I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo [who made the request] is a curious bystander who just happened across this request. However, based on the standards I usually use, and pretending I don't know the history here, the evidence is sufficient to run a check. The answer is Inconclusive because one of these editors has only edited via open proxies. Thatcher 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Thatcher, out of interest are the open proxies now blocked? ViridaeTalk 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, they are. BTW - I also checked and concur with the above findings - Alison ❤ 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* Thanks Ali. ViridaeTalk 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

* This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh deary me...

JzG swoops in...


If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

When users are banned based on Checkuser evidence, are admins able to see the actual evidence? There was one case where I corresponded with a guy who was banned for allegedly being my sock. He was editing with an AOL account in Idaho (I use an AOL account in California.) Jayjg (who else?) confirmed what we two were editing "from the same IP ranges." I would think that any knowledgable person who saw the actual evidence would immediately see the fraud. But can anyone (outside of those with Checkuser privileges) see the actual evidence?

No. Your recourse is to ask another checkuser to review the evidence or talk to the ombudsmen. You'll want to make the request with some alacrity as the information in the log does eventually get pushed out by newer stuff. I confess I'm surprised you asked, I thought this was pretty common knowledge.

Oh deary me...

JzG swoops in...


If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy™ of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

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

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

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

I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.

Looks like the party has moved to WP:AN now.

Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.

The question is, do Durova, GeorgeWilliamHerbert and JzG really believe that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are not accounts run by Gary Weiss, or, are they just liars?

The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who truly knows how to roll up her sleeves, dig through the diffs, and come up with completely off-base accusations against dedicated contributors to the encyclopedia. Fozzie, this truly is amazing how it's drawing out all the best Wikipedia has to offer, and apparently offering them about 12 feet of self-threading noose-quality rope. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5.

Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question.

Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case;

It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked to doing anything about it.

One way or another, the usual BADSITES crowd would have shouted down whoever made the request.

"a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a proxy for a banned user made the request it's not valid!"
"a WR regular made the request it's not valid!"
"a party with an agenda made the request it's not valid!"

You could bring an ironclad case, with IP address matches, conclusive editing patterns, and fingerprints on keyboards, and it wouldn't matter.

Wikipedia is protecting Gary Weiss.

The operative question now is -- why? What's in it for WP, exactly?

WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet.

If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier)...

Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.

Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired my WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).


...But George is a gem, isn't he?

Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired by WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).

...But George is a gem, isn't he?

Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5.

Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."

You mean Thatcher.

As in my sig.

Ah my mistake, thought I had gotten something wrong, thanks much for the correction.

Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg:


He made his position clear in this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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