Other IPs by this account (edit-warring, but not at Troubles-related articles):
This SPI report is being filed at the suggestion of administrator SirFozzie ( talk · contribs)
An anon has been using a dynamic IP, changing every few days. Repeated polite requests to them to edit while logged in, have been ignored. The anon has racked up multiple warnings and at least two blocks (mostly from editing the currently controversial Roman Polanski article). Within the last few weeks, the disruptive editing moved to Troubles-related articles, specifically Irish Bulletin and Black and Tans.
SirFozzie has suggested that since the Troubles-related articles are frequently targeted by those who are evading blocks, running a checkuser would be wise in this case. -- El on ka 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are my IP's - They are quite obviously tightly interwoven through a handful of articles. In the period where my IP changed rapidly I posted a clear notice on the article I was involved in at that time. Here is the link: [2] Whether this was storm related or technical, I don't know. Here is the text:
99.X IP Editor's note
It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have at other times also made notice of any relevant IP change, although I highly doubt anyone is drilling through the address as I am the only IP present. There is no question - nor any doubt - as to the writer.- 99.135.174.186 ( talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say this is possibly the most cooperative sockmaster I've ever seen. :) Is a range block of this scope even worth considering? -- Atama 頭 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Just type in an IP address between quotation marks, in Google, and you can find out where they are from. Or go to this site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.135.174.186 is Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, and http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.144.250.128 is Napervile IL, USA. Does the IP address confirm all accounts are his/her that are listed below? Dream Focus 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are all the blocks for the above-listed IPs:
The fact that blocks have been issued shows a pattern of abuse which reviewers expect to see in SPI cases. Many of these edits are in Troubles-related articles which have been the subject of a recent Arbcom case, so this pattern of editing is scarcely an innocent one. I suggest that the user behind these IPs be *banned* from editing Wikipedia unless he will agree to edit using a single registered account or a single IP. Rangeblocks may not be practical, but a formal ban would allow reverting all his contributions to Troubles articles. This might be able to get his attention since he has been making some attempt to persuade others of the rightness of his views. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Ranges blocked for 3 months. — Jake Wartenberg 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Other IPs by this account (edit-warring, but not at Troubles-related articles):
This SPI report is being filed at the suggestion of administrator SirFozzie ( talk · contribs)
An anon has been using a dynamic IP, changing every few days. Repeated polite requests to them to edit while logged in, have been ignored. The anon has racked up multiple warnings and at least two blocks (mostly from editing the currently controversial Roman Polanski article). Within the last few weeks, the disruptive editing moved to Troubles-related articles, specifically Irish Bulletin and Black and Tans.
SirFozzie has suggested that since the Troubles-related articles are frequently targeted by those who are evading blocks, running a checkuser would be wise in this case. -- El on ka 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are my IP's - They are quite obviously tightly interwoven through a handful of articles. In the period where my IP changed rapidly I posted a clear notice on the article I was involved in at that time. Here is the link: [2] Whether this was storm related or technical, I don't know. Here is the text:
99.X IP Editor's note
It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have at other times also made notice of any relevant IP change, although I highly doubt anyone is drilling through the address as I am the only IP present. There is no question - nor any doubt - as to the writer.- 99.135.174.186 ( talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say this is possibly the most cooperative sockmaster I've ever seen. :) Is a range block of this scope even worth considering? -- Atama 頭 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Just type in an IP address between quotation marks, in Google, and you can find out where they are from. Or go to this site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.135.174.186 is Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, and http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=99.144.250.128 is Napervile IL, USA. Does the IP address confirm all accounts are his/her that are listed below? Dream Focus 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are all the blocks for the above-listed IPs:
The fact that blocks have been issued shows a pattern of abuse which reviewers expect to see in SPI cases. Many of these edits are in Troubles-related articles which have been the subject of a recent Arbcom case, so this pattern of editing is scarcely an innocent one. I suggest that the user behind these IPs be *banned* from editing Wikipedia unless he will agree to edit using a single registered account or a single IP. Rangeblocks may not be practical, but a formal ban would allow reverting all his contributions to Troubles articles. This might be able to get his attention since he has been making some attempt to persuade others of the rightness of his views. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Ranges blocked for 3 months. — Jake Wartenberg 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |