No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin doesn't care about evidence. She has said she will ignore the results of an IP check, and she said she will continue to ban me from editing this article for 'being disruptive'.
I am being denied due process. Should I just 'agree' to stay banned?
Meanwhile, public support for my edit has swelled to 18 to 10 to 2 to 1 on the talk:feces page (four categories of votes.)
It is not 'disruptive' to revert a minority's censorship three times a day. It is not 'sockpuppetry' when others also take a stand.
Can't you two just agree to disagree? SlimVirgin, don't call Eyeon a troll or someone with sockpuppets until you get some evidence from a developer and Eyeon, don't immediately assume SlimVirgin is editing in bad faith. After all, SlimVirgin does have a point about the deleted article and similar editing styles.
--Mgm
_________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin doesn't care about evidence. She has said she will ignore the results of an IP check, and she said she will continue to ban me from editing this article for 'being disruptive'.
IP checks are not the be all and end all. If I wanted to start a sockpuppet account I could easily do it through a different ISP than my regular one.
I am being denied due process. Should I just 'agree' to stay banned?
Whether you agree to it or not, the article is likely to remain protected for a short while. I'd just edit some other articles for the time being. Why is this one so important to you?
Theresa
On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin doesn't care about evidence. She has said she will ignore the results of an IP check, and she said she will continue to ban me from editing this article for 'being disruptive'.
Where did SlimVirgin say that? I'd like some links; diffs if possible.
--Mgm
On 6/15/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin doesn't care about evidence. She has said she will ignore the results of an IP check, and she said she will continue to ban me from editing this article for 'being disruptive'.
Where did SlimVirgin say that? I'd like some links; diffs if possible.
--Mgm
I'd like to see some diffs too. I also note that [[User:SlimVirgin's Left Boob]] and [[User:SlimVirgin's Right Buttock]] have been complaining of admin abuse on WP:AN/I. No relation, I'm sure, to Eyeon, Niglet, and Fecologist.
Sarah
On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
No IP check is being performed. SlimVirgin doesn't care about
evidence. She
has said she will ignore the results of an IP check, and she said she
will
continue to ban me from editing this article for 'being disruptive'.
Where did SlimVirgin say that? I'd like some links; diffs if possible.
--Mgm
I'd like to see some diffs too. I also note that [[User:SlimVirgin's Left Boob]] and [[User:SlimVirgin's Right Buttock]] have been complaining of admin abuse on WP:AN/I. No relation, I'm sure, to Eyeon, Niglet, and Fecologist.
Sarah
I am no relation to your left boob/right buttock friend. Read exactly what they said. They are someone who went to the arbitration committee over an issue and were turned down. They put the quote in an obscure place in a way that wouldn't help my cause, and didn't sign it. That would be a complete waste of my time. That's not me. Other people are pissed at you. It looks like you have a history of using your adminship in a disruptive way.
Links/diffs/quotes to follow.
Jane
_________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
1) Rather than suffer through continued slurs of sockpuppetry, I formally request a proper investigation. I want an IP check and I want the admins to respect the results.
2) I would like the admins to respect the wishes of the majority of editors on Talk:Feces. The page should be unblocked and the photo should be allowed to return.
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
- Rather than suffer through continued slurs of
sockpuppetry, I formally request a proper investigation. I want an IP check and I want the admins to respect the results.
- I would like the admins to respect the wishes of
the majority of editors on Talk:Feces. The page should be unblocked and the photo should be allowed to return.
A permanent block would do just as well.
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/15/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
A permanent block would do just as well. RickK
Hm, alas, it wouldn't work on you... you'd probably just unblock yourself. :)
The request isn't out of line. The other editors on that article are not complaining that Eyeon is not cooperating.
Jane Halliwell (hundredpurses@hotmail.com) [050616 08:21]:
- Rather than suffer through continued slurs of sockpuppetry, I formally
request a proper investigation. I want an IP check and I want the admins to respect the results.
As one of the poeple who performs such checks (and I get so many requests for them and the consensus on what I should be able to check is presently sufficiently unclear that I only do stuff conceivable AC-related, which this isn't), I can tell you - and anyone who's read [m:CheckUser]] should also realise - that a lack of IP match would not disprove a thing. Not having an IP match is pathetically easy to arrange. As such, I'm formally telling you "no", and admins wouldn't have anything to respect even if there wasn't a match.
- d.
Jane Halliwell (hundredpurses@hotmail.com) [050616 08:21]:
- Rather than suffer through continued slurs of sockpuppetry, I
formally
request a proper investigation. I want an IP check and I want the admins
to
respect the results.
As one of the poeple who performs such checks (and I get so many requests for them and the consensus on what I should be able to check is presently sufficiently unclear that I only do stuff conceivable AC-related, which this isn't), I can tell you - and anyone who's read [m:CheckUser]] should also realise - that a lack of IP match would not disprove a thing. Not having an IP match is pathetically easy to arrange. As such, I'm formally telling you "no", and admins wouldn't have anything to respect even if there wasn't a match.
- d.
So SlimVirgin is permitted to block me indefinitely from editing the article, based on nothing but suspicion, while most other admins, who agree I'm being treated unfairly, do nothing. And Dave spends more time denying me due process than he would have spent to check the IP, because there is no consensus that he should.
Picture or no picture, Wikipedia is full of shit.
I left notes for the newbies Fecologist and Niglet. I can't wait for them to find out how they've been treated.
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
Picture or no picture, Wikipedia is full of shit.
Well, that did it for me, you're in my troll filter. I won't be seeing your emails any more.
RickK
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
As such, I'm formally telling you "no", and admins wouldn't have anything to respect even if there wasn't a match.
Speaking as an arbiter (though not for the entire Committee, who are quite capable of speaking for themselves), I support David's decision. Ms. Halliwell will have to find another way to prove that she isn't a puppeteer (puppetrix?).
I can trivially arrange to edit from three radically different sets of addresses: my home DSL, my work VPN, and a .mil network.
On 6/15/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Speaking as an arbiter (though not for the entire Committee, who are quite capable of speaking for themselves), I support David's decision. Ms. Halliwell will have to find another way to prove that she isn't a puppeteer (puppetrix?).
But why should the burden be on the user? Can you prove that it's not you who really controls Ms. Halliwell? As you are well aware, there is no way for someone to prove they aren't... Even if they show up at a meetup with people claiming to be the other accounts it's always possible that they didn't start that way.
Lets save the blocks for users who won't discuss and compromise, and save the protects for quelling active revert wars until a decision is made on the talk pages.. Votes made by people without a real contribution history should be discounted accordingly, sockpuppett or not.
We seem to spend a lot of time assigning huge importance to sockpuppets when we really can't do anything about it if the user is really trying... we shouldn't bother..
Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the socks never edit again we'll know we were right!
But why should the burden be on the user?
For a very simple reason: because she demands that we put the burden on her.
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Speaking as an arbiter (though not for the entire
Committee, who are
quite capable of speaking for themselves), I
support David's decision.
Ms. Halliwell will have to find another way to
prove that she isn't a
puppeteer (puppetrix?).
But why should the burden be on the user? Can you prove that it's not you who really controls Ms. Halliwell? As you are well aware, there is no way for someone to prove they aren't... Even if they show up at a meetup with people claiming to be the other accounts it's always possible that they didn't start that way.
Lets save the blocks for users who won't discuss and compromise, and save the protects for quelling active revert wars until a decision is made on the talk pages.. Votes made by people without a real contribution history should be discounted accordingly, sockpuppett or not.
We seem to spend a lot of time assigning huge importance to sockpuppets when we really can't do anything about it if the user is really trying... we shouldn't bother..
Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the socks never edit again we'll know we were right!
Bored now. Off you go into my blocked addresses file.
RickK
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html