Admin refuses to read

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Well, nothing whatsoever wrong with that obsession.

There are two ways to handle it, though:by learning and thinking, or by repeating the simple fact of your inherent rightness to yourself and anyone cursed to have to listen.

The latter is big on Wikipedia, last I saw.

It's actually quite big with Homo sapiens in general, sadly.

[Midsize Jake]

Okay, so now that we know (for certain!) which site Mr. Grump was referring to, was he correct in that assessment? I've often suspected that we might have a tendency to think of Mr. Crowsnest (currently going by the name "ChaosMeRee," which I admittedly prefer to his previous name, "Jake is a Sellout") as some sort of singular/emblematic representative of their whole site, merely because he writes so much of their material (proportionately speaking — at least in terms of byte-count, anyway).

That's not to say the other members over there are any more or less "reasonable," it's just that I prefer not to generalize.

I will say that pretty much their whole site has become infected with the idea that this site is "pro-Wikipedia," essentially because we allow pro-Wikipedia types (including admins and Arbcom members) to post here. Anyone who deviates from that dogma gets an earful from Mr. Crowsnest, or whatever the internet equivalent of an "earful" is. So it's understandable, because who has time to deal with that?

I did notice that in the thread over there about Mr. Zoll's situation (which was more about his situation here than on Wikipedia itself, though it's now entirely about Mr. Crowsnest instead, with Mr. Zoll basically left in the rear-view mirror), he made this comment:

They once used to claim they were high level people, that they don't engage in "inside baseball", as if somehow that was the reason they banned me. I took it as their attempt to cast their forum as being about criticism of the system, as if highlighting the shortcomings of people like Beeblebrox was somehow irrelevant to Wikipedia criticism.

So as an experiment, I spent quite a long time focusing only on systemic issues, there and here. As it turns out, rather unsurprisingly, if the analysis/critique of systemic issues you bring to that forum offends the hoardes of scummy Wikipedia editors and Administrators that Zoloft is protecting/enabling, well, you get banned.

He's definitely lying throughout this passage, though he could easily have deluded himself into believing some or even all of it. What actually happened is that in order to preserve some degree of amity between our site and theirs, I personally (nobody else, really, though I suppose some people agreed with me) suggested that this site could be more about criticizing the system and theirs could be more about criticizing the Wikipedians themselves. Naturally that would mean their site would attract angrier, more vituperative, more vindictive people, but at the same time it would make their site more viable, if not more interesting. But we never discouraged criticism of individual (or groups of) Wikipedians here, and obviously there's plenty of "inside baseball" going on here too. (For better or worse.)

Most importantly though, if Mr. Crowsnest ever made any attempt to "focus" on systemic criticisms with any of his (four, I think?) accounts here, I never saw it, and I read everything. Moreover, the implication that these non-existent "systemic critiques" of his actually might have offended anyone here, and that this is why we had to ban him, is simply absurd. He's correct in that he offended people, but the offensiveness was mostly of the obscene-personal-epithets variety, and had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia policy, procedure, software, organizational structure, or anything of the sort. Instead, it was almost entirely about dissing the regulars here, only about half of whom are active Wikipedians, for daring to disagree with him. And I'm sorry, but anyone who runs a forum, of any description, knows you can only allow so much of that before you have to step in and shut it down.

[rnu]

Okay, so now that we know (for certain!) which site Mr. Grump was referring to, was he correct in that assessment? I've often suspected that we might have a tendency to think of Mr. Crowsnest (currently going by the name "ChaosMeRee," which I admittedly prefer to his previous name, "Jake is a Sellout") as some sort of singular/emblematic representative of their whole site, merely because he writes so much of their material (proportionately speaking — at least in terms of byte-count, anyway).

That's not to say the other members over there are any more or less "reasonable," it's just that I prefer not to generalize.

I will say that pretty much their whole site has become infected with the idea that this site is "pro-Wikipedia," essentially because we allow pro-Wikipedia types (including admins and Arbcom members) to post here. Anyone who deviates from that dogma gets an earful from Mr. Crowsnest, or whatever the internet equivalent of an "earful" is. So it's understandable, because who has time to deal with that?

I did notice that in the thread over there about Mr. Zoll's situation (which was more about his situation here than on Wikipedia itself, though it's now entirely about Mr. Crowsnest instead, with Mr. Zoll basically left in the rear-view mirror), he made this comment:

They once used to claim they were high level people, that they don't engage in "inside baseball", as if somehow that was the reason they banned me. I took it as their attempt to cast their forum as being about criticism of the system, as if highlighting the shortcomings of people like Beeblebrox was somehow irrelevant to Wikipedia criticism.

So as an experiment, I spent quite a long time focusing only on systemic issues, there and here. As it turns out, rather unsurprisingly, if the analysis/critique of systemic issues you bring to that forum offends the hoardes of scummy Wikipedia editors and Administrators that Zoloft is protecting/enabling, well, you get banned.

He's definitely lying throughout this passage, though he could easily have deluded himself into believing some or even all of it. What actually happened is that in order to preserve some degree of amity between our site and theirs, I personally (nobody else, really, though I suppose some people agreed with me) suggested that this site could be more about criticizing the system and theirs could be more about criticizing the Wikipedians themselves. Naturally that would mean their site would attract angrier, more vituperative, more vindictive people, but at the same time it would make their site more viable, if not more interesting. But we never discouraged criticism of individual (or groups of) Wikipedians here, and obviously there's plenty of "inside baseball" going on here too. (For better or worse.)

Most importantly though, if Mr. Crowsnest ever made any attempt to "focus" on systemic criticisms with any of his (four, I think?) accounts here, I never saw it, and I read everything. Moreover, the implication that these non-existent "systemic critiques" of his actually might have offended anyone here, and that this is why we had to ban him, is simply absurd. He's correct in that he offended people, but the offensiveness was mostly of the obscene-personal-epithets variety, and had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia policy, procedure, software, organizational structure, or anything of the sort. Instead, it was almost entirely about dissing the regulars here, only about half of whom are active Wikipedians, for daring to disagree with him. And I'm sorry, but anyone who runs a forum, of any description, knows you can only allow so much of that before you have to step in and shut it down.

I certainly would make sure my rabies vaccinations are up to date before talking to the suckers. Their frothing at the mouth style looks more like a symptom of serious personal/mental issues than criticism to me.
Hi suckers

[Giraffe Stapler]

He's definitely lying throughout this passage, though he could easily have deluded himself into believing some or even all of it. What actually happened is that in order to preserve some degree of amity between our site and theirs, I personally (nobody else, really, though I suppose some people agreed with me) suggested that this site could be more about criticizing the system and theirs could be more about criticizing the Wikipedians themselves. Naturally that would mean their site would attract angrier, more vituperative, more vindictive people, but at the same time it would make their site more viable, if not more interesting. But we never discouraged criticism of individual (or groups of) Wikipedians here, and obviously there's plenty of "inside baseball" going on here too. (For better or worse.)

I pretty much gave up on systemic criticism of Wikipedia. After systemic issues were pointed out here, time and time again I would see the specific examples of those issues fixed but the underlying issue never addressed. I'm looking at one of those kinds of issues right now and I know that if I bring it up here the problem will be "fixed" by a well-meaning person but nothing will prevent it from happening again and again. Nothing will even be said to the person who did it. And it's just another BLP issue that would have been prevented by one or another of the oft-discussed ways to protect BLP subjects. So most of what I post here is inside baseball stuff.

[Vigilant]

Crow's in a manic phase right now.

I do hope his wrangler can get him back on his meds.

[Elinruby]

Crow's in a manic phase right now.

I do hope his wrangler can get him back on his meds.

scary mad about something

[The Blue Newt]

Well, nothing whatsoever wrong with that obsession.

There are two ways to handle it, though:by learning and thinking, or by repeating the simple fact of your inherent rightness to yourself and anyone cursed to have to listen.

The latter is big on Wikipedia, last I saw.

It's actually quite big with Homo sapiens in general, sadly.

Ohhh, yeah.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that it believes in its own exceptionalism.

[Ryuichi]

Well, nothing whatsoever wrong with that obsession.

There are two ways to handle it, though:by learning and thinking, or by repeating the simple fact of your inherent rightness to yourself and anyone cursed to have to listen.

The latter is big on Wikipedia, last I saw.

It's actually quite big with Homo sapiens in general, sadly.

Ohhh, yeah.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that it believes in its own exceptionalism.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that each editor believes in their own exceptionalism.

[The Blue Newt]

Well, nothing whatsoever wrong with that obsession.

There are two ways to handle it, though:by learning and thinking, or by repeating the simple fact of your inherent rightness to yourself and anyone cursed to have to listen.

The latter is big on Wikipedia, last I saw.

It's actually quite big with Homo sapiens in general, sadly.

Ohhh, yeah.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that it believes in its own exceptionalism.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that each editor believes in their own exceptionalism.

Fractal self-delusion.

[Midsize Jake]

scary mad about something

Naah — he's having a fantastic time. Loving every minute of it! He hasn't had this much fun since we forgot to post that Framgate blog piece back in 2019.

[Vigilant]

Crow's in a manic phase right now.

I do hope his wrangler can get him back on his meds.

lol

He's reading the site and screeing off into the night every time someone posts.

[Elinruby]

Well, nothing whatsoever wrong with that obsession.

There are two ways to handle it, though:by learning and thinking, or by repeating the simple fact of your inherent rightness to yourself and anyone cursed to have to listen.

The latter is big on Wikipedia, last I saw.

It's actually quite big with Homo sapiens in general, sadly.

Ohhh, yeah.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that it believes in its own exceptionalism.

Part of the reason Wiki is such a mess is that each editor believes in their own exceptionalism.

[rhindle]

Crow's in a manic phase right now.

I do hope his wrangler can get him back on his meds.

lol

He's reading the site and screeing off into the night every time someone posts.

The vibe I get is someone who would be at a Mensa gathering and think he's a genius among idiots.

[rnu]

LoL. I was slightly startled that Wikipediasucks noted that I joined Wikipediocracy. Weird, isn't it.

Are you kidding? They're almost as obsessed with Wikipediocracy as they are with Wikipedia.
Hi suckers

er, no I wasn't but I guess I am learning that

They noticed me too, now. Apparently a friendly greeting works. Now ChaosMeRee wants to lure me over and show me his "chainsaw".

[Giraffe Stapler]

Crow thinks Jess Wade reads his rants.

Jess Wade was recently out there in the left wing media wondering why it is still very easy to be shocked that notable woman X or notable black guy Y don't have a Wikipedia page. This is why you dumb bitch. Someone taking an interest in keeping the biography of a renowned Palestinian artist up to date, adding information at the first available opportunity, was essentially told to fuck off and don't come back until they are a Wikipedia expert. They did not come back.

You are nothing but a Useful Idiot. The hostility you complained about In left wing newspapers, still exists. Wikipedia are protecting you because you are helping them FOOL THE WORLD into thinking they have changed. People like [name redacted] at [name redacted] who are claiming this focus on you and what you represent is an unhealthy obsession of mine, are probably the exact kind of asshole patroller who scares off clearly useful new recruits who could help Wikipedia fix its large gaps in coverage.

[Vigilant]

Crow's in a manic phase right now.

I do hope his wrangler can get him back on his meds.

lol

He's reading the site and screeing off into the night every time someone posts.

The vibe I get is someone who would be at a Mensa gathering and think he's a genius among idiots.

More than that, he'd be haranguing them endlessly about why he should be the president and what fools and simps they are for not immediately recognizing his brilliance, until one of the less introverted members asked him politely to leave and then he'd go find a new forum to rail about how he was better than all of them, endlessly.

The new Abd.

[tarantino]

Here's one of his posts on reddit from a year ago where he rants about Eric not appreciating him.

Dolling out crap Wikipedia criticism, and memory holing simple factual observations [by me] that pointed this out. Precious fuck.

And he claims without me around he has the peace and quiet for him and his forum to serve a useful purpose. That posts like this are mere rants and tantrums.

[eppur si muove]

The vibe I get is someone who would be at a Mensa gathering and think he's a genius among idiots.

This reminds me of how one of my friends tried going to a Mensa meeting and told me afterwards that they may recruit people with the top 2% of IQ scores but she reckoned that none of the people she met there were in the top 1%.

[Hemiauchenia]

The vibe I get is someone who would be at a Mensa gathering and think he's a genius among idiots.

This reminds me of how one of my friends tried going to a Mensa meeting and told me afterwards that they may recruit people with the top 2% of IQ scores but she reckoned that none of the people she met there were in the top 1%.

“People who boast about their IQ are losers.” - Stephen Hawking

[Zoll]

...and then comparing it to Kaisers will reveal the truth.

I really don't understand how you can think that - but please just accept that it's not your way out.

If they have his IP, how can't it be the way out?

Let me suggest an analogy...

"But officer, you know the number of the car that was used in that crime several years ago, but you can see I'm not driving that same car now, so it couldn't have been me back then..." Would that make any sense?

Besides, if they do have his IP, then they'll already have examined it when the CU on you was run.

A bit late, but: If the licence plate numbers don't match, then what has CU even proven? Then the entire case will be based on matching description, for example both of them smuggle drugs and look alike. But at that point, the admins must also review my rebuttals to the descriptions, and answer them, rather than saying

I'm an expert admin, I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to even read your request because text scares me.

[rhindle]

LOL, poor guy has reduced himself to calling me one of "Jake's bitches." Anyway, enough of that. Engaging is not worth the effort. Don't want to weed through finding 5% of something useful/somewhat interesting surrounded by 95% of bitter nonsense. I hope he gets help.

[Midsize Jake]

Needless to say, I apologize to anyone who's being needlessly insulted, but the important thing is that he's having a good time and enjoying himself. I remember when I was his age, we didn't have the internet or even computers, so our parents would only let us play with things like Hot Wheels™ and Rock'em Sock'em Robots™ — sure, those things were a lot more fun, but they were pretty much useless as far as producing rage-filled egomaniacs was concerned.

Anyway. maybe we should lock this thread and/or split out the non-Zoll-related parts.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Needless to say, I apologize to anyone who's being needlessly insulted

I think you know that Crow would never insult someone unless they deserved to be insulted. I count myself lucky that I am simply not smart enough to understand most of his insults. Even so, I was literally brought to my knees by something he once said about me so I try not read most of what he writes in case it causes me lasting psychological damage.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

A bit late, but: If the licence plate numbers don't match, then what has CU even proven? Then the entire case will be based on matching description, for example both of them smuggle drugs and look alike. But at that point, the admins must also review my rebuttals to the descriptions, and answer them, rather than saying

I'm an expert admin, I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to even read your request because text scares me.

Well, a CU check rarely proves anything. And without seeing the actual CU technical data, I really can't tell you anything. But CU is more than just "Proven guilty" vs "Proven no connection" even if no individual IP addresses match.

You could compare geographic locations, ISPs, computer types, IP subnets, and things like that. There can be tell-tale hints, even if no direct matches. (And I say this not through knowledge of the CU tool itself, which I don't have, but with a background in IP comms.)

All I see in the sockpuppet case is "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise..."

What specific findings were used to determine that you have considerable technical expertise and that all of this is fishy, I have no way of knowing.

And don't expect those who ran the checks to tell you what hints they based their conclusions on. They won't tell you, as that could help you do it more cleverly next time. Or, well, help you to show your innocence... but the "Don't spill the beans" policy doesn't seem to care too much about the innocent.

So, what do I think? I think you've either been socking and have cleverly tried to evade detection, but you haven't been clever enough. Or you have not been socking, but have built up enough technical coincidences to raise suspicion. I have no way to tell which it is. And what I think makes no difference anyway.

And that really is all I can offer. I can't help you in your quest to prove innocence via CU.

[Zoll]

A bit late, but: If the licence plate numbers don't match, then what has CU even proven? Then the entire case will be based on matching description, for example both of them smuggle drugs and look alike. But at that point, the admins must also review my rebuttals to the descriptions, and answer them, rather than saying

I'm an expert admin, I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to even read your request because text scares me.

Well, a CU check rarely proves anything. And without seeing the actual CU technical data, I really can't tell you anything. But CU is more than just "Proven guilty" vs "Proven no connection" even if no individual IP addresses match.

You could compare geographic locations, ISPs, computer types, IP subnets, and things like that. There can be tell-tale hints, even if no direct matches. (And I say this not through knowledge of the CU tool itself, which I don't have, but with a background in IP comms.)

All I see in the sockpuppet case is "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise..."

What specific findings were used to determine that you have considerable technical expertise and that all of this is fishy, I have no way of knowing.

And don't expect those who ran the checks to tell you what hints they based their conclusions on. They won't tell you, as that could help you do it more cleverly next time. Or, well, help you to show your innocence... but the "Don't spill the beans" policy doesn't seem to care too much about the innocent.

So, what do I think? I think you've either been socking and have cleverly tried to evade detection, but you haven't been clever enough. Or you have not been socking, but have built up enough technical coincidences to raise suspicion. I have no way to tell which it is. And what I think makes no difference anyway.

And that really is all I can offer. I can't help you in your quest to prove innocence via CU.

Kaiser Geographic location: https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/ip- ... %20Europa/
I'd made it pretty clear from very early on that I'm from Hessen, not Berlin. I have no idea what a subnet is, though even I were a sock, I'd probably changed my internet provider at least once in the last 10 yeas. Also, not sure what you mean "Computer type", though logic would suggest I haven't been using the same device for editing for the past decade.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Kaiser Geographic location: https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/ip- ... %20Europa/
I'd made it pretty clear from very early on that I'm from Hessen, not Berlin. I have no idea what a subnet is, though even I were a sock, I'd probably changed my internet provider at least once in the last 10 yeas. Also, not sure what you mean "Computer type", though logic would suggest I haven't been using the same device for editing for the past decade.

It's not me you need to argue with and convince.

[rnu]

All I see in the sockpuppet case is "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise..."

Translation: "none of the evidence fits, therefore he must have faked the evidence."

[The Garbage Scow]

A bit late, but: If the licence plate numbers don't match, then what has CU even proven? Then the entire case will be based on matching description, for example both of them smuggle drugs and look alike. But at that point, the admins must also review my rebuttals to the descriptions, and answer them, rather than saying

I'm an expert admin, I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to even read your request because text scares me.

Well, a CU check rarely proves anything. And without seeing the actual CU technical data, I really can't tell you anything. But CU is more than just "Proven guilty" vs "Proven no connection" even if no individual IP addresses match.

You could compare geographic locations, ISPs, computer types, IP subnets, and things like that. There can be tell-tale hints, even if no direct matches. (And I say this not through knowledge of the CU tool itself, which I don't have, but with a background in IP comms.)

All I see in the sockpuppet case is "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise..."

What specific findings were used to determine that you have considerable technical expertise and that all of this is fishy, I have no way of knowing.

And don't expect those who ran the checks to tell you what hints they based their conclusions on. They won't tell you, as that could help you do it more cleverly next time. Or, well, help you to show your innocence... but the "Don't spill the beans" policy doesn't seem to care too much about the innocent.

So, what do I think? I think you've either been socking and have cleverly tried to evade detection, but you haven't been clever enough. Or you have not been socking, but have built up enough technical coincidences to raise suspicion. I have no way to tell which it is. And what I think makes no difference anyway.

And that really is all I can offer. I can't help you in your quest to prove innocence via CU.

Kaiser Geographic location: https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/ip- ... %20Europa/
I'd made it pretty clear from very early on that I'm from Hessen, not Berlin. I have no idea what a subnet is, though even I were a sock, I'd probably changed my internet provider at least once in the last 10 yeas. Also, not sure what you mean "Computer type", though logic would suggest I haven't been using the same device for editing for the past decade.

Computer type is one of the things the checkuser tool picks up. I don't remember the exact language displayed, but it will tell them if you're on a Windows machine, Linux, etc. The details have been discussed on WO in the past. That's why when making a new account after banishment it's a good idea to install a User Agent switcher add on to your browser. Then you set it to broadcast different browser and computer details than what you'd normally use.

So that's probably one of the ways they determined you were Kaiser.

[Zoll]

A bit late, but: If the licence plate numbers don't match, then what has CU even proven? Then the entire case will be based on matching description, for example both of them smuggle drugs and look alike. But at that point, the admins must also review my rebuttals to the descriptions, and answer them, rather than saying

I'm an expert admin, I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to even read your request because text scares me.

Well, a CU check rarely proves anything. And without seeing the actual CU technical data, I really can't tell you anything. But CU is more than just "Proven guilty" vs "Proven no connection" even if no individual IP addresses match.

You could compare geographic locations, ISPs, computer types, IP subnets, and things like that. There can be tell-tale hints, even if no direct matches. (And I say this not through knowledge of the CU tool itself, which I don't have, but with a background in IP comms.)

All I see in the sockpuppet case is "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise..."

What specific findings were used to determine that you have considerable technical expertise and that all of this is fishy, I have no way of knowing.

And don't expect those who ran the checks to tell you what hints they based their conclusions on. They won't tell you, as that could help you do it more cleverly next time. Or, well, help you to show your innocence... but the "Don't spill the beans" policy doesn't seem to care too much about the innocent.

So, what do I think? I think you've either been socking and have cleverly tried to evade detection, but you haven't been clever enough. Or you have not been socking, but have built up enough technical coincidences to raise suspicion. I have no way to tell which it is. And what I think makes no difference anyway.

And that really is all I can offer. I can't help you in your quest to prove innocence via CU.

Kaiser Geographic location: https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/ip- ... %20Europa/
I'd made it pretty clear from very early on that I'm from Hessen, not Berlin. I have no idea what a subnet is, though even I were a sock, I'd probably changed my internet provider at least once in the last 10 yeas. Also, not sure what you mean "Computer type", though logic would suggest I haven't been using the same device for editing for the past decade.

Computer type is one of the things the checkuser tool picks up. I don't remember the exact language displayed, but it will tell them if you're on a Windows machine, Linux, etc. The details have been discussed on WO in the past. That's why when making a new account after banishment it's a good idea to install a User Agent switcher add on to your browser. Then you set it to broadcast different browser and computer details than what you'd normally use.

So that's probably one of the ways they determined you were Kaiser.

Billions of people use windows, millions in Germany alone. It's not some niche OS. I fail to understand how using the same the operating system as a sock could be used to match me with him.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Billions of people use windows, millions in Germany alone. It's not some niche OS. I fail to understand how using the same the operating system as a sock could be used to match me with him.

Not that one, or any other, specific thing, no. That's what I've been trying to get over to you all along, but you're not listening.

Whatever drove a checkuser to think "Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise" is not one specific thing.

Whatever they think they found, it's for certain more subtle than you can guess at with your apparently limited understanding of the technology.

And without seeing the actual data, nobody here can really tell you any more than that.

So you need to stop trying to get a black and white answer on this, because you won't get one. Not from here, not from CU, and not from anyone who hasn't seen the data.

[JiminyFluffer]

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

Apparently I'm the only one with this specific OS, browser, timezone, and language combination out of a dataset of 2,232,389. And I'm not using anything particularly unorthodox right now.

[eppur si muove]

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

Apparently I'm the only one with this specific OS, browser, timezone, and language combination out of a dataset of 2,232,389. And I'm not using anything particularly unorthodox right now.

In my case it includes the referrer of WIkipediocracy in what makes me unique. But it still claims I am unique when I cut and paste the link and use two different browsers..

[Zoll]

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

Apparently I'm the only one with this specific OS, browser, timezone, and language combination out of a dataset of 2,232,389. And I'm not using anything particularly unorthodox right now.

my content language is " en-GB,en;q=0.5 " aka British English, which is, according to the website, used by 1.09 % of it's dataset, and my user agent, is " Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/111.0 " which is used by 0.35% of the dataset. The only thing making me unique was my referrer WPO, without it, it shows: if non match: 8dd25-Ask7LRIYNJcCMuiMA5BcQ04B9qY to give me the unique statues, since 8dd25-Ask7LRIYNJcCMuiMA5BcQ04B9qY is used by 0% of the dataset. I have no idea what 8dd25-Ask7LRIYNJcCMuiMA5BcQ04B9qY is.

[The Garbage Scow]

I fail to understand....

I know, but I don't think it's understanding you're after here.

[The Garbage Scow]

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

Apparently I'm the only one with this specific OS, browser, timezone, and language combination out of a dataset of 2,232,389. And I'm not using anything particularly unorthodox right now.

This is a really helpful link, thank you.

[rnu]

Billions of people use windows, millions in Germany alone. It's not some niche OS. I fail to understand how using the same the operating system as a sock could be used to match me with him.

You're still assuming that you are dealing with rational people acting in good faith.

Technical data here confirm just how fishy all of this is: this is clearly a longtime user with considerable technical expertise

How much clearer could they be that they have no actual evidence?

[Giraffe Stapler]

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

Apparently I'm the only one with this specific OS, browser, timezone, and language combination out of a dataset of 2,232,389. And I'm not using anything particularly unorthodox right now.

This is a really helpful link, thank you.

It's a nice reminder of how small differences add up to make you more identifiable, but this is waaay beyond what the Checkuser tool does. Unless things have changed in the last couple of years, Checkuser only displays the IP and user agent.

[Elinruby]

I don't know what the check user tool is but I attended a presentation at DEFCON once that was really convincing about how specific the environment variables are so....I am not certain that link even works on my setup, since I get an error about JavaScript. I get zeros across the board though (except for WPO) but I knew that and find it unsurprising

Point is, it's technically possible to be way more specific than Windows and Germany. Since I am not certain that you are using your powers for good I am not going to comment further about this.

[Vigilant]

I don't know what the check user tool is but I attended a presentation at DEFCON once that was really convincing about how specific the environment variables are so....I am not certain the tool even works on my setup, since I get an error about JavaScript. I get zeros across the board (except for WPO) but I knew that.

Point is, it's technically possible to be way more specific than Windows and Germany. Since I am not certain that you are using your powers for good I am not going to comment further about this.

Run VirtualBox.
Run whatever OS you want in your VM.
Run whatever browser you want, with or without an agent stringer switcher in your VM.
Name the VM for your whichever sockpuppet you're running.

Edit where you want.

[Elinruby]

I don't know what the check user tool is but I attended a presentation at DEFCON once that was really convincing about how specific the environment variables are so....I am not certain the tool even works on my setup, since I get an error about JavaScript. I get zeros across the board (except for WPO) but I knew that.

Point is, it's technically possible to be way more specific than Windows and Germany. Since I am not certain that you are using your powers for good I am not going to comment further about this.

Run VirtualBox.
Run whatever OS you want in your VM.
Run whatever browser you want, with or without an agent stringer switcher in your VM.
Name the VM for your whichever sockpuppet you're running.

Edit where you want.

To the best of my knowledge that will work however I am not doing that (or trying to sock). It sounds like Zoll is not doing that either ok, you want to give him pointers on what to do, that's on you. I thought VPNs were discouraged though.

[Vigilant]

I don't know what the check user tool is but I attended a presentation at DEFCON once that was really convincing about how specific the environment variables are so....I am not certain the tool even works on my setup, since I get an error about JavaScript. I get zeros across the board (except for WPO) but I knew that.

Point is, it's technically possible to be way more specific than Windows and Germany. Since I am not certain that you are using your powers for good I am not going to comment further about this.

Run VirtualBox.
Run whatever OS you want in your VM.
Run whatever browser you want, with or without an agent stringer switcher in your VM.
Name the VM for your whichever sockpuppet you're running.

Edit where you want.

To the best of my knowledge that will work however I am not doing that (or trying to sock). It sounds like Zoll is not doing that either ok, you want to give him pointers on what to do, that's on you. I thought VPNs were discouraged though.

Tether your phone.
Cycle airplane mode between editing sessions.

[Elinruby]

I don't know what the check user tool is but I attended a presentation at DEFCON once that was really convincing about how specific the environment variables are so....I am not certain the tool even works on my setup, since I get an error about JavaScript. I get zeros across the board (except for WPO) but I knew that.

Point is, it's technically possible to be way more specific than Windows and Germany. Since I am not certain that you are using your powers for good I am not going to comment further about this.

Run VirtualBox.
Run whatever OS you want in your VM.
Run whatever browser you want, with or without an agent stringer switcher in your VM.
Name the VM for your whichever sockpuppet you're running.

Edit where you want.

To the best of my knowledge that will work however I am not doing that (or trying to sock). It sounds like Zoll is not doing that either ok, you want to give him pointers on what to do, that's on you. I thought VPNs were discouraged though.

Tether your phone.
Cycle airplane mode between editing sessions.

Ok then.