Gary Weiss = Samiharris = Mantanmoreland, Here's how I know. Options

[WordBomb]

Depending on how much you care to know, you can bail out after making it through the short version of this story, or you may stick around for the long version, which will include all the details of how I know what I know.

The short version

• On January 21, 2008, User:Samiharris was using the IP address 151.202.103.104.
• On January 21, 2008, Gary Weiss was using the IP address 151.202.103.104.

Given this is a Verizon residential dsl account, which assigns a single IP per subscriber, we can safely conclude that Gary Weiss and Samiharris use the same computer, and are most likely the same person.

The long version
Gary Weiss is an idiot, but he’s not stupid. So he’s learned to use Proxify any time he visits a site he’s unsure of. Matching his IP to Samiharris’, therefore, would require coaxing him to a site au naturel, both as Weiss and as Samiharris, in the relatively short period of time in which his dynamic IP would likely remain unchanged.

I, editing as User:Post Doctorate y-o-y (so named because anybody doing post-doc work must certainly, and regularly, ask themselves “why, oh why am I still in school?!”) engaged Samiharris in a discussion over inclusion of some facts he (Samiharris) clearly wants to keep out of the article on Patrick Byrne. It happened in a very out-of-the-way place (Post Doctorate y-o-y’s brand new talk page), where nobody else was likely to notice it.
EDIT: They blanked that talk page in record time, so I've substituted a cached version of it here.

In the process of making my case, I invited Samiharris to read an article (which is not otherwise available freely online, btw) on a website that a friend can monitor. To put Samiharris at ease, and maximize the chance that he'd go there directly instead of anonymizing first, the link was presented as a Webcitation.org cache of the page, created that day and linked to by no other source.

Because Webcitation maintains the original html of the pages it caches, viewing it would still trigger the embedded ActiveMeter script.

Only one person visited the link that day, and the timing of the visits coincides precisely with Samiharris’ posts on the topic.

A screenshot of the resulting pings (he visited twice) is here:

At that point the challenge was to quickly capture Gary Weiss’s IP, sans anonymizer.

Like Webcite, the Wayback Machine caches a page’s html intact, also including any tracking scripts that might be present. But for some reason, most anonymized browsing of past versions of pages captured there is not allowed.

So, I arranged for Gary Weiss to receive email from somebody encouraging him to visit an archived version of a website that I used to own, promising that he'd find damning information about me there. I knew that when (not if) Weiss followed the link, it would be while not anonymized, triggering another ActiveMeter account which I am also able to monitor, though the old version of the site is long gone.

I was correct and a screenshot of the resulting ping from that visit is here:


I doubt this comes as much of a surprise to anybody, much less Jimbo. But we'll see what happens from here...whether Wikipedia manages to police itself for once, or whether I need to work this out in the media again.

This post has been edited by WordBomb: Sun 27th January 2008, 2:05am

[One]

I'm sorry Piperdown. I know the block was bunk, but I think that if you played differently you could have been unblocked without so much as a topic ban. I guess I'm saying that you could have been a contender, and the grassroots support you got proved it.

But instead, they took the first exit available, slapped "retired" on you, and no longer risk contemplating Mantanmoreland's blatant socking. I don't think that's cowardice so much as the natural administrative urge to stamp "RESOLVED" and move on.

[Piperdown]

I'm sorry Piperdown. I know the block was bunk, but I think that if you played differently you could have been unblocked without so much as a topic ban. I guess I'm saying that you could have been a contender, and the grassroots support you got proved it.

But instead, they took the first exit available, slapped "retired" on you, and no longer risk contemplating Mantanmoreland's blatant socking. I don't think that's cowardice so much as the natural administrative urge to stamp "RESOLVED" and move on.

I wasn't trying to be a contender. I don't give a damn about collecting points on WP in a MUD game. I don't compromise ethics to advance. I don't care about virtual power. I feel sorry for those who do, and WP appears to be filled with them. In some sort of twisted Darwinism (that to give WP some slack, isn't unusual in real organizations, not just scam ones), the ones who advance in Wikipedia are the ones who do so for the wrong reasons. So you have people like Cla68 and Giano who are either relegated to having to quit or going to the media to right wrongs, even though they've contributed more to wikipedia in one month than people like Gerard and Wales have in their whole poser careers.

I'm with One. I think you've let your principles get in the way of a more pragmatic view. You were winning friends and influencing people there. But they were arguing for bringing back someone who could contribute. Why would they put that effort in to a process where the only result was to rub some noses in the dirt and rescue the good nameanonymity of someone who would be entirely un-notable outside the deranged world of WP?

What did you really, really want to achieve? Was it revenge? Was it simply clearing your good name? Was it Wikipedia reform? I think I know why I am here (on a good day). I'm not so sure why you are here now. That is to say, I think you have been treated atrociously, and this little episode just underlines it, but you've probably taken a step back, not forwards.

But sorry, this is probably far too harsh. I shouldn't expect people to be perfect game players when the game is so rigged. I guess you actually thought this was the end game, and it wasn't - it just got flung back in your face.

again, I wasn't playing a game. Whats to be pragmatic about? Do you think everyone edits wikipedia so they can get adminship and win arguments via the hammer?

I guess this is the way the asskissers think who feel it's more important to them to become admins than it is to stand up for what's right.

When people like Cla68 (and others who have stood up - he did it under his real name which went farther than I even thought he would) do advance to become admins on merit, try not to look them directly in the wikieye when you kiss their asses to try to advance too. Aldebaer, I'm talking to you. And perhaps I should have claimed I was drinking Portugese Wine every time I quoted Gerard and JzG's F-bombs on WR these past few postban months.

[dogbiscuit]

again, I wasn't playing a game. Whats to be pragmatic about? Do you think everyone edits wikipedia so they can get adminship and win arguments via the hammer?

I guess this is the way the asskissers think who feel it's more important to them to become admins than it is to stand up for what's right.

Hmm, WP seems to be a game for many, my point (for we are in a forum that allows points to be made without acquiring a ban for suggesting such an unholy thing) was that it would be pragmatic to play along with the game to achieve your goal.

What I am still not clear on is what that goal is. Do you value Wikipedia's opinion of you so much that it is important to be absolved of all sin by them? I doubt it. Were you hoping to return to fix the wrongs that were done to various articles? It appears not. Did you want to put those who wronged you in their place? Well, clearly so, but given the weight of power that could be ranged against you, it was going to need deft footwork to achieve that... and you nearly did it too. That was quite an outpouring of unjustified bile you stirred up over there. Good to see that Slim and Crum can't resist the old double act, even in full view of other administrators.

You've been cross at Wikipedia too long for this just to be about getting your block overturned. I'm concerned because you are troubled and I don't see how you are going to get a resolution on your terms now - yesterday it seemed one more push could do it.