Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 4 December 2009

Archive 1

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I swear to god, SineBot, if you don't stop this nonsense I'll arcsin your ass. Go away. I'm making things. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

I noticed this. The image had already been deleted and not by me. I was just tidying the commented text away. Self-revert? --John (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

i was wondering why the picture didn't come back. I'll go ahead and revert (if someone hasn't already changed it) Throwaway85 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

. Nathan 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What the...? I have no idea how I did that. Thanks for the catch and the heads up. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Do not delete

J.delanoy_adds 07:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Really not sure what's going on here. I've been accused of sockery. Was a CU done? If it helps, I've been editting from the public wireless at my university. If there's any info I can provide to help clear this up, I'd be more than happy to do so. Just for the record, who am I accused of being a sockpuppet(eer) of? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:53 am, Today (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Using multiple personas to troll ANI is generally frowned upon. Brandon (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2009 (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.

What multiple personas are you talking about? I seriously don't know what's going on here. Can I see the results of the checkuser? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking into this further, I came across this post on J.delanoy's talk page. I'm actually somewhat concerned about this. I've had (ancient) dealings with Nja, and he questioned my status in the past. If you look, somewhere a C/U was done on me in regards to Domer48, which came back negative. Also, check comments from rd232 on one of the first messages in my talk archive. I've yet to see what sockpuppet I'm accused of having. Furthermore, there has been no evidence presented of a c/u having been done. I'm concerned here. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This. Brandon (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think is that there was another person at my university posting on an/i at the same time. I'd still like to see the c/u, as I'm sure I would be vindicated. Actually, having just done a whois lookup, it seems that that is exactly what happened. Both of those IPs listed resolve to my university (of over 10,000 students). I'm not sure who technical reasons is, but the account was created today. I've been here since August, I believe. Furthermore, if you look closer, you'll actually see that we were on different sides in the discussion (of which I was not a part, save for one comment). I had not posted on Talk:Holocaust denial until after reading that thread, which you'll see from the talk page there. Prior to today, I had never posted on any jewish-related topics, rather my attention was primarily on the IRA page, although I'vew been branching out recently. Furthermore, I don't recall ever having any interactions with the people technical reasons had beef with. I merely made one joke in reference to crafty's tongue-in-cheeky claims of being in a cabal.

It seems this has been a misunderstanding, due primarily to bad luck and to one of my fellow students having a grudge against Jews. I can't speak for them, but if you wouldn't mind reviewing the points I have made and reconsidering the block, I would be most appreciative. Also, I think it best to mention now that I would appreciate it if this comment could be deleted from the record after my case is reviewed, as I don't want to out myself. One more thing, if you could whitelist those IPs, I would appreciate it, as they belong to my university and I do a lot of editting there. I don't know what the proper channels are to request that, but it can wait until after my case is reviewed.

Thank you, and I look forward to continuing to contribute. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One final note: While I don't disagree with the block of technical reasons, I'm not sure it's a case of deliberate sockery. He could very well have closed his browser, opened it again, and editted as an IP without realizing he had been signed out. Our entire campus is a hotspot, with dozens of access points. He could have reconnected to the university's wireless network and been assigned a new ip, or he could have editted from a different building, etc. Once again, block = yes, sock = not necessarily. If you check my history, I think you'll see that I've editted from many different IPs, all within the same range.

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was hoping to hear back from User:Brandon about this, and perhaps I'm being hasty, but there are several ongoing discussions I was participating in that I'd like to rejoin. It appears that I was a victim of collateral damage, as I commented on an an/i thread started by another user at my university who was subsequently banned. The CU, naturally, showed us as being on the same IP range. No hard feelings, but I'd appreciate it if somebody could review the post I made here: User talk:Throwaway85. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your request was already reviewed and declined, I agree with that finding. The IP and useragent evidence is convincing. 23:35, 3 December 2009 (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.

You know, a total of three users or IPs have used Firefox 2.0.x from your university within the last three months. You, your IP sock, and another person who created an account with it in early October and never edited. J.delanoy_adds 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Check again. I'm on 3.5.5 and have been for ages. I did switch from Ubuntu to Windows7 a couple months ago, not sure if that entailed a new ff version.. Here's a snip of this screen and my about: Or you could just look at the edits in question, look at my edit history, and realize there's no way we're the same person. Please. Just assuming the tiniest bit of good faith, actually look at the edits/editors in question, and ask yourself if we really seem like the same person. Then go back and read what I've written here. I'm not mad about the intial block, these things happen. But this is starting to get a bit silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sorry but I do think a couple of the computers either in the library or in one of the labs are runnning an ancient version of ff. Still, You'll see I'm currently on 3.5.5. I don't even think you can get ff 2.x for windows 7. it certainly hasn't been available for download since Windows 7 came out, and there's no reason I would ever use an outdated browser, with all of the security flaws that entails. Also, and I really can't stress this enough, I was on the other side of the debate from the blocked editor.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And, seeing as I have time on my hands, ask yourself this: Why on earth would I create a sock to start a thread on AN/I, about users I've never encountered, on a page I hadn't visited until after the thread was made? Look at what I posted in that topic and tell me that it was the reply of one of the OP's socks. This is just plain silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But hey, if you really want irrefutable proof, I can give you the netlink ID I use to sign onto the computers/internet at school and the contact info for the network administrators here. You can ask them if I was the one who was using those IPs at those times. Just give me an email address and I'll send it to you. Seriously, it wasn't me. I just want to get this cleared up so I can resume contributing to the project. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• One final point: Nja247 should have damned well known better than to bring my supposed sockery to your attention, as he himself started a SPI against myself and Domer48 here, way back in August. I was editing the PIRA page with him before he left and Rd232 took over. I'm not saying it was malicious, but I am saying that he should have remembered this incident, considering his less than pristine history with Domer48 and the PIRA page in general. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to ask your network administrators what IPs you were using. I know which ones you used. You have used quite a few browsers, including several versions of FF3.0.x and 3.x. You only used one version of FF2.0.x, the same one as your sock did. I conducted my queries based on my own initiative - no one asked me to look at you. Indeed, I did not directly look at you until I saw that you were editing from the same place as that IP. Before blocking you, I talked it over with another checkuser and he came to the same conclusion that I did. Looking at your IP information and your contributions again will not change my opinion, since I reviewed both extremely painstakingly before I blocked you. J.delanoy_adds 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't ring true. My edit history has nothing in common with that editor, and, again, we were on opposite sides of the debate. I criticized him directly and called him a conspiracy theorist. If you are so certain that that editor was a sock of mine, then surely you wouldn't object to contacting an univolved admin and asking for a second opinion. I'm literally a 5 minute walk from the network admins' office right now. I can get them to send you an email with my netlink ID, my internet activity, and even the netlink ID of the person who actually made those edits. Hell, given that I'm pretty sure Holocaust denial is against my university's TOS, they could probably revoke their internet priviledges as well.

Look, I know you're confident, but you're wrong. Please either take another look or have an uninvolved admin/cu do it for you. If I'm in the wrong, then surely that will be their conclusion as well. I'm telling you, empatically, that I am in no way related to that other editor, save for attending the same university. Why is it so hard for you to believe that two people from the same university, and thus necessarily the same IP range, could comment on the same thread independently of eachother? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the version of firefox in question is the one installed on the public computers here. I'm sure I've editted from them at some point. If you want, I can log into one of them and edit again, then edit from my laptop again. Hell, I'll take a picture of the two of them next to eachother and upload it to photobucket. Also, I wasn't offering to have the network admins tell you what IP I was using, I was offering to have them tell you what students were using each IP. We all have individual logins, and our histories are tracked and logged. You will quite clearly see that I was not the one making those edits. Do you understand the concept of open wireless? You have thousands of students all using a limitted IP range. I wouldn't be surprised if we were using the exact same IP, that's how wireless works. Same IP, different port. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not trying to abuse the template here. I know what the IP and useragent evidence says. Of course it says we're the same person, we were very likely editting from the same IP as I was in the library on the open wireless at the time. I've explained all of this, and have offered irrefutable proof that I am not the same person I am accused of being a sock of. If anyone wants to provide me an email address to contact, I would be more than happy to have the network administrators at my university send you a message with the logs detailing what students each of us were. I know the checkuser process is usually very good, but in this case it returned a false positive. Please review what I have said on my talk page, and take me up on my offer to have my school's network administrators contact you. I am not trying to disparage any admin involved, or even the process itself, but a mistake has been made and it needs to be rectified. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not trying to abuse the template here. I know what the IP and useragent evidence says. Of course it says we're the same person, we were very likely editting from the same IP as I was in the library on the open wireless at the time. I've explained all of this, and have offered irrefutable proof that I am not the same person I am accused of being a sock of. If anyone wants to provide me an email address to contact, I would be more than happy to have the network administrators at my university send you a message with the logs detailing what students each of us were. I know the checkuser process is usually very good, but in this case it returned a false positive. Please review what I have said on my talk page, and take me up on my offer to have my school's network administrators contact you. I am not trying to disparage any admin involved, or even the process itself, but a mistake has been made and it needs to be rectified. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not trying to abuse the template here. I know what the IP and useragent evidence says. Of course it says we're the same person, we were very likely editting from the same IP as I was in the library on the open wireless at the time. I've explained all of this, and have offered irrefutable proof that I am not the same person I am accused of being a sock of. If anyone wants to provide me an email address to contact, I would be more than happy to have the network administrators at my university send you a message with the logs detailing what students each of us were. I know the checkuser process is usually very good, but in this case it returned a false positive. Please review what I have said on my talk page, and take me up on my offer to have my school's network administrators contact you. I am not trying to disparage any admin involved, or even the process itself, but a mistake has been made and it needs to be rectified. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I'm kinda puzzled here myself. Is there evidence somewhere that's not visible on this page or via Checkuser? I also don't understand what's going on with Chillum saying "The IP and useragent evidence is convincing"; Chillum, not being a checkuser, should not have access to such evidence. As far as the Firefox 2 evidence, it looks like it that browser was used on exactly one day (local time, it spans two days UTC); the IP involved is quite explicitly a university library. What am I missing here? --jpgordon 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I have no reason to doubt our checkusers findings, I don't have to look at the data myself as competent trustworthy people have already looked and presented their findings. Throwaway85, after you get a response one your 3rd unblock request I ask that you stop posting. 1 is enough, 2 is plenty, 3 is borderline. 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock