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

[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).

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: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:00am

[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: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:24am

[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.