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

[Viridae]

Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned.

Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg:

* 23:38, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Abcse (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Ovmy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Egtlyvi (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Kitjoqka54 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Atdso (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account)
* 07:06, 22 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Famey415 (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy using harassment sock)
* 01:06, 11 March 2007 Jayjg blocked "Bigteenagemonster (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet created with TOR proxy

He made his position clear in this one:

* 06:59, 22 February 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.154.39.13 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (TOR proxy - TOR proxies are blocked, period, no "loggedin users")

So don't BS here. You are stating your opinion. Admins can -- and do -- block for any reason they care to, on the thinnest of pretexts.

They can and do, but they shouldnt as it is not mandated by policy.

[Amarkov]

I'm perfectly willing to start a discussion on something, if I'm convinced that it's true. I can defend myself against random accusations of "OMG PROXYING!"

If you want to do it yourself, fine, but don't expect too many people to spend time defending you.

This post has been edited by Amarkov: Thu 7th February 2008, 3:01am

[Piperdown]

Viridae steps up to the plate and hits a triple. That's baseball lingo for all you Gerards.

Who's on first?
LastExit's on first, TomStoner's and Second, Mantanmorelands's on third, DoRight's on the reserve list, and Sami "The Bull" Harris is on deck. EmilyWelles is back playing in the ladies softball league.

What do Mr Bagley, Piperdown, Cla68, & many more have in common?

A. We never sockpuppeted on WP Articles to
1 - create consensus illusion
2 - talk to our selves
3 - edited from the same IP
4 - lived in the same state, timezone, or gave a damn about each other's off-wikilife
5 - i never used a proxy (ask the Righteous Alison)..I doubt Cla68 did or needs to, and I'm sure Bagley probably did out of necessity to make a WP:POINT on talk pages

B. One guy did, using Mantanmoreland, LastExit, TomStoner, DoRight, Emilywelles, and Samiharris.

I don't care who that guy is in real life. We all know that anyway. What I care about, and what WP should care about, is that anonymous individual should not be allowed to edit WP for abusing its rules.

[LamontStormstar]

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

[Piperdown]

Why lil GW couldn't get adminship

a - mantanmoreland (aka mannymoresocks) already got W-Busted on-wp by Freddy and Maggs (thatcher, the only lady Prime Minister to use the men's room urinals per a reliable source on a BBC comedy show - I think it was a Dave Allen skit, god bless his atheist soul!)

b - samiharris had to edit using a proxy while doing the Mantanmoreland Tango

c - when you go for adminship, you get your proxies checked. Just ask the recently torpedoed and the SlumVersions and JayjgBots that love them.

What a conundrum. And Sami would have been perfect for the latest installment of....the SlimJay CircleJerk Club. Guest starring Chipster and The Self-Quotin' POV Band.

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

i prefer hard cold wordbomb facts ala Antisocialmedia.net over the throw-shite-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks theories like editing from a similar country and the like that WP Badmins throw about.

and someone ask sami why he never email enabled his account. or ask slimmy, who asked sami to email her during the August Super Sekret Retaliation Planning Scheme.

sami was too schtoopid to even start a sami gmail account to go with his mannymoresocks email account, i would hazard a guess.

o look, durova is all over the sleuthing discussion like sherlock holmes without his magnifying glass. lol. what a wp:clown.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 7th February 2008, 3:43am

[Derktar]

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...603&#entry74603
Yes Miltopia said he believed it to be Hipocrite, the name sounds familiar but I don't know much about him.

[Piperdown]

oh boy, G-Dett is in the WP:AN house.

Do not f-ck with G-Dett. I am in awe of his/her WP debating skilz. I bow to the G-Dett give-it-as-good-as-you-get-it altar.

One Righteous Cat.

[LamontStormstar]

It's likely Samiharris is the account using open proxies because the account is one year older than Mantanmoreland.

The user PouponOnToast just really went all over the ANI thread. I've only heard various diverging theories over who that person is.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...603&#entry74603
Yes Miltopia said he believed it to be Hipocrite, the name sounds familiar but I don't know much about him.

Miltopia sounded like he was pondering who it was. And the only hint I see of who he was is someone moving the account's user page. I really can't even guess who that is myself.

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:RfCU_result.29 thread (woops it was noticebored not ANI) Poopon argued a bit. Then Mantanmoreland I think it was came on and gave some analysis that shows far too much familiarity with Samiharris's edits and thus making himself look suspicious.

[Piperdown]

and wait til the sun also rises over Cla68's rising sun.

Cla68 did far more debating with the man socking MM/SH than I did.

I'm sure he has more choice diffs and first-person experiences to proffer on this. Quick! Someone get a pre-emptive gag on the badass who came in the cold and register'd the wikitruth.

[Miltopia]

Poupon is most certainly Hipocrite, there's no mistaking his particuluar brand of hatred and hysteria. The page move happened after (and no doubt because of, to my delight) my "outing" of Poupon here.

And all they have to do is re-check the accounts, continuing to block proxies until he's left with no more, and wait for Samiharris (certainly the open proxy using account) to either edit from a private IP or stop editing altogether.

[Derktar]

Poupon is most certainly Hipocrite, there's no mistaking his particuluar brand of hatred and hysteria. The page move happened after (and no doubt because of, to my delight) my "outing" of Poupon here.

And all they have to do is re-check the accounts, continuing to block proxies until he's left with no more, and wait for Samiharris (certainly the open proxy using account) to either edit from a private IP or stop editing altogether.

Hmm, the defense of MONGO and the input on the expert withdrawal board make more sense now with a few minutes of searching.

Oh and apologies for the slight sidetrack here. I think we are all anxiously awaiting the result of the AN thread now.

[Aaron Brenneman]

Slightly off topic
People often complain that Wikipedia's jargon is impenetrable to newcomers, and I've heard the theory that it's purposeful to maintain the imbalance of power.

But seriously folks. I already knew what this was about having looked over the thread at the Incident's noticeboard first, and I still have no idea what's being said most of the time in the above postings.

Back on topic

The issues I'm able to extract are
1. Was the initial check-user request valid?
2. Were the results posted in good faith?
3. How to sort out the discussions on the noticeboard that followed it.

Leaving aside the first two, the ANI discussion seems fairly even-handed: The gist I'm getting is "don't hunt snarks."

[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

[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.

[Proabivouac]

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.

I'm afraid so. I would find it difficult to believe that Guy is on the take from anyone - he seems nothing if not earnest. Rather, there have been so many situations where (justly) banned users have played AGFing Wikipedians like a collective cheap flute, and others where Wikipedians have been horribly harassed…I surmise that Guy finds a solution in this perfectly understandable, but simplistic, light.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 6:38am

[Kato]

I'm afraid so. I would find it difficult to believe that Guy is on the take from anyone - he seems nothing if not earnest.

Yes. In lots of ways, I like Guy, sympathize with him, and have been WR's resident "Guy Chapman apologist" many a time. But he just isn't up to the task. And more annoyingly, he doesn't realize it. There comes a point where Guy's buffoonery is tantamount to malevolent corruption regardless of his motivations.

[Amarkov]

I see that people are continuing to resort to the tactic of "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It's odd; usually admins TRY to pretend that they listen.

[Aloft]

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

You reading this, Slim?

[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.

[Kato]

Why isn't this being handled by Arbcom? In the open -- with the parties including Judd, Mantamoreland and SamiHarris giving statements. And with the investigation given proper weight? And with no rabble of leering goons like Guy or GeorgeWilliamHerbert interjecting every 2 minutes to scream nonsense about "banned users" and "vile stalkers"??

Or why not deal with this as it is: A proper dispute in the real world? Treat is as such, and apply professional dispute resolution methods, rather than the ridiculous procedures Wikipedia currently employs. Current processes merely result in bawling, bullying and scandals that demean the project and everyone involved with it. Including us.