The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cool3/Cool three (13 Jan - 8 Feb 2010)
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 1:51pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:17:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

There is discussion taking place on functionaries regarding admin Cool3
being a sock of Kohs. I mentored and nominated Cool3 for admin by the way. I
have asked Alison to take a good look at Cool3 to see what she thinks. But
things are not looking good.

:-(

KL
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:25:51 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

I'm a bit occupied at the moment (hence my silence on wikis and emails
the past two days) but I can take a closer look at this when I take a
break from what I'm doing. Alison does know what she's doing, though,
and the evidence she's come up with so far looks extremely damning.

If this does appear to be Kohs, we may want to do a Level I emergency
desysop to give us time to work out the motions - this assuming Lar
doesn't just do it himself anyway.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
---------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:30:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

I have no problem with doing a Level 1 Emergency De-sysop once we get a bit
more review. Alison just posted some really damning info, but she said she'd
want to see what Thatcher made of it all.
---------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:34:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

She is taking a look at the range now. I think the conclusion on
functionaries is that Cool3 is a sock.

If it comes to a desysop/block I would like the honors on this one.

KL
----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:42:05 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

And it's only my first day in actual use of Checkuser. I certainly didn't
expect to catch such a Big Fish! XD

Kenneth/MD
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:43:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

Very good point. I will leave this alone then.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

> KnightLago wrote:
>
> She is taking a look at the range now. I think the conclusion on
> functionaries is that Cool3 is a sock.
>
> If it comes to a desysop/block I would like the honors on this one.
>
> KL
>
>
> Not a good idea. If you nominated him for admin, you're a bit too involved.
> It might look as if you're pushing it to distance yourself from him.
>
> Roger
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:43:40 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

There was talk some time ago about Limey from WR having an admin account for
sale, and Kohs mentioned that he may be interested, so it wouldn't surprise
me to learn that he had and that this was it. The contribution pattern also
fits the pattern of somebody working an account up to admin and then leaving
it for later use:
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/inde...i=wikipedia>
----------

From: rlevse(Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:43:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

I don't recall ever hearing of this guy. And why are there only 3 RFAs
showing when the last one is numbered 4:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...ests_for_admins
hip/Cool3

You might be looking for:
* Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_admin
ship/Cool3_2> (unsuccessful)
* Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 3
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_admin
ship/Cool3_3> (unsuccessful)
* Wikipedia:Requests for
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_admin
ship/Cool3_4> adminship/Cool3 4 (successful)

R
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:44:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

Ah, first one was declined and deleted.

R
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:47:34 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

Aye. I'd be lying if I said this won't look bad at all, but the fact of
the matter is you did not, and could not, have known. You have that on
your side, and once that's explained, the majority of the community will
understand and drop the issue. The drama-mongers will continue to harp
on about it as they always do, but there's no need to give them
something tangible to hang on to by making a block out of a desire for
retribution.

I do very much understand the feelings of betrayal, but don't let that
cloud your judgment here.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:48:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs

As well, I believe Kohs said back in the day that he wanted the admin
account mostly to access deleted articles that he had written. I told him
(and I think Iridescent did the same, when she was an admin) that he needn't
do that, as I'd be happy to provide him copies of deleted articles without
copyvio/BLP/privacy issues (on that note, see the functionary-l archives for
March 2009), but he said the volume was too much to bother us with.

Anyway, this is probably him.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> Ah, first one was declined and deleted.
-----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:12:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Ok, as I continue to ignore what I should be doing and keep looking at
the evidence that comes up, this looks far too significant for us to
ignore. So that this is done all formally and whatnot...

I am proposing an immediate Level I emergency desysop of the account
User:Cool3, on the grounds that the evidence provided on the
Functionaries-en list under the subject thread "Re: [Functionaries-en]
Playing games with Thekohser" indicates very strongly that this account
is operated by banned user Thekohser. As noted in that thread, it is
possible that this account may not have originally been controlled by
Thekohser, in which case it is compromised. In either event, recent
posts by the Kohser on Wikipedia Review have indicated that he is
undertaking a planned effort to conduct a "breaching experiment" to
disrupt the project; it seems logical that an administrative account
could assist these ends, if for no other reason than to serve as a
distraction.

For those unfamiliar with the procedure
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_I_procedures),
this email is step 1 of the desysop process. Step 2 is discussion; once
three or more arbitrators, including myself, agree that a desysop is in
order, and provided there is no expressed dissent (all that was step 3),
an arbitrator handles step 4, by a) contacting a steward directly for
the removal, b) posting a removal request on behalf of the Committee at
Meta, and c) ringing the dinner bell for the dramamongers by
crossposting the hell out of the wiki. The crosspost notice should be
placed on WP:AC/N, WP:AN, and User talk:Cool3, listing the (brief)
reason for the desysop and the names of the arbitrators who consented to
the removal.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:14:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Count me in .

R
----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:15:27 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

^stamp^ Endorse.

Kenneth/MD Approves This Message

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Hersfold wrote:

> Ok, as I continue to ignore what I should be doing and keep
-----------

From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:16:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Ditto but let's get an okay from the non-arb CUs on func-en first. (See my last message.)

It'll only take a few minutes, I imagine, and it's good belt and braces stuff.

Roger
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:19:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Staying out of this. But one small request, as Steve thinks Kosher may have
bought this account, could that possibility be included in the on-wiki
explanation? That would give me a little cover and not make me look like
such a moron.

Thanks,
KL
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:24:19 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Please leave the drafting of the announcements to me on this one.

Roger

KnightLago wrote:
> Staying out of this. But one small request, as Steve thinks
----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:27:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Works for me.

I was thinking about requesting a hold until Thatcher spoke up, but with the
unanimity of the Func-l, I feel safe in it.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

> Please leave the drafting of the announcements to me on this
-----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:30:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

This really has to be my last email here, then I *have* to get back to
work...

The crosspost notice could read something like this, which explains that
this is covered under Level I and somewhat covers KL's arse as
requested. Link as appropriate, of course:
"The Arbitration Committee has requested an emergency desysop of
User:Cool3, based on private checkuser evidence linking Cool3 to a
blocked account and a planned attempt to disrupt the project. Other
evidence available to the Arbitration Committee indicates a possibility
that this account may not be under the control of its original owner.
This request was made in accordance with Level I temporary desysop
procedures, and a further statement from the Arbitration Committee is
pending and should be released within a few days.

Arbitrators supporting the desysop: Hersfold, Rlevse, Roger Davies, [...]
Recused: KnightLago

For the Committee, ~~~~"

I do agree with Roger that we shouldn't take care of this just yet - we
need to wait until everyone has had a chance to read and comment, just
in case someone objects. If an objection is noted, this needs to be a
formal motion.

If I post to this list again before midnight tonight, someone slap me.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
-----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:32:56 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

In case my earlier message didn't make it to the list, I support the desysop
as well.

Kenneth/MD

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Hersfold wrote:

> This really has to be my last email here, then I *have* to
-----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:33:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

You can put me down as a supporter of the desysop.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Hersfold wrote:

> This really has to be my last email here, then I *have* to
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:36:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Here's how we'll do it.

The desysop will be certified by: Randy, David and Kenneth.

I'll post the announcement at WP:AC/N giving "confirmed sockpuppet of
banned user" as the reason.
I'll do the same on the Cool3 talk page and indef the account as a sock
of TheKohser

Randy or Herfold or Kennth? Want to do the Meta request? It's easy. Find
the User:Secret desysop a couple of weeks back in the history and copy that.
Link:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_req...issions#Removal of
access
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal%20of%20access>

I'm waiting for a second non-Arb Cu to certify the confirmed sockpuppet.
Then we can move.

Roger

David Yellope wrote:
> Works for me.
-----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:38:29 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Good call - Allie did the second certification in that thread, so you can
post now

Fred
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:40:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Right. Alison has certified "confirmed sockpuppet of TheKohser" too. All
ready?

Roger
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:44:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

If no one does it in ten minutes, I'll do the Meta request. Everything
has to follow from that.

Roger
-----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:53:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Don't have the time myself, so carry on.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:54:42 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I would post it, but I'm not a certifier

Fred
-----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:59:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Done, I hope:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...5&oldid=1808778
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:00:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

And now sit back with cocktails and relax as Wikipedia briefly explodes
around us

Fred
------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:01:33 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

The "De-sysop Resturaunt at the end of the Wikipedia Universe?" (geez,
Python and Hitchhiker's Guide in less then 2 hours. My geek is showing)
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:02:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Looks good. Well done,

Roger
------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:05:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Except MZMcBride is now snarking at me there. Would another arb speak up
please?
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:13:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

commented for you at Meta

Fred

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:05 PM, David Yellope wrote:

> Except MZMcBride is now snarking at me there. Would another
-----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:16:20 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Commented as well at meta.

Kenneth/MD
-----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:19:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I think we need an on-wiki announcement now - the hordes have noticed and
are demanding answers

Fred
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:20:39 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I think Roger is on it. He just did Cool3's talk page.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Fritz Poll wrote:

> I think we need an on-wiki announcement now - the hordes have
-----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:21:48 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Grand. I have 7 PMs waiting for me on IRC about this, so I imagine people
are interested.

Fred

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> I think Roger is on it. He just did Cool3's talk page.
------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:24:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Makes me glad I'm not on IRC right now.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Fritz Poll wrote:

> Grand. I have 7 PMs waiting for me on IRC about this, so I
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:26:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I lucked out, my car is in for service and the service centre is now
providing free hardwired internet access, so I just logged into IRC. Feel
free to refer any of your customers over to me if you'd like, Fred.

Anne

2010/1/14 David Yellope

> Makes me glad I'm not on IRC right now.
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:44:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

They have been appeased, thanks Anne. Mind you, I love Majorly saying we
shouldn't desysop block-evading sockpuppets. Brilliant

Fred

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Risker wrote:

> I lucked out, my car is in for service and the service centre
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:45:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

MZM is better, at Meta arguing that everyone is wrong and demanding
evidence.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Fritz Poll wrote:

> They have been appeased, thanks Anne. Mind you, I love
-----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:46:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

And on IRC demanding the reason the account was checkusered. His
transparency binge is a very recent thing...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:45 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> MZM is better, at Meta arguing that everyone is wrong and
-----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:59:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I'd go in and help with the IRC demands, but I don't have a cloak (yet), and
I don't want certain folks snaffling up my work info tongue.gif

Foz

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Fritz Poll wrote:

> And on IRC demanding the reason the account was checkusered.
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:01:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Are we mentioning it's one of eight socks?

Roger
------------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:02:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Can't hurt.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com

Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Are we mentioning it's one of eight socks?
-------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:03:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I don't see why not. We can say that this was one of a number of Kohs socks
found during a checkuser of accounts disclosed by Kohs?

(well, maybe)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Are we mentioning it's one of eight socks?
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:03:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere yet.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Are we mentioning it's one of eight socks?
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:05:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

That would be funny.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:03 PM, David Yellope wrote:
> I don't see why not. We can say that this was one of a number
-------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:08:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I would enjoy that

FP

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, KnightLago wrote:

> That would be funny.
------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:29:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

BTW, I do have to bring this up. I'm getting really leery of the
MzMcBride/Kohs combo here, as it looks like MzMcbride unilaterally unblocked
Kohs on Meta in late december..

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Reques...hser_re-blocked
------------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:35:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I haven't been able to check out the technical evidence yet but if
it's as solid as everyone says I certainly support the desysopping.

As a point of information, in these types of situations (e.g.
Archtransit, Pastor Theo) we've usually grabbed a Steward offline
first and posted on Meta second. We don't need outgoing admins
deleting the mainpage (or whatever today's equivalent is) once they
realize they have been found out. Of course this applies only in
situations where we're pretty darn sure of ourselves.

Newyorkbrad
------------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:36:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

And of course Majorly says we screwed up again and we're being deceitful,
but who cares.

R
-------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:37:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I enjoy his theories of mind over at WR

F

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> And of course Majorly says we screwed up again and we're being
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:38:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

I am glad I am not the only one who has noticed that.

KL

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:29 PM, David Yellope wrote:

> BTW, I do have to bring this up. I'm getting really leery of the
> MzMcBride/Kohs combo here, as it looks like MzMcbride
-------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:38:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Yes.

Resisted the urge to say.

"I know you'd like the urge to rubberneck at the train wreck, but we have
this thing called a privacy policy for a reason, as well as the
functionaries-l mailing list....."

But, eh. Can't reach them all I guess.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse> wrote:

> And of course Majorly says we screwed up again and we're being
-------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:41:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

if he wants to know on what basis a Checkuser was done (in response to
Tznkai's latest comment), can we please say "Off-Wiki, Thekohser announced
he was controlling multiple accounts. In accordance with normal procedure
when such accounts come to light, a checkuser was done to confirm this
information and during this checkuser, a total of eight accounts were found,
of which Cool3 is one of them".

*evil grins*

(yes, I know, it's bad for my karma to hope for such biggrin.gif))

Foz

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:38 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> I am glad I am not the only one who has noticed that.
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:11:19 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

The "...of them" at the end of that message is redundant.


Steve Smith
Making brilliant contributions to ArbCom
Since 2010

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:41 AM, David Yellope wrote:

> if he wants to know on what basis a Checkuser was done (i
-------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:15:54 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop
I
Oops.. my bad.

I see at least one of the socks is still not blocked. I've posted something
on functionaries to see if we're ok to block.

"This post was approved by the department of redundancy department...."

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> The "...of them" at the end of that message is redundant.
-------------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:18:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the Cool3 desysop
promptly..

especially David, Roger, and Randy that put their names out there in the
line of fire.

I truly appreciate you all of you acting on this account in response to the
information provided by the Funct-l.

I regret that the initial responses on site have been negative. I know that
most editors don't share the view of these folks.

Take care,

Sydney
-------------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:21:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the Cool3 desysop
promptly..

Thanks Sydney. Much appreciated.

David
-------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:26:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the Cool3 desysop
promptly..

Yes, big round of applause to all for the excellent work. Kinda nice to
disappear into a 4-hour meeting and come out to find that a problem has been
identified and quantified, solutions posited, and the matter promptly,
appropriately, and quietly resolved.

Anne
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:38:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the Cool3 desysop
promptly..

I missed all the fun. :-(

Seriously, that was a fast turnaround time. Barely time for me to
spend an evening and night playing chess and sleeping. Congratulations
and thanks to everyone who worked on this (could someone thank the
functionaries as well?).

Now I'm off to read the on-wiki reactions...

Carcharoth
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:44:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Do try and balance transparency with not revealing too much (or
anything) about how the socks were found - that would only help Kohs
and others who sock. Kohs will know which socks are his, and if he
really objects to any of the blocks as not legitimate, he will say so
(it is not hard to work out, from the block log of the CUs, who got
blocked in the time frame in question).

Carcharoth

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:41 AM, David Yellope wrote:
> if he wants to know on what basis a Checkuser was done (in response to
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:25:33 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

Out of interest, why *have* we disabled Cool3's talkpage for editing? This
isn't normally done for a block unless the talkpage is being abused.

Fred
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:43:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admin Sock of Kohs - Level I Desysop

The ability to e-mail was also blocked:

"account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page".

Roger asked him to e-mail us if he wants to appeal the block. Unless
the e-mail part of the block is lifted, I'm not prepared to believe
anyone who writes to us is the person who has access to the Cool3
account. That account will need to e-mail User:Arbitration Committee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arbitration_Committee

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:01:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the Cool3
desysop promptly..

Why, thank you, Sydney smile.gif Happily, the negativism is now decreasing ...
so while I don't suppose we'll all get barnstars at least the torches
and pitchforks have been put away until the next announcement :-)


Roger
------------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:56:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sincerest thanks for tackling the
Cool3 desysop promptly..

There are always the extremists who criticize us no matter what. The
section we have to worry about is the rational middle.

R
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:03:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Possible Thekohser sock

I'm at work now, so am not in a position to use my fancy tools, so can
someone checkuser this one please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Draftydoor

Clearly very knowledgeable user, not a lot of contribs, but focus on
usernames and moving "spam" templates to "conflict of interest" instead.
Today created a "Desysopped" template and put it on User:Cool3's page.

Just a tad fragrant.

Risker/Anne
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:05:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Possible Thekohser sock

Will give it a shot.

KL
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:25:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Possible Thekohser sock

I do not think it is thekosher. But I think there is socking happening here.
Can someone with more experience take a look?

KL
------------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:33:33 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Possible Thekohser sock

Here's the info. Doesn't look like Kohs, unless he goes to the
University of Oslo. I'm still going to block all of these, however.

IPs:
90.149.32.164 and 90.149.30.95 - NextGenTel, xDSL accessprovider in Norway
- Several accounts, mostly with the same useragent:
- - Icepickhaha
- - Pornomatic
- - Utsti?
- - Yrfnfryn
- - Ghiais0
- - Sheretrane
- - VisitGuadalcanal.sb
- - ???? ??????
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB_%D0%93%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80&action=edit&redlink=1>
- - Guenter c.
- - Songlife909
- - Sinterklaas '88
- - Muntenesc Grande
- - Azarian Roads
- - NEXTransformerSTYLE
- - Misomoteur
- - X 71349315 X
- - Theendisvivid
- - Themanwhoreadverse
- - Senden40
- - Freezer Twelve
- - Ginnvermouth
- - Nipplewheel (username blocked, autoblock disabled)
- - Master7775
- - PiongAAA
- - Gtotnipple (username blocked, autoblock disabled)
- - Nipple29 (username blocked, autoblock disabled)
- /Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6)
Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.x (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

/80.203.101.120 - The same ISP
- Couple accounts:
- - Ovrekil
- - Drezdet (already blocked for Jimbo harassment)
- - Stuntnipple (username blocked, autoblock disabled)
- Multiple useragents:

1. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4)
Gecko/20091016 Firefox/3.5.4/
2. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; nb-no)
AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4
Safari/531.21.10/
3. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5)
Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 - All of the other accounts on this
IP use this useragent
/


81.167.191.152 - Lyse Tele Residential, Norway
- No accounts
- /Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.38 Safari/532.0/
129.240.198.49 and 129.240.195.50 - University of Oslo, Norway
- No accounts
- /Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)/

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:26:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Nope, standard block.

Roger Davies

Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Hey, Roger,
>
> So, did you make it impossible for Cool3 to even sign into the account
> any more?
>
> Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:26pm
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



"Feel-good thread of the Summer." - Roger Ebert
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 3:33pm
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Cool Three)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:05:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet of
thekohser?

To the arbitration committee,
I am the real Cool3. Today, after a long absence from Wikipedia (due to
largely unforeseen travel and illness as well as general business), I
returned to Wikipedia to check my watchlist and talk page. Imagine my
surprise to discover that my account had apparently when compromised, had
the password changed, and been blocked. I must say that is probably
partially my fault, as I was using a very weak password, but that is a
mistake I will not make again.

In any case, could you please assist me in recovering the account?
KnightLago should be able to confirm that this is my email address as can
Juliancolton and a few other miscellaneous editors.

Thanks,
Cool3
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:24:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

This is message is to confirm that we have received your email. We will get
back to you as soon as possible.

KnightLago
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:29:48 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

(List only)

So I assume what's happened here is that Limey has taken the account back
over, and is therefore able to demonstrate that the account is now in the
hands of its legitimate pre-Greg owner. Of course, if that owner sold the
account to Greg in the first place, that's not exactly helpful information.
-------------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:34:34 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Then my question would be : How did he get compromised for about or more
than 3 months without realizing it?

Kenneth/MD
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:36:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Weren't you reading? Unforeseen travel, illness, and general business!

Lord t'undering, whatever happened to assuming good faith?
-------------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:40:40 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Sorry, I got distracted reading that TheKohser owning up to that Cool3 was
(and probably still is) under his control. :3

http://www.webcitation.org/5mzxlULCw

Kenneth/MD
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:43:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

<list only>

I am suspicious that this is Kohs again. Though I can confirm that this is
an email address I have corresponded with before as Cool3. But Kohs could
have easily created it for that purpose when he got the account.

Roger forwarded an email to the list on the 21 titled "Re: [arbcom-I] Cool3"
in which Kohs asked whether we had done anything to make it impossible for
Cool3 to even sign into the account. Roger said no. I am not sure of the
exact date Kohs sent the email. Roger, can you check?

On the 20th the password was reset by an IP Kohs has used before to edit and
sock. The useragents match from previous socks. See:
20 January 2010

- (Logs<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A>)
. . 23:03 . .
69.141.192.61<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.141.192.61>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.141.192.61&action=edit&redlink=1>
|
block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/69.141.192.61>) reset
password for user "Cool3"
*IP*:
69.141.192.61<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=69.141.192.61&reason=arbcom-I+thread>
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7)
Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7 GTB6


Kohs also emailed me yesterday asking about the Trulyeqal1 account, and
wanted to know whether, as a reward for his BLP "efforts", we would unblock
the Cool3 account. I also recall him expressing interest in getting the
account back on WR, but I am not sure where.

All in all I am very wary of this. Thoughts?

KL
------------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:47:52 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Does this mailing list keep the original email headers that the originator's
email was sent from?

Kenneth/MD
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:00:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Delivered-To: KnightLago at gmail.com
Received: by 10.213.28.12 with SMTP id k12cs20488ebc;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.142.55.11])
by 10.142.55.11 with SMTP id d11mr4101468wfa.1.1264256210165
(num_hops = 1);
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.55.11 with SMTP id d11mr2946774wfa.1.1264256210121;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-To: Tom7048 at gmail.com
X-Forwarded-For: knightlago at gmail.com Tom7048 at gmail.com
Delivered-To: knightlago at gmail.com
Received: by 10.143.41.3 with SMTP id t3cs846067wfj;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.23.206 with SMTP id s14mr1335454ebb.77.1264256208761;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:48 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>
Received: from lists.wikimedia.org (lists.wikimedia.org [91.198.174.5])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 27si7652243ewy.36.2010.01.23.06.16.48;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:16:48 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org designates 91.198.174.5 as
permitted sender) client-ip=91.198.174.5;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org designates 91.198.174.5 as
permitted sender) smtp.mail=arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37005 helo=lily.esams.wikimedia.org)
by lily.knams.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>)
id 1NYgn8-0006Cc-55; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:16:46 +0000
Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.144]:62094)
by lily.knams.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <coolthree at gmail.com>) id 1NYekF-0007mM-Eq
for arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:05:40 +0000
Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 26so536249eyw.42
for <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>;
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:05:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.86.65 with SMTP id v43mr212273wee.118.1264248339189; Sat,
23 Jan 2010 04:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:05:39 +0000
Message-ID: <17bc1ba61001230405t75fbe575vd2a3b91d3c8d9e67 at mail.gmail.com>
From: Cool Three <coolthree at gmail.com>
To: arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:16:42 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet of
thekohser?
X-BeenThere: arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
<arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
List-Id: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
<arbcom-l.lists.wikimedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l>,
<mailto:arbcom-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/arbcom-l>
List-Post: <mailto:arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arbcom-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l>,
<mailto:arbcom-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3759235436550802264=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
Errors-To: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:05:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

I changed the first "delivered to" address from my other email to the one I
use for WP. But it appears I missed another couple instances. So as you may
guess, my name is Tom, and I am an Arbitrator. :-)

KL
------------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:17:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

On 23/01/2010 7:05 AM, Cool Three wrote:
> To the arbitration committee,
> I am the real Cool3. Today, after a long absence from Wikipedia (due
> to largely unforeseen travel and illness as well as general business),
> I returned to Wikipedia to check my watchlist and talk page. Imagine
> my surprise to discover that my account had apparently when
> compromised, had the password changed, and been blocked. I must say
> that is probably partially my fault, as I was using a very weak
> password, but that is a mistake I will not make again.
>
> In any case, could you please assist me in recovering the account?
> KnightLago should be able to confirm that this is my email address as
> can Juliancolton and a few other miscellaneous editors.
>


I smell a rat.

I'm afraid that, without some more convincing proof, that would be a Bad
Idea. No commited identity hash, gmail address... my opinion is "not
without some direct tie-in to a real-life identity".

-- Coren / Marc
------------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:22:35 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

We can ask for Juliancolton's opinion or for background as well, if you guys
are agreeable for it.

If he's using history to try and back his case, then he jolly well be 100%
consistent in his answers.

Kenneth/MD
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:24:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Kohs could have easily created this account and corresponded with me and
Julian without us knowing that it was him.

KL
------------

From:(Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:26:35 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Good call. I have no reason to take the email at face value either.

Kenneth/MD

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:24 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> Kohs could have easily created this account and corresponded with me and
------------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:18:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

We could ask him what was the former weak password and how long he had
it. Awhile back (two years?) after a few administrator accounts were
hijacked, the developers did a check on admin accounts with certain
types of weak passwords - we could try to find out whether his was one
of the types that would have been picked up then, which would disprove
this story.

Newyorkbrad
-------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:57:31 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Oh, here's a chart I made a couple of days ago of Cool3, Limey, and
Thekohser (on both sites). Thekohser's posts on WR are so numerous that I
made them small.

The upshoot is that Kohs, Limey, and Cool3 look North American to me. If
they are in different time zones, I think it's only a couple off (Cool3's
older edits look more western than Kohs' east cost times).

The only interesting point is that when Thekohser was unbanned, he
completely stopped posting on WP and WR from August 10 to August 19. In
this time period, Cool3 woke up from relatively low activity. That said, I
think it might be coincidental because Cool3 still looks to be on a more
western timezone at that time, and because the edges are ragged--they don't
neatly fit together.

Could someone post a complete Checkuser with dates? It was my impression
that Cool3's earliest available edits did not seem Kohsian, or is that not
so? I whether this might be Kohs all the way down.

Frank
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:53:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

How about if someone writes directly to Kohs and asks him? I know
that we couldn't necessarily take the answer at face value, but I've
been surprised before.

(I once asked an obnoxious vandal/troll to stop, and he basically
responded "okay. No one ever asked me nicely before," and I never saw
him again. So one never knows.)

Newyorkbrad
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:36:25 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

FWIW, Kohs has said openly on WR that Cool3 was his sock, so that is
not in dispute. The question seems to be who is in control of the
account now. Unless a password reset is forced and sent to anyone we
accept as being the real Cool3, we can't reasonably say who is in
control of the account.

Carcharoth
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:29:34 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Kohs is alright with me; I believe we have some report. I've never known
him to dissemble in response to a direct question, which is more than can be
said of some.

Does anyone mind if I ask him?

Frank
-------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:35:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Works for me.

Although for the record, I'm disinclined to resysop the account regardless
of what the answer is.

Risker/Anne
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:49:08 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

The password reset was done by an IP (with the same user agent) that Kohs
has used before to edit and sock. So I think it it pretty clear that Kohs is
in control of the account.

I am with Risker. Regardless of what Koh's answer is, I am not inclined to
unblock or resysop without solid proof that the real Cool3 is back in
control of the account.

KL
-------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:27:59 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

I can agree with that. You said in your initial reply "We will get
back to you as soon as possible." Do you think that you could deal
with this thread and sorting out a reply of some sort?

Carcharoth

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:49 PM, KnightLago wrote:
> The password reset was done by an IP (with the same user
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:30:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Sure. I will send a draft back to the list when I get it written for
comment.

KL

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I can agree with that. You said in your initial reply "We will
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:19:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Frank did you ever email Kohs and ask him? Thanks.

KL
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:37:11 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Yes I did email Kohs. No reply yet.

At any rate, I would be reluctant to restore the bit even if I was sure the
account was out of Kohs' hands--failing to notice a runaway account after
leaving it weakly protected is not something that we should value in an
administrator. I still don't understand why we did for Coffee, who
intentionally shared his password.

I think we should also ask some questions of the "real Cool3." I would most
like to know when he claims he last was in control of the account; this
might be confirmed from CU data, or not. We could also ask where he normally
edits from (assuming it might be evident on our first CU), and why he
maintained a password so weak that he immediately concluded that Kohs had
guessed it.

Frank
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:45:14 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Kohs replied to my questioned. He didn't answer, but mentioned this:

Before I start spilling the beans, I want a question answered.

About 4 days ago, I tried signing into the Cool3 account with the
password that I knew worked a month ago, but the password was rejected
by the system. When I asked for it to "resend my password" via
e-mail, I didn't receive any e-mail. I need this explained to me
before I'll talk; other than to say, I haven't sent any e-mail to any
ArbCom person since an e-mail I sent to Roger Davies (about the
aforementioned problem) on January 20-21, and a similar note to
KnightLago on the same dates.

Greg

Seems genuinely puzzled about what happened. He says he used "E-mail new
password," but never got the email. I have two questions for CU experts:

1. Would this cause the account password to reset as reflected in the log?
2. Is it possible to determine what email the account was associated with or
to clear the association?

On related, can someone send me the detailed CU with edits?

Frank
----------

From:(Hersfold)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:53:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

1. I just checked myself to see this - just clicking "Email new
password" does NOT trigger the password reset. It appears as though you
need to follow the instructions in the email before this is logged. I
would assume resetting via preferences would also trigger a log entry.
2. No, outside of developer intervention there's no way to tell what
email goes to what account unless they email you through Emailuser.
Emails in checkuser logs are hashed anyway so you can't identify
recipients. Thinking of it, a developer may not even be of much help, as
they may only be able to access the current email and not previous ones.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:57:25 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

This actually sounds similar to a strange complaint Geogre made that
various nefarious people were targetting him and resetting his
passwords (this was an explanation he gave for some early changes in
accounts). It seems some people think that it is possible for
checkusers or developers to force a password reset. The question I
have is whether this is true or not, and if so, how is it logged?

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:02:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Developers can of course *do* anything, but whether or not they *will*
is an entirely different matter. And the answer there, 99.9999% of the
time, would probably be "hell no". If on the incredibly rare chance they
did change a password, I would highly doubt there would be a log of it
unless they logged into the account themselves to make the change.

Checkusers can't do diddly with passwords. All we can do is see when the
primary password for the account is changed; we are unable to force
anything, and temporary password requests are not recorded in the
checkuser log.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:23:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Thanks. I don't think he's going to like these answers. He'll might think
I'm calling him a liar. I'm agnostic on that question though: if he really
did buy an account, it's conceivable that he would have it pulled out from
under him.

I suspect we won't get an explaination though. Meh.

Frank

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Hersfold <hersfoldwiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. I just checked myself to see this - just clicking "Email new password"
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:34:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

No explanation = no returning of the tools. Simple enough. :-) The match
we found was rock-solid - if he's no longer in control of the account,
then it is or was compromised, and by our policies, remains blocked.
Whichever the correct verb is, it makes no difference.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Thanks. I don't think he's going to like these answers.
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:42:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

I assume that we wouldn't be returning the tools to Kohs!

I mean Kohs seemed poised to explain how he did it. I get the sense he
really would like some attention for being clever, so maybe he'll elaborate
yet. Or not. Any further inquiry will have to be directed through the
"real Cool3," but I think we're done here.

Frank


On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Hersfold wrote:

> No explanation = no returning of the tools. Simple enough.
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:16:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

I checked my email and talked to Juliancolton. We both have email from this
address in mid-June; in the midst of Cool3's pursuit of adminship. But, I am
not sure if this is the real Cool3, the person who sold the account to Kohs,
or Kohs himself. Barring us knowing for certain we cannot do anything with
the account.

Draft reply:

Cool3,

The Arbitration Committee has looked into your claim. Unfortunately, we are
unable to conclusively establish your identity. Email was sent to both
Juliancolton and I in mid-June of 2009. However, the Committee cannot
determine who was in control of the account, and by association this email
address at that time. Barring conclusive proof of you being the original
Cool3, we cannot assist you in recovering the account.

Thoughts?
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:18:08 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Sounds good.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:23:46 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Can we at least ask him when he claims to have lost control of the account?

Frank
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Cool3,

At what point did you lose control of the account?

Thanks,
KnightLago
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:45:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Cool3,

Thank you. It may not seem like it, but we are actively looking into the
matter. I will get back to you again as soon as possible.

Thanks,
KnightLago

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Cool Three wrote:

> My last edit with the account was this one
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...did=316344154on 26 September. I logged in once or twice in October to check my
> watchlist, but from the beginning of November until my email a few days ago,
> I had not tried to log in.
>
> On that basis, it seems fair to assume that whomever took over the account
> did so on 23 Novenmber with this edit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=327460104(that was not me).
>
> Hope that helps,
> Cool3
>
> P.S., Given that it seems to be taking the committee some time to
> straighten all of this out, I am currently editing with my secondary
> account. User:Cool three.
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:59:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Cool3,

A further question. Before your last edit, prior to September 26th, do you
recall ever editing while logged out? If so, please send a difference if you
remember where and when it occurred.

Thanks,
KnightLago
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:04:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

<list only>

CU from [[User:Cool three]]:

(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul-Henri_Spaak&curid=162364&diff=339992484&oldid=339755780>)
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul-Henri_Spaak&curid=162364&action=history>)
. . Paul-Henri Spaak <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-Henri_Spaak> . .
15:44 . . Cool three <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cool_three>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_three> |
contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool_three> |
block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/Cool_three>) *(Previously
blocked<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACool+three>
)* (Early life: )
*IP*: 163.1.214.119<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=163.1.214.119&reason=arbcom-I+thread+re+Cool3+account>
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us)
AppleWebKit/531.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.3 Safari/531.9

The IP has not been used by Kohs as far as I can see. The user agent is also
different.

The following account was created on the 19th on the same IP with the same
user agent as [[User:Cool three]].

(Logs<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ANo+Name+Given>)
. . 16:05 . . No Name Given<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No_Name_Given>
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_Name_Given> |
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_Name_Given>
|
block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/No_Name_Given>) new user
account
*IP*: 163.1.214.119<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=163.1.214.119&reason=arbcom-I+thread+re+Cool3+account>
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us)
AppleWebKit/531.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.3 Safari/531.9

Cool3's contention that his last edit was on the 26th doesn't help us. There
is no CU date from that far back.

This CU data would seem to rule out Kohs. I have been keeping track of his
socks, and he has not used this IP or user agent that I have seen. I am
hoping Cool3 can provide an instance where he edited while logged out.
Looking at the IP from then would be helpful.

I am still not sure if this would rule out a person who sold the account to
Kohs though. That person could have had the account and this email address
until it was clearly handed over to Kohs as evidenced by the editing. But
handing over an email address as well seems a little far fetched to me.
Thoughts?

KL
-------------

From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:30:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

I don't think it's at all far-fetched that the gmail address came with the
account. Even if it didn't, we could well be communicating with the guy who
sold the account, instead of with the guy who bought it. So what?
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:36:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

I understand. Steve, do you know who was offering the admin account for
sale? If so, do they have a WP account that you know of? I would like to run
that if possible.

The IP below resolves to Oxford University in the UK.

KL
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:43:12 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

It was WR poster Limey, who's referred to himself in the past as "John
Limey", which I assume is a pseudonym. He claims to be User:ShortJason, who
hasn't edited since September 2006 (but who also seems to be part of a
sockfarm - not sure if there's anything more recent to be had there).
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:56:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Okay folks, it's time to make a decision here, because Cool3 is now showing
up in "official" wikipedia IRC channels using the same IP as below. I just
got pinged and told that he is in #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia, and
#wiki-hurricanes (the latter being a "project" channel).

My inclination is to say "sorry, your account has been compromised and we
cannot be certain under whose control it remains at this time."

Risker/Anne
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:59:39 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

<list only>

The IP he says is his below resolves to Georgetown University in the US. He
is now editing from the UK. I do not know what to make of it. I guess we
could ask him what the deal is. But I still think we are no closer than
confirming anything than before unfortunately.

KL

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cool Three
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?
To: KnightLago


My apologies. I spoke in error. I have received messages from JulianColton
on another account, but it appears that I did not send any to him using that
account (this then seems to do us no good). There is one final thing which
might help. I am Cool3 on IRC if that helps anything. I am currently
logged in as Cool3, but I will be departing shortly. Don't know if it helps
or not.


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:54 AM, KnightLago wrote:

> Which other email address did you use with JulianColton?
>
> KL
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Cool Three wrote:
>
>> Oh I understand. This<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.161.68.133> is
>> me, although it may not be immediately obvious. That's all I can find at
>> the moment. As for confirming my identity, we have corresponded via this
>> email address previously. I've also corresponded with JulianColton,
>> Cyclonebiskit, and a few other Wikpedians from this address. If the concern
>> is that this email address is also compromised, I've also corresponded with
>> JulianColton using a different email address (though I can't be certain if
>> he keeps his emails back far enough to be able to confirm that). I'm not
>> sure if any of that helps.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:18 AM, KnightLago wrote:
>>
>>> No, I am not suggesting that. My question is, do you recall ever
>>> mistakenly editing while logging out, say signing a comment, noticing you
>>> were logged out, and then logging in and signing again under your account? I
>>> am trying to find a way to confirm your identity. Any thoughts on how to do
>>> that would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> KnightLago
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Cool Three wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ever? I'm sure I have, but I'd have trouble finding one off the top of
>>>> my head. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. If you're
>>>> asking if I've ever done anything improper while logged out, then the answer
>>>> is no.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:59 PM, KnightLago wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cool3,
>>>>>
>>>>> A further question. Before your last edit, prior to September 26th, do
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:27:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: I have been blocked and desysopped as a
sockpuppet of thekohser?

<list only>

I rather doubt that is him on the Georgetown IP, I think he probably
selected it because it is an IP that edited the same article as he did.

Today's IRC login shows the same IP as in the previous thread (the Oxford
one). His earlier IRC link was
<irc://freenode/juliancolton,isnick>>[2009-06-16 17:14:42] -->| Cool3 (
n=chatzill at adsl-68-78-128-73.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net) has joined
#wiki-hurricanes <irc://freenode/%23wiki-hurricanes>
That IP geolocates to Naperville Illinois, but it's AT&T so the geolocation
isn't particularly reliable. The IP also shows up on some blacklists.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:58:40 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: I have been blocked and desysopped as a

I doubt he was British before; that would make him a consistent night owl
since he got the account--he has not once in over 4 years has he edited
between 0710 and 1050, and he's only edited between 0620 and 1200 a handful
of times. His 2009 activity shows lots of edits over 16 hours, with 8 hours
~0600-1400 off every day. Looks strongly N.Am. Some people are night owls,
but they are usually scattered when they are. His old edit patterns were
steady, like someone with a full-time job.

Incidentally, as I suspected, Kohs did refuse to explain anything because he
didn't like my answers. He instead offered a far-fetched explaination for
why he can no longer log in:

It seems odd to me that I would voluntarily change the password to
Cool3, then hours later ask Roger Davies how I sign into the account.
I'm usually pretty good at remembering my passwords, especially one
that I may have changed just hours earlier. I suspect someone who was
blazing away on the CheckUser process has a "buddy" in the developer
crew, and that "someone" took over the account in a way similar to how
I had taken over the account a couple of months earlier. I wouldn't
put it past them to "tag" this change with my IP address. I mean, how
hard is "copy" and "paste" in a transaction log?

As far as I'm concerned, Cool3 would need a letter from the Pope notarized
by President Obama. I don't want to imply that we are trying to pry into
his personal life, so maybe it's best to cut it off here and send the
message KL originally proposed.

Frank
-----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:21:43 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: I have been blocked and desysopped as a
sockpuppet of thekohser?

LOL!!!!!

Kenneth/MD

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Cool Hand Luke <
User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, Cool3 would need a letter from the Pope notarized
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:15:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

I am going to unblock while we continue looking into your situation. We
should be getting back to you in the next few days. In the meantime, besides
the [[User:Cool three]] account, have you edited under any other accounts
since you returned?

Thanks,
KnightLago

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Cool Three <coolthree at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I disclosed to the committee, I have been editing with my secondary
> account (User:Cool three) while the committee sorts out the issues
> surrounding my compromised account (luckily, this secondary account was not
> also compromised, perhaps because of its very low profile). I have now
> been blocked<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ACool+three&type=block> on
> that account, and would like to appeal to the committee to unblock me.
> Unless it is your intention that I should not be permitted to edit while
> you sort things out, would you or another member of the committee please
> unblock me (it seems that other admins are reluctant to do so).
>
> Thanks,
> Cool3
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:23:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: My secondary account


<list only>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cool Three
Date: Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: My secondary account
To: KnightLago


No.
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:53:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

An interesting development here. He says he has not edited under any other
accounts since he returned, but another account was created on the 19th on
the IP he has been using since the 24th. See below copied from a previous
email.

CU from [[User:Cool three]]:

(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul-Henri_Spaak&curid=162364&diff=339992484&oldid=339755780>)
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul-Henri_Spaak&curid=162364&action=history>)
. . Paul-Henri Spaak <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-Henri_Spaak> . .
15:44 . . Cool three <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cool_three>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_three> |
contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool_three> |
block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/Cool_three>) *(Previously
blocked<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACool+three>
)* (Early life: )
*IP*: 163.1.214.119<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=163.1.214.119&reason=arbcom-I+thread+re+Cool3+account>
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us)
AppleWebKit/531.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.3 Safari/531.9

(Logs<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ANo+Name+Given>)
. . 16:05 . . No Name Given<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No_Name_Given>
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_Name_Given> |
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_Name_Given>
|
block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/No_Name_Given>) new user
account
*IP*: 163.1.214.119<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=163.1.214.119&reason=arbcom-I+thread+re+Cool3+account>
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us)
AppleWebKit/531.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.3 Safari/531.9


Risker and I had discussed allowing him to return to editing provided that
he used a single account, the Cool3 account remains blocked, and that the
only way to regain the bit would be RfA. But this other account, and him not
disclosing it, is bothering me.

Thoughts on what to do with this?

KL
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:57:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

What the hell sort of user name is "No Name Given"?

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:03:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

One I wish I had thought of? biggrin.gif

I'd rank it with "A Nobody" and similar.

Anne
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:49:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

Bump

Thoughts? I would like to wrap this up.

KL
------------

From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:50:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01001280850j5e990f9cod1c60751bf908a3d@mail.gmail.com>

This needs to be wrapped up. So the following is a proposed draft reply with
conditions. I plan to send it tomorrow morning barring objections.


Cool3,

The Arbitration Committee has looked into your claim. Unfortunately, we are
unable to conclusively establish your identity. Email was sent to both
Juliancolton and I in mid-June of 2009. However, the Committee cannot
determine who was in control of the account, and by association this email
address at that time. Barring conclusive proof of you being the original
Cool3, we cannot assist you in recovering that account.

While your identity is not ascertainable, we will allow you to continue
editing under a few conditions. First, that you edit from only one account,
and notify the Committee should you wish to edit from another account.
Second, that in order to gain the administrator permission you must go
through an RFA. If these conditions are acceptable please let me know.

Thanks,
KnightLago
-----------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:48:15 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

Too cryptic to sound legit to me.

Kenneth/MD

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bump
>
> Thoughts? I would like to wrap this up.
-------------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:06:39 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Works for me.

Kirill

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:50 AM, KnightLago wrote:

> This needs to be wrapped up. So the following is a proposed draft reply
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:21:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Cool3,

The Arbitration Committee has looked into your claim. Unfortunately, we are
unable to conclusively establish your identity. Email was sent to both
Juliancolton and I in mid-June of 2009. However, the Committee cannot
determine who was in control of the account, and by association this email
address at that time. Barring conclusive proof of you being the original
Cool3, we cannot assist you in recovering that account.

While your identity is not ascertainable, we will allow you to continue
editing under a few conditions. First, that you edit from only one account,
and notify the Committee should you wish to edit from another account.
Second, that in order to gain the administrator permission you must go
through an RFA. If these conditions are acceptable please let me know as
soon as possible.

Thanks,
KnightLago
-------------

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:49:37 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cool3

Looks like it was sent out in the other thread already. In any case it looks
good to me as well.

Kenneth/MD
---------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:58:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Cool3,

I received your email, and one from Pharos. Let me consult with the rest of
the Committee and I will get back in touch.

Thanks,
KnightLago

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Cool Three wrote:

> KnightLago,
> I appreciate the committee's difficulty in ascertaining my identity. While
> I can not prove conclusively that I am the "original" Cool3, there are a few
> things the proof of which I can supply to the committee. Using another
> email account than this one, I exchanged emails with User:Pharos (now a
> semi-active admin) in May 2007 and User:CanadianCaesar (now evidently
> inactive) in March 2006. Given the enormous amount of time that has passed,
> it is uncertain whether any of them will help, but I have emailed Pharos
> from that account. Assuming that Pharos can provide prove that this
> conversation took place, then it will be evident that I am the same Cool3 as
> I was nearly 3 years ago. I'm not sure if that's good enough for the
> committee.
>
> Also, I do not know how certain the committee is that this account was
> compromised by "Gregory Kohs" (User:Thekohser), but I am more than able to
> supply proof that I am not Gregory Kohs. A checkuser run on User:Cool three
> will show that I am editing from the University of Oxford at the present
> time. Unless Gregory Kohs is also at the University of Oxford (which seems
> to me unlikely), this should serve as proof that I am not he.
>
> If none of this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate to the committee that
> I am the rightful Cool3, I do, however, have a request. In the first place,
> I am certain that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not
> Gregory Kohs. In the second, I feel that you have strong evidence to show
> that I am User:Cool3, even if it is not, as you say, conclusive. In light
> of the uncertainty (if the above proof is insufficient), I can understand
> the committee's reluctance to give me back administrator status; however, I
> see no reason that I should not be permitted to take back the Cool3 account
> without those permissions (I fail to see how this could possibly cause any
> damage), so that all of my edits can be kept in one place.
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:59:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail about Michael Woodruff article

Pharos,

Thank you for your email.

KnightLago

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Pharos wrote:

> Hi KnightLago,
>
> I wanted to confirm on Jimothy's behalf that he and I had the below
> email conversation in 2007 (which I recall distinctly and which I have
> records of in my inbox archive), and that he has contacted me again
> from the very same email address, which fact will hopefully go some
> way toward helping him get his wiki identity back.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Jimothy Smithson
> <potatoes345> wrote:
> > Pharos,
> > I'm not sure if you recall the exchange below, but it is a brief email
> > conversation we had in 2007 (I am Wikipedia User:Cool3). A few months
> ago,
> > my Wikipedia account was compromised and I am now in the process of
> trying
> > to prove to ArbCom that I am the rightful owner. Thus, if you could
> > represent to KnightLago of the ArbCom (KnightLago at gmail.com) that we did
> in
> > fact have the conversation below, it would be most helpful.
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> > Cool3
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:56 PM, Pharos
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It's too late for me to get to the library now, but hopefully you'll
> >> have better luck with your friend in Edinburgh.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> On 4/25/07, Jimothy Smithson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't have access to my copy of Nothing Venture Nothing Win right
> >>> now so I can't guarantee you that there are Australian photos in it,
> >>> but I seem to recall that there were. You'll have to make a judgement
> >>> call there. Sorry for the delay in responding, I don't check this
> >>> email address at the office so I didn't find your email until a few
> >>> moments ago. All in all, though, I'd say there's an 80% chance you
> >>> could get the right photo out of Nothing Venture Nothing Win. In
> >>> either case, a friend of mine in Edinburgh might be able to send a
> >>> picture of Woodruff to me from his own collection. If so, I'll upload
> >>> it immediately.
> >>>
> >>> Best Luck
> >>>
> >>> On 4/25/07, Pharos wrote:
> >>> > Please respond to this soon, because it's a somewhat urgent matter.
> >>> > "Michael Woodruff" has been moved up to tomorrow UTC, which is just
> >>> > -seven hours- from now. Can you please answer my last query, i.e.
> >>> > whether there are any photos of him in Australia in "Nothing Venture
> >>> > Nothing Win" or another book?
> >>> >
> >>> > I might go out and make a long trip to the library today (it's about
> >>> > 45 minutes away), but only if I know I'm actually going to find a
> >>> > photo in the book.
> >>> >
> >>> > Of course it would be great if you could just photograph a plate from
> >>> > the book with a digital camera and upload it yourself (or just e-mail
> >>> > it to me), but that's not necessary. If you're unable to do that,
> I'm
> >>> > asking you to please just confirm what books about him may have an
> >>> > Australian photo.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you very much
> >>> >
> >>> > Please remember this is a very timely issue
> >>> >
> >>> > On 4/19/07, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > Yeah, unfortunately, we have pretty strict copyright policies so I
> >>> > > don't think the 1946 English photograph would be acceptable. I've
> >>> > > looked into Australian copyright laws, though, and I believe any
> >>> > > Australian photo from before 1955 (which would cover his whole
> period
> >>> > > in Australia, if I've read the article right) would be public
> domain.
> >>> > > If you can't make a scan yourself (or indeed just use a digital
> >>> > > camera, which is almost as good), could you at least point me to
> any
> >>> > > books that you know have photos of him from Australia? I live in
> New
> >>> > > York City, so it shouldn't be a problem for me taking any book out
> of
> >>> > > the library. Thanks.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 4/19/07, Jimothy Smithson <potatoes345 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > I really know nothing about non-US copyright law. I don't have a
> >>> > > > scanner so I can't upload pictures out any books that I own, but
> I
> >>> > > > would suggest that you look at
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> http://renux.dmed.ed.ac.uk/EdREN/Unitbits/...transplant.html
> >>> > > > which includes a photo taken of Woodruff in 1946 in England. I
> >>> > > > have
> >>> > > > in the past obtained permission from the author of that website
> to
> >>> > > > include the photo in Wikipedia only; however, he did not respond
> to
> >>> > > > requests to license it under GFDL or Creative Commons.
> Apparently,
> >>> > > > the photograph was originally taken by a female physician who is
> >>> > > > now
> >>> > > > in her late 80s and has no computer access so between those two
> >>> > > > factors, I can assure you that Wikipedia would face no legal
> >>> > > > problems
> >>> > > > in using the picture (of course we both know that legality is not
> >>> > > > the
> >>> > > > only relevant issue). However, as the picture was taken 60 years
> >>> > > > ago,
> >>> > > > it might now be in the public domain; I'll leave that to you.
> >>> > > > Thanks for letting me know the article is to be featured,
> >>> > > > Cool3
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On 4/18/07, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > > I notice you haven't been editing Wikipedia much recently. You
> >>> > > > > may be interested to know that your fabulous featured article
> on Michael
> >>> > > > > Woodruff is (tentatively) scheduled for the Main Page on April
> 27.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > However, we still don't have a free image of him, and because
> of
> >>> > > > > a recent tightening of the rules, we probably won't be able to
> use a fair
> >>> > > > > use image on the Main Page. It would be great if you could
> look over your
> >>> > > > > copy of "Nothing Venture Nothing Win" for possible
> uncopyrighted photos. In
> >>> > > > > particular, any photos taken when he was in Australia would by
> now be in the
> >>> > > > > public domain. Also, if there are any photos taken by the
> British
> >>> > > > > government before 1957 (of course I suppose that's less likely)
> these would
> >>> > > > > also be in the public domain.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > It would be great if you could upload any such photo or just
> >>> > > > > forward it to me if you're unsure how to upload it. And please
> include all
> >>> > > > > information about the photograph: who took it, when it was
> taken, where it
> >>> > > > > was taken, when it was first published etc.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Thank you very much
-----------

From:(Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:25:34 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

Can we get more confirmation from him as to how the account got
compromised and which edits he thinks are not his and why he took such
a long break from editing (if he did)? Would that be intruding too
much into his privacy? Maybe ask him if he is prepared to go into more
detail here, but say that he is perfectly entitled to not give more
details than he already has. My main concern is that he should
identify and disown the edits and actions that were not his.

Carcharoth
------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:29:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] I have been blocked and desysopped as a sockpuppet
of thekohser?

<list only>

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Cool Three wrote:

> KnightLago,
> I appreciate the committee's difficulty in ascertaining my identity. While
> I can not prove conclusively that I am the "original" Cool3, there are a few
> things the proof of which I can supply to the committee. Using another
> email account than this one, I exchanged emails with User:Pharos (now a
> semi-active admin) in May 2007 and User:CanadianCaesar (now evidently
> inactive) in March 2006. Given the enormous amount of time that has passed,
> it is uncertain whether any of them will help, but I have emailed Pharos
> from that account. Assuming that Pharos can provide prove that this
> conversation took place, then it will be evident that I am the same Cool3 as
> I was nearly 3 years ago. I'm not sure if that's good enough for the
> committee.
>

This email certainly lends weight to this person being the original Cool3.


> Also, I do not know how certain the committee is that this account was
> compromised by "Gregory Kohs" (User:Thekohser), but I am more than able to
> supply proof that I am not Gregory Kohs. A checkuser run on User:Cool three
> will show that I am editing from the University of Oxford at the present
> time. Unless Gregory Kohs is also at the University of Oxford (which seems
> to me unlikely), this should serve as proof that I am not he.
>

CU does indeed confirm that edits are coming from the University of Oxford.
Though there remains the possibility that the person who took the account
from the original Cool3 is editing from Oxford.


> If none of this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate to the committee that
> I am the rightful Cool3, I do, however, have a request. In the first place,
> I am certain that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not
> Gregory Kohs. In the second, I feel that you have strong evidence to show
> that I am User:Cool3, even if it is not, as you say, conclusive. In light
> of the uncertainty (if the above proof is insufficient), I can understand
> the committee's reluctance to give me back administrator status; however, I
> see no reason that I should not be permitted to take back the Cool3 account
> without those permissions (I fail to see how this could possibly cause any
> damage), so that all of my edits can be kept in one place.
>

I do not think it is possible for us to give him the account back ev
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:42pm
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



"A disappointing sequel. The first part of the thread ended with the ArbCom kids high-fiving each other over the defeat of their enemy, theKohser. The sequel opens by muddying that happy ending, going off on confusing tangents, and focusing on a mystery which, ultimately, remains unresolved." - Roger Ebert
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 5:08pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Anybody willing to venture a guess as to how many person-hours were expended by people other than Cool3 and other than me, discussing and analyzing what happened, and what to do about it? Note, even, that Cool Hand Frank spent some considerable amount of time plotting the actual "time zone" patterns of my activity on WR and WP!

Now, anybody willing to venture a guess as to how many person-hours were expended by me using the Cool3 account, plus the hours spent by "the real Cool3" trying to get the account back?

My guess is:

53 person-hours for the apparatchik bad guys.

8 person-hours for the subversive good guys.

So, really... who "won" here?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 5:43pm
Post #6


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



Only 'thekosher' biggrin.gif knows for sure, but I'll hazard a guess that whoever compromised the account sold it to Greg, not the original owner of the account, and that 'Limey' has no association whatever with the account.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:44pm
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is a very disheartening thread, not only because it took 45 minutes to read it all. I'm very curious about the truth behind this case because it has direct bearing on the question of Greg's fundamental ethics or lack thereof.

At the very end of the thread posted by Malice, we find that Cool3, using the email address "potatoes345" and the name "Jimothy Smithson", cites to an email conversation with Pharos, who lives in New York City. Cool3 says he's in Oxford and writes about how he'd be willing to make a 45-minute trip to a library but only if he knew that he would find a certain photo there. This ties in to Cool3's farewell statement which you will find in my signature below. (Note: I am not Cool3 and have no relation to him.) In that farewell statement, Cool3 writes that he once traveled 3 hours to a library to find something to post on Wikipedia.

There's no way Cool3 would have written the farewell statement just to tie in with an email address that he couldn't have known would be leaked more than a year later. That, and the consistent writing style which is very substantially different from the style of Gregory Kohs, indicates to me that the 2007 Cool3 is the same as the 2010 Cool3.

That still does leave some questions:

1. How to explain Cool Hand Luke's identification of a midwestern U.S. time zone for Cool3, versus Cool3's own statement and 2010 checkuser evidence pointing to Oxford, UK?

2. What about Cool3's failure to disclose No Name Given (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? Is this really Cool3? If yes, did he fail to disclose it because it hadn't edited mainspace?

3. How did Greg Kohs get a hold of Cool3's account? This is still the key question. Note that Cool3's identification of the edit where control changed hands ties in exactly with Wikipedia Review's previous identification of same.

4. Why did ArbCom not investigate further? You will find that Marc Pelletier (a.k.a. Coren) said he'd not resysop without a tie-in to real-life identity. We actually did have the real-life identity of "Jimothy Smithson" (assuming it's not a pseudonym) at the email correspondence to Pharos at the very end. So we actually did have what ArbCom needed. And yet they still didn't resysop because of suspicion of how the account changed hands.

5. Is there anything more in the email archive? Possibly something that isn't on the ArbCom list? I remember on the Cool3 RFA to resysop that Cool3 cited an email from an ArbCom member stating "Not satisfied with the answers received" or similar phrase. I don't see that expression anywhere in the thread above.

For my part, I still believe that Cool3 was a legitimate editor who was not socking; that he passively lost control of his account and did not sell it for money to Mr. Kohs; and that he responded to all reasonable requests for ArbCom after the fact with truthful answers that tie in across three years of email and wiki editing. To summarize, I believe justice was not done. I further believe, as I said at the time this incident came to light, that Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him. How do you feel about stealing someone's online identity, even for a website where everyone is pseudonymous--you who so eagerly castigated a certain other desysopped Wikipedian who committed a certain (admittedly more deleterious) identity theft?

Shame on you, Kohs and ArbCom both. Injustice was done.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:55pm
Post #8


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:44pm) *

...Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him. How do you feel about stealing someone's online identity, even for a website where everyone is pseudonymous--you who so eagerly castigated a certain other desysopped Wikipedian who committed a certain (admittedly more deleterious) identity theft?

Shame on you, Kohs and ArbCom both. Injustice was done.

Shame on you, Shalom, for jumping to conclusions without evidence, but not hesitating to accuse me of theft. Why don't you go cry to "Jimothy Smithson" about it? Yeah, that sounds like a real, non-made-up name.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:59pm
Post #9


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I'm just wondering why ArbCom cared so much. Normally, they impassively burned everything and moved onto other things. Why take into consideration any possible victim or false identity or whatever? Was it because of Knight Lago's personal connection?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:56pm
Post #10


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:55pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:44pm) *

...Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him. How do you feel about stealing someone's online identity, even for a website where everyone is pseudonymous--you who so eagerly castigated a certain other desysopped Wikipedian who committed a certain (admittedly more deleterious) identity theft?

Shame on you, Kohs and ArbCom both. Injustice was done.

Shame on you, Shalom, for jumping to conclusions without evidence, but not hesitating to accuse me of theft. Why don't you go cry to "Jimothy Smithson" about it? Yeah, that sounds like a real, non-made-up name.

How dare you comment about me -- or what I said -- by accusing me of "jumping to conclusions without evidence."

You have no standing to make such a claim.

Greg, let me make one thing very clear to you. You can resolve all doubts, once and for all, by telling me (by PM, if you prefer) exactly how you acquired access to edit from the Cool3 user account on Wikipedia. It is common ground that you were not the original creator of the account, but you acquired control of the account at a certain point in time. We even have agreed-upon statements by Cool3 and by the Wikipedia Review crowd (either you or Milton Roe, I can't remember) as to the last edit from the original Cool3 and the first edit from you.

To be specific, and based on that context:

1. When did you learn the pre-existing password to the Cool3 account, or alternatively, when did you receive a new password with access to the Cool3 account?

2. Did you guess the password? If so, did you use brute force guessing (trying anything you could think of until you got it right) or did you use a computer bot or script to assist the process?

3. Assuming you did not guess the password, how did you find the password, or come into possession or knowledge of the password?

4. Did the original Cool3, or any person, assist you in acquiring the password?

The answers to these questions -- especially the last question -- will make it clear which one of the following two possible explanations reflects reality.

Explanation 1 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account without the knowledge or consent or assistance of the original editor who created and edited from that account previously. We can decide how serious of an ethical offense it would be to hack into someone else's Wikipedia account, but let's agree that it's not a very kind thing to do.

Explanation 2 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account with the assistance of another individual, who gave you access to Cool3's Wikipedia password or to his email account (to which a new password could be emailed). The reasons for this other person's cooperation may or may not involve a monetary payment from you. (There is speculation on that question, but I don't expect you to answer it.) If this is what occurred, I have no ethical problem with a business transaction between two consenting adults, and I also don't see how disruptive it would be to Wikipedia in the grand scheme, but to be fair, the administration there is within their rights to block such an account per existing site policy.

Given the agreed facts which are not in dispute, the only two possibilities for what occurred are Explanation 1 or Explanation 2. There is no third explanation. If you want to play mind games with me, go ahead and propose a third logical explanation that is consistent with the agreed facts. I don't think you will be able to.

With that said, please put your cards on the table. It is now more than a year since the incident, so if you ever intend to explain how you did this, please do it now.

Also to be clear, I hesitated with the "real name" identification of "Jimothy Smithson" by adding "(assuming it's not a pseudonym)" in parentheses. Look at my previous post. I did say that. My point in assuming it could be a real name was that, if it were a real name, it could provide the basis for exactly the type of positive identification that ArbCom was seeking in order to reinstate the original Cool3's admin tools.

We have two dueling, incompatible accounts. Cool3's written statements clearly indicate that from his perspective, Explanation 1 (see above) is what happened. There are some findings in the ArbCom-L discussion that call Cool3's credibility into question. Still, the statements Cool3 makes seem to hold an internal consistency, and I pointed to a striking example (driving to a library to get a citation for Wikipedia) as a particular evidence of this consistency.

On the other side, we have you, Mr. Kohs, and your friends here on Wikipedia Review. You all seem to be suggesting that Explanation 2 is correct, but nobody will simply state how assistance was provided for you to get in control of the account. As such, since you will neither state that explanation 2 is correct, nor will you state how you got control of the account, I can reasonably conclude that you are engaging in a game of obfuscation, and Explanation 1 is possibly consistent with your evasive statements on point. When you are giving me nothing hard to go with, I can evaluate the other evidence now available by email and reach a conclusion that is perhaps different from the conclusion you would prefer me to reach (if you care what I think).

I will tolerate no more snarkiness from you. Lay your cards on the table. Did you have help in getting Cool3's account, or not? If yes, what kind of help? It's a very simple question, and it still hasn't been answered. I'm only appearing to jump to conclusions because I haven't been given an answer despite having asked. Therefore, if you want to stop criticizing me for jumping to conclusions, the simplest way would be for you to explain what happened - NOW.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 10:07pm
Post #11


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:56pm) *

The answers to these questions -- especially the last question -- will make it clear which one of the following two possible explanations reflects reality.

Explanation 1 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account without the knowledge or consent or assistance of the original editor who created and edited from that account previously. We can decide how serious of an ethical offense it would be to hack into someone else's Wikipedia account, but let's agree that it's not a very kind thing to do.

Explanation 2 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account with the assistance of another individual, who gave you access to Cool3's Wikipedia password or to his email account (to which a new password could be emailed). The reasons for this other person's cooperation may or may not involve a monetary payment from you. (There is speculation on that question, but I don't expect you to answer it.) If this is what occurred, I have no ethical problem with a business transaction between two consenting adults, and I also don't see how disruptive it would be to Wikipedia in the grand scheme, but to be fair, the administration there is within their rights to block such an account per existing site policy.

From the history of the edits you can see that only explanation 2 fits. The original editor even made a few farewell touchups to the bio of his favorite UK physician, even as the new Cool3 edits were beginning to different topics. He surely would have noticed THOSE, so he had to be "in on" the transition. My own analysis of the changeover can be found here on WR. Why don't you read it?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=246351

We're all telling you stuff you're read before.

Milton
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 12:12am
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:56pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:55pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:44pm) *

...Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him. How do you feel about stealing someone's online identity, even for a website where everyone is pseudonymous--you who so eagerly castigated a certain other desysopped Wikipedian who committed a certain (admittedly more deleterious) identity theft?

Shame on you, Kohs and ArbCom both. Injustice was done.

Shame on you, Shalom, for jumping to conclusions without evidence, but not hesitating to accuse me of theft. Why don't you go cry to "Jimothy Smithson" about it? Yeah, that sounds like a real, non-made-up name.

How dare you comment about me -- or what I said -- by accusing me of "jumping to conclusions without evidence."

You have no standing to make such a claim.

Greg, let me make one thing very clear to you. You can resolve all doubts, once and for all, by telling me (by PM, if you prefer) exactly how you acquired access to edit from the Cool3 user account on Wikipedia. It is common ground that you were not the original creator of the account, but you acquired control of the account at a certain point in time. We even have agreed-upon statements by Cool3 and by the Wikipedia Review crowd (either you or Milton Roe, I can't remember) as to the last edit from the original Cool3 and the first edit from you.

To be specific, and based on that context:

1. When did you learn the pre-existing password to the Cool3 account, or alternatively, when did you receive a new password with access to the Cool3 account?

2. Did you guess the password? If so, did you use brute force guessing (trying anything you could think of until you got it right) or did you use a computer bot or script to assist the process?

3. Assuming you did not guess the password, how did you find the password, or come into possession or knowledge of the password?

4. Did the original Cool3, or any person, assist you in acquiring the password?

The answers to these questions -- especially the last question -- will make it clear which one of the following two possible explanations reflects reality.

Explanation 1 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account without the knowledge or consent or assistance of the original editor who created and edited from that account previously. We can decide how serious of an ethical offense it would be to hack into someone else's Wikipedia account, but let's agree that it's not a very kind thing to do.

Explanation 2 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account with the assistance of another individual, who gave you access to Cool3's Wikipedia password or to his email account (to which a new password could be emailed). The reasons for this other person's cooperation may or may not involve a monetary payment from you. (There is speculation on that question, but I don't expect you to answer it.) If this is what occurred, I have no ethical problem with a business transaction between two consenting adults, and I also don't see how disruptive it would be to Wikipedia in the grand scheme, but to be fair, the administration there is within their rights to block such an account per existing site policy.

Given the agreed facts which are not in dispute, the only two possibilities for what occurred are Explanation 1 or Explanation 2. There is no third explanation. If you want to play mind games with me, go ahead and propose a third logical explanation that is consistent with the agreed facts. I don't think you will be able to.

With that said, please put your cards on the table. It is now more than a year since the incident, so if you ever intend to explain how you did this, please do it now.

Also to be clear, I hesitated with the "real name" identification of "Jimothy Smithson" by adding "(assuming it's not a pseudonym)" in parentheses. Look at my previous post. I did say that. My point in assuming it could be a real name was that, if it were a real name, it could provide the basis for exactly the type of positive identification that ArbCom was seeking in order to reinstate the original Cool3's admin tools.

We have two dueling, incompatible accounts. Cool3's written statements clearly indicate that from his perspective, Explanation 1 (see above) is what happened. There are some findings in the ArbCom-L discussion that call Cool3's credibility into question. Still, the statements Cool3 makes seem to hold an internal consistency, and I pointed to a striking example (driving to a library to get a citation for Wikipedia) as a particular evidence of this consistency.

On the other side, we have you, Mr. Kohs, and your friends here on Wikipedia Review. You all seem to be suggesting that Explanation 2 is correct, but nobody will simply state how assistance was provided for you to get in control of the account. As such, since you will neither state that explanation 2 is correct, nor will you state how you got control of the account, I can reasonably conclude that you are engaging in a game of obfuscation, and Explanation 1 is possibly consistent with your evasive statements on point. When you are giving me nothing hard to go with, I can evaluate the other evidence now available by email and reach a conclusion that is perhaps different from the conclusion you would prefer me to reach (if you care what I think).

I will tolerate no more snarkiness from you. Lay your cards on the table. Did you have help in getting Cool3's account, or not? If yes, what kind of help? It's a very simple question, and it still hasn't been answered. I'm only appearing to jump to conclusions because I haven't been given an answer despite having asked. Therefore, if you want to stop criticizing me for jumping to conclusions, the simplest way would be for you to explain what happened - NOW.


Shades of Durova...

I think you need some more paint on your internet tough guy suit there, sport.

You might just be the most immature person here, Ottava included.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 2:20am
Post #13


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 1:08pm) *

53 person-hours for the apparatchik bad guys.

8 person-hours for the subversive good guys.


I totally didn't account for Shalom.

55 person-hours for the apparatchik bad guys.

8 person-hours for the subversive good guys.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 7:44am
Post #14


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



I can think of several more scenarios, actually.
hmmm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 8:15am
Post #15


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 2:44am) *
I can think of several more scenarios, actually. hmmm.gif

Me too! Should we mention a few of them, or would that be "telling"?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 11:43am
Post #16


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 1:15am) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 2:44am) *
I can think of several more scenarios, actually. hmmm.gif

Me too! Should we mention a few of them, or would that be "telling"?

Well, I have a hurt right hand, so my reason for not telling is 'it hurts to type.'

But, through the magic of ibuprofen:
  • The original owner sold it, and tried to reclaim it by creative whin(g)ing.
  • The original owner loaned it to Greg for teh lulz.
  • There is a security bug in MediaWiki which randomly changes email addresses on accounts to Greg's email. happy.gif
  • The original owner of the account is Greg, and he loaned it to a fellow in England for a while, to ripen it and become an admin.
  • I like cookies.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cyofee
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 12:25pm
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat 4th Aug 2007, 12:54pm
Member No.: 2,233



To say that Shalom has a bad track record in sock investigations would be a massive understatement. See this post for some examples.

If anything, we can assume that his conclusions are false, and start from there.

This post has been edited by cyofee: Sat 23rd July 2011, 12:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 7:42pm
Post #18


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 4:43am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 1:15am) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 2:44am) *
I can think of several more scenarios, actually. hmmm.gif

Me too! Should we mention a few of them, or would that be "telling"?

Well, I have a hurt right hand, so my reason for not telling is 'it hurts to type.'

But, through the magic of ibuprofen:
  • The original owner sold it, and tried to reclaim it by creative whin(g)ing.
  • The original owner loaned it to Greg for teh lulz.
  • There is a security bug in MediaWiki which randomly changes email addresses on accounts to Greg's email. happy.gif
  • The original owner of the account is Greg, and he loaned it to a fellow in England for a while, to ripen it and become an admin.
  • I like cookies.

Your first and second scenarios are covered in #2 (with the assistance of another individual). Certain other scenarios like the random MediaWiki bug weren't discussed presumably due to no need to discuss stuff of vanishing likelihood. As for the idea that the original owner was Kohs who loaned it to somebody in England to ripen it to adminship, that is more or less ruled out by the UK interests of the pre-owner, who is in England, vs. whoever ramped up the edits which took it to adminship. That latter showed a lot of interest in military history that the former never did, and since Kohs http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs studied military history in preparation for his Ph.D. (though he never completed the thesis), the second owner doing the military history edits which led to adminship, must be Kohs. The other suggested scenario has Kohs loaning his account to a fellow in England who then for years did nothing to "ripen it" for adminship, instead editing obscurely on some UK medical bio. Then, suddently and with great vigor started to edit on military topics on which they'd never shown interest, all leading to adminship, whilst Kohs still twiddled his thumbs across the Atlantic. Riiiiight.

Enjoy the cookies.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikicrusher2
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:13pm
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat 17th Oct 2009, 9:34pm
From: "The name of our country is América." -Bolivar
Member No.: 14,796



First comment on all of this "leaking" stuff:

Thank you, MaliceAforethought (whoever you are, it doesn't matter) for making a lot of stuff clearer. At the same time, it possibly raises more questions than it answers, but that can often be a positive outcome, leading to more inquiry and skepticism.

To me, it seems like the ArbCom (on the list) do not act like a bunch of children gossiping on the schoolyard, as some have suggested, but like the conniving old Cabal that had seemingly gone away around 2010-ish, Raul654-style. Much less innocent than high schoolers chatting on campus, there seems to be a lot of malicious conspiring going on behind the scenes. For example, arbitrators fixing what would (on wiki) otherwise appear to be spontaneous replies by individuals, on the mailing list instead. Secret backstabbing decisions for those who are not "friends" of the Arbitrator crony club (okay, that is something like high school cliques of the "popular kids", but more authoritarian "tin badge syndrome" than anything else) and covering up of the sockpuppetry of those who have managed to fall in the ArbCom's favor. Outrageous? Yes, but definitely not surprising considering Wikipedia pre-2009.

As far as this in particular goes, has anyone noticed this incident of capricious blocking, with no clear-cut evidence:
QUOTE(Hersfold)

Here's the info. Doesn't look like Kohs, unless he goes to the
University of Oslo. I'm still going to block all of these, however.

IPs:
90.149.32.164 and 90.149.30.95
<snip huge list of users>
80.203.101.120 - The same ISP
<snip list of users>
- Multiple useragents:

1. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4)
Gecko/20091016 Firefox/3.5.4/
2. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; nb-no)
AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4
Safari/531.21.10/
3. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5)
Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 - All of the other accounts on this
IP use this useragent
81.167.191.152 - Lyse Tele Residential, Norway


Was that really necessary? Then again, this is ArbCom. The most evident and noticeable thing about these leaks, apart from the cliquish aspect, is the incompetency and ham-fistedness.

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2: Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:15pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Sun 24th July 2011, 12:46am
Post #20


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:13pm) *

First comment on all of this "leaking" stuff:

Thank you, MaliceAforethought (whoever you are, it doesn't matter) for making a lot of stuff clearer. At the same time, it possibly raises more questions than it answers, but that can often be a positive outcome, leading to more inquiry and skepticism.

To me, it seems like the ArbCom (on the list) do not act like a bunch of children gossiping on the schoolyard, as some have suggested, but like the conniving old Cabal that had seemingly gone away around 2010-ish, Raul654-style. Much less innocent than high schoolers chatting on campus, there seems to be a lot of malicious conspiring going on behind the scenes. For example, arbitrators fixing what would (on wiki) otherwise appear to be spontaneous replies by individuals, on the mailing list instead. Secret backstabbing decisions for those who are not "friends" of the Arbitrator crony club (okay, that is something like high school cliques of the "popular kids", but more authoritarian "tin badge syndrome" than anything else) and covering up of the sockpuppetry of those who have managed to fall in the ArbCom's favor. Outrageous? Yes, but definitely not surprising considering Wikipedia pre-2009.

As far as this in particular goes, has anyone noticed this incident of capricious blocking, with no clear-cut evidence:
QUOTE(Hersfold)

Here's the info. Doesn't look like Kohs, unless he goes to the
University of Oslo. I'm still going to block all of these, however.

IPs:
90.149.32.164 and 90.149.30.95
<snip huge list of users>
80.203.101.120 - The same ISP
<snip list of users>
- Multiple useragents:

1. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4)
Gecko/20091016 Firefox/3.5.4/
2. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; nb-no)
AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4
Safari/531.21.10/
3. /Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5)
Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 - All of the other accounts on this
IP use this useragent
81.167.191.152 - Lyse Tele Residential, Norway


Was that really necessary? Then again, this is ArbCom. The most evident and noticeable thing about these leaks, apart from the cliquish aspect, is the incompetency and ham-fistedness.


They were not Kohs, but a sockfarm nonetheless.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd 10 14, 10:25am