I think it's probably beside the point - IP addresses can be spoofed. If it were the same, it would be proof. If it's different, it doesn't show anything one way or another. I've not got the time or patience to go digging into the edit histories for similarities, but if the alleged similarities exist, I'd have no problem with a swift ban for reincarnation. But, then, I've got minimal patience for people who don't appear to be editing in good faith. This user is admitting on his userpage that he is a troll, in the tradition of a number of other banned trolls. This is not good faith. No deep philosophical debate needed here. -Snowspinner On Jul 2, 2004, at 1:36 AM, Michael Snow wrote: his user page. Would that matches up to http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Like fun. Fred <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Navarone another to _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ok, When someone announces that his purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia perhaps you should take him seriously and react appropriately. Fred <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> of reason http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l providers! http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The Trolls. Fred <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'm not saying ban without reading the edit history. I'm saying that, if the edit history is as described, that, combined with the other evidence that already exists (Similarity if names, timing of arrival, similarity of politics, unusually high knowledge of how Wikipedia works), is, in my mind, grounds for a ban. If the edit history is not as described, that's another story. But IP evidence is really neither here nor there. So many Wikipedia vandals use IP spoofing at this point it's not funny. (To say nothing of the fact that IP evidence is really hard to gather.) My feeling is that if God or Jimbo had meant for us to use IP evidence as the final arbiter of sockpuppet banning, he'd have given sysops the ability to look at IPs. Lacking that, I think we can look at the rest of the evidence and make a pretty good call. Everything except the edit history says ban to me. I don't know about the edit history. Somebody else want to chime in? -Snowspinner On Jul 2, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Mark Richards wrote: edit it of using to into who his http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Phil Sandifer wrote: Not really. You can spoof an IP address in an IP packet, but since you won't receive the reply, you can't establish a TCP connection with a spoofed IP address, and therefore you cannot edit Wikipedia with a spoofed IP address. Timwi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l