Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:09, 25 February 2010

Sockpuppet accusations

Traditionally, requests for checkuser in the context of arbitration are filed at the workshop page Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties. See this example. Durova 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any checkuser requests (though there may be some buried in the list at WP:SPI), but checkuser requests can be filed in the usual locations. This case is, in fact, based largely on checkuser results that were obtained prior to its filing, so I am really not seeing where this comment is coming from. There is no obligation for it to be filed as a motion; however, any checkuser results should be included in evidence. Risker (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time this comment was written one of Keithbob's sections was titled as a sock puppet accusation against two other editors, and linked to a page in user space. The Fairfield IP addresses, etc. were CU'd extensively before the case began, yet it didn't appear that TM skeptics had been checked for possible socking. It was unclear what Keithbob intended to seek so the precedent was a courtesy link. As of 2007 that was the standard way to request CU after a case was underway; if that's changed since then I don't recall an announcement. Durova 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Risker, per your advice on procedures and options open to me, I have filed an SPI here. and will publish the results as part of the ArbCom case, whenever they become available. In the meantime I have retained a single sentence (and link) in my section on the ArbCom evidence page so that involved parties may be aware of the SPI and can check the SPI page if they so desire.Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough,Durova; back in 2007, most of the checkusers were arbitrators, and certainly the best way to gain their attention was to post as a motion/request on the workshop. Today,there aren't that many arbitrators who routinely participate in checkuser activity, and we have gladly delegated the majority of this work to well-qualified, neutral admins (many of them, as can be seen in this case, former arbitrators). Both of you are entirely correct, it is important to review the work of *all* parties to this case. I'll make a point of asking the checkuser team to look at this, as the use of alternate accounts is a key reason for the acceptance of this case, and we cannot assume that it is restricted to one group of editors without actually having the evidence. Risker (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. This last comment by Risker is quite sensible and sounds like a very good way to move forward on this. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a help to the community if the arbitrators announced a change in procedure. During 2007 I was advised specifically to file CU requests within the context of arbitration within the case itself, and JMFangio-Chrisjnelson demonstrated why that practice made sense: the impersonation account Jimfandango was created minutes after Chrisjnelson was blocked for personal attacks. It almost appeared DUCK-worthy, but Chrisjnelson hadn't done anything like an impersonation sock before. So the only way to structure a CU request was on Chrisjnelson. What came out of that CU changed the entire course of the arbitration: JMFangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor, the impersonation sock had been created by a shadowy IP troll, and Chrisjnelson's bursts of incivility were basically explainable in terms of the baiting by those two other editors. The case was already in voting when that CU was run, so new proposals arose. Instead of banning Chrisjnelson he got a restriction which has since expired. He has nearly 60,000 edits now and is in good standing. It helped substantially that the checkuser was run by an arbitrator who understood the surrounding case dynamics and knew what was relevant. Durova 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I start veering off-topic as far as this ArbCom case is concerned, but do you think a hard-line rule on this is necessary? Basically there are two types of arbitrators that I see as far as CU usage is concerned: first, those who know how to use and do use CU in these cases; second, those who may not know how to use them or intentionally does not use them (in the same way some admins who mediate do not use their tools during their mediation) who leave running CU to those, either from the community or from ArbCom, who know how to use them. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules ought to be. In 2007 I was informed that it was a hard rule and the case demonstrated why that rule made sense. It would be good to have a clear announcement if practice changes. Durova 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, many practices have changed over the last three years, particularly with respect to checkuser, and in a case that is, at least in part, based on checkuser data we're going to put the best checkusers onto things. I'm not seeing anything onwiki that indicates that it was a "hard" rule, but I can certainly accept that you may have been informed that was the correct practice at that time. Risker (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lease time of DHCP server

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to tell me which account is suspected as being a sockpuppet of mine. I think I could prove that it's not the case. In addition, I think it would help to find out what Lisco's IP lease time is. Yesterday someone explained to me that Internet providers let a computer hold on to an IP number for a maximum period of inactivity before assigning it to a different computer, referring to it as "lease time." Let's say that Lisco's lease time is 8 hours. I don't think you'd find a single instance in which an IP number being used to access one account was then used to access another account in less than an 8-hour period. I'll e-mail Lisco technical support and ask them. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think folks are getting entirely too focused on the checkuser issues and not paying sufficient attention to the behavioural issues here. Risker (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The lease time is 6 hours. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In most cases, a DHCP server will continue to assign the same IP. But Lisco's behaves oddly. I observed last August, and Lisco confirmed, that their DHCP server assigned a different IP number every day. MUM has two fixed IPs. I believe there has been very little editing from these IPs. But certainly you can assume that someone editing from Fairfield practices Transcendental Meditation. But you can't assume they're employed by an organization related to Maharishi. Of the 2,500 TMers living in Fairfield, a very small portion is employed by Maharishi-related organizations. Most are otherwise employed. TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting claim. What is your source? I would have thought that the majority of TMers in Fairfield and Vedic City are either students at MUM, employed by MUM, or employed by TMM businesses. David Spector 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several newspaper articles that put the TMer population in and around Fairfield at 3,000, but they're from some years ago so perhaps the numbers have dropped.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the source right now but it was from the last couple years. It was a figure given by Ed Malloy in an article about the community. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Just found it in the 2006 Washington Post article.

POV Pushing Teams

An editor has added two tables labeled "POV Pushing Team: WillBeback, Fladrif, KalaBethere..... " It's news to me that I am leading a "POV Pushing Team". Could Keithbob please explain what POV I am pushing, and how the noticeboard postings listed have been instrumental in pushing that POV? Also, the table is not quite accurate (Littleolive oil seems to be missing from a couple of entries) - it might be better to link to archives rather than diffs in this table.. Does Keithbob think that the problems with the article are due to my participation or my engagement in noticebaord discussions?   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will I'll double check my sources to make sure that the tables are accurate. You are welcome to present your evidence or rebuttal in your own section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, it appears that you are making an unsupported accusation.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have already questioned Kbob ref these tables and am equally confused as to what point he is attempting to make. An answer would be helpful Tuckerj1976 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any inaccuracies in the chart. If there is a specific mistake that you would like to bring to my attention please post it on my user page. I want the chart to be 100% accurate. Thank you-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point of this table is to tell you truth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(un-dent) Sorry Kbob but you still haven't explained the point of the tables. What exactly are you trying to say with them? Commander Shepard,:_{SSV Normandy}talk 02:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs)

Sorry thought I had this custom signature thing working but it seems not to have linked to my talkpage. Trying again Commander Shepard,:_{SSV Normandy}talk 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs)

Back to the drawing-board it would seem. Two posts above are mine Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un-dent)Doc James ref your comments here ] Given everything else that Kbob has said that cannot be the point that he is making (the size of what he perceives as POV Pushing teams). For if that is what the table is saying, then he is suggesting the largest POV pushing team on the TM article consisted of 5 editors in 2010 and they were:

TimidGuy Littleolive Keithbob Bigweeboy LukeWarm ChemProf ]

(Which of course is a total of 6 not five as the table totals them at). Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change to 6, thanks for catching that and alerting me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Substantiating strong terms

Olive used the strong term harassment at RFAR and then stated that she would be unavailable for several days. Her evidence now uses that term again in two section headers. Are these sections complete as they currently stand? Although it's possible to dislike another editor's request to discuss reasons for information about a song or to dislike someone's mentioning a previous COI disclosure, those diffs look like normal editorial disagreements. Perhaps it would be a good idea to substitute a milder term, unless perhaps there's something missing or a mistake in the diff links? Durova 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Its difficult to show in a few diffs the environment that was created. My wording stands. I mean what I said, and if the Arbs disagree with what went on I'm perfectly fine with that.(olive (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Real names / positions

It is fairly easy to determine the real names, positions at MUM, publications / research completed by a number of these editors by a simple google search. These edits have commented on many TM related blogs and some write their own blogs. They have also completed some of the research they attempt to quote and writing books on the subject of TM.

Now before I post anything I was wondering about WP:OUT. I personally believe in transparency and have my name and university association on my user page, but I understand that many disagree and do acknowledge that transparency can lead to hassles.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)