Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:35, 2 August 2008

Fragments of Jade

Hello,

Sorry to bother you again with that, but I was wondering about your decision to block the user Fragments of Jade ...

On her discussion page, you explained that you saw her break the 3RR on July 2 , but I'm only seeing three edits by Fragments of Jade on that day? Erigu (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to insist, but it would be very helpful if you could simply tell me if you decided to block Fragments of Jade for 3RR violation after confirming that she was also 76.120.173.40. Fragments of Jade is currently suspected of sock puppetry and claims she's not 76.120.173.40. I'd like that particular issue to be finally solved, and I'd rather not make a possibly redundant checkuser request... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I thought it was clear in the context of the ANI report that Jade had violated 3RR through a combination of logged-in and logged-out edits. Thatcher 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I suspected, anyway, based on your comments... So you are confirming that Jade and 76.120.173.40 are one and the same? She's denying that and has been using 76.120.173.40 to push her views regarding an article (there's also yet another IP with eerily similar WHOIS results I suspect she's been using in the same way). There's an open sock puppetry case about her here, and her overall disruptive behavior has been bothering some users (myself included) in the past few weeks. I believe a confirmation from you would solve that issue. Erigu (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Still resorting to the same dirty tactics, I see, just because you can't win an argument. Have you even bothered to read the rules? Staff cannon reveal the IPs of people with accounts. It's considered a violation of privacy, not that a stalker like you cares about such things. And don't forget that you are ALSO suspected of puppetry, and part of the reason you hope to get me blocked is to save your own hide. I know my IP is not either of the ones you're trying to claim it is, and if I get blocked, it will only be because you have that staff member who helps you bend the rules.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Staff can check the IPs of accounts suspected of sock puppetry. There's nothing "dirty" about it, really: if you're lying to us from the beginning and using multiple accounts to fake support for your views, you should get blocked. That is all.

Also, you're the only user suspecting me of sock puppetry (for some reason), as far as I know. Go ahead and file a report. Good luck with that. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You filed the report, and that's the end of it. You can't go around crusading and trying to trick staff into revealing people's IP addresses so you can stalk them. And you're one to talk, considering you've argued your case as both 88 and Erigu. Doesn't matter if you've chosen to now admit you're the same person, you didn't originally-you only did it to try and avoid being labelled a puppet.Fragments of Jade (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't go around crusading and trying to trick staff into revealing people's IP addresses so you can stalk them.

I'd like to be done with you. So the "stalking" part really isn't alluring to me.

you've argued your case as both 88 and Erigu. Doesn't matter if you've chosen to now admit you're the same person

I never pretended I wasn't Erigu, and vice-versa. That's the big difference between you and me, sock puppetry, and just some guy finally getting an account (and getting logged out of it all the time for no reason). 88.161.129.43 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You have pretended that, and I would like to be done with you. You've already proven you're stalking three different Wiki users, not including myself, who you have been stalking to some extent already. You need to grow up and stop making accusations against people, just because you can't handle the fact that they might be right and you might be wrong.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You have pretended that

Nope. Gratuitous accusations, just like for the "racism" thing. Lovely.

And please take it to my user page.

(I'm really sorry about the mess, Thatcher) 88.161.129.43 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You alone are making ridiculous accusations. And don't try and make me out to be the bad guy here. You know you should never have posted here in the first place. What you were trying to do is a vagrant violation of the rules.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes for parties

(FYI) These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.

1. Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
2. Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
3. If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
4. We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
5. To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
6. The Committee will understand participation in the case by a party as assent to the principle that the information circulated is confidential (cf. Misplaced Pages:Mediation#When should a mediation be held confidentially? for some good reasons).
7. The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.

Charles Matthews (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Makiyu

Please see the above mentioned talk page. He's hit by a rangeblock, should he be given IP block exempt? –xeno (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems ok. IP exemption granted. Thatcher 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks...Might you also review User talk:Bacasper? A similar situation, but with not as much of the good-faithy background. –xeno (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. –xeno (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• ah crud, did i f up ? i thought he was cleared? –xeno (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There was a lot of discussion and no one asked a CU until it had gone on several days, so it's not really anyone's fault. There is something odd about the IP from which the account was created (subsequent edits seem to have been made from tor, of course). I would like to review the account creation, hopefully with some input from the editor, any maybe have it reviewed by another CU, before taking action. There's not really any mischief someone can get up to with IPBE. Thatcher 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Relates to Rove2 (talk · contribs). Thatcher 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • alright. and of course, feel free to revoke IPBE if things aren't resolved to your satisfaction. cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Splat5572's logged out edits

These are 68.4.* IPs, not 75.47.* IPs, right? --NE2 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why would that be important that I should reveal that? Thatcher 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a suspected sockpuppet report claiming he's 75.47, and he has revealed that he is 68.4. --NE2 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, in that case I can confirm he is telling the truth about editing from 68.4 and he does not edit from 75.47. Thatcher 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you. --NE2 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you know...

who this is. LaraLove|Talk 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Probably Hiwhispees (talk · contribs), another sad little Grawp wannabee. Thatcher 10:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Harass accounts

During last 20 days my edits are under attack of harass account. In beginning action of harass accounts have been stupid, reverting all my edits (user:PravdaRuss). After that he has used 1 account to revert "only" 5 of my edits (user:Koljicic) and shortly after that he has created account to revert "only" 2 of my edits (user:MaximilianusMaximus). Because all this account are discovered and banned by administrators he is now having 1 edit harass accounts. Only on 29 July this user has created accounts:user:Milica1987, user:DabicPera ,user:CaesarusGrecus . harass account writen here are not even half of created accounts. Because of this situation I have started Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss . Can you please look this case in near future so that we can block IP of that user ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 66.217.132.152 is not connected to any users ??? I ask you this because IP edits from that range are connected with many edits during July (example:66.217.131.60, 66.217.132.170, 66.217.131.62, 66.217.131.112, 66.217.132.56.....). Edits from this IP are 1 or 2 reverts and nothing else--Rjecina (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The 66.217 IPs are Paetec in Falls Church, Virginia. J. A. Comment is editing from a public library that is geographically consistent with the Northern Virginia/Southern Maryland/Washington DC area of many of the IPs suspected of being Velebit. The confirmed socks, Rilkas and Worobiew are from 3 other distinct locations. Thatcher 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know that user in question is using Paetec proxy. I have asked administrator for check and he has put first tag on his talk page. After that using copy/paste I am writing this tag on talk pages of all 66.217...... "accounts". I am looking only for advice in how we can stop this IP edits because it has been always in support of this case puppets or J. A. Comment which is weird ?? It is not important if this is velebit or not, but I am interested to hear if it is possible to block dynamic IP from future editing articles in question.--Rjecina (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 66.217.131.0 through 66.217.132.256 for one month to prevent anonymous editing and account creation. This is not guaranteed to stop the person but will make it more difficult for him to edit and easier to track down if he does keep it up. If he starts coming from other numbers outside the 131 and 132 ranges, let me know. Thatcher 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk

I asked you for the same CheckUser request on IRC a few days ago. I don't think you gave me the same result as Alison, though (I could be wrong). Could you please clarify your CU results on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I know Checkuser is not a crystal ball, but recently ODN users who have the same agenda of Azukimonaka or 2channel have a deep grudge at me vandalised my talk page several times. Pabopa's attacks seem to be in the same extension. Anyway, thank you for your help. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Dear Thatcher, Rlevse has suggested that I approach you with regards to clarification of IP addresses. I have been accused of sockpuppetry and specifically creating the account Plasmons. Can you identify the IP addresses used by Plasmons and myself please Justinmarley (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can confirm that your claim to be editing from the UK is true, and Plasmons' statement on his talk page that he is editing from India is true. Thatcher 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail again

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thatcher 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you, but found another one. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thatcher 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

At Talk:Comfort women a new user Priorend (talk · contribs) appeared to demonstrate an agenda shared with Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) and Logitech95 (talk · contribs), or Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs).. Is the anon evading from the given blockage? And I'm wondering whether Ex-oneatf who created an article with plagiarism multiple times is related to any of Pabopa (talk · contribs)'s sock or Boldlyman (talk · contribs)(blocked on Jan. however the user is active on multiple Wikiproject) or Carl Daniels (talk · contribs) (likely boldlyman by last checkuser). Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Piorend is  Likely Carl Daniels. Thatcher 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also confirm on whether Piorend/Carl Daniesls is related to Ex-oneatf or not? Because the current dispute has been initiated by Ex-oneat with spurious list of his alleged references to back up for "Korean own comfort women". Besides, Ex-oneatf created his account on July 10 and after his block on July 19, he disappeared. On the other hand, Carl Daniels was inactive during the period, but reappeared after July 22. I think Ex-oneatf is Carl Daniels and Boldlyman for similar writing style and agendas. If Carl Daniels are really a sock of Boldlyman, it is a block evasion again. Can you confirm on this too? Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of these editors are in Japan as you know, on various ISPs like OCN, ODN, Softbank, and Plala and more. Ex-oneatf is in a different country. Boldlyman is too old for a current check, but if he was likely to be Carl Daniels before then that will still be true. Thatcher 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Then Ex-oneatf would be likely Jjok (talk · contribs)? Because Ex-oneatf's edit and agenda are overlapped with Jjok much such as Comfort women, Chinilpa, Prostitution in South Korea. Ex-oneatf quoted Jjok's comment at Chinilpa as an attempt to move the title of the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jjok's last edits are too old for a check. I may have saved some information at home, will check later. Thatcher 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jjok's previous information was a different (non-Japan) country than Ex-oneatf. Thatcher 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Checkuser?

I think this warrants an emergency checkuser. Sending email with more detail. Rgoodermote  15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

Since the checkuser case, two more users, Special:Contributions/Poklopichika and Special:Contributions/Kyarichy, have appeared, with editing patterns extremely close to those of the two sock farms uncovered in the checkuser case, as well as those of User:Kalindoscopy, the banned user who is unrelated to the sock farms, but whose resemblance with these users is uncanny. I've been reverting the related IPs I've seen - there's been a constant stream since the blockings - but I feel it's rude to revert users unless they've been shown to be related. Could you please check whether these users are related to the sock farms or Kalindoscopy?--Yolgnu (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)