Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A static IP address does not always denote location, it can be proxied. Anyone with a landline can dial in. A checkuser may prove nothing, one way or the other (nothing can be proven here about meatpuppetry, which is also a very real option). But, sooner or later, everybody makes a mistake. Maybe there is already a mistake to be caught, and if there is, that will resolve everything. --Zeraeph 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


One needs to understand the current state of internet connectiveness. Cable is a dedicated access purchased through a local provider and is actually a cable that is wired into the home. There is no "calling in". And broadband is a dedicated specialized data line wired into the home via the normal phone outlets. There is no "calling in". Only dial-up can be accessed by a phone call from a remote location since dial-up ISP access is, naturally enough, via a phone call into the mainframe computer that routes the computer onto the internet.
Keyne's access is specific to a particular company in Chicago, not a residential connection. This may reflect her more sporadic and limited editing. Sandy's could conceivably be a residential connection since she spends a great number of hours daily editing.
As to using proxies, only long-term subscribing to a proxy service would allow an individual to have possession of a specific IP address, and in no case would the proxy be specifically identified as belonging to an actual physical business not involved in internet access, nor to an independent provider of regular subscription service. The use of subscription proxy services are mandatory for government employees in sensitive jobs who wish to use their work computer for personal time on the internet. A search will provide with specific disclosure that the address is that of a subscription proxy provider.
Most proxy services online (including the free ones) use a wide variety of addresses that will vary from one time to another. Certain services are set to continually switch from one address to another during any particular session. They are the preferred domain of hackers not talented enough to use the computers of those who are ignorant of such activity, only recognizing that their connection speed diminishes and their RAM eaten up.
To imagine that an extremely busy editor would create a sock who works diligently and responsibly over months and months with no conceivable purpose than to someday defend the first from a spurious attack -- when the same proposed sock has failed to show up and "protect" the first from the many many other editors who regularly also take offense. What makes you, as a person, so uniquely special and formidable that Sandy would uncharacteristically disappear from view and have the other person fight her battles for her?
No, the only parallel between these two individuals was their collaboration on one topic, Asperger Syndrome, where you cast aspersions on Sandy, who eventually stopped giving you attention.
On Asperger-Talk and in two previous Cabals created by Sandy), you have been repeatedly invited to give details to substantiate your stated beliefs and then try to work out the differences - which is SOP on Talk pages. Each and every time, you state that the person asking for that substantiation as manipulative and controlling in their offering to work things out and asking you to point out exactly what is behind your blanket assertions. You have now devolved to asserting that those editors who are trying to iron out the issues are not worthy of your engagement as they are obvious socks - an ad hominen attack.
Even though you have no proof that Keyne is (or is not) a friend of Sandy's (I am not, for instance), it is still upright thing to engage in arbitration rather than showing disdain at what you declare to be their innate unworthiness of your time and attention.
It behooves no one for open conflict between administrators to remain unresolved. Administrators should be an example to the run of the mill editos under you, showing how responsible adults handle their emotions. ::--I am Kiwi 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above superfluous rationale with it's attempts to browbeat me with numerous distortions of personal and general fact (I don't think this is the place to detail them) should be, in itself, evidence of why I am requesting a checkuser.--Zeraeph 10:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SG response[edit]

An IP check will reveal no chance that Keyne is me, and Zeraeph's ideas that Keyne and I may be working together are unfounded. In fact, please provide any example of such. (Here is my response to Keyne, who brought this whole situation to my attention today.) I see that Kiwi has also posted to his talk page. My involvement with the Asperger syndrome article came about because I am active at WP:FAR, and I have had no other interaction with Keyne, ever.

From reading this entire series of pages, it appears likely that Kiwi may be the person who has been e-mailing me, from an AOL account, for several weeks, so I know what her motivations are, and respectfully suggest that she should not be bringing her disputes with Zeraeph from multiple other forums into Wikipedia. We can take care of ourselves just fine. Kiwi, if you are the person who has been e-mailing me, the information is most intriguing, but unwanted. Your involvement in this situation has only complicated it.

I have responded to none of those e-mails, as I have no interest in being involved in long-standing off-Wiki disputes between Zeraeph and others, but now it appears that I may need to forward those e-mails to any admin looking into this case, which extends far beyond Wikipedia and shed light onto this situation.

Further, since I have an AOL account in addition to my Optonline account, and I use that account whenever I travel, if Kiwi is that AOL user, Kiwi has not helped clarify things in terms of IP checks.

Based on the interaction I've had with Zeraeph on Wikipedia, and if the things that I am being told in these e-mails from an AOL user are true, this entire attack on Keyne is nothing more than an attempt to drag me back into a conflict with Zeraeph, whom I have avoided since the closing of the AS FARC, and since she has three times refused to mediate. I had determined to ignore both Kiwi and Zeraeph, and whatever is the problem they are bringing from other internet sites, but unfortunately, since they are Zeraeph is dragging an innocent bystander (Keyne) into it, I have decided to put in my two cents. I suggest that Keyne has no idea what is going on, as he is not privy to the invasive and obnoxious e-mails I have been receiving.

Should they be useful in resolving the situation (since the e-mails are from an AOL user), I will be happy to forward them to an admin, but I am a firm and adamant believer in absolutely never ever posting details of private e-mail to a public forum.

Sandy 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to formally request that the CheckUser proceed, to clear my name. My IP history will reveal that I traveled in mid-May, and was on various hotel and other dialup connections. I also traveled at the end of May/beginning of June. Both times, I was at various different hotels and locations, sometimes with high-speed connections, sometimes on dialup. My house was struck by lightening on July 10th (I have diffs of communications with other editors, and it was amply discussed on my talk page and in article talk pages where I had to defer edits because of a slow connection while my house was repaired), so my editing for about a week afterwards was from dialups and different computers, until I got a new connection and computers repaired. Sandy 18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catching up with all the discussions I haven't participated in, this discussion is apparently what motivated all of this. This is yet another attack thread on me, without a shred of evidence, or for that matter, logic or reason. Sandy 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyne Response[edit]

Please let me know if I'm multiple. It'd be most interesting if I could be in three places at the same time (and think of the productivity gain!)

Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for User:Zeraeph to stop this continued libel and harassment. --Keyne 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to happen. Wikipedia has allowed Zeraeph to attack me across multiple articles ever since the Asperger syndrome FARC (evidence the latest ongoing attack thread against me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, even though I have had no interaction with her, you, or the article since the FARC ended eons ago). I can't even recall the last time I had anything to do with the AS article, but it's probably been a month now. This a good example of why it is best to avoid some situations and some editors. Even though I've done that, I'm now drug back into this, which may have been the goal all along. The whole thing is disgusting. And it's not going to stop with either mediation or a checkuser. Sandy 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't have any clauses regarding on-going harassment? That strikes me as poorly thought out, if true. --Keyne 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that she will eventually be proven wrong on the sock/meat puppetry. I have been smeared now (without a piece of evidence ever), in 3 MedCab cases (but she refuses to mediate), two ANI reports, across multiple user talk pages, on several article talk pages, at WP:FAR, and now in CheckUser. All in spite of me disengaging completely from any interaction with her or her articles. If the goal is simply to sully my name, it has been successful. And Wiki does nothing about it. Sandy 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Reality[edit]

Then, either the proxies are too intricate (an admitted possibilty), or it must be meatpuppetry. Bear in mind the issue is NOT sockpuppetry, it is complex long term abuse. Sockpuppetry was just one option on the mechanics of it that, if proven would resolve it once and for all, so checking seemede obvious. The complex, long term abuse and collusion is not even in doubt. --Zeraeph 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop the libellous comments now, Zaraeph. Not everyone that has a similar contary opinion to yours is as you describe. It's somehow sad that you cannot even fathom the more obvious resolution: that we're simply three people with differring opinions to yours, independant of each other. --Keyne 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related Discussions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/A_Kiwi&oldid=159939079"