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

[Kato]

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?

[Amarkov]

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.

[jorge]

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?

[Derktar]

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.