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?

[dtobias]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

[WordBomb]

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet.

I disagree. For the first time, the eminently rational "If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway?" argument has been posited by more than one established editor. This is the point I've been trying to make since July of 2006. This, in turn, opens up the door to examine my other previously-dismissed-out-of-hand claims.

Which is exactly why JzG is working up a sweat as he is.

If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier)...

If the user had been a truly unrelated party, it never would have happened. Not many folks are willing to throw away a productive account. I don't care. Furthermore, where were they "proceeding"? How was one on the outside to know one way or the other?

Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

Again, I refer to my earlier point: I think pretty much everybody now sees that the central premise of ASM is true. If they want to leave Gary Weiss onboard like the crazy aunt in the room upstairs that nobody talks about, at least everybody knows that's what they're doing.

My decision is a principled one: as long as I'm open to trashing by Weiss and his fellow-traveling band of corrupt sidekicks with no opportunity for rebuttal, WordBomb will continue roaming the countryside.

As soon as Weiss is gone, I'll be gone.

[Proabivouac]

I refer to my earlier point: I think pretty much everybody now sees that the central premise of ASM is true.

I'm convinced.

This will probably burn some bridges, and I've been mulling over it awhile, but I feel ethically bound to speak up. I have nothing personally against the people concerned - any of them, banned or protected alike - any more than I did against Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos (who was let off the hook) or FM (ditto) but the hypocrisy and dishonesty surrounding this affair is too much to stomach.

I also will agree with you that most people who've read ASM given this some thought probably do figure much of it is true (if not, they have no business anywhere near a sockpuppet investigation.)

If siding with a banned user is the third rail, joining in harassment in the fourth, then add that to BLP…WB is only spoken of in dark mysterious tones as the worst harasser ever to plague WP. Most people have no reason to doubt that, and will take trusted administrators at their word. Blocking him seems like the right thing to do. Perhaps it is the right thing to do, as WB has obviously not played by the rules, and contributors who are there only to pursue other contributors can't be tolerated. However, neither should corruption in the ranks (or gross negligence, or terminal cluelessness.)

All the articles involved, starting with the bios of both sides, should be deleted, not because, in an ideal world, some version of them shouldn't exist, but because WP is obviously terminally incapable of dealing with them in a principled manner under the current system. Any administrator who's mishandled this affair should be desysoped without malice or prejudice, due to the appearance of impropriety.

In light of the current discussion on WP:AN, I'd like to clarify that I haven't looked into the Samiharris allegation in particular - it's been several months since I checked ASM, and don't recall looking through that evidence - but the research as a whole, showing a pattern of socking, COI edits and undue favoritism, struck me as clever and compelling. Wordbomb has blown a few calls, but were there an official WP sockpuppet investigations panel, I'd certainly want him on it.

JzG's comment,

"And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189594476

is rich, considering first, that he vigorously defended the last sleuth, and second, that "sleuthing" wasn't the problem per se - or why not start by deleting RfCU and SSP? - but incompetent (and unprovoked) sleuthing. There is no comparison between the caliber of research found on ASM (though not without flaws, but what is?) and that in the infamous document indicting !!; to draw one is an insult to the forensic sciences, and to human intelligence generally.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 6:31am

[Proabivouac]

Mongo's request for a full sockpuppet report seems valid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189623757

First, I think MONGO is a straight shooter. Perhaps not all the people around him (or me now) are…but if MONGO finds a report convincing, I'll guess he'd say so, as he has in the past.

The problem is, how to post it? It would be a post by a banned user, or proxying for him. So, there should be some agreement that WordBomb can post a full sockpuppet report by a trusted (by Wikipedians) proxy, one which steers clear of anything that might be construed as off-wiki stalking or harassment.