| Revision as of 22:38, 30 January 2009 view sourcePhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,569 edits →Krimpet is lying: refactor title← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:15, 23 September 2009 view source Cirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits ←Redirected page to User:Kristen Eriksen | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #redirect] | |||
| == Welcome == | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:Macy|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> ] (]) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| Hi, you now have rollback, not from me though - ] beat me to it. :) | |||
| ==thanks== | |||
| For . Gotta love it. ] {{IPA|ǀ}} ] 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, not once, but TWICE. That was very nice of you. Not many editors will take the time to revert userpages, since they are technically not articles. ] (]) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Interesting == | |||
| There are those who stumble upon editing Misplaced Pages, those who walk confidently into the arena, and some who stride purposefully toward a goal (whatever it may be). I'm not certain when I last saw someone enter with a ] While it always help to be familiar with the background (and I do wonder how long you have been reading) it can be the case that sometimes contributors arrive pretty fairly formed. Like I said, "Interesting". | |||
| Speaking of fairly formed, what are you doing with your userpage? You do realise that the combination of five of the six userboxes are going to be the cause of spontaneous combustion among a lot of teenage contributors (mostly male, but - hey - its a big community!)? I said it before, "Interesting"! ] (]) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been editing for about a year as an IP, and just recently created an account. While I thank you for your concern about my userpage, I'll be fine :) ] (]) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is those afflicted with raging hormones that I am concerned about; you certainly seem capable of dealing with the environment.<!-- Your page has been protected from a certain vandal, and will expire in a few hours. This part of this note will not appear on the page, because I don't wish the vandal to know when protection expires.--> ] (]) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about that -- we are talking about my fellow members of the human race, not a pack of wild animals. On the other hand, my recent contribution to ] might well save someone's life, if they had cancer intractable to conventional treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation, and enrolled in a clinical trial for oncolytic adenoviral therapy. I'm just here to help make the world a better place, build Misplaced Pages as a respected reference work, and support a more pleasant editing environment :) ] (]) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barnstar== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Compassion Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your kindness in helping me to resolve Misplaced Pages-related stress. ] 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} Thank you. ] 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed that you're warning vandals manually. In an effort to make your life easier, I created ], which is a version of my monobook.js file without my variant of ]'s RC tool, and without the AFD/FPC closure script (a review of the arguments about AFD closures on my talk page should indicate that you ''really'' don't want to use this script.) The tools for warning vandals are a customized version of ], with modifications to render the warnings more useful, and to eliminate unnecessary tools that will cause browser slowdowns. Just add importScript('User:John254/for Kristen.js'); to your monobook.js file. Enjoy. ] 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. That's so sweet :) ] (]) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sockpuppetry== | |||
| Checkuser evidence shows that you and ], a recent doppelgänger of mine who tried to MfD your userpage, attend the same university and are very likely the same person. Perhaps you would care to explain? Thanks. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's probably my crazy ex-boyfriend Chad, who also attends my university. He's always trying to find new ways to cause trouble for me, and now it seems that he's trolling me on Misplaced Pages :( ] (]) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry to hear that. This situation is deplorable -- here we have a young woman being harassed by a real-life stalker. Instead of defending her against the harassment by deleting all of the edits of the "]" account, many administrators have unwittingly facilitated this stalking by leaving the troll account's edits intact, then simultaneously calling attention to the troll account, and injuring the victim's reputation, through a bizarre accusation of a abusive sockpuppetry, as if someone would really nominate an article they had written and their own userpage for deletion. In no other case would an administrative response to on-wiki harassment reach this perverse result: I highly doubt, for instance, that if ] had managed to obtain an account with ]'s ISP, then nominated her userpage for deletion, that there would be a multi-checkuser investigation culminating in an absurd sockpuppetry allegation. We should hardly be more willing to support trolling and harassment of an editor simply because of a bare disagreement with, or unsupported conjecture as to the inaccuracy of, the demographic characteristics articulated on the editor's userpage (indeed, we permit editors to contribute with userpages claiming ]), or because an editor has availed herself of our invitation to edit without registration, then subsequently creates an account when she has a significant familiarity with Misplaced Pages's policies, procedures, and practices. As to the question of why the stalker created an account which impersonated a well-known administrator, while I don't know Chad, I am thoroughly knowledgeable of the methods by which trolls attempt to disrupt the project, having participated extensively in efforts to suppress trolling. Quite simply, if Chad had created a randomly-named account, we would, in all likelihood, have simply been ] him. Trolling to which few editors would pay any attention would not be very effective. It is ''only'' by impersonating a well-known administrator that Chad could reasonably have expected to prompt an extensive, multi-checkuser investigation. Furthermore, knowing full well that users were already here, Chad could have reasonably predicted that by editing from the same university in a manner that would prompt a checkuser investigation, he would be able to create an abusive sockpuppetry accusation against a good-faith user, something which would attract considerable attention and inflict emotional distress upon the user wrongfully accused, and surely far more effective trolling than XfD nominations which would be speedily closed or deleted. Don't worry, though, Kristen: Misplaced Pages's administration doesn't usually try this hard to drive productive users off the project; the only people calling for sanctions at this point are trolls on Misplaced Pages Review. As you continue to contribute, you will be treated with greater respect and appreciation. ] 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please calm down. While I do appreciate you mounting a chivalrous defense of my reputation :), nobody is "try... hard to drive productive users off the project". ] and the checkusers made a good-faith mistake, so let's forgive, forget, and move on. ] (]) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also see ]. Please don't be discouraged, since | |||
| :(1) ] isn't a checkuser . | |||
| :(2) I've been savagely criticized on ] as well. | |||
| :(3) At least one established user finds your contributions to be quite valuable. ] 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In light of the McCarthyesque nature of the accusations here, I've created an appropriate userbox: | |||
| {{Userbox | |||
| |id = ] | |||
| |info = This user has been ] for no good reason. | |||
| |info-c = white | |||
| |info-fc = black | |||
| |border-c = blue | |||
| }} | |||
| <br><br><br><br><br> | |||
| :] 03:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. That's hilarious :) ] (]) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| In light of new evidence, I've . '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Hallaien, == | |||
| og velkommen hit. Du virker som om du kjenner WP-systemet? Kan jeg få spørre om du også er aktiv på norske WP? (eller nynorske?) I alle fall: velkommen, Hilsen ] (]) 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy translation: "Hello (header), and welcome. You seem like you know the WP system? May I ask if you're active in the Norwegian WP too? (or the "]" WP (nn.wiki...)) Anyway: Welcome, from ]" ] (]) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I don't speak Norwegian. I was born and raised in the United States, I'm ] only in the genealogical sense :) ] (]) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Primary sauce == | |||
| Hey Kristen, in your question is actually a ], s for a bigger challenge a Review Article (and hence a Secondary Source) may have been prudent. Can't think of any rooly controversial Review Articles OTTOMH but I am sure some are out there...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course a review article would be preferable, but this was the best study I could find concerning the subject. I'm just an amateur at this; a medical professional such as yourself might be able to do much better :) ] (]) 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| ... for the user talk page revert. Cheers.--] (]) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome :) ] (]) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Covert Incest == | |||
| I think that you were right to support Okami's inclusion in this article, and have reinstated your edits to that effect. I do not - however - think that the editor concerned (who has been editing these articles for over a year) was attempting to promote the concept itself. I do recall him stating that the researcher Okami is compromised in some earlier discussion, and that sources must literally state the exact concept. Obviously, the former is wrong (all I can recall is some far-left feminist group attacking Okami) and the latter is a faulted rationale that could inadvertently and seriously bias articles on virtually unknown, fringe subjects and ideologies such as covert incest. ]] 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking/unblocking of Giano == | |||
| Hiya Kristen. I'm calm about the whole matter; I'm so laid back, I'm walking on my shoulder blades. ] (]) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nice questions== | |||
| ...for the arbitration committee candidates. I didn't get around to asking my standard question, about the difference between Neutral Point of View and a scientific point of view, but your question 1, and maybe 3 as well, will be a good litmus test for the kind of perspective I look for in ArbCom candidates.--] (]) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thank you for the pointers ill be sure to do better now ill ban every one who vandalizes the rivington and blackrod page <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==You Beat Me to It== | |||
| Darn, you beat me to block-listing Qwertyy9784624548568725. Stupid edit conflicts. XP <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| ...for removing vandalism from my talk page... that guy was just disgusting. ]] 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Many thanks == | |||
| Many thanks for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. ''']''' (]) 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RFA== | |||
| Being impressed with your superb understanding and masterful application of Misplaced Pages policy, guidelines, and practices, I believe that you would be an excellent candidate for adminship, and would like to nominate you several months from now, when you should have sufficient experience and a sufficiently high edit count. While we've had some substantial disagreements over the ], I support prospective administrators not due to the extent to which they parrot positions that I have taken on particular issues, but rather for their ability to exercise thoughtful and independent judgment, a quality which you have demonstrated in great abundance. Before deciding to accept any nomination, however, you should consider that there is a rather lengthy discussion dedicated to you at WR, and that WR posters ''will'' use this thread to canvass for users intent on disrupting any RFA. There are some bigots on WR who will attempt to derail an RFA with a plethora of racist, ageist, sexist, and erotophobic personal attacks, and will try to blame you for wikistalking by your ex-boyfriend. If you are prepared to deal with the inevitable trolling, however, your RFA might stand a fairly good chance of passing, though by no means uncontroversially. It would also be helpful if you were to publicly disavow any connection to the account in your name on ED. Keep up the good work, and happy new year. ] 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, this is sweet :) Don't worry, I'm not afraid of a bit of controversy at RFA :) And there's no connection between me and my Encyclopedia Dramatica impersonator. Really, a lot of what is on the user page for that account is just silly. I was raised from an early age in a clothing-optional household, so the idea that I'd have such a poor body image that I'd be hospitalized for bulimia as a teenager is ridiculous. ] (]) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, I like how much you're doing to keep images on the main page protected. We really want to keep the wikiporn confined to appropriate articles like ], not have some joker put it up on the main page. It takes guts for an editor to tell an admin how to do their job , but sometimes it needs to be done :) ] (]) 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I noticed you closed the AfD for Graphical Identification and Authentication as keep. I'm not interested in disputing this, I'm not bothered either way, but I was wondering how you decided it was a keep. What established notability for you, and what policy arguments swayed you? All the best, ] <small>]</small> 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow... there are no third-party RS in that article. But there was a unanimous consensus to keep it because the editors thought third-party RS could be found, meeting ], since AFD isn't "source the article in five days or it gets deleted", and the community has rejected ], a proposal along those lines. Or maybe they thought that this DLL was inherently notable, just as towns are, even if sources are sparse. Look at it this way: would an administrator read at discussion at ], and decide to delete the article? The possibility is exceedingly remote. ] (]) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| ... for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Many thanks == | |||
| ]<!-- {{Template:WikiThanks}}--> ...for attending to my article. Only the best always. | |||
| -] (]) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ....for fixing my user page :) Merci beaucoup! ] (]) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you! == | |||
| I saw that you caught a bit of vandalism that I missed on ]. Thanks, keep up the good work! ] (]) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your new sig == | |||
| Ummmm... I believe that there is so much irony abounding that you may start suffering metal fatigue. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"Metal fatigue"? So something like ] is going to happen to me? Perhaps if I were made of tin, I'd be more worried :) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == A well thought response... == | |||
| Appreciated your very cogent comment at the ] for ]... enough so, that I visited your userpage. I too am interested in bodypainting... though usually as a for a project. ''']''' '']'' 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I'm always happy to participate in AFD. And I find your work inspirational and intriguing - while the human body is a beautiful canvas, it's nothing compared to the canvas of the mind :) ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you in turn. While being a canvas for art is great, being such for a narrative is even better... allowing the "art" to come to life and interact. Are you canvas or painter? ''']''' '']'' 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both, actually :) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If our paths ever cross outside of Wiki, I would be honored to offer myself as a canvas for your arts... and hopefully include the results on my modeling website. But if we ever do cross paths outside this plane, let it be for the arts and not because of this plane. ''']''' '']'' 23:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That sounds wonderful. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm wondering why you closed the discussion so early. It had been running for barely three days (AfDs usually run for at least five) and there wasn't any clear consensus. I'm not going to contest your decision, but I'm wondering if you have a good understanding of AfD policy. I see you've been doing other non-admin closures - it might be better to (a) let AfD discussions run for the full five days and (b) let admins close discussions that might potentially be controversial. See ] for more info. ]<sub>]</sub> 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Your nomination asserted that "No third-party sources" were available for the film. But the sources produced during the AFD and added to the article refuted your claim, so much so that one editor moved from delete to keep . Actually, every editor who evaluated the new sources seemed to agree that they established the film's notability per ]. You didn't question the sufficiency of the new sourcing during the AFD, even though you were editing after the sources were produced. This effectively indicates a unanimous consensus to keep the article, and an AFD acceptable for non-admin closure. Should the AFD have been left open for two extra days when no one still thought the article should be deleted? That would be process for its own sake, with no benefit to the encyclopedia. You should read ] and ] - they're quite informative :) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for your intervention on my talk page == | |||
| Thanks for your help on ]. I appreciate it. --] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA == | |||
| {{tb|Dr. Blofeld|RFA}} | |||
| ==RfA thanks== | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #CCCCCC; background-color: #FF9999;" | |||
| |align="left"|] | |||
| |align="center"|Thank you for voting in ], which passed with '''80 support''', '''2 oppose''', and '''1 neutral'''. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. ] (] Russ) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) <!-- this thank-you created with Template:RfA-thanks --> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Cryptol AFD close == | |||
| That was a good close. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Peas == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| ] (]) wishes you peace! <br /> | |||
| Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{tls|WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.</div><!-- Template:WikiPeace --> | |||
| == WikiAbuse == | |||
| It's well-known that he operated it. If you aren't familiar with the site (from looking at your contributions, you joined Misplaced Pages well after the site was gone), you can view an old copy from or read about it at . He created it, admits he created it, there's no question in anyone's mind that he created it any more than there is a question that the sky is blue or Barack Obama is President. --] (]) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, regarding your point that personally identifiable material should be oversighted, yes in an ideal world it should be, but oversight was only created in mid-2006. I'm sure there are plenty of instances of pre-2006 material still being out there. Also, even though personally identifying material ''should'' be oversighted, that doesn't mean it always is. Plenty of times, admins working ] will just delete it and not bother sending the email. --] (]) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The header of the Requests for arbitration page, states "Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one." This is one of the few places where it really needs to be Clerks and Arbs only. While I ] that you want to help, removing arbitration requests is not a good place for it.--] (]) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==closing== | |||
| When you close an AfD, please say that it's a non-admin. closure, including in the edit summary --avoids confusion. ''']''' (]) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI thread about John254 and Kristen Eriksen == | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you are involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--] (]) 13:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Per consensus at the above-noted thread, I have blocked you indefinitely as a ]-certified sockpuppet of ]. ] (]) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Per comment below, which I could have posted at the above AN/I thread if I weren't indefblocked first :( ] <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)|decline= You can post any arguments quite successfully here. — ]] 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Previous unblock declined without even mentioning at the AN/I thread that I had replied here. Shouldn't the participants in the AN/I discussion see my response before I'm banninated forever? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)|decline=Quite a few admins (and CheckUsers) have already or are continuing to look into this situation. An {{tl|unblock}} request is unnecessary here. --] (]) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===Kristen Eriksen's defense against charges of sockpuppetry, <s>and witchcraft</s>=== | |||
| This is getting pretty silly. If you're going to say that everyone with non-overlapping edits for about three months whose "IPs involved geolocate similarly" to a major metropolitan area of two million or so people are socks of each other, we'll keep ] busy for the next five years :) People are allowed to edit as IPs, so its irritating that when I finally register an account, I keep hearing "You know too much about Misplaced Pages - you must be a SOCK!". The rest of this is selective presentation of evidence, noting only similarities in edit style and wikipolitical views between me and John254, but ignoring differences. For instance, in ], Iridescent pointed out that John254 is an ultra-inclusionist who almost never wants to have articles deleted unless they're speedyable "On a browse through his contribution history, I can't see him ''ever'' believing that an article should be deleted." But in ] and ], I took the lead in getting the articles deleted. John254 is a conservative about sexuality, whose first edit was on the supposed dangers of masturbation , who actually tried to put a stop hand symbol in the masturbation article to call attention to this "danger". After this initial misstep, John254 seemed to settle into more NPOV editing, but it's still obvious which side his bread is buttered on . When he created the article "public health effects of pornography" , it included studies about the supposed dangers of pornography, and was richly illustrated with PD charts and figures from one of the studies, at a time when the "Effect on sex crimes" section of ] was unabashedly pro-porn (he added the anti-porn studies there, too ) Obviously, none of this is consistent with my userpage which Krimpet lambastes, especially not , and doesn't really jive with either (BTW, my userpage includes none of the userboxes which Krimpet speedied). John254 wanted to have image censorship on Misplaced Pages (]), something which I wholeheartedly opposed ]. | |||
| Now here's where the claim that John254 and I are the same person becomes Kafkaesque: we had a major disagreement at ]. Seems John254 wanted ] desysopped and banninated (]), while I responded to by saying that John254 came to the worshop "bearing torches and pitchforks" (]). Actually, John254 seemed to have so much of a problem with Cirt that he nearly got himself banninated over it , but I gave Cirt a barnstar , which he "much appreciated" . I gather from ] and that John254 doesn't think very much of Rootology, but I supported Rootology's RFA and defended it against opposition . So either I'm one of John254's multiple personalities, or we aren't the same person :) | |||
| And if I'm here solely to ridicule Krimpet, why did I ''endorse'' her speedy deletion of a ]-violating redirect ? Oh, you could say that John254 did too , but not all editors who care about ] are socks of each other. Really, I think that Krimpet needs to leave me alone. Her last action with respect to me was to indefblock my account based on checkuser evidence which didn't really exist :( ] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought you admitted the checkuser evidence was accurate and ] must have done it? – '']'' 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was about the account ], active last August. But Krimpet's November indefblock of my account was based on me supposedly being ], which I was unrelated to . Krimpet apparently misread Alison's Misplaced Pages review post about checkuser results :( ] <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Haha, my "Assuming Good Faith" barnstar to John254 was tongue-in-cheek, I thought he was foolish for believing that you were an 18-year-old female nudist of Nordic descent who stars in pornography. I didn't realize you were actually the same person, though--looks like the joke was on me. ] (]) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the Scientology case, which seems to be the only counterargument, it certainly looked odd to see two accounts who had no apparent stake in the matter take such an interest in the case--and particular such interest in one editor with whom neither had substantial prior contact. Upon further examination, looks like a classic case of ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Great, Durova. When I agree with John254 we're votestacking socks, and when I disagree with him we're trolls, arguing with each other and taking contrary positions in a conspiratorial scheme to hide our common identity. But you could say that about half the editors on Misplaced Pages, and this is quickly degrading from a sockpuppet investigation to a witchhunt :( It's no secret that I've worked closely with John254, but editing the same arbitration workshop doesn't mean we're the same person. I suppose when I edit an article that John254 has never edited, like ], you could say "isn't John254 being sneaky..." There's no good checkuser evidence (same area with 2 million or so people living there isn't), there's no good behavioral evidence, and all you have left is coincidence of non-overlapping editing times, that we both live in the same time zone, and that we've both close AFDs at a particular time that usually allows us to do it before someone else does, but leaves the AFD open long enough that someone can't complain you closed it too soon, oh yes and that John254, as a volunteer, exercised his right to stop editing. There's some major ] going on here, considering only the incriminating evidence and discounting any exculpatory information, and if this is how Misplaced Pages treats good faith editors, then I question whether I want any part of it :( ] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And more confirmation bias . I'm accused of being John254, so I talk about the highlights of his contributions to show that I haven't acted the same way as him, and that's taken to mean "you must be John254, you know so much about him!" ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Interesting that both John and the Poetlister sockmaster chose blonde personas, and they both toss around the concept of ''confirmation bias'' rather loosely--substituting ]s for the meat of the evidence. Suffice it to say that I first read Krimpet's claims with rather more skepticism than the average administrator would receive. Adieu. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, as long as we're creating conspiracy theories, why not claim that I ''am'' Poetlister? You'd be in the good company of a certain page move vandal . ] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::By your third day as a Wikipedian, not only had you heard of ], a project that had been inactive for over a year, but you had a strong opinion about it ? And on multiple occasions, John is bubbling over with effusive compliments for you ? Then the two of you, as much as you edit, don't once edit at the same time? Ever? Editing at the same time isn't exculpatory - anyone could have two browsers open and hit space bar on them both at the same time, but if you are really two different people and you're editing in the same timezone, there should be a few times when you're discussing one thing and John is discussing something unrelated and you both edit at the same time. This is really pretty obvious and I can't believe it was unnoticed for so long. --] (]) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Or perhaps, because we actually aren't the same person, we didn't think to ensure that we were both editing at the same time on at least one occasion as evidence against being accused of being the same person. It's a period of three months, and I was editing infrequently. Coincidences happen, except when faced with a wiki sock witchhunt :( ] <sup>]</sup> 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == I removed the barnstar you had given me == | |||
| I have the barnstar you had given me. I am surprised by the recent events revealed at , and disheartened by the disruption this has done to the project. ''']''' (]) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm disheartened to hear that you believe this crap about me being "one of the many faces of John254" :( ] <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblock request== | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Per the comments above, no good checkuser evidence, no good behavioral evidence, just coincidence, speculation, and general lameness :( ] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)|decline=Evidence is overwhelming and is being discussed at ANI. There is no need for additional uses of the unblock template - plenty of admins are examining the situation. — ] (]) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I agree (was about to decline for pretty much the same reason). As there is an active discussion, requesting an unblock like this is unnecessary, and it would be rather inappropriate for an admin to unilaterally unblock in this case. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You have still failed to explain how your was to give yourself a JavaScript tool, something that isn't available to anonymous users so you would've had no prior experience. None of this passes the smell test. Good job on studiously avoiding ever using the same IP address as the John254 account; that took some work, and is usually what trips up most sockers. But you completely failed on the other major necessity of covert socking — both of your accounts were involved in all the same subject areas, to the point that the overlaps in interests defied coincidence. --] 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It couldn't be that I looked at ], and realized that I would need an account to install the tool? It's not like anyone registers an account to revert vandalism, is it? As above, it's no secret that I was on amicable terms with John254, so while reviewing ] and editing some of the same topics may not have been completely kosher, it's no indication of sockpuppet theater. But we weren't "involved in all the same subject areas" - John254 had a major conflict at ] which I didn't involve myself in. I also didn't support him in getting ] banned. John254 had never edited ], ], or ]. Oh, you could say that we both edited articles about the life sciences, but so do lots of editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::With every denial you're just digging further. Here's a hint: it isn't helping your case to discuss John254's edits in excruciating detail, as if you knew everything about them. And pointing out one kerfluffle John was in that you weren't in, and saying that you didn't "involve yourself in it" as if involving yourself in every conflict of his would be your default position otherwise (because, you know, you are the same person), is letting us know a bit more than you probably intended to let on. --] 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is so lame :( "I didn't involve myself in" is a figure of speech, nothing more, and shouldn't be seen conspiratorially. We're unfortunately at the point where my words are being dissected in search of preconceived malice :( The only way to rebut the accusation that I'm John254 is to show that we acted differently. But if I actually do that, then someone can say that it's not because I looked at his edits to defend myself, or even before then, it's because I'm him. But to remain silent could be seen as a tacit admission of guilt. You're damned if you speak up, and you're damned if you don't :( ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, in this case you're damned because you've been sockpuppeting, so it's not quite the Catch-22 you're making it out to be. --] 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, just like ] was sockpuppeting (oh wait...) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Kristen, I think the only way you can prove you are not John is by telling us who you are/were (if it was someone else) as you have been around. period. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, I was editing from IPs at my university. You should be able to confirm that just by checkusering my account, then looking at contributions from IPs of that institution. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No need for a Checkuser, just give us the IP addresses that made these edits. --] 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing times== | |||
| ] How about this: On January '''11''', ] made his last edit to Misplaced Pages. His edits corresponded to the Pacific evening—both of you appear to be operating on Pacificish time. Prior to that time, '''you had never edited after 0100 UTC''' (about 5 Pacific). But beginning January '''12''', ''and for the first time in your Wiki-career'', you've become an all-Pacific hours account—editing nearly until 0800, while John254 has disappeared. I realize you think this is a coincidence, but could you explain the change in your editing habits? ] '']'' 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. I moved off campus. Since you're a checkuser, you can confirm that I started editing from university IPs, then on January 12 I switched to a commercial ISP. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's true, you edited on Saturdays and Sundays only since November 14—only during the days, and with the solitary exception of December 17, and not once while John254 was editing. Did your campus shut off the internet on weekdays? I'm asking for an explanation. ] '']'' 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I started editing on a weekday , but I had to stop editing on weekdays for some time because of the academic demands of my courseload. Recently, I've had time to edit on weekdays again. You'll have to ask John254 why he's stopped editing. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm looking at the exam schedule of the college you implicitly claim to attend, and it doesn't jibe. Your courseload prevented you from editing through the month of December, including through December 20th, 27th, 28th, and January 2-4? Really? Did your finals happen in the second week of January, or was there an epiphany that your school work demanded less attention on that date? ] '']'' 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I said that's why I "had to stop editing on weekdays", not why I continued not to edit then. Am I allowed winter break? Am I allowed variations in my level of contributions here without having to explain and prove everything? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, of course you are—on accounts compliant with ]. I'm sorry you were unable to provide an explanation. The coincidences are too cumulative for me, but others can reach their own conclusion. ] '']'' 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Kristen, I have to say that I find it to stretch the imagination that you lived on campus and edited Misplaced Pages in the nude. I don't think that would have gone over too well at Tech. However, that aside, in the off chance that this is a real persona and not a persona John made up, would you be willing to email a checkuser from your school-issued email address? Checkusers are required to respect your privacy and of course would not reveal your school name or your email address. You have already, presumably, revealed your real name here. Most schools have an online directory or some other way that you could confirm your identity (for example, providing free webspace to students where the name is based on your user name, eg http://students.usc.edu/pages/keriksen or something like that). My thought is that this could be settled very easily. If the determination is that this is all a misunderstanding and that you and John are two different people, I would strongly advise abandoning this account and making one where you do not use your real name. Giving out personal information online is a really bad idea. --] (]) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a good idea. I think ] was the first investigator of your case, but I'm sure any checkuser would be happy to receive such evidence. You can instruct them not to forward the evidence to the ArbCom list or anyone else—just that they can identify that you are a student like you claim. ] '']'' 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is this really going to resolve anything? Since you ''know'' that I've been on the university campus, could it be said that I asked to use someone else's email? Maybe I paid one of the IT staff to let me do it. Do I have your assurance than the email you request would exonerate me, or are you just going to want more and more proof? When people donate their time to Misplaced Pages, they don't expect the Spanish Inquisition. I'm reaching the end of my patience with this :( ] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If your school-issued email address is keriksen (at) stanford (dot) edu, then that can reasonably demonstrate your identity. Some schools, as in this example, Stanford, allow you to create email aliases so that isn't 100%, but I've got to imagine that if you are really a student named Kristen Eriksen at a university, you can come up with a way to demonstrate your identity beyond question. --] (]) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec)Well, for starters, it could help prove your identity. Any Joe Q. Public could walk to their local college campus every day after work and use a public terminal in order to build up a convincing "college student" persona. However only a college's faculty, staff, and students would have a campus email address, so clearing your name should be a piece of cake. --] (]) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's not the point - we take it on faith (or at least I do) that this user is a college student at whatever college his/her IP is associated with. The question is, is this student's name John or Kristen? I'm not a checkuser so I have no idea what school this person goes to, but I know that with Tech, if I needed to prove my identity, I could do it countless ways - I could take a photo of my student ID with this Misplaced Pages page in the background, I could modify my address in the student directory, I could put a page on my school-issued web space, which is associated with my user name, I could send an email from my default email address (not an alias, but the default address), which you could look up in the directory. If this person is really a student at a university named Kristen Eriksen, she can confirm her identity easily. If she isn't really a student at a university named Kristen Eriksen, then we're done here. (By the way, the Nordic goddess should probably be aware that in Norway, Kristen is a man's name.) --] (]) 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually, the name isn't really important. Kralizec!'s point is the one I would like this user to establish—that Kristen is a student, as opposed to someone who just wanders into the library on weekends during business hours, and never after 5pm. That would go a long way for me. Student ID works too, yes, as does getting a school webpage with identifying content. ] '']'' 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Not everyone believes this nonsense, copied from AN/I== | |||
| Duplicate post moved to ] per ]. ] '']'' 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block discussion== | |||
| At AN/I, Krimpet said | |||
| :While the two had never interacted on the project in the past, six days after Kristen had joined, after returning from a 24-hour "extended wikibreak" John254 out of the blue "for your kindness in helping me to resolve Misplaced Pages-related stress." He also ." | |||
| This is totally false. John254's first interaction with me was , on 17 August 2008, clearly before the 20 August 2008 barnstar. But hey, if you don't have good evidence, then just MAKE SOME UP :( ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since you're well-versed in the User:!! saga, which was well before your time, I assume you're also familiar with Poetlister and Mantanmoreland. Attacking trifles doesn't make you seem innocent. ] '']'' 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very good point Luke. "Kristen" consistently knows way more than she should if her claims of this being her first account are true. Kristen, with every defense of yours, it's one step forward, two steps backwards. --] 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not only that, but she turned me into a newt! <small>(I got better.)</small> --] (]) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just as a point of information, Kristen that he/she had been editing as an IP for a year before registering. (Of course, that too is a falsifiable claim for which evidence could be submitted to a checkuser as well - tell a checkuser what IP you used and he/she should be able to see if the persona matches your persona and possibly see edits made at the same time as John254.) --] (]) 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No need to use a Checkuser even; Kristen, just give us the IP address. You've moved since then anyway, right? It couldn't possibly reveal anything. --] 13:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::She would have moved twice: to college, and now to another service. | |||
| ::::::At any rate, she's a prolific enough contributor in dramatic areas that I believe she could have picked up the saga of ]. Since she apparently did, I also assume that she knows Mantanmoreland and Poetlister. Her comment here reminded me of how those two would attack very small details, laced with personal attacks. It's not endearing, and doesn't engender confidence. ] '']'' 18:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:15, 23 September 2009
Redirect to: