Who is this entity? Look at the contributions. It seems unusual for an IP editor to show up on all the big drama boards all the time. Only rarely is there an article edit. I looked at its talk page and found a query from Cla68 about previous accounts, which is coyly evaded.

Geolocates to San Francisco, so it's gotta be Erik Moeller.

That' is what I've always assumed, or at least someone overlooking the nearest school playground from the WMF offices.

Not that it matters, but nobody within the 75.57.*.* range has logged in here on WR in the past 3 years...

Personally, I'd say the explanation that this is a WMF employee who's been in withdrawal from a rulemongering addiction is more than plausible. (That's what they get for hiring from within the ranks of the "community.") But I doubt it's Erik Moeller - Erik probably wouldn't have posted this, for example.

Well, geolocation of IPs is usually pretty hit and miss, but since this one geolocates to "1601-1645 Market St", I would say that it is a safe bet that this is a WMF employee. One of the devs, judging from computing and math knowledge.

I think it is LossIsNotMore/Nrcprm2026, who doesn't confine himself to just one ISP, or range.

Don't the regulars at these talkfests usually squawk when "IP editors" participate? They seem to be in on the game.

"Your caliber of editor"? What kind of bullshit is that, given that the IP user does almost nothing but post smug comments on AN/I, arbitration and other admin pages?

Only one possibility: this is a well-known wiki drama queen, and they all know who it is.

Yeah it's funny how fast some folks manage to do a 180 from a "member of lynch mob" to "butt kisser"

Whoever that is, he or she is putting a lot of effort into finding something to hang Noleander with.....

Or they have written a script to pull all of the edits on selected articles by a particular user. Hmmmm, I could use that...

Hmmm. This editor lives in San Francisco, has advanced programming and math knowledge (and interest in computer history). His first IP edit a month ago, after breaking with an old account (he claims he's an "old fart" on WP), was on the topic of endogenous retroviruses.

I'm guessing, just on stastitics and social-feel, that this would be a "he." Even more-so than your average WP policy-fight warrior.

And drama-queen? Speaks for itself.

You think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=421262655

Erm... could someone explain this? It seems that Mr. 75.57.242.120 is making a joke? Who is WIKIPE-TAN?

Borderline kiddie porn.

This user has edited for quite a while with changing IPs (I've seen him round for more than a year, sometimes editing from Oakland). I've always assumed they were an ex-UCB graduate student because of all the mathematical logic. He seems non-partisan in this case.

Is it the same as this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/66.127.52.47 ? Fits in with the mathemtical logic, and computing stuff.

I don't see the connection between the IP originally offered and the IP in the diff you posted.

I have made two comments on it, one when they requested that their opinion be added to the initial comment phase, and another following one of their contributions to a proposed remedy on seren. No bites.

This person has also been amassing some detailed statistics on noleander's editing patterns;

* User talk:75.57.242.120/ne (T-H-L-K-D)
* User talk:75.57.242.120/Noleander/Contribution surveyor (T-H-L-K-D)
* User talk:75.57.242.120/Noleander (T-H-L-K-D)

So, we have a missing regular who knows his way around policy, procedure, and assorted wiki-debate centers, and apparently has a wee bit of a fixation on building up a case against Noleander.

Yep, exactly the same person.

If it is, I have a bone to pick with him/her. He slags off my work here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=350044897 . He does not say which edits were problematic, or which article. Of course I cannot reply, having been banned. I then leave a polite message on talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=350190359

Which that c*nt Fram then reverts. Probably the most odious thing about Wikipedia is the way it slanders people in articles and on its talk pages, without allowing any right of reply or comeback. Wikipedia is an evil fascist dictatorship.

Now changed to 69.111.194.167 because of problem with ISP.

Well he is at it again. he is arguing with someone posing as a Damian sock, and who he obviously thinks is a Damian sock (is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427476646 really my style - come on).

And then the usual series of insults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_a_minute.3F

He really has drunk deep of the juice.

I have complained again to Arbcom, asking to vanish my old account completely and have done with it - I really want nothing to do with Wikipedians any more. But the persecution continues.

And the problem with that is?

Ever notice that WP:NOT covers WP:NOTDEMOCRACY but not NOTFASCISTDICTATORSHIP?

What were we thinking? We must have been drinking!

The NOTDEMO section states:
Gee that sounds good. But wait a minute, what is this "not exclusive"?

It's a loophole that covers and protects fascist administrators, who decide because they decide, and it is extremely difficult to stop them. Like any dictator, they admit of no restraint on their power, and only if they offend other dictators or power centers, are they stopped.

Too often we forget that fascist dictators were usually popular, because they made the trains run on time, i.e., kept out the vandals. They represented order and stability, unless you happened to attract their boots.

They will probably grant your request, though they might require that you drink hemlock and send an image of your corpse. Vanishing is okay, it's not vanishing that they detest.

I am deeply offended by this:



How is it a "failure" that I was sent packing because I wanted Adam Cuerden not to waste two hours of time that had been expended by at least 10 people?

Besides, it's not like I've actually stopped editing Wikipedia!

I'd think that by now, you have armor on the inside as well as on the outside. Maybe it's good that you don't
Shocking! You mean that when they site-banned you and globally locked you, you didn't just shrivel up and die? Wouldn't that have been the cooperative thing to do?

Lots of people come back into the community, what is rare is open comeback, because the deck is stacked heavily against it.

Moulton used to promote his slogan: "Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it's impossible to fix." Or was that him?

In any case, it's certainly true for Wikipedia, because if ArbComm makes a mistake, it never goes back and fixes it. It's effectively prohibited, you can get banned for even trying. It's "disruptive."

Rootology retired immediately after WMC revert-warred with him, during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, over my placement of an RfAr notice on user talk:Hipocrite, one of the major signs of a cooperation between him and WMC. (Hipocrite was the cabal agent who revert warred, ostensibly with me, but actually with article consensus, at Cold fusion, leading WMC to have cover to topic-ban me, and he topic-banned Hipocrite "equally." (He didn't, actually, he notified me on my talk page, but not Hipocrite, and he quickly lifted Hipocrite's topic ban and refused to lift mine.)

Rootology, like others before him, saw what corruption existed and gave up. I don't wonder that ArbComm didn't want to address my cabal allegations, and why, later, when Lar went to huge effort to bring up the same people (he called it a "clique," more politically acceptable), they acted only minimally, did not address the generic problem at all, just issuing minimal and "balanced" sanctions, mostly banning the targets of the cabal, not the cabal admins themselves. Notice that Lar also retired?

It's a tough problem! And Wikipedia mostly elect wimps to ArbComm, go-along, get-along administrators. The few others that get elected are marginalized and generally disappear after a while.

Some arbs actually attempted to set up an advisory committee, to develop its own process and meet off-wiki, to advise on changes. They backed down at the howls from the mob. No guts. That's what you get with the election method used for arbs, which selects for conformity and "broad appeal." I.e., that represses and disallows any representation at all for minority views, which is where innovation and reform always start.

Structural defect, a fatal one unless confronted.

You should recognize 69.111.194.167, Abd.

This is rich, coming from him.

Not with you. 75.57 edits on mathematical and modern logic subjects. This one edits on Gulf War syndrome and cold fusion. Where is the connection?

He's learned that he needs to stay away from depleted uranium if he wants to continue to play the wiki game, and also don't use an account. The connection is living in Northern California, and his affinity for the reference desks, drama boards and the wmf.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/99.22.95.61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/69.228.87.198
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/99.22.95.61

J. Salsman? Yeah, I think you may well be right (again). Of course, he's hardly one to talk about not going away quietly, is he?

He's clever though, I'll give him that much. Still, the Stockholm Syndrome tends to detract from the cleverness.

Haven't seen the evidence, but if an account works on Depleted uranium and Cold fusion, it's likely Salsman. Here's what I have to say about him.

I first met him in connection with Instant runoff voting. He tried to get me blocked, and, while I was still pretty new and naive, I knew enough to set it up so it backfired. He created sock after sock, and the community was slow to recognize them, but, eventually.... I was able to work with the socks, and as a sock, he was not as contentious as certain recognized editors.

Later, he was helpful at Cold fusion. There was far more problem from "legitimate editors," who would do absolutely outrageous things, revert war, game RfPP to get the article protected in their preferred state, push and demand the blocking and banning of others, etc.

I'm working on process for "editor rehab." Part of that is respecting the editor! Wikipedia seems to think that if an editor has been banned, this must be because they were Bad, and only if they get that they were Bad, abjectly apologize, is there hope. That doesn't work with human beings, unless they are Sick.

If an editor can recognize that they were uncivil, obsessed, arrogant, etc., great. But that cannot be forced, or it's unstable and insincere. And it's not necessary. What is necessary for cooperation is demonstrated cooperation, and assessing blame for the past is not a part of that.

Salsman would be a very good candidate for self-reversion per ban. I may have suggested it to him already, and I wouldn't expect him to start yet, the results of my experiment should be collected and analyzed more thoroughly first. I invited him to participate at Wikiversity, and if he's done anything there, I don't recall it. Wikiversity is also a place for "rehab" to begin. Original research is allowed there, and it's part of education to discuss topics. So Depleted uranium could be discussed.

Wikipedia is a setup for conflict, because there is scarce "territory" to fight over. We almost never see revert wars at Wikiversity, in mainspace, because the neutrality policy based on neutrality-by-inclusion, and subpages are allowed in mainspace, so there are easy and obvious solutions to conflict over content: fork being one of them. Balance? So what if a mainstream point of view position is brief, perhaps consisting mostly of a link to the Wikipedia article, and a fringe POV has a whole family of subpages with long and tedious discussion? What matters for neutrality is that someone comes to the top-level resource on Cold fusion, and sees neutral coverage.

Top-level coverage isn't neutral? It's a wiki. Fix it! I'll work with anyone who wants to help there, and especially invite "skeptical" editors. I want the "skeptical POV" represented, partly because I want it examined, in detail. Just as I want the evidence for the Pons-Fleischmann effect to be examined, in detail.

I urge anyone who finds themselves in conflict with Salsman to *discuss it* with him. He's not insane, except as anyone who has an enduring interest in Wikipedia is crazy in some way. Present company most definitely included.

And if you can't find agreement with him, engage in true "dispute resolution process." Probably best off-wiki. Or if it's about an article topic, on Wikiversity. Good use for that wiki, properly done. I'll help, if anyone wants support from a third party who is motivated to seek consensus. Remember this: by definition, consensus includes you.

The Wikipedia trope on consensus has it mean "everyone but you, jerkface. Go away!"