Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:49, 22 December 2005

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

• /Archive1 (December 2004 through April 2005)
• /Archive2 (May 2005)
• /Archive3 (June 2005)
• /Archive4 (July 2005)
• /Archive5 (August 2005)
• /Archive6 (September 2005)
• /Archive7 (October 2005)
• /Archive8 (November 2005)

Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. I will reply on your user talk page (assuming you have one) unless you say otherwise. Kelly Martin 06:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see . Thank you. Rangerdude 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How to provide evidence for the ArbCom

Hello. I am writing in reaction to this edit of you to WP:RfAr on the request to arbitrate between R.Koot + Ems57fcva and CarlHewitt, in which you vote to accept the case and say that you "find this case confusing and hope that the Evidence pages will be less so". As I intend to give evidence in this case (supposing that it is accepted) and I have no experience in the arbitration procedure, I was wondering if you could please give some advice on how to do this beyond the text on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence. It would probably be easiest for you and useful to me if you could just point to some section of an Evidence page that you like. Thank you. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Wonderfool alias

Please read Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RSPW Poster

The latest in a long line of pedantic DinkSocks is now endlessly reverting several pages, including my talk page (to restore his harassing comments, while deleting my note for admins left because of his actions under other accounts), Category:Von Erich wrestling family (where he insists in restoring a version with a superfluous link only because I'm the editor that fixed it), and KTVX (where he is now reverting to a version that uses an incorrect name for The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, simply because I was the editor who corrected it. His contrib history as "RSPW Poster" speaks volumes regarding his intent. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Chadbryant 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We really should stop meeting like this -- people are going to talk!

Once again I must remind you that you have absolutely no evidence of who is a "pedantic DinkSock." You seem to have a drooling fascination with "DinkSock," whoever or whatever that is, so maybe you need to take a break, get some rest, and get that out of your system. I'm pasting in my remarks to you on your talk page because they deal directly with your immature and illegal behavior while here on Misplaced Pages -- if you have a problem with it, address them in a place other than the comments for "Edit summary" and perhaps you will stop seeing them show up. For now, it seems as if your only motivation for deleting them is to have a complete and total avoidance of the issues that they address -- which, while technically your right to do so due to it being YOUR User Talk page, is still a bit immature, deviant, and otherwise makes you look like some sort of petty jerk. Mind you I say LOOK like, as actually calling you one is a personal attack, and unlike you, I try to stay within the bounds of Misplaced Pages policy.

Also, as for the Von Erich entry, you have been warned on previous occassions by other Misplaced Pages administrators not to tamper with the forwarding of wrestling entries in regards to their stage names or their real names -- a fact that you seem to have chosen to disregard and blatantly ignore for your own deviant purposes. I would suggest that you leave this one alone, as it can only end badly for you. Now, for these other issues -- what in all the name that is Misplaced Pages makes you think that I made the edits because YOU were the one who made them in the first place? This is paranoia and if you are unsure as to why I state that, perhaps you should peruse the entry on Misplaced Pages for better clarification? MY contrib history speaks for my intent? Holy shit, you are quite the hypocrite, as evidenced when someone takes a look at YOURS. This is all petty, immature, and, most importantly, stupid and pointless, and it would benefit you in many ways to simply walk away now while you can still do so without limping! -- RSPW Poster

FYI- I just blocked RSPW Poster for 48 hours for incivility, eg , vandalism, eg , and edit warring in ChadBryant's userspace, see . I warned him about incivility and edit warring more than a week ago. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly

Is that really you and your daughter? Mousha Pippick 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

Dhimmi (talk · contribs) is continuing his reverts with the pseudonym issue. --CltFn 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And where might this reference be?--CltFn 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: Neuro-linguistic programming

Kelly,

This case is being documented. Its messy due to the sheer volume of what's gone on and trying to present it in the least confusing way possible. Also my personal life is getting in the way a bit too.

I'm sorry it's taking so long. I wanted just to let you (and via you the rest of ArbCom) know, so that there wasn't a question whether it is intended to proceed with the case.

Right now in preparing the case it seems there have been not just the original 6 or 8, but in fact a variable group of around 15 and 20 sockpuppets or meatpuppets in a 4 months period. Many of these are either no longer active or have switched names (we don't know which), but new ones still turn up to complicate matters. Distilling it to a reasonable size and a logical rational and easy to review single page, complete with diffs, isn't difficult, but has taken a lot of time. It's getting there shortly but will probably be about a week or 10 days longer.

Thank you for your understanding and patience, it's much appreciated.

FT2

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake on S1066 page; don't know how this happened. I must be partly stunned by the near-complete absence of anon vandalism. :) Lectonar 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, picking you up on this, have you too got the impression that we have much more new users created now after the anon-accounts are being prevented from creating new pages (IMHO, the vandals now hop from newly created account to newly created account to vandalise the same article (see the history of Angela Merkel, e.g.) which makes vandal fighting and spotting much more tedious...). Sorry to bother you with this, I'm just interested and didn't want to jump on the admin pages or the village pump; after all, it may be to early to discern a pattern... Lectonar 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx for that, so for once the personal impression is not biased... Lectonar 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

toolserver

hi. please mail me (keturner livejournal.com) an SSH key and username for the toolserver, and make an edit to this page to confirm it's yours. thanks, kate.

On their way. Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Check User

Hi Kelly, I'd like to request that check user be run on some ip's. Is there a page to do this, or is your talk page the right place? How far back in time should I go collecting the various ip's to check? How many can you check (is the check run on one ip at a time, or several)?

I'd like to see if various Earthlink ip's (related by their editing histories) have a user account. This is for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier. -thanks --Duk 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, Did you see my message? I see you've answered other people since I left it. Anyway, I'd appreciate your help here. thanks --Duk 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for me to do with that request. Can you be more specific? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure!

How do I get the ball rolling on a check user request. I went to your page because you were the first listed at

A series of anons from Earthlink is accused of inserting copyright violation into Winter Soldier Investigation. I'd like to do a check-user on the addresses, but need some help forming the request (per above). I understand if you are too busy, just say so and I'll go to the next person on the list. --Duk 06:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics ArbCom Case

I notice you disagreed with a lot of what I've said on the Webcomics ArbCom page, and in particular I seem to have made some suggestions about findings of fact that were actually contrary to how ArbCom usually does business. My experience in this arena is rather limited. I've been trying to defend some users who I felt were under-represented in the same manner in which they seemed to be being "prosecuted," but I now wonder if that was the wrong thing to do. If you have any suggestions for me about the manner in which I make further contributions to the workshop page, I would very much appreciate them. -- SCZenz 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

CVU talk page template

The thing is this is in the talk page on articles that are already hammered by vandalism. The problem of being quiet is CNN reporters being unaware of our existance. Being brodcasted on national TV as an "uncredible source" and that "we aren't making an effort to prevent such incidents" is very very bad publicity for wikipedia. There is no reason to hide the fact that George W. Bush is getting hammered on a hourly (or much less) basis and that RC patrolers are watching, reviewing, reverting.

When someone is repetively accused/declared of assasinating JFK and are unaware of our existance they rightfully think we tollerate such nonsense on[REDACTED] as they are unaware of RC patrolers. Of course the template wont scare away the vandals but it will definately contain the apathy of CNN reporters whom (from what I understand from the CNN transcript) are also subject to random accusations. --Cool Cat 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RfAr request

(crossposted from Talk:RfAr)

A request about the Ben Gatti case

Didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I request that the case be retitled to just Ben Gatti and that zen master be excluded. I'm arguing for this because this case is about Ben Gatti, NOT about Price-Anderson. Our side has absolutely no intention of bringing up the issues that are involved in Price-Anderson. None. You guys don't take content disputes and this is not a content dispute. By including Price-Anderson, Ben is trying to muddy the issue and make it less about him and more about P-A. This case is about him NOT price-anderson so I request that it be titled just Benjamin Gatti. the precedent here is to name cases after the user involved, not the articles involved. As for zen master, he's been involved in P-A for less than a week. And as far as I know, his involvement as a party to this case is only to argue on Ben's side for Price-Anderson Act. Well if this case is about Ben and not P-A, then I don't see how zen is involved unless he's going to defend Ben's actions. If he is, I can see why he can stay. Otherwise, I don't think he's a party to this dispute. --Woohookitty 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well now, Ben has retitled it to include all parties. I still don't think that's correct. I see no charges against Simesa, katefan, I or zen. It's all Ben. --Woohookitty 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Another request. Could you unrevert the comments of Kaosworks - He's an admin, also a legal scholar and gets it. Others might not, and god save the plebs who would take it seriously. Benjamin Gatti 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? Benjamin Gatti 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence

Hi, I am sick of this mess so I didn't want to take the time to gather and present formal evidence, but FYI, I left an extended comment on the talk page in which I tried to summarize why I also have concluded that Carl Hewitt is a problem user who should be banned from editing (at least, from editing the math/physics article space, if that level of specificity is even technically possible, which AFAIK is not the case). Good luck. ---CH 02:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in here again, but User:Chalst moved my comment someplace mysterious. The original is here ---CH 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion

Since you were mentioned there in responce to my querry, I thought I could ask you for a comment on this issue. Section is (so far) fairly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'd like to request a sockpuppet check on Mpaks (talk · contribs), whom I believe to be currently banned user Iasson (talk · contribs). I base this on the user's first two edits being to revert Iasson's user and RFC talk pages to a state that Iasson and his sockpuppets have constantly been reverting to, as well as his third edit, to the user page of an Iasson sockpuppet. And yes, I found his fourth edit personally annoying.

I used to have a list of Iasson IPs (the only one I dug up on a quick search was ((User|146.124.141.250}}, but he's likely to be using a Greece-based IP. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User-check request

Kelly, would it be possible to have a user check on User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, and User: 81.153.41.72? I believe the anon IP has said somewhere that she is Lisa, RachelBrown's flatmate. The reason I'm requesting it is that they're involved in disputes about some Lists of ... pages e.g. List of Jewish jurists and List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, though I'm uncertain of the details, and they may not be at fault. The accounts are editing as though operated by three people, backing each other up on talk pages, reverting against other editors, and requesting mediation, but the "voice" is suggestive of one user. On one occasion, they engaged in a series of reverts that would have been a 3RR violation had the accounts been operated by one user, and two of the edit summaries suggested that in fact they were. I'm hoping a check might clear up any confusion. Cheers, SlimVirgin 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that User:RachelBrown, partly due to SlimVirgin, has now ceased to be a Misplaced Pages editor. - Poetlister 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalled arbitration

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Moo to you too!

Just a friendly Moo! from a Got Milk? aficiando on IRC (Mukluk_Kanuck) Barry Wells 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for IP check

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zatanna&action=history

Is User:DrBat the anon User:200.162.245.104, given the mess on that page? - SoM 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative. All of DrBat's IPs are in Boston; the anon you list is in Brazil. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

checkuser and possible followup

Note recent charming pagemove vandalism twice in quick succession:

• BillRoller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In one of his earlier edits, BillRoller mentions he is posting to Misplaced Pages from work:

Can you do a checkuser to see if these two users are the same person (or same workplace), and possibly undertake followup as you see fit. -- Curps 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly add:

• Maricon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

who may the the same or just a follow-on copycat. -- Curps 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these users are the same person. Mustanglover used two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities, which in my experience means that they're using compromised hosting servers. I have blocked both addresses, 72.22.69.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brithackemack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The other two users are clearly distinct both from Mustanglover and from each other. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Another detail

Sorry to bug you again, but I noticed:

• Mustanglover69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 02:42, 14 December 2005
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 02:38, 14 December 2005

Mustanglover69 was blocked almost immediately as a vandal, while Mustanglover was a sleeper that waited until it could do pagemove vandalism.

Today we had:

• WillemJokerr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 01:12, 16 December 2005
• WillemJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 01:06, 16 December 2005

WillemJokerr was blocked almost immediately as a George W. Bush anti-Jimbo vandal, WillemJoker hasn't done anything yet, as I write this.

A similar situation? Accounts created minutes apart, the second account is an immediate vandal, while the first account could be a sleeper, or it could be an innocent user whose name the vandal imitated, perhaps with an aim to get us to start preemptively blocking innocent users.

So does checkuser provide any enlightenment here? How about Mustanglover/Mustanglover69, now known to both be vandals, undoubtedly related, but does checkuser tell us this? -- Curps 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MustangLover69 (who shows no edits, although I suppose they may have been deleted; there is currently no way for me to get IP information on edits which have been deleted), was using an SBC PPPoX pool address (68.122.119.83), which basically means we know nothing about him. I suspect that they're the same person, and that the SBC PPPoX pool address is the address of a compromised machine as well, but it's on dialup or some other sort of connection that will move from time to time so we can't block it the way we can block the members of their botnet that are on static IPs.

WillemJokerr is also using a SBC PPPoX pool address (68.124.190.85). I think both of these are in the same general geographic area, so they're likely the same endpoint. This IP is also responsible for Jswannar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I have now blocked) and This will help us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has already been blocked). We're obviously going to have to keep an eye on these SBC PPPoX pool blocks for a while.

WillemJoker was created from 144.132.247.110, which belongs to Telstra. There is one other edit from this IP, made anonymously, which appears to be legitimate. At this point I don't know if there's a connection. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall, Mustanglover69's single edit was pretty much the same as WillemJokerr's single edit, only the latter hasn't (yet?) been purged from the database. Namely Jimbo-Wales-personal-information-edit-summary vandalism at George W. Bush. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, here's a story that made the rounds of various blogs yesterday: the guy who runs Second Life (some kind of online community) is apparently siccing the FBI on some vandals who disrupted his site. Perhaps the FBI will give him the brushoff, but it would be an interesting development. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85

Hi there David, Im SWD316. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? SWD316 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

a question of copyrights

Would it be a no-no to add part of the Nutuk speech or even the whole thing to the article--Kross | Talk 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)?

Those backslashes

216.255.176.250 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) is adding those backslashes before quote marks (). I've indef blocked, putting {{CompromisedWebHost}} on the talk page, and I'll leave it to you to take the appropriate action. Canderson7 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Misplaced Pages experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just an alert

I know the arbcom is very busy right now, but just alerting you that we do have a temp injunction request in the Ben Gatti case. Been there for a week now. --Woohookitty 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock attack

We've got a vandal coming in on at least a dozen IPs - Ropo (talk · contribs) and assorted socks. Please take a look at it. Radiant_>|< 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, that would explain his amazing level of maturity. Okay, since we're currently tag-team revert/delete/blocking it's costing him more work than it does us. Radiant_>|< 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement on steward elections

I was recently approached to consider running for Steward. I have elected not to do so at this time, for three reasons. One, I am not sufficiently multilingual, which is considered a requirement of the position. Second, I am not sufficiently active on Meta (I simply don't have time to spend a lot of time there). Third, I feel that seeking stewardship so soon after a failed request for bureaucrat on en would be viewed (by some, at least) as a continuation of the "power grab" that I am alleged to be engaged in. While I personally think I would make a decently good steward, I feel that a candidacy at this time would not be in the best interest of the Wikimedia project. Maybe next year. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Image tags and licensing

I see you created {{CommunityUseOnly}} several months ago. You might be interested in the proposal at Misplaced Pages:Restricted image licenses. Your views would be welcome. DES 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sleeping Willies

Hi, I am noticed that there is a new user User:Sleeping Willies - the name sounds like Willy on Wheels ... u might want to check it out. Regards, --Hurricane111 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RfArb query

Opinion I know that you are under no obligation to discuss your vote in my RfC, but I really don't get it. You say that "no attempt to remedy conduct issues", and yet in the section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", I summarised 5 points, of which 4 are taken directly from dispute resolution page, together with links showing exacty where they occured, including TWO RfC's? What am I missing? (cc. Raul654) --Iantresman 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

DrBat arbcom request

Hi,

You commented, "undecided. I don't understand how this fails to fall within the scope of our prior order. Perhaps this should be brought as a summary motion to expand scope instead of a full hearing?"

Questions -

1. Is there a different procedure to expand scope and enforcement? I agree, a full hearing doesn't seem needed. It's just scope and enforcement. If there is a difference or a different procedure, could you clarify briefly for me, as I'm unaware and it would be useful to understand better.
2. I am unclear if your comment means that you don't understand (a) how it fails to be adequately covered already, or (b) how it fails to be appropriate to request, given the previous ruling.

Part of the problem is, that the understanding stated by one ArbCom member regarding the previous ruling is incorrect. The ruling was drawn up in an extremely limited manner that did not prevent abuse, and even so that ruling has been breached. This was a fear of the original proposers of that request who forsaw that he would be unable to resist returning to the subject. The previous ruling covers only "closely related articles", nor is there any significant enforcement or deterrent power given, the only enforcement allowed is a maximum 24 hour ban.

In view of his extreme past and renewed activites, and repeated breach since November, and again even after the ArbCom request was posted, the request is basically that ArbCom reviews and updates the ruling so that DrBat can actually be prevented from such edits on the subjects in future, whatever article they may be in, and editors have an effective enforcement/deterrent power if he should violate the ruling.

With thanks, FT2 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

image upload vandalism checkuser

Hello,

Today a bunch of sockpuppets have overwritten images with crudely photoshopped images. These include:

• User:Henri Poincare
• User:Pual Murphy
• User:Roger Penrose
• User:Howard Dean
• User:Jabberio
• User:Katie Holmes
• User:Davidsyatt
• User:Eric Schmidt
• User:Sandra Day O' Connar

These mostly seem to have been created within a few hours of one another on December 19. Perhaps there are more socks that you could catch and block with checkuser.

In most cases you'd have to look at Special:Log/upload for their handiwork, since it doesn't show up in the other logs, or it's briefly visible at Special:Newimages before someone reverts the image back to the original version.

Regarding e-mail notification, I think that's a bit complicated to implement. However, many of your Willy proxies detected by checkuser (mentioned at WP:AN/I) had already been blocked by myself and others, which suggests that the block log itself could be a rich source of usernames to mine systematically with checkuser, in order to find open proxies and compromised hosts. A sample of recent blocks by me is here, naturally many of them were routine vandalism but many others are obvious Willy-type names.

Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:

To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Retcon (talk · contribs), Missionary (talk · contribs), Netministrator (talk · contribs), and Steven Wingerter (talk · contribs) are pretty certainly all the same person, along with Satrap (talk · contribs), IP Law Girl (talk · contribs), and Tomnstein (talk · contribs) (none of which you listed). The others all appear to be distinct individuals. I am somewhat concerned about there being both a IP Law Girl and a IP law girl as that suggests impersonation; the same can be said of Tomnstein (impersonating user:Tommstein). . Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)