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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles.

It is? Then where are the cigars and mojitos??

Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

True.

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.

True.

'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.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

Well, it is a bit worse than that. Sockpuppets aren't illegal, and are actually legal per the rules. But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

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.

I don't think an Arbcom session would do much good. They'd collude and no one would care much, I'm sorry to say.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:03pm

But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility. The system architecture guarantees that the balance of compliance is voluntary. This won't happen if the system isn't worthy of respect, and certainly won't happen when it provokes people on the way out the door (as it invariably does, since there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.)

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:12pm

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

That is a really useful point to capture. I'm involved in a number of voluntary groups and there are two people that are incredibly disruptive to deal with: the nice but incompetent, and the domineering damager.

The first drives everyone to distraction, but nobody has the heart to tell them to either sling their hook or stop being "helpful". The latter tends to drive others away because it is too nasty to deal with, and people do not want that in a friendly volunteer organisation.

The latter are the worst to deal with, the incompetent you can work around, as long as they don't get too offended when you do something yourself when it was their job, and often they bring other things to the party, if only cakes on their birthday.

The mop and bucket brigade are there to deal primarily with the former, unfortunately a significant number of them are the later.

Given that face to face we cannot deal with this issues well, it is perhaps not surprising that Wikipedia hasn't got a good solution either.

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

They are acutally quite discrete. Not discreet.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility.

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

In most legit organizations, you have professional management which can bend rules. In Wikipedia, there's one guy who can do anything on the planet, and he lets the kids run the shop as thanks for the free work. It's quite scary.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

Unintentional it was; apologies:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web? That's not a principled management decision, but, like so many other things that are wrong with Wikipedia, an unexamined and uncorrected consequence of the interface.

This post has been edited by Herschelkrustofsky: Thu 7th February 2008, 10:47pm

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

Disgruntled dismissed employees do all kinds of weird things, which is usually why they are often walked to the door by guards. To prevent damage done in anger.

More recently web retaliation is a means of payback.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web?

Well, Florence Devouard did it to Danny Wool, but that's Wikipedia. Most companies don't do it online, quite in Wikipedia fashion. However, they do equally crappy things like announcing it to the press before telling the person (Lee Iaccoca), or generally being nasty (Carly Fiorina), and there's many other examples of how execs get mistreated. Not to mention middle management or regular employees.

Wikipedia's use of 14 year olds to attack is pretty much a Wikipedia specialty, I must say.

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 7th February 2008, 8:01pm

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

It's human nature to enjoy a feeling of power, which finds its evidence in others' distress. What's usually missing (for good reason) is a social framework in which sadistically-motivated aggression is acceptable. Wikipedia hands people that framework on a platter: while the mantra is "comment on content, not contributors," every mechanism provided to resolve disputes mandates exactly the opposite. Thusly does tearing others down become indistinguishable from defending the integrity of the project.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 9:54pm