How are socks properly identified?, before being banned after a fair trial Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The sockpuppet report is here for amusement.

Now, this is of some interest to me, because Will Beback has erected this towering edifice as a tribute to all the editors he has banned, claiming that they were my socks. But now that I know that there is such a thing as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and that they have a handy search engine for locating past investigations, it appears to me that none of my alleged socks was ever examined using this (apparently) standard procedure. (Incidentally, many of the accounts in Will's edifice have never edited LaRouche articles, or any other articles that might conceivably be of interest to me.) So it appears that all of Will's supposed sock investigations were done out of process, possibly by going directly to Jayjg (who had CU privileges due to being a Wiki-made man.) I wonder whether these cases might now be re-opened (if the banned editors have any interest in doing so.)

I would also like to hear from One on these matters, since he evidently took an interest in Will's methodology, and is now in a position to ferret out the whole story.

[Viridae]

The sockpuppet report is here for amusement.

Now, this is of some interest to me, because Will Beback has erected this towering edifice as a tribute to all the editors he has banned, claiming that they were my socks. But now that I know that there is such a thing as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and that they have a handy search engine for locating past investigations, it appears to me that none of my alleged socks was ever examined using this (apparently) standard procedure. (Incidentally, many of the accounts in Will's edifice have never edited LaRouche articles, or any other articles that might conceivably be of interest to me.) So it appears that all of Will's supposed sock investigations were done out of process, possibly by going directly to Jayjg (who had CU privileges due to being a Wiki-made man.) I wonder whether these cases might now be re-opened (if the banned editors have any interest in doing so.)

I would also like to hear from One on these matters, since he evidently took an interest in Will's methodology, and is now in a position to ferret out the whole story.

WP:SPI is relatively new, a melding of the functions of checkuser and the suspected sockpuppets pages.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I found the relevant policy page. It says that

Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists possible - but not definitive - signs that an account may be a sock puppet. The only definitive proof that an account is a sock puppet is an actual admission. Anything short of such may provide mere circumstantial evidence that may be used as grounds for suspicion generally when multiple signs are present.

Under the circumstances, a history of extensive "lone ranger" blocks and bans such as Will Beback's ought to raise some red flags at the project, to whit, that Will is frequently blocking his opponents to gain the advantage in content disputes.

Edit: going back to the edifice, it looks like most of the blocks were not done by Will, but rather by SlimVirgin, Tiptoety, and Nishkid64. Now, for a long time Will and Slim were joined at the hip, but I can find no on-Wiki correspondence between Will and either Nishkid or Tiptoety. Yet, I surmise that there must be some off-Wiki channel where these bans are coordinated.

Further edit: Here's a case where an alleged "LaRouche editor" was permablocked by JzG not as a sock, but rather for supposedly being an SPA. JzG adds "per arbitration," which is a fraud, because there is nothing in any LaRouche-related arbcom case that provides for the blocking of SPAs. There is also nothing at WP:SPA about blocking or banning SPAs. This one particularly stinks.

[CharlotteWebb]

I wonder whether these cases might now be re-opened (if the banned editors have any interest in doing so.)

I would also like to hear from One on these matters, since he evidently took an interest in Will's methodology, and is now in a position to ferret out the whole story.

If there are any which you clearly remember as being yours (or as not being yours) that would reduce the amount of paperwork and save Luke some time. I understand he's pretty busy these days.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm not asking Luke to assess the methods used on a case-by-case basis. I'm asking for a more general comment, because I am under the impression that he had a opportunity to assess Will's methodology generally.

As for an admission that I have used abusive socks, hang on to your hats, because here it comes, for the first time on any stage: Yes, I used an abusive sock. It was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Helen was duly banned by Ryulong. She's not on Will's list.

[Grep]

I think you misunderstand the function of the concept of "sockpuppet". It is analogous to the notion of witches in 17th century England (Keith Thomas is very good on this). There are indeed sockpuppets, just as there were indeed people who believed themselves to be witches. But the function of the sockpuppet accusation, like the witchcraft trial, is to rid society of people who, for whatever reason, are unwanted by a relatively powerful faction.

Witches are in league with the devil, or at least one of his senior demons. Proof is unnecessary, although occasionally a form of trial is gone through in which the accused need not shown the evidence against them, need not be given a chance to speak, need not be warned that they are on trial. Accusations and irrefutable evidence may be given secretly by private channels. Execution may take place after, during or before the trial. Rebutting the charge in an way likely to convince the bystander is further proof of infernal assistance and hence proof of the charge.
Supporting the accused, or questioning the validity or fairness of the process, is proof of being an accomplice and hence proof of the original charge.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm not asking Luke to assess the methods used on a case-by-case basis. I'm asking for a more general comment, because I am under the impression that he had a opportunity to assess Will's methodology generally.

As for an admission that I have used abusive socks, hang on to your hats, because here it comes, for the first time on any stage: Yes, I used an abusive sock. It was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Helen was duly banned by Ryulong. She's not on Will's list.

Lol, Hochwasser. Why not a Handkorb?

I wasn't asking you to admit anything specific, not in public anyway, but it might help to provide Luke with a general statement in which you actively claim or disavow a connection to all/most/some/few/none/etc of those users identified by Willy Beback.

[sbrown]

The general principle is that there is only one person in the world or maybe a handful who could possibly hold certain views. Maybe its that Larouche is not the Devil or that sex with farm animals is a bad thing. Thus anyone supporting these wicked views must be a sock. What other explanation could there be? Surely not that there are many people who disagree with certain admins.

And of course if thats not good enough proof you look for other resembling factors such as they both edit in their lunchtimes.


This post has been edited by sbrown: Sun 7th June 2009, 5:51am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I found this highly entertaining exchange in the ANI archives. It establishes that at least in some cases, Jayjg was involved as CheckUser. It also answers the riddle of how Tiptoety got involved. And there is characteristic merry-making from JzG, Will Beback, and Tom Harrison. This episode seems to be the genesis of Will's magnum opus (although the first section of it is clearly cribbed from SlimVirgin, who used to keep it as a sub-page on her user page, and then delete and undelete it from time to time.)

[Grep]

An interesting little story, showing most of the features of a witchcraft sockpuppet moral panic. Of course there's no real process, merely an assertion with pretty pictures. Top-class admins can achieve a state of doublethink here, simultaneously believing that they are acting for good by blocking the spawns of the devil, while also knowing exactly how to win their little content disputes.

[EricBarbour]

I found this highly entertaining exchange in the ANI archives. It establishes that at least in some cases, Jayjg was involved as CheckUser. It also answers the riddle of how Tiptoety got involved. And there is characteristic merry-making from JzG, Will Beback, and Tom Harrison.

Yep:

* Confirmed that Terrawatt (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Buster Capiñoaz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Polly Hedra (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Pop Art Practitioner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Anti-Gorgias (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
* Confirmed that Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Niels Gade (talk · contribs · logs · block log) = Dental hygiene dilemna (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
* Likely that Marvin Diode=Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
* Possible that Terawatt=Marvin Diode
* Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is Unrelated Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Possible that Terawatt=Marvin Diode"??
What shit. Fuck you, Jay.

And it contains more evidence of Georgewilliamherbert being himself ---
a thoughtless, mechanical attack dog for the worst of the cabalistas.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We received this interesting email from someone who was evidently blocked by Will Beback himself. I'll post it, after first asking this question for the cognoscenti: is it normal procedure, when someone is requesting that a block be overturned, to ask them for a passport or driving license? Incidentally, I have formatted this so that the email exchange appears in chronological order.

Dear Wikipedia Review staff,
I am sending this forwarded message in response to this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&#entry177010
I was accused by Will Beback of being a Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppet. I was also indefinately blocked by him. I contacted the ArbCom in an attempt to overturn the block, and after some back-and-forth, I received this email from their representative Roger Davies. I told him I found their conditions unacceptable. I encourage you to publish their email to me.
Henry Macwhirr

HW to Arbcom:
Bishzilla has informed me that my request to be unblocked is being discussed (Account :Macwhirr,) and that there is no way to determine the outcome other than by sending an email to you. Would you be so kind as to keep me apprised of the progress of my request?

Many thanks,

Reply from Roger Davies (Feb 15, 2009): I certainly will.

HW to Arbcom: May I ask a question on this? I naively thought that all that was required to prove my innocence would be to check my IP number, and compare it to that of the person who supposedly controls me. Evidently this is much more complicated than that. Could you give me some sense of what this is about?

Thanks for yor trouble.

Reply from Roger Davies (Feb 21, 2009):Dear Mr MacWhirr

Thanks for the message. The basis for your block is that you have the same editing patterns as [[User:Herschelkrustofsky]], who is indefinitely blocked. The technical evidence has been reviewed by several of us and it does not, I regret to say, exonerate you.

It is possible that the committee might consider replacing your indefinite block with a one-year topic-ban on editing any article related to [[Lyndon LaRouche]], broadly defined, but I would need your approval in principle before seeing whether the requisite support exists. I look forward to hearing from you,

My apologies for the slow reply but I've been tied up for the past week with a large real life job.

HW to Arbcom:
Mr Davies:

Bishzilla told me that the deliberations of the arbcom are secret, so I would appreciate it if you would post this response:

1. It is clear from what you have written that I am not in
fact being accused of being a sockpuppet, but rather of having
an opinion similar to that of a banned editor.

2. It is rather silly to speak of my "editing patterns" when I
have only edited a grand total of 8 articles. I looked up
Herschelkrustofsky and it looks like he has edited hundreds of
articles. Instead, it is clear from your response that the
only articles that matter are those related to Lyndon
LaRouche, and I have edited two of those. The thing that made
me go from being a person who only uses Wikipedia as a
reference to being an editor was the big neutrality problems
at those two articles. Not coincidentally, those two articles,
along with all the other LaRouche-related articles, are
totally dominated by the opionions of Will Beback. So, if
truth be told, the actual reason that I am blocked is for a
clash of opinions with Mr. Beback, and a rather low-key clash
at that.

Reply from Roger Davies (Mar 2, 2009):
Dear Mr Macwhirr:

The committee was not persuaded by your comments but our earlier offer to replace the indefinite block with a twelve-month topic ban on Lyndon LaRouche related articles, broadly construed, still stands. Prior to implementing this, we would expect you to identify yourself to the Wikimedia Foundation. (This involves sending a scan of your passport or driving licence, to confirm that you are Henry Macwhirr, to the Foundation, who then keep it on file. It is not disclosed to anyone outside the Foundation.) If this is acceptable, please let me know.

[Snowey]

Prior to implementing this, we would expect you to identify yourself to the Wikimedia Foundation. (This involves sending a scan of your passport or driving licence, to confirm that you are Henry Macwhirr, to the Foundation, who then keep it on file.

Odd that they never made JayJG do this initially, and he was in a position of significant influence.

[EricBarbour]

Prior to implementing this, we would expect you to identify yourself to the Wikimedia Foundation. (This involves sending a scan of your passport or driving licence, to confirm that you are Henry Macwhirr, to the Foundation, who then keep it on file.

Odd that they never made JayJG do this initially, and he was in a position of significant influence.

That applies to a long, long list of admins and "janitors".