User talk:SlimVirgin/archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Onefool's account, public or not? 2 Need your magic touch 3 Capita...cake! 4 Harmonious editing club 5 Congratulations! 6 No, thank you. 7 Public accounts 8 Request for comment on user Wareware 9 Fidel Castro 10 Theater or Theatre 11 Problem user 12 Re: Autofellatio vandal 13 David Icke 14 Advocacy and arbcom 15 Mizrahi Jews 16 FYI 17 Problem users 18 Template:Unreferenced 19 So what is fair use exactly? 20 So...we meet again... 21 Hey! What's a "useful editor"!? 22 Pharlap, a Ww sockpuppet

[edit] Onefool's account, public or not?

Hey Slim, I tried to get into Onefool's "public" account using the passwords: password, Password, "password", and "Password". None were successful, so I don't think that it is a "public" account. Perhaps a prank? ;-) hydnjo talk 22:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know any more about Onefool's account other than having checked to be sure that his password had not been published. I tried the obvious (password) variations metioned above and felt that it was a legitimate and private account. Maybe someone needs to talk to one or both of his claimed parents, Wonderfool and Jimbo. ;-) hydnjo talk 23:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, could u give me a link to that policy wherein u shouldnt have public accounts? Post it here if u like, I'll watch this page for a few days. And yes, I did create Onefool. Jimmy, of course, had nothing to do with it. I created Onefool when I was drunk, sorry. And as the password I made initially (password) doesnt work, its clear that someone else has changed it and so he's no longer under my control. Just to let you know. But its good to see u putting your powers to work in blocking, even though I wouldn't've blocked that account, if I were admin, cos it did no harm. But u'll learn.

So in summary, Onefool is no longer public, but however all that he wrote was when Wonderfool was under the influence --Wonderfool (talk) (contribs) (email) 13:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need your magic touch

List of purported cults needs your magic touch.... Thanks. --Zappaz 00:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capita...cake!

I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details. [this generic comment has been forwarded to User talk:RJII, User talk:Luis rib, User talk:SlimVirgin (that's you!), User talk:Slrubenstein, and User talk:Ultramarine ]

---

So, are you still human (?). Quiet down, everybody, one at a time, please. Seventy votes, and counting! Make sure to block me for three minutes as your first administrative act!

I noticed you are now involved in the aforementioned intro dispute for that article, so I thought I'd include you in this forward. While I'm withdrawing from the article's talk page (not to mention namespace) for reasons which I trust you can understand, feel free to consult me on any specific item therein. As stated above, I hold little hope for the intro becoming NPOV, I'll spare you any additional details except by request. El_C 02:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonious editing club

Re your note on David's talk page, I think you may have been thinking of the Harmonious editing club. David isn't a member. We're a pretty select band, actually, as it's a not a very well publicised club. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fear I'm more part of the "What is this POV-pushing crap?" Editing Club, or possibly the "You kids! I don't care who started it, stop now!" Editing Club ;-) - David Gerard 18:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should join the No David Gerards Club (yes, we're allowed to have one!). El_C 21:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Jim always gets there first! :)

Let me then be the second to congratulate you and wish you lots of fun working your new bells and blowing your new whistles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mazel tov, and thanks for taking a share of the load. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Yase.jpg

El_C 01:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know you'll be a great admin. — mark ✎ 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me too.-gadfium 02:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 05:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Block me now. You know you want to. --Blair P. Houghton 05:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (p.s. just kidding and congratulations)

• Congratulations - I know you'll be a terrific admin. Thanks for saying yes. Cheers, -Wil*More congratulationslmcw 06:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations. A promotion well deserved. The extremely high yes vote speaks for itself. Xtra 10:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats. I'm sorry I missed your nomination, I'd have enjoyed recounting how you cut the Gordian knot of the Anti-Islamism article on the nomination page. But the merge with Islamophobia still darkens Wikipedia... --- Charles Stewart 11:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations. I think the number of "Support" votes was a record, but that doesn't surprise me. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Slim, congratulations! And you're welcome. :) Maurreen 16:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Here here, congrats and you're welcome from me too. - Taxman 00:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I add my congratulations and you are most certainly welcome. It was my pleasure to vote for you. Do I smell an ArbCom run next? ;) Wally 00:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats! We need more grrl power 'round the wild frontiers of collaborative editing...! --Zappaz 01:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well done! You'll be a great admin (and how could I not have supported you? :) Grutness|^hello? 01:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• You're quite welcome: been noticing you around for a while, been impressed with your contributions, and I have no doubt you will be a fine admin! Best wishes, Antandrus 02:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• More congratulations! And thank *you* for the note; I was honored to add to your well-deserved overwhelming support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• By golly, I'm glad that I checked my page for messages. Yours made my day. Way to go!! - Lucky 6.9 03:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations, and you're welcome. The moment I saw your name show up on RfA, my immediate thought was "YES!" I'm sure you'll make a great admin. SWAdair | Talk 03:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations of course; that was quite a strong show of support you collected there. Rarely is an editor so productive and yet so well-thought of, across the board. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well done, and you can practise your new blocking superpowers on my username too! -- Hoary 05:39, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your adminship! It's well deserved. RickK 05:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Congrulations! I'm sure you'll be a great admin! Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm always late, but please accept also my greetings and my sincere congratulations. M/

• WOOHOO!! Oooh, that was kinda loud, huh? Must be those dang groggers still ringing in my ears. Congrats! --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 14:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No, thank you.

You've got a sweet looking poodle on your user page, as well, and it doesn't look all fou-fou, which is a major advantage in a poodle. :-) (My doggy is going to the vet today, so maybe the vet will get out the anti-eye-goop and I'll take a better photo of the dear.) Thanks again for the attentive and careful read-through of Oroonoko. Getting anyone at all to read a "high culture" article is rare. Getting someone to read it carefully is priceless. Geogre 14:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public accounts

I just noticed your block and then unblock of Onefool. It may sometimes be useful to simply change the password instead of blocking, although either approach is of course legitimate. When you change the password, it typically creates less fuss - anybody can do it because no admin abilities are involved, it doesn't go into public logs, and the person who created the account won't get any information that tells them to go after if they're looking for retribution. --Michael Snow 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on user Wareware

I'm in love with your poodle. That's the sweetest photo! :-)

Slim, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this matter -- and for making note of the fact that I have been exceedingly patient with Wareware for some time now. It's pretty galling to have someone like Pharlap come into a forum, presume to criticize me and then completely overlook Wareware's incessant and blatant racism. (There are times when I can't stand this site!) Hopefully, this ugly business will result in a better Wikipedia, a better Wiki community. There must be a way to severely sanction users like Wareware who behave in such a despicable manner! Peace 2 u. (Your talk page makes me smile.) :-) deeceevoice 01:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! You've been exceedingly generous with your time and effort in my behalf regarding this matter. It's heartening to have some support on Wikipedia for a change. I prepared a response to Pharlap's laundry list of some of my more intemperate responses (heavily redacted and completely out of context) and then realized you'd changed everything around. Happily, there's no need for it -- at the moment. But I'm sure Pharlap will reinsert it somewhere, so I've decided to save that info 'til later. Unfortunately, now my wordprocessing software is simply not functioning at all. So, I've had to save the material on my user page with a "disregard" notice. (Crazy.) Anyway, thanks again. And I'll get back to this messy business as soon as I can. Peace. deeceevoice 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! My mistake. I guess this shows what I know about the RfC process. I guess I'll just change things back and hope nobody else notices... Binadot 03:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro

Hi. Why was the talk page protected? WebLuis 07:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that it was not. WebLuis 07:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am making a request that you unprotect Fidel Castro. I don't see why we should all suffer just to protect trey stone or webLuis breaking the 3RR rule. Is Trey Stone not on probation; I understand he only served 4 days of a 14 day block, and here he is edit warring to the point where others cannot now edit Castro, --SqueakBox 17:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will have a look on the poll. I have only been sucked in here because of the disputes, though Latin American politicians is an area of mine. I am not wanting to put your judgement under scrutiny, and will accept whatever you decide.

Like the dog picture, see --SqueakBox 17:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) Poor Boddhi died 16 months ago; Squeak and Box are my new dogs, but not so beautiful, --SqueakBox 18:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theater or Theatre

See Talk:Theater --Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem user

A few minutes ago I got a message and discovered that User:Matth97 had redirected my Talk page to [[fr:en:Image:Autofellatio.jpg]. Another User three minutes later restored my Talk without my asking (which was nice.) I checked out User:Matth97 and found another note from User:Brookie 17:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) asking him to "Stop your vandalism". Perhaps using your new authority you could block User:Matth97 since he seems to have no positive use for Wikipedia. Thanks. MPLX/MH 18:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Autofellatio vandal

No worries. It was my first time blocking someone, so I just went for 24 hours. I am not familiar enough with the activities of other accounts that have been doing similar activities, so if you feel an indefinite block is appropriate that's fine with me. The only thing is that I am not certain how the system handles multiple blocks. I recall reading somewhere that the shortest block is the one used; that is, in 24 hours, my block will expire and yours will be cancelled. I think that happens even if the blocks are made at different times: if you had done indefinite and then I came along and did 24, then it would expire a day after mine and he would be unblocked. I am not sure though. If this is the case, then I think you would have to unblock him, then reblock him indefinitely. Whatever you think best is fine with me! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh and if you do decide that indefinite's better, we should probably update the notice on his talk page. I'll keep an eye on what happens. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, how does this guy vandalize so damn fast (2/minute). Man that's dedication. hydnjo talk 21:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I do believe he sticks some nasty javascript into his monobook.js. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With tabbed browsing I've made 18 edits in 3 minutes (it was the same change on a whole set of pages that needed doing). Guettarda 00:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke

Please see Talk:David Icke Jooler 22:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy and arbcom

In Talk:Human you wrote: If you concentrate on NPOV in isolation, you'll get a false impression. Read it in conjunction with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and you should probably also read some arbcom cases where precedents are being established e.g. that advocacy is not allowed.

I would be very interested in reading about any policies or arbcom cases in which "no advocacy" was discussed. Could you give me some pointers on how to find that info? Thanks. --Zappaz 23:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mizrahi Jews

I'm having a dispute with an editor regarding article content. I believe he is inserting POV and unattributed claims, he feels differently. If you have a chance could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

You may be interested in this: User:Rednblu/History. Since he's apparently collecting evidence, one can only assume that he's trying to build a case. In light of that, you should then be made aware of this: User_talk:Rednblu/Archive2003_07_01To2004_10_30#Allegations_against_User:Rednblu. If push comes to shove there's a pretty strong case to be made for POV warrioring and obstructionism, particularly considering his history here and his self-stated agenda found on the usenet. --FeloniousMonk 08:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem users

I've come across an editor, User:138.130.201.204, who's been consistently making personal attacks on another editor, User:Joshuaschroeder, not the least of which is repeatedly labeling every edit of Joshuaschroeder's 'POV vandalism' which as you know is considered a form of personal attack.

I've had a gentle word with him about the benefits of being civil, yet he insists on maligning Joshuaschroeder. Since he claims to be aware of the civility policy, his continued personal attacks are simply intentional. He also seems bent on aggressively pushing his POV while deleting or obstructing those that run counter, namely Joshuaschroeder. He's taken to leaving insults in his edit summary comments:

• [1]

If you would, have a look at his behavior at: Modern_geocentrism Talk:Modern_geocentrism Wikiproject:FACTS Creationist_cosmologies Talk:Creationist_cosmologies

Perhaps a word from an admin will will persuade him of the advantages of civil behavior. Please also note that on these pages you will also find another editor, User:Ungtss, also aiming personal attacks at Joshuaschroeder, often tag-teaming with User:138.130.201.204. JS recently filed an RfC against Ungtss and later an RfC, and it's been downhill ever since. Ungtss has been aggressively pushing his POV while defending what he considers 'his' articles (creationism articles), yet he's accusing JS of being 'a POV warrior.' Here's some examples: *User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Please_help_with_vandalism

• Talk:Modern_geocentrism#civility

I have no personal connection to JS, but I think how he's being treated has clearly crossed the line into incivility, and that these two editors need a reminder. Note that JS has refrained from striking back in kind.--FeloniousMonk 12:02, 27 Mar 2005

[edit] Template:Unreferenced

I put it back to the version without the box - if you see the talk, the box was pretty strenuously objected to as too in-your-face. If it's going to be on articles, people seem to want it reasonably low-key. The wording is probably still open to change, of course - David Gerard 14:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So what is fair use exactly?

Howdy Slim. That simple question is at the heart of a lot of debate. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read through the fair use article pretty thoroughly, and I can tell you what the standard practice seems to be on Wikipedia.

First off, as you probably know, there are certain categories of images that we have a consensus to tag with specialized fair use tags, like book covers, CD covers, coats of arms, paper currency (when not public domain), stamps, etc. For all of these, the image should not be any bigger than what in necessary in the article. (A 100px X 100px image of a CD cover is certainly fair use, but a high-quality 1000px X 1000px image may not be.) Promotional photos also count, so long as we know the source of the photo. Also, it matters what article an image is used in. (This image would be a clear fair use in the 10,000 Maniacs article, but in the archery article it would be considered just like any other copyrighted photo of archery.)

Beyond that, things are not black and white. In some cases, the only way to know for sure is if a judge makes a ruling, and the only reason a judge would have to make a ruling is if we were sued by the copyright holder. It's a kind of guessing game, but there are characteristics of images that make a fair use claim stronger or weaker.

1. A small, low-quality, or black-and-white image is more likely to be acceptable than a large, high-quality photo.
2. A drawing that anyone could recreate is probably not acceptable. Diagrams are poor candidates for fair use.
3. A photo of something that anyone could take a photo of is probably not acceptable. A photo of something rare, or a photo of a historic event, would be more likely to be fair use.
4. The more photos we use of a subject, the less likely it is that each successive one would be a fair use. One promo photo of Madonna is fine, but twelve is not a fair use.
5. If we know the source, we can make a stronger fair use claim than if we don't.
6. If the copyright holder would probably want a photo to be widely distributed, like a promotional photo or an advertisement or a church's picture, then it's more likely to be a fair use. If the copyright holder sells the photo for money, then that's it's less likely to be a fair use.

If an image passes all those, then it's definitely fair use. If it passes most of those, then it's probably fair use. If it only passes a few, then it's probably not fair use. I hope this helps! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So...we meet again...

Wow, what are the chances? I even checked the block log and his talk page right before blocking him, but it looks like I was only seconds after you. I think User:Fourvin's block expired, although I was the first one that time. Sounds good; let's wait and see what happens. I'll ask on WP:AN too, I think. Out of curiosity, is there any good reason for an administrator to prefer one block length over the other? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're totally correct. I guess there are a couple reasons I have only been using 24-hour blocks. Part of it is my newness and that I am probably a "softer" administrator, giving many warnings and few blocks. And the idealist in me hopes that the user will reform. But the main thing is that while yes, the account would probably only be used for vandalism in the future, if it is blocked indefinitely then another account will be used instead, like our Punk friend has been doing. If the vandalism is concentrated in one place, it's easier to find (since those accounts are watched) and it's easier to see it as part of a general trend. And if the account's never used again, then it doesn't matter either way. That's my current feeling, anyway, and I'm still new to this. What are your thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep. -- BRIAN0918  02:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, so it looks like it is the shortest block, regardless of order. Since you were first I default to your judgment, but I am not sure how to fix it: do I unblock, then reblock indefinitely? Now the answer to the second question is a bit more nebulous. I think we are certainly allowed to block indefinitely, but I am not sure it is the best option. I am not certain the quoted statement "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently" exactly applies. In the first place, I wouldn't consider this a sockpuppet—the user isn't using multiple accounts for deception, double-voting, evading bans or 3RR violations, etc. He's created new accounts because the old ones were blocked indefinitely. The vandalism is a bad thing but I don't consider the new accounts to be sockpuppets. The bigger question to me, though, is what is the best block length. I do think it's easier to watch one person's contributions rather than...other methods. However, I am only asking so that I can formulate my approach; there is no need for us to use the same block lengths. As soon as I figure out how, I will restore your indefinite block (or you can do it if you get to it first). Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you should unblock, then apply an indefinite block. The advantage of blocking indefinately is that it forces the vandal to create a new account; if you don't, he or she may use the account again at a point where it is sufficiently mature to do page moves, which are more of a pain to clean up.-gadfium 06:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, SlimVirgin and Gadfium. That's an angle I hadn't thought of. I've unblocked Punk25 and reblocked him indefinitely. SlimVirgin, as I understand it, Brian0918's indefinite block wouldn't matter because my 24-hour block was the shortest and when it ended, all the blocks would be cancelled, right? In any case it should be taken care of now. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey! What's a "useful editor"!?

I see in your latest post to User_talk:Knowledge_Seeker that you make reference to "useful editor"s. What exactly constitutes a "useful editor" in your book? Or is there a Wikinition for this term?! Tomer ^TALK 06:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

well, with that I'd have to agree...I'm not sure about whom you and Knowledge_Seeker were talking, but I thought the phrase was kind of jarring! Hopefully nobody ever calls me anything but!  :-) Tomer ^TALK 06:42, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. Is it too late for me to withdraw the question?! sheesh. Damn dalnetters. Tomer ^TALK 06:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

So, does my "contribution" to Talk:Latino#Spaniards.2C_Italians.2C_Portuguese... qualify me as a "useless editor" (the apparent opposite of "useful editor")?  :-/ Tomer ^TALK 14:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pharlap, a Ww sockpuppet

I think it's rather clear Contribution. El_C 16:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but from the time stamps it looks like he would have had plenty of time to post that on the page using the two account, no? El_C 16:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read closely enough, you alluded to that, in fact. Anyway, no, I don't think it has any bearing on the likelihood of this, one way or the other. El_C 16:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you try doing using Whois? We may not need the developers to make these extrapolations. El_C 17:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The standard Whois might not be revealing enough. I can use better software to make a comparison, but I don't have time to open my ports and set it up, as I am literaly off. I'm sure other non-devs can help though just as effectively, if not more so. If there's no connection between the two after that, then we can trouble the devs to be sure. El_C 17:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Major oops. (It's been another long night/morning, and I'm still battling with my computer. I think it's possessed.) Thanks for catching that and moving it to El_C's talk page. As a matter of fact, thanks for everything. (I'm trying not to think about the deadlines looming. :( ) deeceevoice 17:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user Pharlap hasn't contributed at all to any talk pages, where his syntax could be more closely examined. I note that he uses the word "pathetic" in his response to the complaint lodged against him in the RfC. It's a word I used to describe Wareware and that Wareware picked up on and used several times afterwards. The "gaff" I referred to is this: "Hello Mailer Diablo! I just drop[ped] in to say hello and thank you for your warm welcome!  :-)" Pharlap 05:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It simply struck me that reads like the kind of mistakes he's made in various discussion threads. Hardly conclusive, but interesting. Also, interesting: Pharlap's last post on the talk page of the RfC. It reads just like Wareware's initial response to the RfC in its total denial/refusal to accept responsibility or answer charges that his edited discussion threads in a deliberate misrepresentation of my comments are sheer garbage. deeceevoice 01:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Slim, I left right as you commented on my talk page. In answer to your question: there is software that greatly simplifies the tracert aspect of it by charting the hops on a world map. Thus, if both IPs are from CA, and even more specifically, LA (if we, for the sakes of argument assume that Ww is, indeed a student at UCLA), that certainly is more revealing of a connection than if one IP was from, let's say, Hyderabad. That said, there are methods in which a network address can pretend it's in one place even though, pyshically, it's at another. A clear syntaxical relationship would be important in establishing whether this is sockpuppetry or not. But, I must note, it's the contributions that I find most suspicious. El_C 08:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Argh, again, I write and write without reading closely enough a one-sentence question. In (really) answer to your question how we can tell "if we don't know which IP address WW has used?" We can't. We need at least two IPs to compare. If we can't track that down ourselves, the devs should know. Though, again, he could have masked or distorted it. All speculative at this point. El_C 08:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)