Links to MyWikBiz, Summa Logicae Options

[Peter Damian]

I raised the issue on the RS noticeboard here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rel...WikiBiz_deleted

There is a concerted effort to remove a link on the Summa Logicae article to a version of book III (the only version on the internet) I placed there.

The logic is that it is a 'personal website'. As I have pointed out, that logic would remove 90% of links from medieval articles, and nearly all the links on that particular article.

It was many weeks work to check the scanned in Latin version - there are currently no Latin spell-checkers on the market, and it all has to be done by eye. This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anything else.

[Jon Awbrey]

MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's Twinkle-Toed Sock. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Abd]

MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's Twinkle-Toed Sock. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This particular behavior I noticed for MrOllie is so familiar. Revert warring on Sum of Logic.
17:10, 12 September 2010 bald revert (of me), no discussion, no edit summary.
19:13, 12 September 2010 revert of IP
19:18, 12 September 2010 Requested page protection, claiming ''Frequent target for editing by sock puppets of a banned user.''
22:09, 12 September 2010 RfPP denied.
23:09, 12 September 2010 revert of The Man On The Clapham Omnibus

This guy also tagged the User page of Omnibus as being a suspected sock puppet of Jon Aubrey, no notice on Talk page of sock puppet investigation report. That was done at 19:20, 12 September 2010 (which is when Omnibus reverted Mr. Ollie's revert. But he waited until the RfPP report was denied, he didn't want them to see his third revert.

This guy knows how to game RfPP. It didn't work, but it often does. Luck of the draw. For some reason, I haven't yet seen them notice that the complainant is the revert warrior, they just accept or deny. Even if the gaming is totally blatant.

Except I did just recently nail Verbal on this one. He'd been revert warring with me on my effing *user page*, and then made his revert and went right to RfPP. But I happened to look and his contribs and saw it, and filed a quick report (for me!) of what was happening, having reverted *him*. They full protected the page, in my state. I think it's indef. Verbal: Fail! Admin had the sense to suggest maybe they should investigate Verbal's claims.

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.

[tarantino]

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.

It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.

[Abd]

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.

It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.

Ehheh doesn't start at all looking like a newbie, this person, I'd say, already knew his way around when first editing in 2006.. Within a month he's acting like he owns the place. (By the way, the article now reads "1993," the year he was revert warring, with threats, to keep as "1994." Of course, we all know that this proves it really was 1993.

Ehheh was running Twinkle, doing RCP right up to the last edit April 21, 2008.
MrOllie starts up April 16, also doing RCP, looks like. First use of Twinkle, 29 April.

Last edit to User talk:Ehheh was a bit of a reprimand from DGG about excessive use of speedy deletion tags.

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?

[tarantino]

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?

MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of Ehheh's last edits. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in Muds.

[CharlotteWebb]

MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of Ehheh's last edits. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in Muds.

Those are roughly the summer daylight hours (to wit 6:00 to 6:00) in Kentucky (home of Ehheh's suspected uridentität).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.

[Abd]

[...]Ehheh's suspected uridentität).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.

A sophisticated sockmaster could make it look like this. However, a closer statistical analysis of the edit timings will reveal, if there is a single user behind two accounts that overlap in edit timing, more than just a few edits, a very different pattern than for random coincidence. Random coincidence will show a range of timings between edits of one user and edits of the other, and, except where they are editing the same page, in response to each other or the like, will show time difference ranging from zero on up. If it's the same user, normally, very short times will be rare.

Note, however, that a sophisticated user can put up two edits within seconds of each other, even with the two edits being from different IP. However, to withstand sophisticated analysis, it would probably be necessary to control timings from a random number generator. That's a lot of work, all for what gain? The very unlikely possibility that someone sufficiently sophisticated will penetrate the veil?

The fact is that I've known how to do it for a long time, but wasn't motivated enough to put in the hours required. There are only a few users who would know how to do this kind of analysis. And when they have done it, it was done (though not the full algorithm I hint at) with Mantanmoreland, to what effect? If you have an ArbComm or Founder who are just going to run by the seat of their pants, discounting mere "statistical evidence" (which can be much more likely to be correct in conclusion than "seat of the pants"), it's pretty useless. However, once we identify a sockmaster, off-wiki, it's possible to watch much more closely.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses multiple accounts. I care if the accounts are used to abuse other users and to push a POV, and if a sockmaster behaves with the main account, and only is abusive with a bad-hand account, it isn't a crying emergency. The relevance, though, is that an admin who will do this is also quite likely to abuse the admin account, too, but in a more subtle way.

[EricBarbour]

Personally, I don't care if someone uses multiple accounts. I care if the accounts are used to abuse other users and to push a POV, and if a sockmaster behaves with the main account, and only is abusive with a bad-hand account, it isn't a crying emergency.

That remains to be seen.

The relevance, though, is that an admin who will do this is also quite likely to abuse the admin account, too, but in a more subtle way.

Now THAT is so commonplace, it's practically guaranteed in this case.

MrOllie has posted that stupid warning on hundreds of user talkpages--maybe thousands.
He (or she, or it) is up to something sleazy. This is major-grade Twinkle abuse.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Jon Awbrey]

MrOllie has posted that stupid warning on hundreds of user talkpages — maybe thousands.
He (or she, or it) is up to something sleazy. This is major-grade Twinkle abuse.

At the very minimum, it's a de facto creation of policy — like a cop with a nightstick making up the law on the spot.

Then look at the style of his talk page badgering and censorship when anyone challenges his authority. There is something strangely familiar about the style of it — then again, many badgers look alike.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)