Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments moved from case page

Could I just say that I have never in my life seen such total balony. Talk about conspiracy theories. It defies belief. Is this your idea of assuming good faith? When will you people settle down to do some constructive work on Wikipedia? Or is destruction the big thing at the moment. How many more people with similar ISPs can you tie in here? Lets face it, there must be hundreds if not thousands. Everyone where I live must have the same one give or take a digit. Get a life. David Lauder (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, David.. it's not complete bollocks. An IP address in the same short term is a pretty damning bit of evidence. For Alison to say that there's evidence that there was multiple accounts editing at the SAME computer shortly after each other means there's additional information that ties everything together. I'm sure that Alison can ask another CheckUser to confirm her findings if you REALLY want.. but as I said, for her to state what she has stated in this case... there's no room for doubt in this. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
David (assuming that's your name), you've been caught with your trousers down in a compromising position with the serving boy. Please, have some dignity and accept it - you've been caught! One Night In Hackney303 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Hackney, that kind of comment is unhelpful in the extreme. Please take this conversation elsewhere. Foz, I have no problems here with anyone requesting a second checkuser opinion if it is deemed necessary. Can I also point out that the IP evidence concerned here also relates to a certain non-domestic shared IP that is common amongst some of the named users above - Alison ❤ 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't accept these 'findings' at all because I know them to be untrue. If you have a criticism of my work on Wikipedia point me to it. I have never used a non-domestic computer. I think I know as much about ISPs as Alison or anyone else. I also know who I am. David Lauder (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has stated here that you have. Please read what I said above; "common amongst some of the named users above" - Alison ❤ 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just come across this. Let me get this clear please. Is it more than probable that Sussexman = Chelsea Tory AND that Chelsea Tory = David Lauder? If so, do 2 of the accounts get permanently blocked and 1 (which?) temporarily blocked (for how long)? How would he/they ameliorate their / his crime? And is Counter-Revolutionary somebody different? Temp account 999 (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A close examination of all that is above reveals it is a malicious hypothesis brought by an editor with a history against David Lauder at least. I cannot see anything above which ties him into the others other than speculation. Presumably this page is saying no two people may take an interest in the same subjects without them being one and the same? 86.147.67.114 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, continue to question things you have no idea about. The CheckUser stated flat out: Note that this does not confirm the people are one, but I can confirm that they have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. and has stated flat out that they are willing to have the CheckUser results reviewed by a 2nd CheckUser.
So.. if they are not all one person, they are certainly acting in concert (one edits, logs out, and immediately another account is logged in from THE VERY SAME COMPUTER and starts editing immediately). Per discussion on WP:TER, the three accounts not previously blocked have now been indefinitely blocked. User:Sussexman had already been blocked for something approaching 18 months due to solicitor's threats sent to intimidate others on Wikipedia SirFozzie (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, before I forget, I am shocked that this situation is so well known out there that an account, new to wikipedia, would make this their first and only edit so far.... Things that make you go hmmm, huh? And as for the IP, I would think it's obvious who THAT is... SirFozzie (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: - I'm requesting a second checkuser opinion as there have been accusations of bias due to my nationality - Alison ❤ 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely ridiculous you are an Admin of good standing and in my interactions with you have I witnessed no bias due to your nationality. Are we going to need an admin from Outer Mongolia to prove impartiality? BigDunc (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, Dunc, and my findings on the case still stand. However, a second opinion would be invaluable here. I don't want to prejudice the next checkuser so I won't comment further than that - Alison ❤ 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] IP Addresses

Today I was e-mailed the following by User:David Lauder who requested I post it here; WP needs to stop pretending to be the High Court of the Internet and just admit they block people on whims. That would be honest.

  • Checkuser yields imperfect results. IP addresses simply do not correlate 1:1

to human beings, or even computers. Reasons for this include:

   * Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol - IPv4 addresses are limited in quantity,
     and IPv6 is not catching on. So, rather than needing an IP address for each
     separate client (where a client may be a computer or a NAT, as explained later),
     an Internet Service Provider (ISP) only needs enough IP addresses for the number
     of clients that are online at one time. The automated nature of Dynamic Host
     Configuration Protocol (DHCP) also makes it convenient. Note that there are
     different degrees of dynamicness - an IP address is assigned for a limited but
     adjustable period of time, and a DHCP server may or may not try to give a client
     the same IP address as it had before (note that there are ways of getting the DHCP
     server to give you a new IP address). Dial-up tends to be highly dynamic.
   * Overloading or overlapping network address translation (NAT) - This is another
     solution to the IPv4 address scarcity problem. Basically, multiple clients share the
     same IP address, with a router converting packets sent to that IP address to packets
     sent to various local IP addresses, and vice versa. This can be done at multiple
     levels - a household, a school, library, or business, or even an entire ISP.
   * Shared computers - internet cafes, libraries, families. Note that a group of computers,
     at an internet cafe for example, are quite likely all behind the same NAT anyway.
   * Things change. People switch ISPs.
   * Do anonymising proxies - both closed and open - even need to be listed?

Chances are, you are either behind a NAT of some size, have a dynamic IP address, or, quite likely, both. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which makes it more (rather than less) probable that checkuser will let people through the net. Is David saying he is not Sussexman? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is my understanding. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are responding to part 2. Ask him. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
May I remind CR that David Lauder is community banned, and knows full well that if he wishes to appeal his community ban he is well aware he has to contact ArbCom by email. Proxying for him under the circumstances is very inappropriate. One Night In Hackney303 11:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I shall tell User:David Lauder that. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isabela/Bscar latest checkuse

I don't quite understand why this has been deferred. Will the checkuser happen; it seems quite necessary given the allegations. Thanks, --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)