Sir Fozzie's investigation, a proper sockpuppet report Options

[Proabivouac]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

This looks promising, to say the least. What is needed is more of the same. Such evidence, in combination with a plausible motivation scenario, was enough to convict Oldwindybear straightaway, and, after much strife, convince ArbCom in the SevenOfDiamonds case:

I bear no ill will towards Mantanmoreland/Samiharris. The few interactions I've had with him were entirely positive, and several of his friends I would call mine as well.

But as the evidence approaches the overwhelming - as I sadly imagine it will - the deception that has been foisted upon the project, up to the very highest levels of authority, and the questions of corruption which inevitably follow from its recognition…well, this is serious stuff, folks. There's a lot of money and more than one real-life reputation riding on these issues. A serious shake-up is in order - blocking one retired sock isn't remotely sufficient. Anyone who might reasonably be expected to have known about this should be very closely examined.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Peter Damian]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Samiharris

copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.

enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).

Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.

Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.

The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.

Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).

What is the background to this case, please?

[Piperdown]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Samiharris

copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.

enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).

Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.

Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.

The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.

Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).

What is the background to this case, please?

They both post from the same Verizon IP in Brooklyn, NYC, NY, USA.
The older account has revealed his own previous socks through editing gaffes, two of which were quietly shown the door on the same day in 2006. And Arbcom did it with Checkuser proof then too.
The socking is always abusive - consensus illusion, 3RR evasion, double voting
The abuser has returned to the same abuse, although this time used a proxy for sock#2. Most of the time.

Next case please.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Moulton]

In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.

In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.

It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.

[Piperdown]

In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.

In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.

It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

But it is for the admins and management of WP. There's not that many, they should be accountable, and their ID veirfied and presented.

It's what real publishers do.

The editors can continue the MUD games, but the admins who run the joint are the ones doing the real damage. WP has no credibilty has long as you have anonymous COIs, and outed COIs like Jossi, lol, being allowed to do the voodoo they do.

Daniel Brandt has a WP:POINT and I have seen his light, hallelujah.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

The amazing G-Dett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/G-Dett has found another "asked and answered" used in another completely independent thread/time. He is good, very very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=190360171

Who is PTMcCain?

I read his history and it looks oh so familiar to my tilting at MantanWindmills. How many of us have gone through this schtick with Gary? How many have been ralilroaded? PtMcCain was Shanghai'ed, big-time.

He managed to raise a stink, I was a well-behaved ass kisser in comparison. If I would have known I was going to be banned out of the sweet blue for...nothing...I would have pulled a serious PtMcCain (or Giano) on the way out.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[WordBomb]

What is the background to this case, please?

Best place to start is here.
Then read this.

As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.

As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.

[Piperdown]

What is the background to this case, please?

Best place to start is here.
Then read this.

As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.

As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.

Do they still have an attack dog BLP of you, and are they still using "fuck off Bagley" all over WP? That's not nice.
Daniel Brandt Deja Vu.

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...igation/Sandbox

This is just rich.

Slrubenstein comes in to say he doesn't care. It's good he cared so much to do that.

Why does Slrube care?

He was the Gerard Lackey who "reviewed" my unblock (original) request in Sept 2007 (see my user talk page link on my WR profile) with a "you just questioned Gerard's Vice Godkingness. How dare you, knave! You stay banned! Nevermind I didn't bother to investigate a damn thing except what my Vice Godking told me in the two minutes I took on this."

I think that about sums up the knee deep bullshit that is slrube almost as well as he shows for himself on the diff at the top 'o this post.

And nice work, Daniel T. You are a good man, even when you sometimes overlook the facts in some cases (yes, Daniel, there is an SEC Commissioner, and he did say "Naked short selling is a problem we are very concerined about" - see the NSS article where I managed to get that in there between getting sock 6RR'ed) in order to play the Rodney King role.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

Some kind W-R'ian please jonnycache or save SirFozzie's wonderful sandbox, at regular intervals.

Da GodKing will probably roll over and smash it after all the lilliputians get tuckered out.

And I got slrube confused with sandstein. 2 equally but different (far as i know) shallow lochs. Slrubenstein is one of the "I got your back" posse of gary's on WP, and sandstein was just some patsy Gerard drafted to put on a sham appearance of a block review.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Achromatic]

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.

If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.

But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.

[Piperdown]

When the going gets tough, the tough go whip out old socks and post from separate IP's to put on a cu show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

WordB, what's the over/under on DoRight. Funny how and when he pops up. He'll make a fine sleeper account with longtime cred and the usual friends to grow back into the sharkstooth hole.

A quick visual on DoRight vs Mantanmoreland shows another case of Alternating Timelines.

But DoRight would be the oldest account of any of the socks, so that is a new twist. I think it's a friend not a sock, but I was proved wrong with sami too.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Amarkov]

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.

If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.

But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.

Real name policies don't help. It's one thing if you want to wave around credentials, of course. But what if I just want to edit, and don't particularly care to be accountable? Well, then I claim to be a random person from San Jose, and who can prove me wrong? (I've done that before, obviously.) Even better, since my ISP allocates IP addresses over a wide range, I could create sockpuppets over the entire Southwest.

And it's relatively easy to consider that "LegoMan 156" and "Dragonwarrior9" could be the same person. Will anyone think about whether "Andrew Q. Smith, Las Vegas bellhop", and "Enrique Gonzalez, accountant in Phoenix" are really one and the same?

On Amazon, you must use your actual name; your credit card can't sockpuppet for you. That is the only reason why it works there.

This post has been edited by Amarkov:

[Piperdown]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Achromatic]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)

[WhispersOfWisdom]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)

Finally more sites are requiring the essence of what you are talking about, including MySpace.

My problems with WP stemmed from the fact that anyone could open an account with my name on it, and claim they are me. Any one of us can still do that of someone else.

I want nothing to do with WP and it took nearly a year to get out of there. I asked, politely, on Jimbo's talk page; NYB deleted the account with my name on the door. I still do not know how to log into an account there, with my name on it. Verification is a good thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Amarkov]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

[WordBomb]

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value ...

To bring the conversation full-circle, here's what I discovered about Gary Weiss and Amazon.com book reviews. I suspect anybody following this issue will find many, many parallels.

Warning: it's a long post, and all the reviews mentioned in it were mysteriously and simultaneously deleted the same day it was published, so most of the links to Amazon are broken. But because the original text is cited in the body of the post (which is why it's so long), you'll not miss anything.

Irony Alert: Jimbo had this to say to Cla68 in reference to his decision to delete the AfD debate on Gary Weiss's article autobiography:

Cla68, I very much disagree with you about this. The page contained wildly inappropriate speculation that a notable author was sockpuppeting. As I am sure you are aware, many authors have had their careers badly damaged by being caught sockpuppeting at Amazon, etc., and it is deeply wrong for people to ask me to restore a page with such speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed.

In case you missed it, that debate has been re-created here.

This post has been edited by WordBomb:

[Piperdown]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

Bentheadvocate did something today to fend off a sockhunt involving a long ID string on WP. Not familar with what that is or how much weight it carries. I'll post about it on the "Ben Wakes Up to Poop on Toast" thread.

[WordBomb]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

Amarkov makes a great point here. As soon as credit cards enter the picture, you must meet "PCI Security Standards" which adds a degree of complexity that would make it impractical for a .org.

I suspect the answer is to have some third party that does nothing but pass a token to non-commercial sites vouching for a user's credit card-verified identity. Let them take care of PCI compliance for everybody else.

Let them also find a sustainable revenue model (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) .

This post has been edited by WordBomb: