Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, One editor is using "open proxies" Options

Here's a link to the check user made on

# Samiharris (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
# Mantanmoreland (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Case/Samiharris

Conclusion:

I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo [who made the request] is a curious bystander who just happened across this request. However, based on the standards I usually use, and pretending I don't know the history here, the evidence is sufficient to run a check. The answer is Inconclusive because one of these editors has only edited via open proxies. Thatcher 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Armed Blowfish get banned for edited via open proxies?

* Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? ViridaeTalk 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - Alison ❤ 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Thanks Ali. ViridaeTalk 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We should see what develops in the next week or two.

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

More evidence here of a double-standard. Slim, Jayjg, Ryulong, and other do not hesitate to ban any user caught using an open proxy -- yes once of Samiharris or Mantanmoreland was certainly doing so, yet neither is banned.

Shame, Wikipedia, shame.

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned. However Open proxies are banned from editing wikipedia, so are blocked when found. AB can't edit I think because she runs a Tor node, and her ip is therefore blocked.

Oh deary me... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

Oh deary me... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

There are times though that he actually is trying to do the right thing - but he still can't get it right. He tries to delete some paedophile pages, and gets accused of wheel-warring by the Defenders of the Faith.
ANI link

I'll leave other comments for another time. He announced that today is the day of the funeral.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

Editing via open proxies may not be banned -- but isn't editing via open proxies to hide sockpuppetry worthy of a ban?

Oh, wait, we're talking about a favorite of the Sole Flounder. Silly me.

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

No. Your recourse is to ask another checkuser to review the evidence or talk to the ombudsmen. You'll want to make the request with some alacrity as the information in the log does eventually get pushed out by newer stuff. I confess I'm surprised you asked, I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

This post has been edited by Lar:

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

No. Your recourse is to ask another checkuser to review the evidence or talk to the ombudsmen. You'll want to make the request with some alacrity as the information in the log does eventually get pushed out by newer stuff. I confess I'm surprised you asked, I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

Not common knowledge at all unfortunately.

But how would someone like Herschelkrustofsky request another checkuser to review the evidence back at that time? With him being ideologically profiled as a Lyndon LaRouche supporter -- like a lot of other people were back then due to the edicts given out to protect Chip Berlet's agenda (albeit at least Hersch actually is a Lyndon LaRouche supporter but very few others were, even Nobs got rounded up for chrissake!) -- Hersch was vigorously beaten off the site and told never to call again. Despite not actually doing anything wrong in the first place, I might add.

You know I've seen enough socks banned for answering a talk comment of another sock like in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160230353 that Gary Weiss's socks both should have been blocked as for people who aren't friends of Jimbo that normally it's enough to prove things.

If they can't get a positive Checkuser they use sophisticated linguistic analysis or the legendary "living in England in a similar way" technique. The ombudsman won't argue with those.

Oh deary me... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

JzG swoops in...

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

There's others made by banned users. I don't think that reason enough is for deleting an article.

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned.

Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg:

* 23:38, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Abcse (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Ovmy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Egtlyvi (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Kitjoqka54 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Atdso (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 07:06, 22 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Famey415 (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy using harassment sock)
* 01:06, 11 March 2007 Jayjg blocked "Bigteenagemonster (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet created with TOR proxy

He made his position clear in this one:

* 06:59, 22 February 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.154.39.13 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (TOR proxy - TOR proxies are blocked, period, no "loggedin users")

So don't BS here. You are stating your opinion. Admins can -- and do -- block for any reason they care to, on the thinnest of pretexts.

I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

He was a Jewish economist, wasn't he? You know what Wikipedia thinks of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cat...wish_Economists

Looks like the party has moved to WP:AN now.

Looks like the party has moved to WP:AN now.

Quicklink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:RfCU_result.29

The hypocrisy is quite incredible. If these accounts were not operated by someone, i.e. Gary Weiss that was in favour with Mr. James Wales they would have been blocked a very long, long time ago.

Wikipedia is not the "encyclopedia" anyone can edit. It is the "encyclopedia" you can edit using multiple accounts as long as you are "friends" with those that have influence in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.

Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.

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

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

Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.

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

I particularly liked this retort:

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

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

Bam.

HeerresJzG

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

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

No policy states that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is protecting Gary Weiss.

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

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

Wikipedia is protecting Gary Weiss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

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


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

Good point, well taken.

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is corrupt.

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

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

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

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

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

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

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

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

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

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

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

Who was always happy to tell the truth about Mantanmoreland.

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

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned.

Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg:

* 23:38, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Abcse (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Ovmy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Egtlyvi (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Kitjoqka54 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Atdso (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 07:06, 22 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Famey415 (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy using harassment sock)
* 01:06, 11 March 2007 Jayjg blocked "Bigteenagemonster (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet created with TOR proxy

He made his position clear in this one:

* 06:59, 22 February 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.154.39.13 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (TOR proxy - TOR proxies are blocked, period, no "loggedin users")

So don't BS here. You are stating your opinion. Admins can -- and do -- block for any reason they care to, on the thinnest of pretexts.

They can and do, but they shouldnt as it is not mandated by policy.

I'm perfectly willing to start a discussion on something, if I'm convinced that it's true. I can defend myself against random accusations of "OMG PROXYING!"

If you want to do it yourself, fine, but don't expect too many people to spend time defending you.

This post has been edited by Amarkov:

Viridae steps up to the plate and hits a triple. That's baseball lingo for all you Gerards.

Who's on first?
LastExit's on first, TomStoner's and Second, Mantanmorelands's on third, DoRight's on the reserve list, and Sami "The Bull" Harris is on deck. EmilyWelles is back playing in the ladies softball league.

What do Mr Bagley, Piperdown, Cla68, & many more have in common?

A. We never sockpuppeted on WP Articles to
1 - create consensus illusion
2 - talk to our selves
3 - edited from the same IP
4 - lived in the same state, timezone, or gave a damn about each other's off-wikilife
5 - i never used a proxy (ask the Righteous Alison)..I doubt Cla68 did or needs to, and I'm sure Bagley probably did out of necessity to make a WP:POINT on talk pages

B. One guy did, using Mantanmoreland, LastExit, TomStoner, DoRight, Emilywelles, and Samiharris.

I don't care who that guy is in real life. We all know that anyway. What I care about, and what WP should care about, is that anonymous individual should not be allowed to edit WP for abusing its rules.

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

Why lil GW couldn't get adminship

a - mantanmoreland (aka mannymoresocks) already got W-Busted on-wp by Freddy and Maggs (thatcher, the only lady Prime Minister to use the men's room urinals per a reliable source on a BBC comedy show - I think it was a Dave Allen skit, god bless his atheist soul!)

b - samiharris had to edit using a proxy while doing the Mantanmoreland Tango

c - when you go for adminship, you get your proxies checked. Just ask the recently torpedoed and the SlumVersions and JayjgBots that love them.

What a conundrum. And Sami would have been perfect for the latest installment of....the SlimJay CircleJerk Club. Guest starring Chipster and The Self-Quotin' POV Band.

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

i prefer hard cold wordbomb facts ala Antisocialmedia.net over the throw-shite-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks theories like editing from a similar country and the like that WP Badmins throw about.

and someone ask sami why he never email enabled his account. or ask slimmy, who asked sami to email her during the August Super Sekret Retaliation Planning Scheme.

sami was too schtoopid to even start a sami gmail account to go with his mannymoresocks email account, i would hazard a guess.

o look, durova is all over the sleuthing discussion like sherlock holmes without his magnifying glass. lol. what a wp:clown.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...603&#entry74603
Yes Miltopia said he believed it to be Hipocrite, the name sounds familiar but I don't know much about him.

oh boy, G-Dett is in the WP:AN house.

Do not f-ck with G-Dett. I am in awe of his/her WP debating skilz. I bow to the G-Dett give-it-as-good-as-you-get-it altar.

One Righteous Cat.

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...603&#entry74603
Yes Miltopia said he believed it to be Hipocrite, the name sounds familiar but I don't know much about him.

Miltopia sounded like he was pondering who it was. And the only hint I see of who he was is someone moving the account's user page. I really can't even guess who that is myself.

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:RfCU_result.29 thread (woops it was noticebored not ANI) Poopon argued a bit. Then Mantanmoreland I think it was came on and gave some analysis that shows far too much familiarity with Samiharris's edits and thus making himself look suspicious.

and wait til the sun also rises over Cla68's rising sun.

Cla68 did far more debating with the man socking MM/SH than I did.

I'm sure he has more choice diffs and first-person experiences to proffer on this. Quick! Someone get a pre-emptive gag on the badass who came in the cold and register'd the wikitruth.

Poupon is most certainly Hipocrite, there's no mistaking his particuluar brand of hatred and hysteria. The page move happened after (and no doubt because of, to my delight) my "outing" of Poupon here.

And all they have to do is re-check the accounts, continuing to block proxies until he's left with no more, and wait for Samiharris (certainly the open proxy using account) to either edit from a private IP or stop editing altogether.

Poupon is most certainly Hipocrite, there's no mistaking his particuluar brand of hatred and hysteria. The page move happened after (and no doubt because of, to my delight) my "outing" of Poupon here.

And all they have to do is re-check the accounts, continuing to block proxies until he's left with no more, and wait for Samiharris (certainly the open proxy using account) to either edit from a private IP or stop editing altogether.

Hmm, the defense of MONGO and the input on the expert withdrawal board make more sense now with a few minutes of searching.

Oh and apologies for the slight sidetrack here. I think we are all anxiously awaiting the result of the AN thread now.

Slightly off topic
People often complain that Wikipedia's jargon is impenetrable to newcomers, and I've heard the theory that it's purposeful to maintain the imbalance of power.

But seriously folks. I already knew what this was about having looked over the thread at the Incident's noticeboard first, and I still have no idea what's being said most of the time in the above postings.

Back on topic

The issues I'm able to extract are
1. Was the initial check-user request valid?
2. Were the results posted in good faith?
3. How to sort out the discussions on the noticeboard that followed it.

Leaving aside the first two, the ANI discussion seems fairly even-handed: The gist I'm getting is "don't hunt snarks."

I refer to my earlier point: I think pretty much everybody now sees that the central premise of ASM is true.

I'm convinced.

This will probably burn some bridges, and I've been mulling over it awhile, but I feel ethically bound to speak up. I have nothing personally against the people concerned - any of them, banned or protected alike - any more than I did against Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos (who was let off the hook) or FM (ditto) but the hypocrisy and dishonesty surrounding this affair is too much to stomach.

I also will agree with you that most people who've read ASM given this some thought probably do figure much of it is true (if not, they have no business anywhere near a sockpuppet investigation.)

If siding with a banned user is the third rail, joining in harassment in the fourth, then add that to BLP…WB is only spoken of in dark mysterious tones as the worst harasser ever to plague WP. Most people have no reason to doubt that, and will take trusted administrators at their word. Blocking him seems like the right thing to do. Perhaps it is the right thing to do, as WB has obviously not played by the rules, and contributors who are there only to pursue other contributors can't be tolerated. However, neither should corruption in the ranks (or gross negligence, or terminal cluelessness.)

All the articles involved, starting with the bios of both sides, should be deleted, not because, in an ideal world, some version of them shouldn't exist, but because WP is obviously terminally incapable of dealing with them in a principled manner under the current system. Any administrator who's mishandled this affair should be desysoped without malice or prejudice, due to the appearance of impropriety.

In light of the current discussion on WP:AN, I'd like to clarify that I haven't looked into the Samiharris allegation in particular - it's been several months since I checked ASM, and don't recall looking through that evidence - but the research as a whole, showing a pattern of socking, COI edits and undue favoritism, struck me as clever and compelling. Wordbomb has blown a few calls, but were there an official WP sockpuppet investigations panel, I'd certainly want him on it.

JzG's comment,

"And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189594476

is rich, considering first, that he vigorously defended the last sleuth, and second, that "sleuthing" wasn't the problem per se - or why not start by deleting RfCU and SSP? - but incompetent (and unprovoked) sleuthing. There is no comparison between the caliber of research found on ASM (though not without flaws, but what is?) and that in the infamous document indicting !!; to draw one is an insult to the forensic sciences, and to human intelligence generally.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:

1. Firstly, evidence is ample that Weiss is a full participant in an offsite feud of vast and very nasty proportions with Judd / Wordbomb. Judd's attacks on Weiss are reciprocated, and in fact often doubled by Weiss's obsession with Overstock and Judd. Barely a week goes by without Weiss engaging in some sort of literary attack on Judd. I read two in the last week alone. This is an abnormal situation from the start.
2. Take a look at the blog postings from Gary Weiss about Wikipedia.
   This isn't some amused or irritated by-stander commenting. This is someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the dispute. Reading Weiss's postings, it looks to me like someone who is personally involved in Wikipedia, and the Wordbomb / Mantanmoreland dispute. In other words, Judd is Wordbomb, Weiss is Mantanmoreland. Take a look at this blog post by Weiss for example : He just knows too much...
3. I couldn't find any reference to Mantanmoreland in Weiss's whole blog. Why would Weiss not mention that for two years, Judd Bagley has been accusing him of being Mantanmoreland? Given that Weiss stops at nothing to attack Judd at every possible juncture, covering the whole Wikipedia dispute, wouldn't mocking the fact that Judd had been accusing him of being some lowly Wikipedia editor be worth a blog post or two? If Weiss isn't Mantamoreland, then you'd have thought Weiss would be making hay at every opportunity? Or is there no mention of it because he doesn't want to draw further attention to his own sockpuppet?

By browsing Gary Weiss's many postings about Wikipedia and Judd, it seems to me that the probability of Mantanmoreland being Weiss is extremely high. Yet the likes of JzG and others have consistently attacked this probable conclusion as "lunatic ravings". Now we all know the state of JzG's judgement on matters. In a word = Useless. And we could find ample evidence for that. So basically, Judd has a really strong case to blame Wikipedia for wantonly negligent and corrupt treatment of this extraordinary situation.

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

Yet the likes of JzG and others have consistently attacked this probable conclusion as "lunatic ravings". Now we all know the state of JzG's judgement on matters. In a word = Useless.

I'm afraid so. I would find it difficult to believe that Guy is on the take from anyone - he seems nothing if not earnest. Rather, there have been so many situations where (justly) banned users have played AGFing Wikipedians like a collective cheap flute, and others where Wikipedians have been horribly harassed…I surmise that Guy finds a solution in this perfectly understandable, but simplistic, light.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I'm afraid so. I would find it difficult to believe that Guy is on the take from anyone - he seems nothing if not earnest.

Yes. In lots of ways, I like Guy, sympathize with him, and have been WR's resident "Guy Chapman apologist" many a time. But he just isn't up to the task. And more annoyingly, he doesn't realize it. There comes a point where Guy's buffoonery is tantamount to malevolent corruption regardless of his motivations.

I see that people are continuing to resort to the tactic of "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It's odd; usually admins TRY to pretend that they listen.

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

You reading this, Slim?

Mongo's request for a full sockpuppet report seems valid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189623757

First, I think MONGO is a straight shooter. Perhaps not all the people around him (or me now) are…but if MONGO finds a report convincing, I'll guess he'd say so, as he has in the past.

The problem is, how to post it? It would be a post by a banned user, or proxying for him. So, there should be some agreement that WordBomb can post a full sockpuppet report by a trusted (by Wikipedians) proxy, one which steers clear of anything that might be construed as off-wiki stalking or harassment.

Why isn't this being handled by Arbcom? In the open -- with the parties including Judd, Mantamoreland and SamiHarris giving statements. And with the investigation given proper weight? And with no rabble of leering goons like Guy or GeorgeWilliamHerbert interjecting every 2 minutes to scream nonsense about "banned users" and "vile stalkers"??

Or why not deal with this as it is: A proper dispute in the real world? Treat is as such, and apply professional dispute resolution methods, rather than the ridiculous procedures Wikipedia currently employs. Current processes merely result in bawling, bullying and scandals that demean the project and everyone involved with it. Including us.

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Maybe it's just a hobby.

Maybe he just likes the drama like me :-)

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change. I still think there is a fair bit of chaff here (you need a pretty good filter) but the wheat is on the increase and it's more worth being here than before, to learn and listen (and perhaps to offer information that might be helpful in clearing misconceptions).

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

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

When I think about WR, I quote myself. Here's a part of the sock show as promised. On top of Bomb already showing us "both" post from the same Verizon IP when theyre not proxying.

Modus operandi - blank a well-sourced edit to provoke. Revert the revert with sock in a rigged 3RR game. Claim that you hate involved people. When stink raised, use passive-agressive "don't be so crazy-angry" retort.

:If it will calm you down, go ahead and revert the link or article from a reporter that you clearly despise. I don't want to keep you up nights about this.--[[User:Samiharris|Samiharris]] 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143888418

Piperdown, your comments are not only wildly off-base, but they are off-base in the wrong place. The place to be off-base about naked short selling is in the talk page of naked short selling. If you're going to have a nervous breakdown concerning one paragraph of that article, please do it there so that other editors can read your comments.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown" Nice. That's just special. I'll post on my talk page in response to posts on it as I please. Thanks for the advise and personal attack. Piperdown 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: "The place to be off-base about naked short selling". Great. Now there's a fantasticly productive slant on my edits. And they say that wikipedia article watch dogs aren't receptive to well sourced input.Piperdown 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

I think many here will have the perspective that, if it is agreed that there has been something going wrong for a long time, it puts WordBomb's activities in a different light.

There are a few things that, viewing from the real world, I do not really grasp what WordBomb has done to be equated with a multiple victim axe murderer. I am unsure what is fact in amongst all the hyperbole, and not very interested in what are clearly some pretty unpleasant goings on the real world - Gary's blog is at best described as embarrassingly unprofessional.

What specific damage has been done to the content of Wikipedia? If there has been a deliberate manipulation by Gary Weiss, what heinous crime has WordBomb done in outing the COI? (I really do not subscribe to the WikiBelief that the revelation of identities is a hideous crime when this anonymity is used as an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia). Given the invective outside of Wikipedia, it is not surprising that things have spilled over onto Wikipedia, and it takes a cool head to separate out what is a very personal and unpleasant battle, and the real meat that is about the core values that should govern Wikipedia.

Wikipedia needs to keep a perspective about itself. When you are involved, it does seem very important, and I think on of our concerns is that it is potentially a very influential medium, but in the end, the social drama has become far too strong.

So, go back and look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes. If we put history behind us and consider what is best for the future, what is important? I' d suggest showing that the administrators can set aside personal history and come to a decision based on reason would be a big win. If there is someone on Wikipedia who is deliberately conducting a campaign against a real world person, then that needs to be dealt with. Then, a signal is sent that nobody enjoys the protection of an in group of editors, perhaps including members of that in group.

I'd like to think that Wikipedia could get its own house in order, and one of the most important attitude changes to achieving this is to get rid of the cult of "respected admins" who do not command that respect in knowing community. There are a lot less trolls out there than Wikipedia believes.

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change.

Indeed, when I first discovered WR, it was dominated by a group of fist-shakers, many of which were banned from WP for good reason, and most of these were eventually banned from this site for similarly good reasons. But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles. Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to give the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

I, on the other hand, have never used more than one identity at the same time pretending to be different people in order to influence content or policy. I have, on the other hand, created many identities in order to inject information onto Wikipedia for the express purpose of raising awareness of what I feel are activities that history will undoubtedly judge to run contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the people who reference it.

I will admit to committing precisely one act of vandalism. It was a moment of comedic weakness for which I have already begged forgiveness.

Finally, I feel quite confident that as the true nature of my activities, as well as those of the WP "establishment" come to light, it will be made abundantly clear who was acting reasonably and who was not.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

Finally, if you have not yet, I encourage you to read this story to get a deeper understanding of what's motivating me, and why it makes sense for you to be squarely on "my side".

This post has been edited by WordBomb:

[*]Take a look at the blog postings from Gary Weiss about Wikipedia.
This isn't some amused or irritated by-stander commenting. This is someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the dispute. Reading Weiss's postings, it looks to me like someone who is personally involved in Wikipedia, and the Wordbomb / Mantanmoreland dispute. In other words, Judd is Wordbomb, Weiss is Mantanmoreland. Take a look at this blog post by Weiss for example : He just knows too much...

You'll find this interesting...as it turns out, Weiss often quietly edits his blog posts over time. Cataloging these changes has been very instructive. Here's one of my favorites:
In his post “Bagley's Cover Story Falls Apart” published on February 8, 2007, Weiss's original penultimate paragraph read:

Byrne's "investigative reporter" made no effort to contact me about this absolute crap, and a flat-out denial by DTCC's general counsel was disregarded by Bagley. (He didn't even pretend to have contacted me.)

The next morning, he changed that paragraph (changes in red) to read:

Byrne's "investigative reporter" made no effort to contact me about this absolute crap, and a flat-out denial by DTCC's general counsel was, of course, disregarded. Bagley didn't even pretend to have contacted me, not that it would have prevented him from publishing his smears -- just as Wikipedia's denial, and mine, has never prevented him from repeating, again and again, his malicious lie that I have edited Wikipedia.

The next day he thought better of it and changed the paragraph to read:

Bagley didn't even pretend to have contacted me, not that it would have prevented him from publishing his smears.

Please let this sink in...despite all the evidence to the contrary that you've correctly cited, for 24 hours and 42 minutes, Weiss's position was that he had never edited Wikipedia. Ever.

Does that offer some insights as to the mindset of this fellow?

my insight into his mindset was looking at him talk to himself as LastExit/Mantanmoreland, forgettig to change a login from TomStoner to MM (why does NO ONE ADDRESS THAT? it even got noticed on talk pages by admins like LessHeardVanU), and his PLUGGING OF HIS OWN BOOK throughout WP articles.

That he edited from a DTCC computer on Christmas Day 2006 is just a weird bizarre event that is beyond even my concept of what that account and the guy(s) behind it are up to.

Even if Werd was off about MM/sami being GW, and not just some DTCC lackey who lives in a similar IP area (which Werd is not wrong about), then the accounts should be banned,regardless of who is behind them.

Slimmy likes to quote my WR work on WP. How bout this.
-----------

[[User:Lastexit]]
* "This user is an alternate account of another Wikipedian. This template confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts and will not use this account for sock puppetry."

* "I am the uncle of another Wikipedian" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lastexit ]

* 5 hours in wikicareer, 4/22/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=49637513]

* Ceases editing articles (Byrne article last edit) 7/25/06 after sockpuppet incident put on user page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...target=Lastexit]


[[User:Mantanmoreland]]
* "Editor is nephew of [[User:Lastexit|Lastexit]].'''--[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 28 July 2006" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66272530 ], "uncle" & "nephew" use Wiki talk pages to discuss "collaborative" editing of same stock market issue page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lastexit]

* Warned by Fred Bauder for voting twice via sockpuppet in Julian Robertson related AfD[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66185496], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Josie_Robertson ], Note: Julian Robertson sued Gary Weiss[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=next&oldid=83314474 ]

* "Acting like two people: You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62596208] is unacceptable. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=65447037]

* " I am at work on a project concerning stock fraud and short-selling." 4/30/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50254637]

* IP edit flurry, [[naked shorting]], 1/27/06-1/28/06, ending 15:19 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/70.23.85.112], username born, first post continues flurry with similar editing style 16:48 1/28/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=Mantanmoreland]

* Created this bio 4/13/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48341962]

* "My professional interests mainly revolve around the securities industry and trading issues" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=57191552]

* "This user has been stalked by Judd Bagley" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97347322], admin endorsement [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99531565], revert another editors BLP vio correction [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122194042], "This user has been stalked by an official of Overstock.com" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209], Initials JB in userbox [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209]

* "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown..." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=117194609]

* Article byline from India town [ http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2006/10/17/..._1017weiss.html], edit to same town's wikipedia entry, months before [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53762562]

* DTCC IP sandwich[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history]

* Forgets to switch account back, edits TomStoner post as his own [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43586904 ]


[[User:Tomstoner]]

* TomStoner's first post topics: India, Naked Shorting, Patrick Byrne [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Tomstoner ]

* Ceases editing 7/22/06 3 days before Lastexit last article edit[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...oner&namespace= ]

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

I find your vandalism… …both hilarious, and dryly (not sure if this was intentional) parodical of the sort of he-said-she-said writing which mars Wikipedia's miserable "criticism" and "controversy" sections - sadly, in most cases, these aren't considered vandalism (occasionally they can be appropriate, but in most cases they only reflect the desire of Wikipedians themselves to debate in mainspace.)

This post has been edited by gomi:

But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles.

It is? Then where are the cigars and mojitos?? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

True.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

True.

'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to five the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

Well, it is a bit worse than that. Sockpuppets aren't illegal, and are actually legal per the rules. But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

I don't think an Arbcom session would do much good. They'd collude and no one would care much, I'm sorry to say.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to five the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

True.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.

True. It's a mess all around.

But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility. The system architecture guarantees that the balance of compliance is voluntary. This won't happen if the system isn't worthy of respect, and certainly won't happen when it provokes people on the way out the door (as it invariably does, since there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.)

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

That is a really useful point to capture. I'm involved in a number of voluntary groups and there are two people that are incredibly disruptive to deal with: the nice but incompetent, and the domineering damager.

The first drives everyone to distraction, but nobody has the heart to tell them to either sling their hook or stop being "helpful". The latter tends to drive others away because it is too nasty to deal with, and people do not want that in a friendly volunteer organisation.

The latter are the worst to deal with, the incompetent you can work around, as long as they don't get too offended when you do something yourself when it was their job, and often they bring other things to the party, if only cakes on their birthday.

The mop and bucket brigade are there to deal primarily with the former, unfortunately a significant number of them are the later.

Given that face to face we cannot deal with this issues well, it is perhaps not surprising that Wikipedia hasn't got a good solution either.

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

They are acutally quite discrete. Not discreet.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility.

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

In most legit organizations, you have professional management which can bend rules. In Wikipedia, there's one guy who can do anything on the planet, and he lets the kids run the shop as thanks for the free work. It's quite scary.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

Unintentional it was; apologies:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web? That's not a principled management decision, but, like so many other things that are wrong with Wikipedia, an unexamined and uncorrected consequence of the interface.

This post has been edited by Herschelkrustofsky:

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

Disgruntled dismissed employees do all kinds of weird things, which is usually why they are often walked to the door by guards. To prevent damage done in anger.

More recently web retaliation is a means of payback.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web?

Well, Florence Devouard did it to Danny Wool, but that's Wikipedia. Most companies don't do it online, quite in Wikipedia fashion. However, they do equally crappy things like announcing it to the press before telling the person (Lee Iaccoca), or generally being nasty (Carly Fiorina), and there's many other examples of how execs get mistreated. Not to mention middle management or regular employees.

Wikipedia's use of 14 year olds to attack is pretty much a Wikipedia specialty, I must say.

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

It's human nature to enjoy a feeling of power, which finds its evidence in others' distress. What's usually missing (for good reason) is a social framework in which sadistically-motivated aggression is acceptable. Wikipedia hands people that framework on a platter: while the mantra is "comment on content, not contributors," every mechanism provided to resolve disputes mandates exactly the opposite. Thusly does tearing others down become indistinguishable from defending the integrity of the project.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Once again, Cla68 knocks one out of the park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189838908

The crux of the issue

I believe that not going to the heart of this issue and opening it up for full discussion will only cause unnecessary delay, because the issue will keep coming up. The crux is, speaking of duck is a duck, that why don't we discuss who Mantanmoreland/Samiharris really is? We are allowed to do so because of the obvious COI issues involved.

I read somewhere that before Essjay was "outed", the fact that he was a phony was one of the biggest open secrets in Wikipedia. That it was obvious that this young guy who showed up at meetups wasn't who he said he was was known to a great many project participants. But, Wikipedians chose to ignore it or look the other way because it was obvious that Jimbo and other influential Wikipedians liked Essjay.

We have a similar situation here. The identity of the person behind Mantanmoreland/Samiharris is an open secret in Wikipedia. We don't even need Bagley's evidence to conclude that. We can look at those account's edit histories. They have the same interests in the same subjects. They've been caught socking before. They're fanatic about protecting the Gary Weiss article. Then we can look at Weiss' blog. It's obvious that Weiss is greatly interested in the same topics that those accounts are interested in. He stated in The Register article that he has never edited Wikipedia. But, his blog posts show that he has detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia works. He has also discussed Bagley's/WordBomb's involvement with Wikipedia, but has never mentioned Mantanmoreland's editing of the same subjects and his protection of the Weiss bio.

In past discussions, Jimbo has made it clear that he is aware of the situation. For example, he oversighted the AfD I initiated on the Weiss article almost a year ago. He told admins to "shoot on sight" on the Weiss discussion page after I tried to start an RfC on the article's content. The fact that Jimbo has called for people on one side of the issue, like me, to be blocked but not on the other side in spite of the serious black eye that this episode has given the project, sends a clear message. Just like with Essjay, people are nervous about taking decisive action because they're unsure whether they'll be supported by the project's leadership or not.

Well, if no direct action is taken, this issue will continue to fester and continue to demand we spend hours spinning our wheels trying to deal with it. One side of the issue, Bagley, has been banned. The other side, and we know who that is, continues to operate here in bad faith. Until the remaining antagonist is dealt with appropriately, the problem continues. Is anyone willing to step up, risk taking some heat, and resolve the matter for once and for all? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

why's pouponontoast so interested in defending gary weiss?

The only connection between them is poupon supposedly uses proxies/tor and one of gary weiss's accounts were found to use proxies.

I thought the user:hypocrite guy who poupon used to be was just some mongo buddy trying to hide the 9/11 truth, not into naked short selling and stuff. I mean the guy isnt gary weiss... right?

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: