leased nine dedicated servers from five different providers over the last ten years. Each came with several dedicated IP addresses.

The only reason to register your domain with ARIN is if you have to use server services that require a lookup that maps back to the IP address. Sendmail often uses this to reduce spam, for example. But if you don't use sendmail on your servers, there is no reason to get your IP addresses listed at ARIN. My providers have never required that my addresses are properly listed, although I have the option to do that if I so choose. My addresses often show the ARIN data of the company that had that IP address before me. That's just fine with me, and I'm more than happy to leave it that way. It's called "adding a little bit of privacy to your web presence." Surely Wikipedia understands this concept?

[Lar]

My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence...

{{citation needed}} You've certainly never heard me say any such thing ever, and I dispute that Thatcher or CHL have said any such thing here in this thread.

[Kelly Martin]

There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence?

It could be used by an only-vaguely-related business under a sharing or releasing agreement. I've not heard of Best Buy providing such services, but it's possible that they do so under the aegis of their GeekSquad product, which of late has been offering some sort of B2B services.

Unless you know exactly how a given business entity has structured its network, and you know exactly every line of business that entity is involved in, you had best be quite circumspect in concluding anything about who or what might be using one of its ranges. ARIN doesn't have a flag for "This IP is residential/commercial/government"; all they tell you is who registered it and who the responsible party (as far as they're concerned) for it is.

You've certainly never heard me say any such thing ever, and I dispute that Thatcher or CHL have said any such thing here in this thread.

Not in so many words, y'all just act as if the evidence were infalliable, whether or not you actually say it is.

[everyking]

It's not that I think you're wrong; I just think you've completely failed to make your case, and that your clueless comments have made matters worse for you, rather than better. I still think the most likely conclusion is that 172's account was compromised. Mediawiki transmits passwords in plaintext, so if you log into Wikipedia via an unencrypted public wireless service (which is most Internet cafes) you're broadcasting your username and password for the whole world to see. Most editors don't realize this.

At this point I agree that's most likely. Cognition showing up again for an unblock request was the most effective way to get himself checkusered and trip up the commandeered 172 account. Maybe we'll hear from the "real" 172 about it some time.

I consider account hijacking to be the least credible of the three fairly incredible explanations suggested. I can't imagine a LaRouche supporter hijacking 172's account and then using it to pursue 172's usual interests, such as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, in 172's usual manner, without any effort to either use the account to somehow advance his LaRouchite goals or to deliberately behave in an unacceptable way so that the 172 account would be disgraced and banned. What could be the motive for taking over an account only to spend a substantial amount of time doing content work in subject areas that don't interest you?

[One]

What could be the motive for taking over an account only to spend a substantial amount of time doing content work in subject areas that don't interest you?

Discrediting an old foe? (Revenge, ect.)

For what it's worth, both Kelly Martin and Slimvirgin disagree with you. We could take odds, but the fact of the matter probably won't ever be resolved unambiguously.

[bambi]

Here's a solution to replace Checkuser: Chinese Web Sites Seeking Users' Names

I wouldn't recommend this for all of the web, but for major "news" sites or major so-called "encyclopedia" sites, it does not seem unreasonable.

[everyking]

What could be the motive for taking over an account only to spend a substantial amount of time doing content work in subject areas that don't interest you?

Discrediting an old foe? (Revenge, ect.)

For what it's worth, both Kelly Martin and Slimvirgin disagree with you. We could take odds, but the fact of the matter probably won't ever be resolved unambiguously.

Continuing 172's work in the same manner as 172 does nothing to discredit him--and furthermore, that's not easy work, especially for someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.

[gomi]

But don't random people share "residential" IPs as well? Especially with wireless everywhere?

Residential IPs are assigned one to one. For as long you have it it ... you are the only person with your IP. You can share it ... but that's limited to about 300 feet (I think)

Well, this explanation leaves out Wireless mesh networks (T-H-L-K-D), which are becoming popular among various Personal Telco projects. I host a node on a mesh that includes, conservatively, over 100 households -- whether an session or packet comes through my node is entirely out of my control, by design. The Wikipidiots don't get this technology either.

Whenever your IP expires, it goes into a pool to be reassigned to the next customer, who might also be a Wikipedia editor. It is not unusual to find editor A on an IP in one month, and a different editor on the same IP in the next month. That doesn't make them sockpuppets.

Unless a powerful Wikipidiot doesn't like their apparent POV, then it does.

My problem is that you people keep spouting off about the infalliability of checkuser evidence...

{{citation needed}} You've certainly never heard me say any such thing ever, and I dispute that Thatcher or CHL have said any such thing here in this thread.

Perhaps it is just the abandon with which Wikipedia checkusers treat the data as if infallible.

[Achromatic]

There's a difference between unlabeled and labeled incorrectly. Are you saying that, for example, 198.22.122.15 (which Arin says belongs to BestBuy.com) might be a completely unrelated business or residence?

It could be used by an only-vaguely-related business under a sharing or releasing agreement. I've not heard of Best Buy providing such services, but it's possible that they do so under the aegis of their GeekSquad product, which of late has been offering some sort of B2B services.

Unless you know exactly how a given business entity has structured its network, and you know exactly every line of business that entity is involved in, you had best be quite circumspect in concluding anything about who or what might be using one of its ranges. ARIN doesn't have a flag for "This IP is residential/commercial/government"; all they tell you is who registered it and who the responsible party (as far as they're concerned) for it is.

Exactly. Using the Best Buy example - they recently bought SpeakEasy, a "large ISP", and offer businesses VOIP and ISP connectivity. Do /you/ as a checkuser know that they've changed the IP address registration with ARIN for none/some/all of their existing addresses? Have new blocks been assigned to Best Buy, or Speakeasy, for the purposes of this new venture? Have existing blocks owned by Best Buy been assigned to Speakeasy for same?

You don't. And yet as Kelly says, you have no problem making proclamations from upon high that you have observed something, and it "seems likely" that it matches what you assume.

In my examples, an IP address "belonging" to Best Buy could very well be a small business using Best Buy/Speakeasy as their ISP. And you, despite your claims of confidence would have little to no idea of how accurate your claim is - and then there's a dozen variations of same... home users who are VPN'ed to their office. IPv6 tunnels. All sorts of things, you name it.

[Kato]

Incidentally, I don't recall anyone here defending JoshuaZ's similar claims.

JoshuaZ had smoking gun edits, minutes apart on the same obscure afds. It was highly likely he was involved without any further evidence.

In contrast, the 172 / Cognition connection is counter-intuitive and plain bizarre.

[Kato]

What could be the motive for taking over an account only to spend a substantial amount of time doing content work in subject areas that don't interest you?

Discrediting an old foe? (Revenge, ect.)

For what it's worth, both Kelly Martin and Slimvirgin disagree with you. We could take odds, but the fact of the matter probably won't ever be resolved unambiguously.

Continuing 172's work in the same manner as 172 does nothing to discredit him--and furthermore, that's not easy work, especially for someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.

I took a look at 172's latest contributions since his return, and it is certainly him. I don't think his account has been compromised.

I'm leaning towards the bizarre coincidence theory.

[One]

I mentioned this before, but when you sort their edits, you find absolutely no interleaving ("back and forth") editing, all the way back to the beginning. Although there are same-minute edits, they're all transitions from one account to the other. They never seem to be online at the same time.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Editing_by_172_and_Cognition_2005.png)

[Kelly Martin]

In my examples, an IP address "belonging" to Best Buy could very well be a small business using Best Buy/Speakeasy as their ISP.

Speakeasy was a residential DSL provider in at least the Chicago area, too; at least they used to be a couple years ago. So a Best Buy IP could, possibly, be a residential DSL customer.

I've seen some really strange behaviors when people are on corporate VPN clients, especially if they're the type that rely on client proxies for browser redirection, because of bugs in various browsers and/or the VPN client that result in inconsistent use of the proxy. Similar problems happen with the transparent caching proxies used by some ISPs, and then there's all those silly "web accelerator" products out there.

Maybe we should start calling all checkusers "Horatio".

I'm leaning towards the bizarre coincidence theory.

My fallback theory, if the hijack theory proves false, is that 172 was stalked by Cognition with the deliberate intent to get 172's account shut down by the Wikipediot Management as a sockpuppet. That's consistent with LaRouchian behavior; LaRouchians are not known for their commitment to ethical behavior.

[gomi]

My fallback theory, if the hijack theory proves false, is that 172 was stalked by Cognition with the deliberate intent to get 172's account shut down by the Wikipediot Management as a sockpuppet.

What a wonderful idea for a bot! One could write a bot to follow two or three target editors, and when someone edits their WP:OWN'ed articles, revert them back once or twice. Could be quite a hoot!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

LaRouchians are not known for their commitment to ethical behavior.

{{fact}}

I've just examined the back and forth at User talk:Cognition. Using my Exceptionally Well-Honed Linguistic Analytic Skillsâ„¢ I was unable to make a conclusive determination, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that the person petitioning to be unblocked is not the original Cognition. There is a sort of emotional flatness in the pleading for reconciliation that reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of the novel. I just dredged up an old email address that I had for Cognition and attempted to contact him or her, but it bounced back.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

Nearly impossible for whom, though? I'd tend to disagree with this - someone like Adam Carr or Will Beback, or even King & Berlet, probably got at least some of their information by reading uncritical commentaries and essays written by Larouche supporters. At some point they might easily have reached the point where they could imitate it.

It's not just a simple matter of adopting some jargon. LaRouche is actually difficult to understand (others may have noticed this,) but nonetheless possible to understand. However, I am certain that none of the mentioned anti-LaRouchians actually understand LaRouche's ideas, and therefore would be unable to credibly pose as a LaRouchista.

I am now inclined to believe that the "new" Cognition is a fake. Do I understand the comments made in this thread by Arb insiders to mean that it is not possible to check the present IP address of the editor calling himself "Cognition" against Cognition's IP from years ago?

[No one of consequence]

I am now inclined to believe that the "new" Cognition is a fake. Do I understand the comments made in this thread by Arb insiders to mean that it is not possible to check the present IP address of the editor calling himself "Cognition" against Cognition's IP from years ago?

Correct.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Although I don't think a Will Beback or someone of that ilk could credibly imitate a LaRouchista in a discussion, I think that a determined hacker could exploit Cognition's fondness for LaRouchian buzzwords and, given enough time, crack his Wikipedia account password.

[Kato]

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

Nearly impossible for whom, though? I'd tend to disagree with this - someone like Adam Carr or Will Beback, or even King & Berlet, probably got at least some of their information by reading uncritical commentaries and essays written by Larouche supporters. At some point they might easily have reached the point where they could imitate it.

It's not just a simple matter of adopting some jargon. LaRouche is actually difficult to understand (others may have noticed this,) but nonetheless possible to understand. However, I am certain that none of the mentioned anti-LaRouchians actually understand LaRouche's ideas, and therefore would be unable to credibly pose as a LaRouchista.

Hersch, I hate to break it to you but LaRouche isn't exactly advanced mathematics. I don't know about Beback, but Adam Carr and 172 could have written those Cognition posts in their sleep. As could plenty of people.

Cognition added Adam Carr, and his politician boss Michael Danby to his "Gallery of beast-men, cultists, fascists and colonialists". Although a collection of genuine looking spelling mistakes on that page does indicate that the writer was neither 172 nor Carr himself.

[Kato]

I mentioned this before, but when you sort their edits, you find absolutely no interleaving ("back and forth") editing, all the way back to the beginning. Although there are same-minute edits, they're all transitions from one account to the other. They never seem to be online at the same time.

(chart snipped)

I'm not sure there are enough edits by Cognition to really tell on that chart. Around the 27th November there seems to be a few back and forth edits.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

[Kato]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

Hmmm. Even though he discussed and may have even attended the St Petersburg meetup back in 2005, clearly lived in the area then, and still locates to the St Petersburg area now?

This whole thing is fishy as f**k. It would be nice to have a resolution, because it could lead to the whole business finally being put to rest.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

Hmmm. Even though he discussed and may have even attended the St Petersburg meetup back in 2005, clearly lived in the area then,

Do we actually know this to be true?

[Kato]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

Hmmm. Even though he discussed and may have even attended the St Petersburg meetup back in 2005, clearly lived in the area then,

Do we actually know this to be true?

Well he discussed a possible appearance beforehand.

Looking forward to meeting the leaders behind the Wikipedia project, and expressing my constructive criticisms concerning the pervasive synarchist control over key articles. I expect to be able to make it, since it's only a short drive for me. [[User:Cognition|Cognition]] 00:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And this indicates he may have attended. When Raul draws up the list of attendees, he adds another Cognition account The Power of Reason (T-C-L-K-R-D) next to Cognition's name, implying this was a legitimate alternative account disclosed to Raul or ANother after discussion.

Plus, Danny Wool apparently recalled a LaRouchie present. And his word is a damn sight more reliable than anyone elses in the whole murky business.

Four years later, his IP locates to nearby Sarasota, which is perfectly consistent with the Cognition of 2005.

All of this points away from the 172 bad hand theory, and towards either the coincidence theory or the 172 compromised account theory.

[Kato]

After going over everything yet again, I can only return to my original theory. Checkusers have screwed up.

Cognition and 172 were never the same people. They are two different people editing from very similar locations around New College of Florida, where 172 was an academic, and where Cognition was likely a student. Just like this guy, Donitapace (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who has also edited from the same location, and has been labelled a Cognition sock as well, but is clearly neither Cognition nor 172.

The whole thing is surely an irony rich, highly improbable, but hilarious coincidence! And poetic justice for both 172, and Slim, who denied flat out on this site that the LaRouche witchhunts had caused problems for good faith editors. Never could an example be more fittingly provided! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

There's an amazing symmetry to this from my point of view. One of my early contributions to this site years ago was to complain about 172 "fingering" an innocent editor as a LaRouchie!

[One]

I'm not sure there are enough edits by Cognition to really tell on that chart. Around the 27th November there seems to be a few back and forth edits.

Oh, you're right:

172 11/28/2005 0:46 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators ‎

Cognition 11/27/2005 23:38 National Caucus of Labor Committees (restore previous content)

172 11/27/2005 23:26 Talk:History of Russia (<span class="autocomment"><a href="/wiki/Talk:History_of_Russia#The_initial_version_of_article_is_a_history_of_.22Empire_of_evil.22.2C_antiRussian_lampoon" title="Talk:History of Russia">→</a>The initial version of article is a history of "Empire of evil", antiRussian lampoon</span>)

Cognition 11/27/2005 22:09 User talk:Moe Epsilon (<span class="autocomment"><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Moe_Epsilon#Drug-free_template" title="User talk:Moe Epsilon">→</a>Drug-free template</span>)

Cognition 11/27/2005 22:01 User:Cognition (Proud to be drug-free.)

172 11/27/2005 20:37 User talk:172 (this is a content and AfD dispute, not a personal dispute-- nothing needs to be formulated as "constructive criticisms" of individual users on their talk pages)

172 11/27/2005 20:14 User talk:172 (I'll start by archiving this message-- my talk page is not an AfD thread. Thank you, but I think I understand the WP:NOR policy.)

After going over everything yet again, I can only return to my original theory. Checkusers have screwed up.

You and SlimVirgin both.

[carbuncle]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

It would be unwise to assume that the originating IP traced back to the same location in 2005. It might, but it's not a safe assumption.

[MBisanz]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

It would be unwise to assume that the originating IP traced back to the same location in 2005. It might, but it's not a safe assumption.

Are you sure you are reading the right part of the email header? Yahoo! has its headquarters in Sunnyvale so I would not be surprised if they have a data center on their campus and the email happened to pass through it.

[Kato]

I've just examined the back and forth at User talk:Cognition. Using my Exceptionally Well-Honed Linguistic Analytic Skillsâ„¢ I was unable to make a conclusive determination, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that the person petitioning to be unblocked is not the original Cognition. There is a sort of emotional flatness in the pleading for reconciliation that reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of the novel.

His claim that he didn't understand Wikipedia, and his current resolution to buckle down to WP tenets is consistent with his behavior here in 2005, when he seems naive, gets into a muddle over his sockpuppets, and vows not to edit WP again. There's a similar feel to his writing.

[A Horse With No Name]

The irony is that LaRouche gets more attention on Wikipedia than he does in any mainstream U.S. media outlet -- where he gets zero attention. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

I have no idea who this LaRouche dude is, even though I checked WP when he was mentioned here before. For some reason, the info simply doesn't stick. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

It would be unwise to assume that the originating IP traced back to the same location in 2005. It might, but it's not a safe assumption.

Are you sure you are reading the right part of the email header? Yahoo! has its headquarters in Sunnyvale so I would not be surprised if they have a data center on their campus and the email happened to pass through it.

I'm not sure, so I'll reproduce the entire header here. The email account is long since closed, so hopefully it's not privileged info:

X-Originating-IP: [209.191.125.25]
Return-Path: <treaty_of_westphalia@yahoo.com>
Authentication-Results: mta251.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=pass (ok)
Received: from 209.191.125.25 (HELO web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.125.25) by mta251.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 17:05:09 -0700
Received: (qmail 67556 invoked by uid 60001); 11 May 2006 00:04:09 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=H2Ce5D1MGvg4f5DWjuKQbDOiVtGK1X8EhCIrT1S7pcDxhUg2rODsjAJ+BV080QuwGtCWg8ri8zIAZd8T+qvRBvpe3tOuWc/EKWveAfzMR9Tgg8KKV22Q1eEYykSArTLpH+1ihSiijbQHrkKCbVMgxBhxtoAEjH9PwyMj8sWt7uI= ;
Message-ID: <20060511000409.67554.qmail@web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [71.101.207.204] by web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 17:04:09 PDT

[Kelly Martin]

Received: from [71.101.207.204] by web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 17:04:09 PDT

71.101.207.204 is the IP from which this message originated. That IP is most likely somewhere in the Tampa area.

[MBisanz]

Received: from [71.101.207.204] by web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 17:04:09 PDT

71.101.207.204 is the IP from which this message originated. That IP is most likely somewhere in the Tampa area.

Using my skills of analysis, I'll confirm that Cognition did use the same IP range as that email was sent from in 2005. But without knowing more about Cognition's or 172's interests, I really can't do more.

[Random832]

I'm looking over the headers on some emails I received from Cognition in 2005. Most are Wikipedia mail, but one is not. The originating IP traces to Sunnyvale, California.

Are you sure the "originating IP" isn't his email provider?

EDIT: A search for "209.191.125.25" indicates it is in a block belonging to yahoo. So... yeah. http://www.robtex.com/cnet/209.191.125.html

This post has been edited by Random832:

[One]

Are you sure the "originating IP" isn't his email provider?

EDIT: A search for "209.191.125.25" indicates it is in a block belonging to yahoo. So... yeah. http://www.robtex.com/cnet/209.191.125.html

Good instincts, but read the thread.

Short summary: it was Yahoo, but after HK posts the whole header, Kelly discovers a Florida Verizon IP.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

While 172 has so far said nothing, Cognition did deny the accusation on his talk page. It would be curious, if the sockpuppeting theory were correct, for 172 to deny the accusation in his role as Cognition, while remaining silent about the fate of his much more valuable main account. Someone should send both of these accounts invitations to participate here on WR so we can hear in detail what they have to say about the situation.

[Kato]

In late 2005, Cognition writes to Raul:

Thank you for the notice on my talk page. While I'm in strong disagreement with the recent arbcom decision ruling against me, I look forward to meeting you in person in mid-January at the St. Petersburg meetup, where I can share with you my concerns over synarchist control of some articles on Wikipedia and what I perceive to be an unfair arbcom decision. If you're up for it, I'd gladly buy you a drink at a downtown establishment or perhaps at St. Petersburg's nearby famous dogtrack, Derby Lane.


Your friend,

[[User:Cognition|Cognition]] 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

he writes a similar thing to Phil Sandifer (and accidentally logs on with his IP):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32416238

_________________

After the St Petersburg meet-up, Raul updates the page to imply that Cognition attended.

_________________

Why aren't Raul and Sandifer commenting on this and protesting 172's innocence?



Hersfold, the blocking admin, writes:

The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence.

[MBisanz]

In late 2005, Cognition writes to Raul:

Thank you for the notice on my talk page. While I'm in strong disagreement with the recent arbcom decision ruling against me, I look forward to meeting you in person in mid-January at the St. Petersburg meetup, where I can share with you my concerns over synarchist control of some articles on Wikipedia and what I perceive to be an unfair arbcom decision. If you're up for it, I'd gladly buy you a drink at a downtown establishment or perhaps at St. Petersburg's nearby famous dogtrack, Derby Lane.


Your friend,

[[User:Cognition|Cognition]] 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

he writes a similar thing to Phil Sandifer (and accidentally logs on with his IP):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32416238

_________________

After the St Petersburg meet-up, Raul updates the page to imply that Cognition attended.

_________________

Why aren't Raul and Sandifer commenting on this and protesting 172's innocence?



Hersfold, the blocking admin, writes:

The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence.

Raul hasn't edited since September 1 and Phil has two edits since August 25, so I'm not sure they are active enough that one could support the claim they are actively ignoring the situation.

[Kato]

Raul hasn't edited since September 1 and Phil has two edits since August 25, so I'm not sure they are active enough that one could support the claim they are actively ignoring the situation.

OK, thanks. That helps. Their lack of comment so far did open up a far-fetched hypothesis that the whole Cognition account was a set-up with Raul and Sandifer in on the act. But that would involve a conspiracy of LaRouchian complexity.

172 was extremely bad tempered but highly articulate. His impending response to discovering he has been erroneously tagged a LaRouchie may well turn out to be the greatest moment in WP history. The suspense is simply too much! Bring it on! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

172 was extremely bad tempered but highly articulate...

He could also be rather funny.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

172 was extremely bad tempered but highly articulate...

He could also be rather funny.

Knowing 172, there's an excellent chance that his comment was meant in utmost seriousness.

[One]

The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence.

Y'know, neither of the IPs was a University either. They shared two IPs and have only used those two IPs in the last few months. I can understand skepticism if one or both of the accounts used a lot of unshared addresses (suggesting that they might rove through a lot of wi-fi), but they have two direct hits between them.

Anyhow, I'm guessing you have some friendly history with 172, especially given your ludicrous description of his editing (hint: 172 was a prolific edit warrior who fought a futile war with 3RR, wrote hagiography about communism--with not one FA standing the test of time--and who lost his bit for warring back in 2005--for a second time--when bit busting was rare and awkward).

[Kato]

The most likely scenario is that 172 was acting as a LaRouchie under the guide of Cognition, or that the accounts are compromised in some way. Although since we haven't heard anything from either account, this is becoming more certain by the day. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. The most likely scenario is that both 172 and Cognition are based around the University of New College Florida, and happened to use the same internet connection (wireless or whatever) in a freakish but amusing coincidence.

Y'know, neither of the IPs was a University either. They shared two IPs and have only used those two IPs in the last few months. I can understand skepticism if one or both of the accounts used a lot of unshared addresses (suggesting that they might rove through a lot of wi-fi), but they have two direct hits between them.

I still don't understand this "IPs were not Universities" gambit. Do all IPs go around with huge labels on them? The shared IPs could be from a department or sub-department or private campus or library or countless areas which do not broadcast what they are in BIG BOLD LETTERS.

Anyhow, I'm guessing you have some friendly history with 172, especially given your ludicrous description of his editing (hint: 172 was a prolific edit warrior who fought a futile war with 3RR, wrote hagiography about communism--with not one FA standing the test of time--and who lost his bit for warring back in 2005--for a second time--when bit busting was rare and awkward).

Not at all. 172 was a very well known editor and a notorious jackass, even his defenders on WP after this block acknowledge that he was bad news. Him getting indefinitely blocked in this manner is poetic justice. But 172 isn't your typical half-witted amateur Wikipedio. He was certainly one of the best content editors on WP. He's a professor of some sort, and one of the only editors with anything like a scholarly grounding in areas like History and Politics.

I was hoping that Cognition did turn out to be 172, manipulating WP. It would explain a lot and perhaps create some closure on the LaRouche witch-hunts. But I don't think that's the case. I think the reality is that this is a bizarre but funny coincidence.

It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge.

[Kelly Martin]

It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge.

Indeed, 172 was one of the major early architects of Wikipedia's community and culture. He fell out of favor as the community moved in directions inconsistent with his vision.

[Random832]

I still don't understand this "IPs were not Universities" gambit. Do all IPs go around with huge labels on them?

Those owned by US universities, yes. You've already made your point multiple times that the situation is very different in the UK and it's a lot harder to tell who owns an IP address / where it is located.

That doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it less likely, and when it's not the only hypothesis in the running that does matter.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Kato]

It seems that you, Hersfold and Thatcher are underestimating the influence of 172 on Wikipedia over the years, and the magnitude of your charge.

Indeed, 172 was one of the major early architects of Wikipedia's community and culture. He fell out of favor as the community moved in directions inconsistent with his vision.

The 172 who returned this year is certainly the same as the 172 of old. He immediately starts catching up with old friends like Slrubenstein, for example.

And the Cognition who resurfaced this year is very, very likely to be the Cognition of old.

What with the St Petersburg meet appearance, the consistent IPs of Cognition over 4 years, the genuine looking spelling mistakes on Cognition's old user page (which 172 just wouldn't even think to do), plus the whole demeanour of 172 on WP over years (sockpuppetry just wasn't his style), and it all points to the fact that they are not and never were connected.

All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172.

I still don't understand this "IPs were not Universities" gambit. Do all IPs go around with huge labels on them?

Those owned by US universities, yes. You've already made your point multiple times that the situation is very different in the UK and it's a lot harder to tell who owns an IP address / where it is located.

I just made that UK point in passing, rather than repeatedly. Other people more knowledgeable than me debunked the IP labelling in the US thing. Yet it was trotted out again.

And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life.

[One]

And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life.

Two of 'em, and no others.

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.

If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta.

[Kato]

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.

It doesn't even need to be used by the university. It could be any number of surrounding wireless points or residential buildings. There also seems to be some campus sharing in Sarasota between different universities and colleges.

As stated earlier, this user, Mrs. Breedlove (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who edited purely hotel articles, including one adding a link to hotel accommodation in Sarasota near the Art College, is labelled a Cognition sock, but is surely not Cognition*, and certainly not 172.

Just check the contribs.

*Update: New evidence has come to light to suggest it probably is Cognition.

[No one of consequence]

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.

If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta.

And Poetlister never used sockpuppets, right, Kelly?

All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172.

And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life.

Whatever. I am checkuser, hear me roar. I am both a dangerous fool and a deliberate malefactor, and I spend all my time figuring out how to ban good contributors for no reason. Not only that, I corrupted Hersfold's checkuser training and I bribed Lar with a rare mint-in-box Lego kit from my childhood that I found in my basement. I have the power, you don't. I win, you lose.

Happy now?

[Kato]

All checkusers have is the matching IPs. Given that we can be pretty sure both 172 and Cognition are based around the same University in Sarasota, and given that Hersfold almost certainly made false positives in misidentifying other "Cognition" socks in the same round-up, the most rational conclusion is that checkusers have screwed up badly with 172.

And just because I mention universities, it doesn't mean the IP has to be an Official University Labelled Address. It could be any of the subareas that surround University life.

Whatever. I am checkuser, hear me roar. I am both a dangerous fool and a deliberate malefactor, and I spend all my time figuring out how to ban good contributors for no reason. Not only that, I corrupted Hersfold's checkuser training and I bribed Lar with a rare mint-in-box Lego kit from my childhood that I found in my basement. I have the power, you don't. I win, you lose.

Happy now?

Er, what? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I was satisfied that Checkusers had made a hasty mistake due to lack of attention to detail. But if you want to make a wild-eyed confession, be my guest! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I don't give a shit who has "the power", I'm just pointing out that I think you've made a mistake. And that in any reasonable project, Hersfold wouldn't be slamming sockpuppet block notices on editors as notorious and well known as 172 without irrefutable evidence.

[Lar]

Whatever. I am checkuser, hear me roar. I am both a dangerous fool and a deliberate malefactor, and I spend all my time figuring out how to ban good contributors for no reason. Not only that, I corrupted Hersfold's checkuser training and I bribed Lar with a rare mint-in-box Lego kit from my childhood that I found in my basement. I have the power, you don't. I win, you lose.

Happy now?

Ya, but the bribe didn't stick because it wasn't a Mint In SEALED Box set, so I ratted him out. Next time, if the seals aren't intact, you better make it an Airport Shuttle.

[dtobias]

Or maybe this time the checkusers are right after all? Just because you don't like their attitude doesn't mean they're not correct in this instance, as they were with the Poetlister horde that fooled so many here and on WP.

[tarantino]

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.

If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta.

The race-baiting Zog (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who was banned in 2003, also edited from the University of South Florida according to Brion.

[MBisanz]

And yeah, the University of South Florida is certainly shown by WHOIS--172 used to send emails from there to WikiEn-l.

And, naturally, every IP used by USF in any way naturally appears under their aegis.

If you believe that, I'd like to have a meeting to discuss with you an opportunity involving beachfront properties in Alberta.

The race-baiting Zog (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who was banned in 2003, also edited from the University of South Florida according to Brion.

There is also another banned user on the same range as Cognition, but they don't see related in topics.

[Kato]

Update: There's a direct link between Cognition and Throbbing Stallion (T-C-L-K-R-D) via LaRouche edits. And a link between Throbbing Stallion and Mrs Breedlove (T-C-L-K-R-D) via edits on erm... coprophilia in Connecticut. They've got to be the same person, now.

I don't know the reason for Tarantino bringing up that Zog (T-C-L-K-R-D) , but it sure is interesting. For example, the ban discussion page mentions Zog's racist vandalism to History of the Jews in Russia (T-H-L-K-D), which was an article started by... 172. Coincidence? Was that another bad hand account?

Hold the Front Page: The Great 172 Conspiracy Theory is back on! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Where's Raul and Sandifer to confirm Cognition's appearance at the St Petersburg meet-up?

[One]

Update: There's a direct link between Cognition and Throbbing Stallion (T-C-L-K-R-D) via LaRouche edits. And a link between Throbbing Stallion and Mrs Breedlove (T-C-L-K-R-D) via edits on erm... coprophilia in Connecticut. They've got to be the same person, now.

I must admit that I was a little skeptical when you proclaimed that a dozen edits on an account could establish that it was "surely not Cognition, and certainly not 172."

I guess we can tell Brian that he doesn't need to insert any more coprophilia edits into the database. Phew.

Might be worth asking Raul654 and Phil Sandifer, but I have no report with them. The LaRouchie mini convention sounds like an interesting event.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

Or maybe this time the checkusers are right after all?

Oh, they probably are. My point is, and always has been, that they're taking a conclusion that is merely the most probable of several and reporting it as if the heavens had opened up and God Almighty had decreed it complete with burning bush and stone tablets.

I realize Wikipedia's hothouse political environment prohibits them from displaying uncertainty. That's not my problem; it's their problem. If I take some small pleasure from reminding them of the rampaging idiocy of the game they've chosen to play, well, so be it.

[TungstenCarbide]

Or maybe this time the checkusers are right after all?

Oh, they probably are. My point is, and always has been, that they're taking a conclusion that is merely the most probable of several and reporting it as if the heavens had opened up and God Almighty had decreed it complete with burning bush and stone tablets.

MediaWiki, apache and the internet is not foolproof, they have bugs, some of which have been used in the past to spoof IPs to frame people.

[MBisanz]

Or maybe this time the checkusers are right after all?

Oh, they probably are. My point is, and always has been, that they're taking a conclusion that is merely the most probable of several and reporting it as if the heavens had opened up and God Almighty had decreed it complete with burning bush and stone tablets.

MediaWiki, apache and the internet is not foolproof, they have bugs, some of which have been used in the past to spoof IPs to frame people.

I already linked that several sections up.

[TungstenCarbide]

I already linked that several sections up.

Good for you!

I missed it because I don't read your posts.

[Lar]

I already linked that several sections up.

Good for you!

I missed it because I don't read your posts.

Well, maybe you should. Of course, you might not see this because maybe you don't read mine either.

[Random832]

Or maybe this time the checkusers are right after all?

Oh, they probably are. My point is, and always has been, that they're taking a conclusion that is merely the most probable of several and reporting it as if the heavens had opened up and God Almighty had decreed it complete with burning bush and stone tablets.

I realize Wikipedia's hothouse political environment prohibits them from displaying uncertainty. That's not my problem; it's their problem.

Whose problem is it if you think that making a block on the basis of which conclusion is most probable means such a degree of certainty as to justify such colorful metaphors?

[Kato]

Whose problem is it if you think that making a block on the basis of which conclusion is most probable means such a degree of certainty as to justify such colorful metaphors?

Clearly, the problem is with whoever gets perturbed by colorful metaphors.

Perhaps WR should carry a warning? "This site includes the use of colorful metaphors"

Damn, we miss Awbrey at this place. He'd have cut you lot off for breakfast, before Lar could say "this is not helpful"!

[everyking]

Apparently amidst all this nobody else has had the idea to attempt to extract further information from Cognition, so I invited him here myself. I don't know if he even checks his talk page anymore, but I figured it was worth a try. At this point it seems likely that if we're going to get any explanation about this, it won't happen without the input of 172 and/or Cognition.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Hell Freezes Over]

Snowspinner has confirmed that Cognition was at the Florida meet-up, and included a photograph of the person he thinks it was. Most importantly, he said that Cognition was promoting LaRouche during the meeting, something I can't see 172 doing. As a joke on a website, maybe, but in real life, no.

[Grep]

Apart from the (rather likely) possibilities of pure invention, technical glitch and human incompetence, there's one really rather likely explanation. Is it not plausible that someone who had been contributing in good faith might sooner or later come to realise the internal contradictions of Wikipedia and the violence inherent within the system, deciding to abandon attempts to prop it up and instead amuse herself by hastening its downfall? It's happened before and will surely happen again.

[The Joy]

Snowspinner has confirmed that Cognition was at the Florida meet-up, and included a photograph of the person he thinks it was. Most importantly, he said that Cognition was promoting LaRouche during the meeting, something I can't see 172 doing. As a joke on a website, maybe, but in real life, no.

Has 172 been to any meet-up? Unless there's a "real-world" way of proving Cognition and 172 are different people, 172 is going to remain blocked.

[Random832]

Apart from the (rather likely) possibilities of pure invention, technical glitch and human incompetence, there's one really rather likely explanation. Is it not plausible that someone who had been contributing in good faith might sooner or later come to realise the internal contradictions of Wikipedia and the violence inherent within the system, deciding to abandon attempts to prop it up and instead amuse herself by hastening its downfall? It's happened before and will surely happen again.

That of course, isn't sufficient to explain the confluence in a single pair of IP addresses of two accounts that we're all pretty sure were at one time controlled by two different people. It has to be something, even if that something is nothing more than an extraordinarily unlikely coincidence, as I gather Kato thinks it is based on the other explanations being judged to be even more unlikely.

I think the most likely explanation is that one of them got their hands on the other's password. The evidence that the recent 172 is the same person as the 172 of the past doesn't seem especially strong.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Grep]

... the confluence in a single pair of IP addresses of two accounts that we're all pretty sure were at one time controlled by two different people

Ah, I see the point. Is it possible that one or other of the accounts was discarded and password set to the canonical value for someone else to pick up later?

[Random832]

Anyway, isn't 172's IP address supposed to more or less consistently start with, well, 172?

The ones listed on his early userpage all seem to WHOIS to AOL, though, so that's not necessarily meaningful

[everyking]

Snowspinner has confirmed that Cognition was at the Florida meet-up, and included a photograph of the person he thinks it was. Most importantly, he said that Cognition was promoting LaRouche during the meeting, something I can't see 172 doing. As a joke on a website, maybe, but in real life, no.

Surely anyone can accept that there's enough reasonable doubt to unblock 172 now.

[One]

Surely anyone can accept that there's enough reasonable doubt to unblock 172 now.

I'm sorry, did this become a criminal conviction? If anything, I think it's now more likely that 172's account was compromised, which is a pretty good reason to keep it blocked until he emerges to say otherwise.

Ah, I see the point. Is it possible that one or other of the accounts was discarded and password set to the canonical value for someone else to pick up later?

This makes some sense, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if jaded users do that.

This post has been edited by One:

[No one of consequence]

Snowspinner has confirmed that Cognition was at the Florida meet-up, and included a photograph of the person he thinks it was. Most importantly, he said that Cognition was promoting LaRouche during the meeting, something I can't see 172 doing. As a joke on a website, maybe, but in real life, no.

Surely anyone can accept that there's enough reasonable doubt to unblock 172 now.

No, but there is good reason to listen to 172's explanation if and when he returns. For now, the evidence is very strong that, no matter who the accounts used to be controlled by, they are currently controlled by one person.

[everyking]

Surely anyone can accept that there's enough reasonable doubt to unblock 172 now.

I'm sorry, did this become a criminal conviction? If anything, I think it's now more likely that 172's account was compromised, which is a pretty good reason to keep it blocked until he emerges to say otherwise.

Well, the "compromised account" 172 writes just as well about the same topics, such as George F. Kennan and the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, so I suppose a cloned 172 is as good as the original.

Anyway, when are we postulating that this account could have been compromised? It's very, very hard for me to believe this edit on 8 June 2009 was actually made by Cognition and not the original 172. After making that edit, 172 disappeared for nearly a month before making this edit on 6 July, which constitutes a revert to the same version that the account previously reverted to on 8 June; it also a features a very similar edit summary. Subsequently the account works steadily until 17 July, at which point it disappeared again, except for two edits on 1 August, in which it leaves a friendly comment on Slrubenstein's talk page.

So how far do these IP records go back? Are we saying that the account was possibly hijacked before 8 June, or was it sometime after 17 July?

No, but there is good reason to listen to 172's explanation if and when he returns. For now, the evidence is very strong that, no matter who the accounts used to be controlled by, they are currently controlled by one person.

Let's say he never comes back and never even finds out about all this. In that case, his entire editorial history and massive volunteer contributions, made over the course of six or seven years, are forever tarnished by a tag on his user page that connects him to a sockpuppeting account that was used to spread extreme political views that are generally deemed either laughable or dangerous. Do you think that's OK?

[No one of consequence]

So how far do these IP records go back? Are we saying that the account was possibly hijacked before 8 June, or was it sometime after 17 July?

There are no edits in the checkuser table to support a different conclusion. We don't like to say how long that is because it could help some sockpuppet users avoid detection, although the information is publicly available if you know where to look.

Let's say he never comes back and never even finds out about all this. In that case, his entire editorial history and massive volunteer contributions, made over the course of six or seven years, are forever tarnished by a tag on his user page that connects him to a sockpuppeting account that was used to spread extreme political views that are generally deemed either laughable or dangerous. Do you think that's OK?

I have no problem applying a different tag, or no tag, or leaving a different block message, if people think that is important.

[everyking]

So how far do these IP records go back? Are we saying that the account was possibly hijacked before 8 June, or was it sometime after 17 July?

There are no edits in the checkuser table to support a different conclusion. We don't like to say how long that is because it could help some sockpuppet users avoid detection, although the information is publicly available if you know where to look.

Thanks for not answering the question.

[One]

No, but there is good reason to listen to 172's explanation if and when he returns. For now, the evidence is very strong that, no matter who the accounts used to be controlled by, they are currently controlled by one person.

Let's say he never comes back and never even finds out about all this. In that case, his entire editorial history and massive volunteer contributions, made over the course of six or seven years, are forever tarnished by a tag on his user page that connects him to a sockpuppeting account that was used to spread extreme political views that are generally deemed either laughable or dangerous. Do you think that's OK?

Of course not, but removing that tag was a different proposition then unblocking an apparently compromised or socking account.

Anyhow, it's gone now. I'm not fond of template 'n' shame techniques as a rule, but they're very misleading when we're dealing with a potentially compromised account.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

Of course not, but that tag was a different question than unblocking an apparently compromised or socking account.

Anyhow, it's gone now. I'm not fond of template 'n' shame techniques as a rule, but they're very misleading when we're dealing with a potentially compromised account.

If only it was always so easy to get Wikipedia administrators to treat the project's volunteers like human beings.

[MBisanz]

As I have said before, I really do not see the point to arguing over someone who is not even objecting to the block (he is silent on the block). Personally, I spend more time emailing people I see go silent to convince them to come back (it has worked at least twice for me now), then to argue about people who show no interest in returning.

[Kelly Martin]

It's also possible that an account could be compromised and used simultaneously by both the original individual and the impostor. The IP evidence would tend to indicate this, but of course our dear friends won't share that information with us.

Last I heard the checkuser history was around 35 days, but I have heard rumors that it's longer now. The checkuser corps likes to play SooperSekretSpyGames with their techniques like they're running some sort of Junior Quantico, and they make all their little sekretagents swear never to tell.

[MBisanz]

It's also possible that an account could be compromised and used simultaneously by both the original individual and the impostor. The IP evidence would tend to indicate this, but of course our dear friends won't share that information with us.

Last I heard the checkuser history was around 35 days, but I have heard rumors that it's longer now. The checkuser corps likes to play SooperSekretSpyGames with their techniques like they're running some sort of Junior Quantico, and they make all their little sekretagents swear never to tell.

"Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

I cannot imagine 39 people could keep such secrets as what you mention.

[TungstenCarbide]

It's also possible that an account could be compromised and used simultaneously by both the original individual and the impostor. The IP evidence would tend to indicate this, but of course our dear friends won't share that information with us.

Last I heard the checkuser history was around 35 days, but I have heard rumors that it's longer now. The checkuser corps likes to play SooperSekretSpyGames with their techniques like they're running some sort of Junior Quantico, and they make all their little sekretagents swear never to tell.

Can't checkusers save data and then manually combine with new cu runs? I know there's been spreadsheets of this data floating around long before the checkuser feature was implemented.

[Kelly Martin]

Can't checkusers save data and then manually combine with new cu runs? I know there's been spreadsheets of this data floating around long before the checkuser feature was implemented.

Yeah, somewhere around here I have a hard drive with some old checkuser results from 2006 on it. I'm sure the more active, less scrupulous checkusers have rather thorough dossiers on their favorite suspects.

[No one of consequence]

Last I heard the checkuser history was around 35 days, but I have heard rumors that it's longer now. The checkuser corps likes to play SooperSekretSpyGames with their techniques like they're running some sort of Junior Quantico, and they make all their little sekretagents swear never to tell.

Sigh. Point of diminishing returns is long past, I think.

There's nothing terribly secret about the length of time, in fact it's posted publicly if you know where to look. Checkuser really only catches three kinds of sockpuppeteers; stupid, lazy or careless. Giving out the exact duration would slightly enable the stupid and lazy category, so why do it?

Can't checkusers save data and then manually combine with new cu runs? I know there's been spreadsheets of this data floating around long before the checkuser feature was implemented.

Checkusers can keep records if they want to. But you also have to realize that old data is worth a lot less than current data. Even if 172 or Cognition were checked "back in the day", they might have moved, or changed jobs, or changed internet providers, so old data is of limited usefulness.

Yeah, somewhere around here I have a hard drive with some old checkuser results from 2006 on it. I'm sure the more active, less scrupulous checkusers have rather thorough dossiers on their favorite suspects.

So, a current checkuser, who is authorized to see this information, is unscrupulous if they save it for future comparison, but your retention of data you are no longer authorized to have is perfectly scrupulous?

[Abd]

... something more erudite-sounding, like "highly indicative of serious mental disturbance and/or intellectual deficiency"... that's just too wordy, isn't it?

If I'd written, in the current about-to-close RfAr, "socially involved mutually supporting majority-POV-pushing faction with substantial and abused power," would it have been anywhere near as easily remembered as "cabal?"

Here, I called Mathsci and Raul654 "assholes," would it have been anywhere near as effective as calling them "uncivil," which means exactly the same thing? It was effective, all right. Raul654 immediately popped it onto Workshop or Evidence Talk, thus proving that any publicity is better than none. Thanks, Raul, that was very useful. Among other benefits, I effectively got to call them assholes on Wikipedia, without actually being responsible for it, that was brilliant. And, as a result, a few editors read the thread here (under Notable Editors/William Connolley/Abd and William M. Connolley) who would not have read it and, probably, several actually read my posts there with some understanding.

Those who think these were all mistakes don't have a clue about my long-term agenda, which, by the way, includes improving Wikipedia in a way that nearly all will agree, this is better, even if right now they'd prefer to see me disappear. The status quo is burning out editors at a rapid clip, including those who are most firmly attached to the status quo.

I'll probably be more effective not editing the project itself, individual articles are sooo distracting.

[Kelly Martin]

So, a current checkuser, who is authorized to see this information, is unscrupulous if they save it for future comparison, but your retention of data you are no longer authorized to have is perfectly scrupulous?

First, who says I am no longer authorized to have it? Nobody told me to destroy it, and I'm not aware of any requirement imposed on me at any time to do so; any such requirement, if it now exists, was imposed long after I resigned. Second, I don't know where it is; it is on the hard drive of a laptop that died three years ago. I discovered it on the laptop that replaced it (from which I did a profile copy) some time later. That laptop is also dead, and I no longer have its hard drive. There's no guarantee that that drive even works, and I don't (as I said) know where it is.

So, how much of an affirmative duty do you believe I have toward Wikimedia (an entity which has shown me exactly zero love for quite a long time) to hunt down and destroy that data? Please, be reasonable.

Oh, wait, you can't. You swore not to be reasonable when you signed on to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) How else do we explain your use of an obvious strawman argument? And the sad thing is, you're one of the better Wikipediots. On a good day I might even be tempted to actually trust you, but then you do something like this. Oh well.

[No one of consequence]

Thanks for not answering the question.

There's another reason for not answering. If and when 172 contacts us offering an explanation, we want to be able to believe it. We don't want to be tricked by Cognition, or whomever hacked the account(s), regurgitating some explanation posted here or on-wiki. If I tell you "172's IP changed on Smarch 13, 2009" then what is to prevent someone from contacting us to say, "Oh, well, I use a wireless MESH network that my friend set up so the whole town could get free internet from one cable connection. The last time I used my account was Smarch 12, then the password was changed. Someone must have snooped my password since it was sent in clear text over the unsecured network."

There's a reason cops don't give too much public detail about crimes, they want to be able to separate the posers and whackers from people with real information. Same principle applies.

So, how much of an affirmative duty do you believe I have toward Wikimedia (an entity which has shown me exactly zero love for quite a long time) to hunt down and destroy that data? Please, be reasonable.

Oh, wait, you can't. You swore not to be reasonable when you signed on to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I never said your retention of data (if any) was unscrupulous, but I object to you holding a double-standard based on the idea that you are smart and pure (Poetlister) and all current checkusers are fools and liars.

[Kelly Martin]

There's nothing terribly secret about the length of time, in fact it's posted publicly if you know where to look. Checkuser really only catches three kinds of sockpuppeteers; stupid, lazy or careless. Giving out the exact duration would slightly enable the stupid and lazy category, so why do it?

Because it so annoys you silly SekretSpyGamers. And because Information Wants To Be Free.

all current checkusers are fools and liars.

Only some of them. Problem is, we can't tell which are which, although your comments earlier in this thread leave little doubt which you are.

There's a reason cops don't give too much public detail about crimes, they want to be able to separate the posers and whackers from people with real information. Same principle applies.

See what I mean about SooperSekretSpyGames? Here's news for you: you are not a cop. You are not conducting critical, important investigations into "crimes" or "major security matters". Don't expect me, or anyone else, to take you seriously until you get this through your head.

[trenton]

So, how much of an affirmative duty do you believe I have toward Wikimedia (an entity which has shown me exactly zero love for quite a long time) to hunt down and destroy that data? Please, be reasonable.

Absolutely. Now, say, if someone were leaking private emails because they were an attention whore, that would be completely different and totally unacceptable.

[Random832]

I know the checkuser data period was 90 days at one time, and that as far as I can tell it is no longer on display* at the place where it was the last time I looked this up.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Aren't sites supposed to have a privacy policy that says how long they keep stuff like this?

*It was, of course, in a dark cellar with no stairs in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'. Or maybe that was the other thing and this was at noc.wikimedia.org.

My assumption is that 90 days is still the default, in which case the lack of a setting in the publicly visible files indicates it is not being overridden, but conceivably it could be being set in PrivateSettings.php, if the idea that this is to be some sort of secret goes as high up as Brion.

For a long time (probably the period Kelly Martin is remembering), it was tied to the Recent Changes age, which as everyone knows is 30 days (but I've heard it's only purged once a week, accounting for the 35).

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Kelly Martin]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Aren't sites supposed to have a privacy policy that says how long they keep stuff like this?

Socially responsible organizations have policies like this. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have a track record for acting in a socially responsible manner.

The last round of checkuser upgrades decoupled checkuser data from the recent changes table. I had heard that it was 90 days as well, but I've heard rumors that it has been set to an even longer time or even set to indefinite retention. Nobody who knows is willing to say; not surprising, given that the parties involved all seem to enjoy playing cloak-and-dagger games, or else have been threatened with Dire Consequences if they should spill the beans.

[Kato]

Snowspinner has confirmed that Cognition was at the Florida meet-up, and included a photograph of the person he thinks it was. Most importantly, he said that Cognition was promoting LaRouche during the meeting, something I can't see 172 doing. As a joke on a website, maybe, but in real life, no.

OK, that pushes the conclusion away from the "bad-hand" theory again, perhaps for good, and back towards the coincidence theory, or the compromised account theory. (Providing Snowspinner / Sandifer is telling the truth, of course)

On 172's restored user page, he lists his allies, which should give people an idea of what 172 was about. 172 wasn't just a prominent editor, he wasn't even just a "cabal member". He was the cabal! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I have nearly 4,000 pages on my watchlist. I don't have nearly enough time to address nearly all the problems I may spot on Wikipedia. For my own reference, below I'm listing various active contributors whom I've contacted over the course of the past three years, receiving constructive feedback on issues realated to the subjects I edit (history and politics) and/or important AfD/Cfd/TfD/etc. discussions. (Don't be offended if I forgot you! I only quickly skimmed my talk page to refresh my memory in drafting this list.)
Adam Carr (talk · contribs)
A. Shetsen (talk · contribs)
Bishonen (talk · contribs)
Cberlet (talk · contribs)
Cecropia (talk · contribs)
Chancemill (talk · contribs)
CJK (talk · contribs)
Christopher Parham (talk · contribs)
Colipon (talk · contribs)
Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)
Danny (talk · contribs)
Derex (talk · contribs)
DickClarkMises (talk · contribs)
Dietwald (talk · contribs)
El C (talk · contribs)
Eloquence (talk · contribs)
Everyking (talk · contribs)
FrancisTyers (talk · contribs)
Gazpacho (talk · contribs)
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
G-Man (talk · contribs)
Halibutt (talk · contribs)
Infinity0 (talk · contribs)
Irpen (talk · contribs)
IZAK (talk · contribs)
Jmabel (talk · contribs)
JamesMLane (talk · contribs)
Jjshapiro (talk · contribs)
Jayjg (talk · contribs)
Jiang (talk · contribs)}
Jtdirl (talk · contribs)
John Kenney (talk · contribs)
Kelly Martin (talk · contribs)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs)
Mackensen (talk · contribs)
Maveric149 (talk · contribs)
Michael Snow (talk · contribs)
Mikkalai (talk · contribs)
Mirv (talk · contribs)
MONGO (talk · contribs)
Mydogategodshat (talk · contribs)
Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs)
Nikodemos (talk · contribs)
Neutrality (talk · contribs)
Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs)
Piotrus (talk · contribs)
PMA (talk · contribs)
Pmanderson (talk · contribs)
Radicalsubversiv (talk · contribs)
Rd232 (talk · contribs)
Rebecca (talk · contribs)
Rjensen (talk · contribs)
RK (talk · contribs)
Saravask (talk · contribs)
SimonP (talk · contribs)
Sj (talk · contribs)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)
Stirling Newberry (talk · contribs)
Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs)
Tannin (talk · contribs)
TDC (talk · contribs)
Titoxd (talk · contribs)
TJive (talk · contribs)
Trey Stone (talk · contribs)
UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs)
Viajero (talk · contribs)
Weyes (talk · contribs)
WGee (talk · contribs)
Willmcw (talk · contribs)
Zoe (talk · contribs)