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

[One]

He was. He didn't reply.

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gomi]

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

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

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

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

[Krimpet]

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

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

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sun 6th September 2009, 7:01am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kato]

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

Too simple for this drama?

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

Something like that demands answers.

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

In other news, welcome back to WR

This post has been edited by Random832: Sun 6th September 2009, 8:03am

[TungstenCarbide]

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

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

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

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

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

[Kato]

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

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

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

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

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

Something like this needs a serious explanation.

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

[Kato]

Ok, so there are three options:

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

[No one of consequence]

Ok, so there are three options:

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

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

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

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Sun 6th September 2009, 12:38pm

[Kato]

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

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

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

This may be where all those edits are coming from?

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

This may be where all those edits are coming from?

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

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