Kurita77 actually sent emails from MANY IP addresses in his block.
One overlapping IP is all we need for near certainty.
When DHCP is involved, no, I don't think so.
I checked the record. Enviroknot's edits and emails to this list do not contain a single swear word, anywhere.
So? anyone can change their writing style.
Anyone "can" change their writing style... in the same way that people can change their handwriting or their hair color.
Very, very rarely can someone hold such subterfuge for that long. Somewhere, IF Enviroknot were also KaintheScion/ElKabong, there should have been a slip-up somewhere. SOME swear. Especially with the number of people here and on Wikipedia who were spending much time personally attacking and harassing Enviroknot.
Kurita77, on his initial 25 edits, made only one set that were on the
same
subject as Enviroknot. But we have policy on Wikipedia about that.
Merely
editing on the same subject or sharing similar opinions is NOT an
indication
of sockpuppetry.
It's not. When combined with the overlapping IPs, however, it is very difficult to dispute.
Again, when DHCP is involved, I don't think so. What would you do if it were an AOL subscriber who happened to get the IP of another blocked AOL subscriber and edited on the same topic?
Kurita77 was an example of a bunch of Inquisitionists running around
needing
someone else to persecute, and biting the newbies. There was no good
faith
involved in dealing with him.
Perhaps it could have been handled better initially, I haven't looked but I'd be surprised if I hadn't posted saying that.
If you did, you didn't spend much time on it. In fact, YOU were the one who sent the little "gem" telling him that the only way he'd get his account back would be to hunt down Enviroknot wherever he was and force him to move out of the area.
No. You crossed the line, you purposely agitated Kurita77 rather than dealing in good faith.
Instead, the Kurita77 case has proven a few things about the bad faith inherent in the behavior of editors/admins like YOU:
I have assigned no bad faith to Kurita77, I have only stated that obvious that his equivalence with enviroknott is nearly beyond reasonable dispute.
And I state for the record that any such assertion is roughly the equivalent of what I remove from my horses' stalls in the morning.
1 - You believe that no editor is smart enough to read the rules and tutorials before posting, and that (therefore) any editor who comes in
and
doesn't sound like a l33t skr1pt k1dd13z poster is guilty of being a sockpuppet.
I have *never* made this claim, and I disagree strongly with anyone who makes it and I have done so publicly on the list.
Yet that is PRECISELY the claim made time and again as evidence - that Kurita77 "had" to be a sockpuppet because he "knew too much" about formatting edits on Wikipedia. This despite the fact that he had to go asking another editor for help in formatting his signature, and proceeded to get it wrong multiple times.
That's not the act of an experienced editor, it's the act of a newbie.
We should not bite the newbies for actually paying attention.
agreed.
At least you agree on that. Too bad you fail to practice it.
2 - You believe that quoting someone (which is as simple as copying and pasting their edit) is evidence of sockpuppetry. Again, this CANNOT be allowed to be the case. The case of Kurita77's quote - which you call "complete support" - is
YOU
misrepresenting the event, nothing more. His actual behavior was to take
a
small paragraph from out between the bickering between Zeno of Elea and BrandonYusufToropov/Anonymous Editor, because it held a valuable
suggestion
- a suggestion that BrandonYusufToropov even agreed was a good one,
though
the suggestion itself stirred up the usual hornets' nest of Islamic detractors and defenders pushing alternate readings of the Koran.
I said, "Furthermore Kurita77 initial edits were on the same subjects and enviroknott, and even came out in support of enviroknott.". Please get your quotes right. He did edit in support of enviroknott, this is not by itself evidence of anything. When you combine it with the other evidence.. the likelihood is overwhelming.
Hardly.
"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, __particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East__, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, __such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded__."
How much clearer do I need to be? I tried to bold it but the list doesn't allow Rich-Text Emails (can the admins check on why this is?).
There is not "overwhelming" evidence of anything - there is the assertion that because he: - edited the same article, - and cut-and-pasted a valid point which was being overlooked under the usual holy-warrior garbage that goes on every time editors like BrandonYusufToropov and Zeno of Elea get together, - and happened to live somewhere inside the Houston city limits (gee, not like it's not the fourth largest city in the US or anything), that somehow he "must" be a sockpuppet even though his other edits don't match up and neither does his language.
I don't buy it. This is a case of admins on a power trip biting the newbies and refusing to admit they were wrong to do so, which was made worse by admins like YOU who saw an opportunity to jump in and cause a personal attack free-for-all on the innocent newbie.
NEVER the way you should treat new users. But you and every other admin who jumped in to start attacking Kurita77 (I think I only saw ONE mail that was even close to being in good faith) showed what you were made of. It wasn't pretty.
What's even sadder is that I see this kind of stuff all the time on Wikipedia. The inner clique of Adminship has become a license to make up rules as you go along and break the existing rules with impunity, rather than a trust to enforce them and stay within them. Calling it a "despotism" isn't far off from the reality.
I realize you are trying to defend the wronged here... but there are a lot of wronged people who would make a better case for your assistance.
We'll start with this one, thank you very much. Now address the points.
A. Nony Mouse
_________________________________________________________________ Upgrade to Messenger 7.0 - more fun features, still totally FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
On 7/6/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
I checked the record. Enviroknot's edits and emails to this list do not contain a single swear word, anywhere.
So? anyone can change their writing style.
Anyone "can" change their writing style... in the same way that people can change their handwriting or their hair color.
Very, very rarely can someone hold such subterfuge for that long. Somewhere, IF Enviroknot were also KaintheScion/ElKabong, there should have been a slip-up somewhere. SOME swear. Especially with the number of people here and on Wikipedia who were spending much time personally attacking and harassing Enviroknot.
Swearing is the sort of thing that can be modified, especially if the writer is tightly focussed. I've known people who swear reflexively in one community but are the soul of decorum in another.
Nor would it be too hard to run text through something like a spell-checker to eliminate problem words.
What would be interesting would be to get samples of text from both editors and to compare them. I'm no sort of expert at text analysis, but it seems to me that every writer has distinctive patterns in mispelt words, word choice, phrasology and so on that would be extremely hard to disguise or fake.
Remember how "Anonymous", the author of "Primary Colors", was tracked down and exposed as Joe Klein, despite protestations from the author that no, it wasn't him?
Of course, any similarities could be explained as commonplace or coincidence and the (possibly manufactured) differences highlighted, or vice versa depending on which view you wanted to push, but still, I think an authentic voice could be distinguished or ruled out by a reasonable person.