Thursday, August 02, 2007

Regrets

The recent checkuser finding that Orderinchaos had sockpuppets leading to the block of Zivko85 and Zivko's subsequent explanation of how he came to share IP address with other editors leads me to need to make the following statement regarding a similar case from some time back.

In December 2005, SlimVirgin asked me to run a checkuser on RachelBrown, Poetlister, and a specified IP address from the UK. I remember running the checkuser but don't seem to find my response -- likely it was on her talk page, which has been deleted and purged so many times that it's likely that my response is currently a deleted revision which I, being a lowly non-admin peon, am not permitted to see. (This bothers me somewhat.)

From what I recall, I found evidence of some shared IP use, but the patterns were such that IPs frequently used by one user were infrequently used by another, and vice versa. At first I suspected that this was a case of friends or coworkers occasionally editing at one another's location. At the time I didn't know enough about British IP ranges to recognize IPs that were likely to be public wireless access points, residential, or commercial (and really I still don't). However, I was convinced (pressured, really) by others to set aside my doubts regarding the reliability of the conclusion and so reported the lot of them for sockpuppetry, in what was almost certainly a miscarriage of justice.

I regret this mistake. I was much more naive then and more full of myself than I am now. I apologize to Poetlister and all the other parties unfairly besmirched in this incident. There's nothing I can do at this point to materially alter the outcome or remediate it now, but at least the truth is out.

I hope that those currently entrusted with checkuser and administrative rights will think carefully about the history here before making any final decisions regarding Orderinchaos and his friends.

29 comments:

  1. I suppose this means I've arrived...

    Anyway, this isn't like Poetlister/Runcorn/et al. These three fellows don't really have an editing history (IP-based) outside of each other. The explanation provided is possible, but there's always a possible explanation.

    I think the exchange between myself and Rebecca summarizes the situation and a possible way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The thing is that at the time, you didn't really have much of a choice. I was trying to help Poetlister, who I had never met before that, and when she then got banned, I immediately took SlimVirgin's side, because (at the time) SlimVirgin was a close wiki-friend of mine, and I didn't want to hurt her. But the way that it had all happened eventually led me to investigate it fully, and my conclusion was that Poetlister was unfairly banned. The subsequent harassment and stalking that I received from Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Antaeus Feldspar, both ordered/manipulated to do it by SlimVirgin made me far more certain of that fact. I created User:Zordrac/Poetlister to document not only the unfairness of the ban, but also to document the subsequent harassment and stalking by SlimVirgin and her followers (Lulu and Antaeus).

    The result of this was that Poetlister was, quite correctly, unbanned and given another chance.

    Sadly, the result of this also was that my gentleman's agreement with Longhair that I would be allowed to edit briefly so long as I stayed away from PA and related articles was gone, and I was "exposed" as a "sock puppet", something that I then confessed to. And then I was forced to serve a fresh 1 year ban which was then extended to indef based on apparently the creation of the User:Zordrac/Poetlister subpage, which SlimVirgin deleted as an "attack page".

    Then of course with that page gone, SlimVirgin was free to ban Poetlister a second time. Poetlister who was such a good user she was made an admin on Wiktionary, who didn't feel the need to desysop her there either. They also banned a very good uncontroversial admin, Runcorn, seemingly as a scapegoat to justify the first banning.

    And really why did SlimVirgin want this person banned? Because RachelBrown had opened up a Request for Mediation against SlimVirgin in relation to her going against every other editor in List of British Jews. In other words, SlimVirgin did all of this (which is an awful lot when you think about it) just so that she could decide who was really a Jew, and who wasn't really a Jew, which in the scheme of things is a pretty darn unimportant issue.

    Someone who acts like that over something so petty, banning a dozen or more people in the process, is someone who you really have to wonder about when there are serious issues going on.

    Just like how I liked SlimVirgin to begin with, and hated you to begin with, I think that my opinion has changed, for both of you. I think sometimes its good to step away and see things from a new perspective, to see perhaps how others would have seen you. I think you've matured a lot in how you've been able to see things.

    Oh, and by the way, I think that your blog may soon be listed on Wikipedia as an attack site!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Poetlister, Blissy2U, Zordac and the host of other freaks are net-negatives to an encyclopedia. Does it matter if they are sockpuppets, multiple personalities of a known mentally disabled individual, or just a bunch of unrelated total wankers? No.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Someone missed the short bus...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, having opinions that differ from Slim and her clique, and refusing to back off from them on command, are clear signs of being a "freak" and a "net negative", and everybody like that should be banned and perhaps executed. And I'm willing to write this and sign my name to it, unlike the anonymous cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd like to make a confession, too: I look in on Wikipedia drama only every couple of months, but for the last few days I've been on a schadenfreude high that is JUST WRONG!

    Deep down, I know there are unfortunate human aspect's to SlimVirgin's outing, but gosh it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate person.

    I'm starting to come off of my buzz now, and I'm starting to feel badly about the delight I've been feeling at Wikipedia's latest troubles. Normally I only get a mild amount of delight from seeing how much the quality of the average Wikipedia article has declined since the last time I looked, and from seeing the frustrations of Jayjg, who I think clearly wants to back out and walk away from the project, but who has engendered so much personal ill-will there that when he does walk away, all of his propaganda accomplishments there are likely to be more than undone.

    Anyway, I know my latest round of schadenfreude is just beyond the pale, and eventually I'll think of some penance to do for it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You can act like Dobby, the house elf in the Harry Potter series, who (before being freed from his slavery) has to keep punishing himself for his transgressions by doing things like pounding his head against a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You know, a J.K. Rowlings house elf would probably be considered an ideal co-editor by Linda Mack: he could do all sorts of mundane and bothersome tasks in support of Wikipedia, leaving Linda free to combat animal abuse, Islamic terror, ignorance of great philosophers, and antisemitism full-time; and whenever the house elf found that his chores led him to do something that might however slightly seem to put him in conflict with Ms. Mack, he'd slap his own wrist and say, "Bad Dobby! Musn't trouble Mistress! Bad!"

    Think of how much effort Ms. Mack "wastes" because she has to administer the punishments herself!

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, I'm impressed. I was not very positively inclined to you on WP, but your postings here, culminating in this one, shows that you have changed. Please continue posting -- your perspective is valuable and needed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Irregardless of the issue surrounding SV, I find the Harry Potter comparisons outrageously funny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you like Harry Potter comparisons check out this post: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11022

    Runcorn, who was banned as part of the Poetlister ban, is mentioned in the latest Harry Potter novel, where he has a sock puppet!!!!!

    So, the question is this, did Runcorn know JK Rawlings? We just found this whole thing funny.

    Perhaps secretly SlimVirgin (who orchestrated the ban on Poetlister, and then used Runcorn as a scapegoat later) is JK Rawlings? I mean you know, how else would she know? It was so funny we are still laughing over it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. SlimVirgin archives by moving her talk page to the new name and creating a new one, if I recall correctly. One way you might dig up your old message is to export a 'What links here' while at your User page and grep it for her userspace.
    - Chairboy

    ReplyDelete
  13. "From what I recall, I found evidence of some shared IP use, but the patterns were such that IPs frequently used by one user were infrequently used by another, and vice versa."

    Um. Isn't shared IP use evidence of meatpuppetry... assuming this wasn't sockpuppetry?

    What reason do friends have to sign onto eachother's accounts (or edit from eachother's computers), on more than one occasion? And as SlimVirgin wrote, they were editing ''like'' sockpuppets, which is disallowed by wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry, regardless if the people are different or not. So, although SlimVirgin has plenty of skeletons in her closet, there is nothing suspicious about this at all. Users are blocked for this type of stuff all the time.. Sorry to disagree that this was part of SlimVirginesque conspiracy, everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I compiled a list of evidence about this, which was quite comprehensive, but sadly SlimVirgin was allowed to delete it, calling it "an attack page" and it wasn't able to be referenced in the later stages. If evidence of wrongdoing is an attack page, then we are all in big trouble. SV has done the same thing with the Lockerbie bombing. She had Jayjg oversight all of the edits that proved that she was never a genuine editor, that from the beginning she played damsel in distress, and that she had always gone to Wikipedia with the intention of changing history on important issues.

    There was never any private information in those oversighted edits. We quoted them on Wikipedia Review before she had them oversighted. They just proved who she was, in terms of what damage she was doing to Wikipedia.

    For Jimbo even to suggest that there was anything private there, or that it constituted stalking, is seriously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The image metadata is also a little odd.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That only leaves the problems that "Poetlister" is a screaming lunatic, and that he/she and "Rachel Brown" are the same person.

    Poetlister is not a "good user". Neither was Rachel Brown. Nor would this loon be under any name.

    By the way, retards, I'll give you a piece of information for absolutely nothing. SlimVirgin's name is Sarah. You look like idiot dogs with a bone parading "Linda Mack" as though it meant anything. It is fucking hilarious watching you bumbling retards' thrashing around in her past, piecing together your demented stories from the bits and pieces you scrape together. She has her issues, but look at you!

    And Adrian, you got no more or less harassment than any one-note POV pusher who hasn't gone to the trouble of ingratiating himself with the powers that be would get. Your board still exists almost solely as a place for disgruntled fuckheads to slag off Wikinerds they don't like. Its value to anyone but yourselves is vanishingly close to zero.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And fucktards, I'm Grace Note. I never post as "anonymous". Some fucking detectives you!

    Somey, you never answered my email. Not keen on people who don't kiss your arse, are you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes.. the "screaming lunatic" and "bad user" is not the one who goes around calling people "fucktards".

    ReplyDelete
  19. "And f^&ktards, I'm Grace Note. I never post as 'anonymous.' Some fucking detectives you!"

    Not anonymous, huh? So which is your given name: Dr. Zen; or Grace Note?

    You post pseudonymously. If you think that somehow makes you a man, you have your own issues to deal with, and should leave online drama to itself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who cares which of you has bigger balls? Really, no one cares.

    The only thing that interests me in these comments is this: "I immediately took SlimVirgin's side, because (at the time) SlimVirgin was a close wiki-friend of mine..."

    I certainly hope you don't take sides just because of who's on them anymore, its a horrid policy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. re: "Anonymous (Durova) said...
    From what I recall, I found evidence of some shared IP use, but the patterns were such that IPs frequently used by one user were infrequently used by another, and vice versa....Um. Isn't shared IP use evidence of meatpuppetry... assuming this wasn't sockpuppetry?"

    Is there anyone who DOESNT read this post, obviously by Durova, as a huge self-congratulation for "having had a hand" in the outing? - to use her own words...

    "Anonymous (Durova) said...What reason do friends have to sign onto eachother's accounts (or edit from eachother's computers), on more than one occasion? And as SlimVirgin wrote, they were editing ''like'' sockpuppets, which is disallowed by wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry, regardless if the people are different or not."

    Hello! Kelly just admitted that she wasnt familiar with British IP allocation, including recognition of use of hotpot IPs - many of which are free in the U.K.

    It probably hurts Durova, but your famous investigation turns out to have been a boondoggle.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Yes.. the "screaming lunatic" and "bad user" is not the one who goes around calling people "fucktards"."

    Correctly identifying the posters on Wikipedia Review as "fucktards" is hardly a sign of lunacy, dude.

    Not noticing that they are on the whole fucking idiots probably would be though.

    ReplyDelete
  23. dr_zen, do you have multiple personalities or something? Here you say that people on WR are "fucktards" and "insane", but in another thread here you praise somebody's article on "cabals" that they published on WR. So which side are you on, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, so Kelly, you admit that the following message you left was ALL a lie?

    I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yeah. She's an evil lying shetbag. But she'll deny it because this post isn't about how she made a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wouldn't take Grace Note/Freddy Vessant/Dr Zen/Race Goat/Hatewatch/Anon IP 202.63.112.63/Anonymous very seriously, especially if he is saying that he "never posts anonymously". Most of his edits to Wikipedia was without being signed in, and he seems to like to fight with his own sock puppets.

    At the time of the ban, Grace Note was highly critical of it. But nowadays, Grace Note is so keen on kissing SlimVirgin's butt, that even though Kelly Martin has admitted that it was all a load of nonsense, Grace Note has gone back on everything.

    "I'll have a glass of chilled insanity with that, thank you bartender"

    ReplyDelete
  27. "dr_zen, do you have multiple personalities or something?"

    Only when I'm feeling lonely, Dan.

    "Here you say that people on WR are "fucktards" and "insane", but in another thread here you praise somebody's article on "cabals" that they published on WR."

    Is it not possible for a site to have a collection of people, some of whom are fucktards, some of whom are insane, some of whom write good articles on one thing or another?

    "So which side are you on, anyway?"

    Do we have to take sides? Can't I think you're all cunts?

    And Adrian, nearly all my edits to Wikipedia are under the names Dr Zen and Grace Note. A few are under other sockpuppets. Very few are anonymous, and those only because I couldn't be bothered to sign in just to make an edit here or there, not for any sinister reason. I have never fought with myself, and have never masqueraded as more than one person with the intent of creating the impression of support/dissent, or for any other reason.

    I never post comments to blogs anonymously, because I'm never hiding, Adrian.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ah, hindsight, such a marvelous thing.

    It turned out that Poetlister was actually sockpuppeting, that he had been doing it on wikipedia, wikipedia review and wikisource, that he had obtained admin powers for at least one sock on each of those sites, and that he had abused admin powers as much as he had wanted (except on wikiquote, since he was already under suspicion and close surveillance by that time).

    Oh, and Poetlister was a guy, and some of "her" photos were from a woman that was the owner of shop selling dresses for transvestites, where Poetlister was a client on real life.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-15/Poetlister

    Fiction 0, Reality 1

    ReplyDelete
  29. More hindsight:

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Poetlister_and_Cato

    ReplyDelete