Since I am assumed guilty of sockpuppetry until proven innocent, the burden is on me to show evidence that I am not. I found some.
I reviewed user contribuitions, and I found that I and Niglet were both active on June 3 between 06:00 and 10:00. I have mapped the times of my contributions to Niglet's (bear with me, there is a point to this.) # = me, * = niglet.
# 10:22, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Anus (→See also) * 10:03, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Feces (→Pictures) * 09:49, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Lawrence Einhorn (top) * 09:46, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Testicular cancer (→Treatment ...Einhorn) * 09:45, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Lawrence Einhorn * 09:45, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (New) Dr. Lawrence Einhorn (Dr. Lawre....Einhorn) (top) * 09:40, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Lawrence Einhorn * 09:38, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Lawrence Einhorn * 09:31, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Lawrence Einhorn * 09:27, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (New) Image:Dr Lawrence Einhorn.jpg ... * 09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Testicular cancer (→Treatment - Chemotherapy details) # 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anus (→Shall there be no photos?) # 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anus (→Shall there be no photos?) * 08:46, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Human penis size (→2 or 2.5 Standard deviations?) * 08:39, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Human penis size (→See also - Ron Jeremy) * 07:36, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Poop (Removed image) # 07:09, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Hendrikje van Andel (→Quote) # 07:08, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Hendrikje van Andel (→Quote) # 07:08, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Hendrikje van Andel (→Quote) # 06:53, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Squitten (top) * 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Poop (Reverted to include image) # 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Anus (→Hygiene) * 06:29, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Feces (Added image) * 06:27, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Feces (→See also) * 06:22, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Black Eyed Peas (→See also) # 06:04, 3 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Anus (→Structure)
If one is to believe that I and Niglet are the same, one MUST believe that the record shows the following:
1) I am using two computers with different IPs simultaneously to edit (since both userIDs contributed at exactly 06:39).
2) I designated one userID exclusively for anus, squitten, and hendrikje van andel, while the other userID was used only for black eyed peas, feces, poop, penis, testicular cancer, and a Dr. Einhorn.
3) I changed seats eight times in four hours and was able to keep straight which computer was to be used for which articles.
4) Since this seat hopping and article segregation gave me no edit advantage at the time, it must have been in order to establish an alibi for a sockpuppetry scam which I was planning for ten days later.
Jane
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
From: "Jane Halliwell" hundredpurses@hotmail.com
Since I am assumed guilty of sockpuppetry until proven innocent, the burden is on me to show evidence that I am not. I found some.
I reviewed user contribuitions, and I found that I and Niglet were both active on June 3 between 06:00 and 10:00. I have mapped the times of my contributions to Niglet's (bear with me, there is a point to this.) # = me,
- = niglet.
etc.
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the same time.
Move on.
Jay.
On 6/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the same time.
Move on.
Sure. So we tell the user it's their burden to prove they aren't a sock.. but it's clear that no such proof is possible.
Why didn't we save the user the time and just tell them they've been branded for life?
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On 6/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the
same
time.
Move on.
Sure. So we tell the user it's their burden to prove they aren't a sock.. but it's clear that no such proof is possible.
No-one has been told any such thing, precisely for that reason.
Why didn't we save the user the time and just tell them they've been branded for life?
They haven't been "branded" at all, they've been accused of sockpuppetry by one editor. Is there no end to the hysterical rhetoric bandied about on this list? Get a grip.
Jay.
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Alternate theory on Niglet Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:26:11 -0400
From: "Jane Halliwell" hundredpurses@hotmail.com
Since I am assumed guilty of sockpuppetry until proven innocent, the burden is on me to show evidence that I am not. I found some.
I reviewed user contribuitions, and I found that I and Niglet were both active on June 3 between 06:00 and 10:00. I have mapped the times of my contributions to Niglet's (bear with me, there is a point to this.) # = me, * = niglet. etc.
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the same time.
Move on.
Jay.
Running 2 IPs on one computer doesn't make sense in light of the rest of the evidence I presented. Did you read it? Your email is time stamped 2 minutes after mine.
_________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
From: "Jane Halliwell" hundredpurses@hotmail.com
Running 2 IPs on one computer doesn't make sense in light of the rest of the evidence I presented. Did you read it? Your email is time stamped 2 minutes after mine.
Accept that it can be done. You can't prove someone is NOT a sockpuppet, you can only prove that they ARE one. You've been accused, you've denied it. Is there anything else that needs to be said on the topic?
Jay.
On 16/06/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I reviewed user contribuitions, and I found that I and Niglet were both active on June 3 between 06:00 and 10:00. I have mapped the times of my contributions to Niglet's (bear with me, there is a point to this.) # = me,
- = niglet.
etc.
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the same time.
Just a sidenote: It may be worth pointing out that it doesn't even need two IP addresses - running two different browsers on the same machine, logged in under different accounts, ought to do it.
From: Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com
There are technical ways that can be done from the same computer at the
same
time.
Just a sidenote: It may be worth pointing out that it doesn't even need two IP addresses - running two different browsers on the same machine, logged in under different accounts, ought to do it.
Right, well I didn't want to get into the details, so as not to encourage people. A year ago I was completely unaware of all of this, but [[User:Alberuni]] taught me more than I need to know.
Jay.
On 6/16/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Just a sidenote: It may be worth pointing out that it doesn't even need two IP addresses - running two different browsers on the same machine, logged in under different accounts, ought to do it.
Ah, but earlier David refused to preform or disclose the results of performing an IP address verification because the user could still be using socks and be editing from the same IP.
And if those IPs come from two different cities or completely different countries, that should discount any likely sockpuppetry.
-Mgm
On 6/16/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Just a sidenote: It may be worth pointing out that it doesn't even need two IP addresses - running two different browsers on the same machine, logged in under different accounts, ought to do it.
Ah, but earlier David refused to preform or disclose the results of performing an IP address verification because the user could still be using socks and be editing from the same IP. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com
And if those IPs come from two different cities or completely different countries, that should discount any likely sockpuppetry.
Not necessarily; that was my point.
Jay.
OK, who changed the subject so this stuff can get past my filters...
Are some people having trouble recognizing trolling?
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 6/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050617 06:15]:
And if those IPs come from two different cities or completely different countries, that should discount any likely sockpuppetry.
Not in the least. Have a look at [[User:Lir]] some time.
I blocked someone recently who had posted (from memory) from Sweden, Canada, and Germany on the same evening, all open proxies.
Sarah
Well, it's easy enough to check if an IP is an open proxy. Those get blocked by the busload.I was talking mostly about fixed IPs or fixed ranges which can be attached to specific locations several countries away from each other. Say Canada, Germany and Australia without the use of open proxies.
--Mgm
On 6/17/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050617 06:15]:
And if those IPs come from two different cities or completely different countries, that should discount any likely sockpuppetry.
Not in the least. Have a look at [[User:Lir]] some time.
I blocked someone recently who had posted (from memory) from Sweden, Canada, and Germany on the same evening, all open proxies.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l