Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:26, 13 December 2014

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Defending yourself against claims (linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff going on... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per this reason, which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks.

Decline reason:

I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request. --jpgordon 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: this one-week block has expired, though the extension remains and is the subject of a second unblock request (below). The on-wiki evidence for this request doesn't support an unblock. I understand you may also have emailed evidence to a functionary, but as they haven't responded here the request for review can only be considered on what we have. Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk @Rschen7754: is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent? Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove 1-week unblock extension

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here. I am surprised you got such a short block, you can consider yourself to have gotten off easy.

We have heard about proxies before so using an IP out of state does not fool anyone. Chillum 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Salvio replied to my question regarding the block extension he placed. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=636148503&oldid=636122559 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I saw that, but I'd still like another admin to consider my appeal. Of course I'd like personal info revdeled - and I've got outstanding Requests for that - but I wouldn't just try to delete it. That would be stupid, and it (simple deletion of a couple paragraphs) wouldn't do much to address my underlying concern/request. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The info you want revdeled, is it the info in the diff I posted above that was used to extend your block? I'm not sure that is rev-del worthy, as it is just referring to information that you posted on wiki, but in any case you could request revdel directly from oversight by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the specific info you think should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: can you please at least undo the block extension while I'm waiting to here from someone privately about the first block. This was not me. I don't live in Phoenix, and I was out to dinner with my husband when that happened. @Salvio giuliano: I've done some stupid things in my life, but I wouldn't do anything that stupid. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am quite sorry, but as I said on my talk page, applying Occam's razor, my conclusion is that the IP was operated by you. Of course, I accept review of my actions and, so, if another administrator wants to revert my block extension, they can do so. Concerning your request for revdeletion, I can only say that it's being discussed on the dedicated mailing list and you should receive a response soon. Salvio 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: two IP addresses were looked at re this SPI. The first was mine, which I used about 36 times on the ArbCom PD talk page for, IMO, the legitimate reason of privacy. (Others saw it as avoiding scrutiny, so I was blocked; I understand that.) The second IP address - the one that led to the extension of my block - was used once to make a deletion from the ArbCom PD talk page, but that edit was not made by me. As I've said, I've done stupid things in my life, but not that stupid. I was out to dinner with my husband when that edit was made. Even Gaijin42, whom I've had disputes with in the past, told Salvio that I'd been poked by IP addresses before, and that he (Gaijin) thought someone was "stirring the pot." In cases like this, the opinion of an (often) opponent is worth considering. Gaijin knows me pretty darn well.

I ended up taking care of the information (some of it, anyway) privately. I knew simply deleting it wouldn't really help, and that's why I'd asked to have it revdeled (not just deleted) from the get-go.

Anyway, to reiterate, the first block was frustrating, but I don't deny that I edited logged out for those; I simply disagree that my reason for doing so was inappropriate. However, the block extension (from 1 week to 2) really upsets me - because I didn't do it nor do I know who did it. I was blocked and I concentrated on addressing that block as best I could from my talk page... the only place that I have edited since my block was started.

Nonetheless, I'm not asking for another review. I just wanted to point out that there were two separate IP addresses involved, and the second one, who used it, and why they used it, are a mystery to me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi @Chillum: With due regards, I would like to say that I have seen too many joe jobs, deceitful acts aimed at undermining others to have faith in IP behavioral evidence of this sort. Behavior and spellings mistakes can be easily discerned and faked. Besides, if it was a proxying service, the CU should have known that it was a proxy service. If the CU says it is not a proxy, then, is it even possible for LB to have covered the geographical distance between the locations in the time difference of her edit preceding the edit in question, and the edit in question ? If that distance cannot be covered within the time, then it should clearly prove that it was not LB. Even if it was a proxy, someone doing a joe job can also use a proxy. Why overlook that ? You say that "Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here." That much is correct, except that the edit for which LB's block was extended does not seem to push any POV at all. If this , is the edit in question, it is redacting some purported outing, rather that pushing any POV. Considering these, I request you to take a fresh look / reconsider the block decline and not to overlook the possibility of a joe job ( without having a concrete reason to overlook that possibility ). Thanks in advance.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. I am familiar with the ideas and patterns of the joe job. I do not think this is the case here. However in deference to your concerns I am open to another admin reviewing this block. Chillum 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• I respect your quick agreeability to another admin doing a review. LB can put up a review request if she wants. However, you do not seem to have shown any concrete reasons for overlooking the possibility of a joe job, and do not seem to have directly dealt with any of the arguments I have put up. If there are no real arguments which could discoult my arguments, then, perhaps, you yourself could could recognize that my arguments may have substance, recognize the possibility that the edit in question may not have been made by LB, and reconsider the block decline ? OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think I am wrong, but I agree it is a possibility. I am open to review but in my 8 years experience as an admin joe jobs are more clumsy impersonations. This was an example of subconscious idiosyncratic behavior that passed to duck test. If I hear hooves clacking on the ground behind me I think horse, not zebra. Occam's razor. Chillum 08:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for recognizing the possibility. That all the joe jobs in your 8 years experience were clumsy affairs seems predictable because it is improbable that expert joe jobbers would be found out in the first place. So, your line of reasoning does not seem to be very strong ? We have lots of admins with lots of experience with socking, but ALL of them failed to see User:Darkness Shines was a sock of User:Mark Nutley. I hope you see my point ? In light of that, can we take simplistic reliance on experience ( which is fallible, as evidenced ) and justify it with Occam's razor ? If that be the case, it means we behave as if there are no sophisticated joe jobbers, even after we were fooled by Darkness Shines for years, and sophisticated joe jobbers can continue framing innocent users unless they confess. This does not look like a good state of affairs to me. I also see no reason to think that there was any proxying by LB, and that LB could cover the distance between the two locations within 50-55 minutes. I certainly think that the unblock decline should be reconsidered. OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, we are Wikipedians. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to discuss things and show good reasons for saying the things we say. You have been fending off what I have said by an appeal to experience, and seem to be taking a staked out position saying things like "my point of view, you are welcome to another" in edit summary. If we are going to take staked out positions, what good it is to discuss and try to convince each other ( as per Misplaced Pages's traditions ). Are you sure that you have been able to explain/buttress your conclusion in any way except seeming non-arguments like appeal to experience, and "my point of view...". ( I am not trying to trivialize your arguments, and I have said this only because it is necessary to make my argument ) ? Yourself being a long-time Wikipedian, is it too much if I expect you to change your opinion when you do not seem to be showing substantial reasoning behind your opinion ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think it is about who is right or wrong. You have recognized the possibility that this may be a joe job. That means there is room for doubt that LB has socked ? If yes, that, in itself should be reason enough to lift the block. If there is room for doubt, there is no need to wait to establish who is right / wrong.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the test the block reviewer should be applying is beyond reasonable doubt. It's not. There's always "room for doubt" in SPIs without a CU. The reviewer has to make a judgment call on what's most likely. That's been done. Someone else might well make a different call and Chillum says he's happy for another admin to do that. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The unblock request was declined using Occam's razor, which is a faulty criteria because it assumes that simple things are more probable, as if sophisticated things don't exist, or are rare. If we look around at our world closely, we find that the world is full of sophisticated things and systems, and even things which seem to be simple, often turn out to be not so simple. Moreover, it is a criteria which will always favor joe jobbers because considering the possibility of a joe job is more complicated than ignoring that possibility. You seem to be saying that the reviewer should decline the request even though he himself has doubts about the block, and having once declined, should keep declining because he has made the decision once and for all, and thus cannot change his opinion, even if he has doubts. Oh joy. BTW, LB, I believe, if you want a re-review, you have to put up another notice using the review template.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For the third time now, although I disagree with the reason for the first block, there was no getting around it because the charge and the evidence were made publicly, so I couldn't argue my defense without confirming what had been outed.

BTW, does anyone remember that Hell in a Bucket originally said at the GGTF ArbCom, I'm inclined to believe the IPs editing here are some of the case parties logged out. Or remember @Callanecc: asking Hell in a Bucket to EMAIL his evidence? Instead, the evidence was focused on one IP, and publicly.

... But I digress, the first block, I can't really fight. The truth is that I was editing logged out, but the reason why, and whether or not it was block-worthy, is a judgement call. But the second block - the block extension? The truth is that it was not me. I was out to dinner with my husband when that IP editor did what he/she did. And it would have been stupid for me to do it because A) I, a regular editor, cannot revdel info, which is what I wanted (and eventually got, partially, through Oversight), and B) I would guess that such an edit, evading my block, would have resulted in another block or a longer block.

I don't like it, but I can live with that first block in my log, but the second one is harsh because it brands me for something I did not do. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Block questions

Can @Salvio giuliano: or some other functionary explain this to me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALightbreather

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit from a Phoenix IP, removing information about you. Presumed to be block evasion. I have posted a message to Salvio with some thoughts. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#Lightbreather_block_evasion Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

On my mother's ashes, it wasn't me. Also, could someone please revdel the location info? Lightbreather (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, @GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, and Worm That Turned: could you please block Hell in a Bucket for a bit, or ban him from the GGTF ArbCom pages? And maybe PROTECT those pages? Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And is this kosher? Especially while I'm blocked? Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages - plus one that has been banned for disruption

Attempted outing

Without confirming or denying the accuracy of the information, I would like to charge @Hell in a Bucket: with attempted WP:OUTING of my home or work location in relation to his speculating about my use of an alternate account. As I am still waiting to hear from someone privately regarding my block, how do I go about starting this process?

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the process would be to write a post here and use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates to ask for it to be copied to ANI. This may get declined, as since you are currently blocked, and this is an appeal of your block or anything, some may think it is out of process.

Also, without any comment about the merit of your particular issue, I think people may be weary of the drama related to the case, and also wary of the newly placed Discretionary Sanctions in the area. I fear you may get thought of in a tit-for-tat scenario, especially when it may appear you are doing it in response to your own block, and pinged numerous arbs and admins and not gotten anywhere. But in any case, that is what you would do to try.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to get anyone to understand how scared I am, and your reply doesn't help. Sorry. I'm not saying you're trying to scare me, but I don't feel encouraged. I have sent an emergency email to Wikimedia, as TP suggested earlier. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: if nothing is going to happen with this, is there a way to just close out my account and delete everything associated with it? Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may not currently qualify for WP:VANISH since you have a block active. Perhaps after your block expires though. You could also ask for your user page, but all of your various contribs in the rest of wiki would remain. (If you are allowed to vanish, they would get renamed, but your signature lines in various talk pages would remain) Per vanish, you can ask for your user talk to be deleted, but such is the exception and not the rule. Also per vanish, due to licensing issues, it is not possible to actually delete an account. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As you have attempted to tie my user name to a location all this seems somewhat, I can't decide what word to use here but you get the gist. J3Mrs (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: I panicked, and I apologize. Not for bringing up the eight IP addresses that no-one put before SPI, but for bringing up names. However, I still think someone should investigate those IPs. In addition to my original focus (hatted/habbed above), I think these two look very suspicious:

• 67.255.123.1 (talk) Geolocates to Vestal, New York.
• 71.11.1.204 (talk) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut.

But to repeat, I apologize. If you've never been through an SPI - I hope you never are! Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging your error, attempted outing isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. J3Mrs (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the Stamford IP and I spend time reading Arbcom pages and the Drama pages to fill some blank time at work. I'm not related to anyone else. I've done some IP editing here and there as well. Sorry if you think that I'm related to a sockpuppet conspiracy. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Actually, I have two related questions. The first is the more straightforward of the two.

• I asked to have my block extension reviewed because that IP action on the GGTF ArbCom page was not me. Plain and simple. The request is above, dated 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC), along with a comment from the admin who extended the block, who says he accepts review of his actions. (Per Blocking policy#Other important information).

• The day before that, two days ago now, I begged to have the original block reviewed privately because there are things I cannot share without potentially outing myself. Can this, as Mike V suggested, be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question (privately)?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V and Salvio giuliano: Without commenting on the original, 1-week block of November 30, how can I go about getting a review of the second? IP address 69.16.147.185 is/was not me. I have done some stupid things in my life, but the edit that led to my block extension was not by me nor by anyone I know. I suspect that I either have a Phoenix area secret admirer or, more likely, a critic (probably not from Phoenix) with much more technical savvy than myself who knew that edit would be a surefire way to rub salt in the wound. Please lift my block; the original was set to expire today. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock request is still active above, so that has added you to a queue for your request to be evaluated. (See here.) Also, you could submit a request through the unblock ticket request system. Mike V • Talk 23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. On the Requests for unblock page, under "Unblock request time," mine is the only entry that shows "No timestamp found" instead of "x days ago" on all the others, so I guess I'll go back and add my sig/time stamp on my originals. If that doesn't help soon, I'll try the ticket system. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual and Mike V: Per Mike's response to my question yesterday, I have submitted a request through UTRS. The thing is, I would like to vote at ACE, and today is the last day to vote. If my 1-week block had not been extended by another week, it would have expired by now. As Salvio said above, he will accept a review. That discussion, Request to remove 1-week unblock extension, and this one give my reasons for asking for an unblock. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Key evidence that Sue Rangell has a puppet account

I have presented elsewhere evidence of why I believe @EChastain: is a puppet for Sue Rangell. The best evidence that I've disclosed publicly seems to be getting lost in the weaker (but still noteworthy) evidence. Discussions seem to be focused on the weaker evidence and paying little to no attention to the better evidence. So, to make the better/best evidence clear:

• Sue Rangell edited both the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and the Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) articles.

• EChastain did not edit the former, but she edited the latter in a manner that was an extension of the edit Sue Rangell made to that article.

Look at this: Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) revision history (short list)

AE Warning

In July, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments:

• I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner Sandstein (talk · contribs)
• I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests Lord Roem (talk · contribs)
• I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

New, personal evidence

And finally, early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly tag-teamed - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business. I think she used my email address to research my real-life identity.

If she did discover my real-life ID, then Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited after creating her account.

I think it very unlikely that these connections - articles about two Robert Spitzers, plus one place - out of 4.6 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages, are mere coincidence.

I have more, but I will reveal no more publicly. If a functionary contacts me, I will be more than happy to reply privately.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ANi for outing or attempting to out Sue Rangell

] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked for oversight at 16:45 UTC. Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, @Robert McClenon:, but I assume that's just FYI, and that I'm not allowed to participate since I'm under house arrest, so to speak, right? Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Gaijin42 for suggesting that my talk page be semi-protected, and to @Ymblanter: for acting on the suggestion. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've closed the above ANI thread with a note that your edit summary falls within WP:OUTING and is grounds for a further block. For info my close comment is here. On balance and after reviewing the context, I think a warning is sufficient. But please don't do this again. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Come for the drama, stay for the giggles

Just to drop a little laughter into an otherwise wearisome exchange...

Snap! You can't link to YouTube, but if you go there and search "The Penguin Dilemma" it is worth the 2-minutes out of your day.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

People link to YouTube on their Misplaced Pages pages; I have. And I don't see anyone getting warned about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

IP bother II

Saving here for after my block.

The IP editor - 172.56.9.95 - who poked me while I'm blocked has, up until this time, made three edits.

• 20:27, 3 December 2014, edit to Will Hayden, edit summary Read your source carefully before posting a BLP as there is only one woman stating she was raped by Hayden
• 21:18, 3 December 2014, edit to Lightbreather talk page, es Vindictiveness
• 22:11, 3 December 2014, edit to Will Hayden, es Cited additional sources and added appropriate material

(The additional sources for the "appropriate material" were BearingArms.com and the a New York Daily News gossip article.)

The article topic, and its revision history just prior to the addition by the IP address, are related to me in at least two ways.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI closed

The recent SPI against Sue Rangell has been closed by Jehochman . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser, please

@Callanecc: (or any other uninvolved checkuser reading this), could you please run a checkuser on IP address 69.16.147.185? Because of the person's edit my original block of 1 week was extended to 2 weeks for "block evasion," but that edit was not made by me or by anyone that I know. Chillum, who was last to review my block said that he is open to another admin reviewing it.

To be clear, I am not talking about the original block, which has expired anyway. I am talking about the block extension that was placed on my account because IP user 69.16.147.185 deleted info from the GGTF ArbCom page, info that I did not delete. The only page that I have edited since my block was placed is my own talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser is not run "defensively", and they generally would not report information linking an IP to a named user in any case I don't think this request is going to get you anywhere. In any case, I am pretty sure the admins have said they were doing a WP:DUCK behavioral block. In those circumstances even a negative checkuser wouldn't mean anything. I am not accusing you of anything, I don't think the IP is you, but you could have been at a friends computer, or at work, or taken your laptop to starbucks, somewhere else that would not have the same CU but could still plausibly be you. CU for the most part is nothing but an IP check, plus a few bits of info from the browser (user agent, patch # etc). Its trivial to end up with a different CU, it only trips up prolific socks, because very few people have access to dozens/hundreds of machines/ips. But for a "one-time-sock" its easy to avoid. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen references to "duck" many times, but never bothered to read it before. I just did. I can see how this essay might apply to my original block, especially since I have since admitted that I did edit logged out (IP 72-something) for privacy. But I did not do the IP 69 edit. Further, IP 69 made one edit, so there's nothing to it that can be compared to any "habitual characteristics" on my part. The edit that IP made, the info he/she deleted, was related to the info I asked to have revdeled, but I didn't delete it before my block, and I wouldn't have and didn't delete it after, either. It would have been pointless, and dangerous... as it ended up being for me even though I didn't do it. Duck also says:

The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.

If it will help an admin, I can get a copy of my receipt from the restaurant I was at on November 30 (blocked Dec. 1) when IP 69 made the edit he/she made.

For Pete's sake, I'm not asking to have the original block removed, I'm just asking to have the extension removed. IT WAS NOT ME. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As Gaijin42 said, CU will likely not tell us anything since we already have the geolocation of both IPs (perhaps your only defence is that they are different states (but that doesn't prove a lot). All I'd be able to tell with CU is whether you've edited on the 69.* IP with your account which is immaterial to the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let us consider a hypothetical case. How does one find out about an unexpected edit, read through it to understand what it is, from where it was made, find out some other user's location and correlate it with the new edit, calculate the distance between the two locations, work out all the intricacies / simplicities of Occam's razor, and implement a block with an edit summary containing a link to a relevant page, all withing four minutes ? How does it look if the person who did all this within four minutes is running for an election in which he/she could not hope to get the blocked user's vote ? ( The block prevents the user from voting ) Does it all look appropriate, very OK ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: @Chillum: The extension of this block seems silly to me. I disagree that this is an Occam's razor situation—we had many IPs editing the arbitration case, and it seems equally likely that this could be another person or a joe job. Lightbreather admitted the edits from the first IP were theirs; I don't think it's unreasonable to extend good faith far enough to say that this edit was not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)