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?

[Kato]

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:

1. Firstly, evidence is ample that Weiss is a full participant in an offsite feud of vast and very nasty proportions with Judd / Wordbomb. Judd's attacks on Weiss are reciprocated, and in fact often doubled by Weiss's obsession with Overstock and Judd. Barely a week goes by without Weiss engaging in some sort of literary attack on Judd. I read two in the last week alone. This is an abnormal situation from the start.
2. Take a look at the blog postings from Gary Weiss about Wikipedia.
   This isn't some amused or irritated by-stander commenting. This is someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the dispute. Reading Weiss's postings, it looks to me like someone who is personally involved in Wikipedia, and the Wordbomb / Mantanmoreland dispute. In other words, Judd is Wordbomb, Weiss is Mantanmoreland. Take a look at this blog post by Weiss for example : He just knows too much...
3. I couldn't find any reference to Mantanmoreland in Weiss's whole blog. Why would Weiss not mention that for two years, Judd Bagley has been accusing him of being Mantanmoreland? Given that Weiss stops at nothing to attack Judd at every possible juncture, covering the whole Wikipedia dispute, wouldn't mocking the fact that Judd had been accusing him of being some lowly Wikipedia editor be worth a blog post or two? If Weiss isn't Mantamoreland, then you'd have thought Weiss would be making hay at every opportunity? Or is there no mention of it because he doesn't want to draw further attention to his own sockpuppet?

By browsing Gary Weiss's many postings about Wikipedia and Judd, it seems to me that the probability of Mantanmoreland being Weiss is extremely high. Yet the likes of JzG and others have consistently attacked this probable conclusion as "lunatic ravings". Now we all know the state of JzG's judgement on matters. In a word = Useless. And we could find ample evidence for that. So basically, Judd has a really strong case to blame Wikipedia for wantonly negligent and corrupt treatment of this extraordinary situation.

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

[dogbiscuit]

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

[Lar]

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change. I still think there is a fair bit of chaff here (you need a pretty good filter) but the wheat is on the increase and it's more worth being here than before, to learn and listen (and perhaps to offer information that might be helpful in clearing misconceptions).

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

[WordBomb]

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change.

Indeed, when I first discovered WR, it was dominated by a group of fist-shakers, many of which were banned from WP for good reason, and most of these were eventually banned from this site for similarly good reasons. But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles. Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to give the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

I, on the other hand, have never used more than one identity at the same time pretending to be different people in order to influence content or policy. I have, on the other hand, created many identities in order to inject information onto Wikipedia for the express purpose of raising awareness of what I feel are activities that history will undoubtedly judge to run contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the people who reference it.

I will admit to committing precisely one act of vandalism. It was a moment of comedic weakness for which I have already begged forgiveness.

Finally, I feel quite confident that as the true nature of my activities, as well as those of the WP "establishment" come to light, it will be made abundantly clear who was acting reasonably and who was not.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

Finally, if you have not yet, I encourage you to read this story to get a deeper understanding of what's motivating me, and why it makes sense for you to be squarely on "my side".

This post has been edited by WordBomb: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:17pm

[Proabivouac]

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to five the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.