Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/24.130.199.233


 * It's totally plausible that they have lapses and forget to login; that being said - as mentioned here m:User:COIBot/XWiki/symboldictionary.net there is a blacklisting issue which both account and IP work against periodically to revert. Additionally, as mentioned in here and elsewhere linked off the MediaWiki case there is, what seems to be, a case of WP:EL / WP:COI since it appears that the editor/IP owns the domains for which they're reassigning links. Quaeler (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I "owned" the original, too, which you seem either too obtuse to figure out, or you just don't care because you're trying to make this ridiculous accusation stick. MY IP is not a sock no matter how you try to manipulate the issue.  I've never denied being myself and nobody's ever made any accusations before today, and I've been here for four years.  I'm not benefiting or profiting from any of the time I've spent here (I don't make money doing this and I quit a paying job to continue offering this in formation to the public).  Over eight years having a popular resource meant a lot of wiki references went dead when I moved the site, I was *fixing* them.  If Wikipedia (I don't give a fig for your opinion because I strongly suspect you have other motives, especially given your first beef with me had nothing whatsoever to do with these edits) doesn't want that, I won't waste my time, but it also means that reference links will not only point in the wrong direction, they will attribute my research to another author.  Suggestions?
 * Also, I don't "periodically revert." I updated a batch of links when the site went live and I've put others in on occasion as I've come across them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitysnake (talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, my understanding of WP:SOCK is that an IP can count if there is something hinky afoot. A subsection of the timeline appears to be this.
 * . domain is black listed per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/symboldictionary.net
 * . an editor removes links per that ruling like here
 * . as Infinitysnake the removal is reverted here the next day
 * . as the IP, the removal is reverted here 3 days later.
 * NOT. Those are two different edits, two different pages.  And again, NOT blacklisted.  The user who deleted admitted doing so without checking and invited reversion if he was mistaken (paraphrase: "don't agree, undo!" So I did.) Infinitysnake (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, forgetting to login before editing would dispel more nefarious ideas, but you have to admit that to an outsider, this behaviour can look suspicious. As far as suggestions to work around WP:EL, i have no good ideas; it's unclear what the writers of that rule were thinking as far as alternative solutions, unfortunately. Quaeler (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks and reaction are two different thing, aren't they? Do you ever think to *ask*?  How it *looks* doesn't answer your unnecessarily rude attitude. Yes, I frequently forget (or don't bother) to log in before I edit, sometimes I even lose session data when the wiki logs me out; you'll see numerous edits I've made using my ip followed by logged-in edits- hardly something I'd do if I was hiding out.  I don't wiki from tor or even from my other computer; that this is controversial at all is baffling to me.  As far as my interpretation of the rule, it doesn't appear to cover *changing* links, and COI doesn't apply afaik because we're not dealing in facts (ie, I'm not editing my bio or employer's page or anything like that.)Infinitysnake (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely confused as to how this is a rude attitude? I'm under the impression (again, someone correct me if i'm wrong), that this process of sockpuppet review is exactly the formal 'ask'ing process encouraged at Wikipedia. It's a process that allows the editors and the administrators to all weigh in before any action is taken - no? (Yes, my error in citing WP:COI when referring to Conflict of Interest -- i should have restricted it to the scope in which WP:EL refers to it). ? Quaeler (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of sheer snark in your comments here and elsewhere speak for themselves. And for the record, accusations of sockpuppetry (making me miss an entire day of work and/or reddit to go to kangaroo court) is not "asking," especially when its entire purpose seems to be retaliatory. Infinitysnake (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the alternative method of 'ask'ing? It appears that you're suggesting that each dispute should be held on an individual basis on a given user's talk page; if my inference is correct, i'd point out that it's not very feasible given the amount of potential cases that go on at Wikipedia - that there needs to be a formal process, and this is it. As far as retaliatory, this seems misconsumed. Let's say there's a person with a locker at a school; the janitor smells weird ether vapours emanating from it. The janitor operating under an initial assumption, opens the locker and in the process discovers things unrelated to the ether which (s)he also considers suspicious. If the janitor pursues the person based on the newly discovered things, is this the janitor being retaliatory? Quaeler (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My locker stinks? Wat?  There's so much awry here i'm not going to touch it-your timing is convenient and that's how I called it.  Good luck with your locker sniffing.Infinitysnake (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, to dispel with the analogies. Yes, before yesterday i had never heard of you, and the first interactions with you made me wonder what other edits you've performed (as is natural, as you can see in your reviewing my edits). The events went like this:
 * . (Watching the Infinity page) Hmm, this user Infinitysnake is removing material claiming "copyright". I'll revert and ask for cited proof.
 * . Infinitysnake just reverted my reversion without proof nor explanation -- that's suspicious. What other suspicious edits has Infinitysnake made?
 * . (In reviewing the edits made be Infinitysnake, i find simultaneous editing reverting links which have been blacklisted which results in this sockpuppet request being filed).
 * So yes, A (your infinity edits) led to B (this sockpuppet inquiry); A leading to B does not mean that B is in retaliation for A.. If you look at my history of contributions, you will find other actions in my vandalism patrolling which follow this same modus operandi (for example leading to this) — it has nothing to do with retaliation&hellip; ? Quaeler (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdented) Except that none are actually blacklisted. I'm still not inclined to believe you.  If your assertions here were true, you would have dropped it by now.  Trying to convince me you're not vindictive while continuing to be snarky and vindictive: not helping.Infinitysnake (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Assuming i would drop it doesn't factor in an almost neurotic compulsion to not be misunderstood.) If the site has not been blacklisted, then i've completely misunderstood the cited edits done by Mike.lifeguard WRT symboldictionary.net — and if that's the case, then my claim here is, indeed, baseless. ? Quaeler (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find no addition to the blacklist logs on or around the 9.january COIbot report date, so i assume that what you've said about Mike.lifeguard's invited reversion is also true and my report is baseless. I apologize for consuming people's times and emotions with this inquiry. Quaeler (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The domain isn't blacklisted currently, and has never been in the past. I will be reviewing the case later today. Input from Infinitysnake would be welcome. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)