User talk:Dominic

Note: Welcome to the greatest encyclopedia ever attempted. Please make it better.

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15, /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20, /Archive21, /Archive 22

Stuff

Hey, the new DYK article is likely to get a complaint because of its short length. Also, email. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would give it a try. I know it's on the short end of the spectrum, but I hit a dead-end with sources, as it's a bit obscure. I got your email, but I've been doing a lot of CU requests today, and still have more things to reply to in my inbox, but I'm going to have to call it a night. I promise I'll look tomorrow. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lamour Desrances, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sara Larraín, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another one

Hi, me again. My stalker has again returned, with this account: TruthHurts2008 (talk · contribs). I've already reverted his edits and blocked him, but if you could take care of the IP he's on, I'd be appreciative. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his IP hasn't changed (good sign), the block just expired. I gave it a good long block this time, as it's clearly static and not shared. Let me know if he returns. Dmcdevit·t 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help :) Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete Image:MaxvonBaden.jpeg

You deleted this image with the log entry 02:15, 10 July 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:MaxvonBaden.jpeg" ‎ (listed at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons)). On April 6, the image was deleted from the commons since it did not have a clear statement of being in the public domain. Without seeing the image I can't be sure, but given some text I saw of the commons image in various Internet caches, it appears this is a 1919 photograph, which would be PD-US. In any case, it probably qualifies as fair use for Prince Maximilian of Baden. The only other photo I could find was this undated photograph that looks to be from the 1910s or 1920s based on the subject's age. Please let me know when you have restored the image so I can make the necessary edits to Prince Maximilian of Baden. Thank you. Addendum: See my parallel request on Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it. It looks like it may be the exact same image as the one you found. Dmcdevit·t 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanian socks... you know who...

Marc KJH (talk · contribs)? Currently making a nuisance of himself by harassing other users, spurious RfCs and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Bonny. Askedvery12 (talk · contribs) is the only other account not yet blocked. I blocked the IPs he was on. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see my reflexes are still working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Block uneffective?

Hi, I have no idea what happened, so for your information. Please give a look to these logs: [1] [2]. The block you placed seems not to work. --Aphaia (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked users can still edit their own user and user talk page, unless it is protected. Thatcher 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary hardblock!

The IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public college library/computer lab! Hardblocking it like that so that even registered users can not edit from our computers was very mean and selfish and totally wrong! 192.203.136.252 is shared with at least 30,000+ other people!!!

User:Velebit again

Less of 2 months ago we have discussed about new puppets of this user (case user:Standshown ) and you have tell me that you still have this old data [3] but user Standshown has used new IP address. Now he has used old IP address so you can help in new case of this against this vandal [4]. --Rjecina (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

StealBoy... again and again

Can you checkuser the latest two socks? Thanks. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• RTA66666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RSA66666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• You might also want to checkuser the accounts on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WhichWay676676, clearly StealBoy puppets. I've also just blocked another handful of very recent ones:

  Farting123456789 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  WhichWayandgo676676 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  Sleeping666666666666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  AUS195366666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The editing times are not standard for StealBoy, though. Perhaps he's on vacation outside of Australia... In any case, let me know about the underlying IPs since they may have vandalized other articles as anons. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra spam: here's a few more:

• Cbsmonsterinc67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  Youfuzzy666666666666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also found the following related IPs (I suppose they'll show on the checkuser but just in case...)

• 220.233.240.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

  220.233.240.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

  220.233.238.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is there any point at which it makes sense to file an abuse complaint with the ISP? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, that first account matches The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs); perhaps they are the same person as StealBoy (as it's the same city) or a copycat. The rest are all StealBoy on a new range, so I have extended the range block and we'll have to hope for the best. Unblocked socks that I just blocked and may need cleanup: Cbsmonst67666, Sleeping666666666666, Shortfilm676676. In general, I see a lot of abuse, but I long ago gave up on abuse reports to ISPs in all cases except for schools. However, there is no way to tell how an ISP like Exetel that we've never tried will respond. If you are willing to write up a good abuse report with links to diffs of vandalism and such, I can supplement it with actual IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I can always try. I was under the impression that ISPs would be less than thrilled to know that whole ranges of their IPs are blocked because of one moron but from what you're saying they obviously don't care! Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of Schlock Mercenary character images

Good evening. I stole your second Laozi quote. I also noticed you removing all images from the SM characters article, which you explained as rectifying excessive use. My involvement with our image copyright rules have mostly been limited to hearing the horror stories, so is restoring a limited number of those images acceptable? If yes, how many?

Oh, sheesh. Sorry I seem to have missed this message at the time; been pretty busy lately. The short answer to your question is that fair use is only to be used when it is necessary and valuable in the article, since Wikipedia aims to be a free content project that anyone can reuse without restrictions. In practice, this means that, for example, you should only add fair use images where the subject is actually closely related to the article's subject, and where the image's subject is discussed critically in the article. If there is only a one-sentence or three-sentence reference in a large article, it probably does not merit a fair use image. If you have a dozen fair use image sin the same article, than you have almost certainly failed to use only necessary images that contribute to the article, and are probably just decorating at that point. Typically, if it is a characters article, I would say that you can usually find an image with all the characters together (like in the opening scene), and put that in the intro or infobox, and that should suffice, rather than trying to pepper the article with images for each character. I hope that helps. Dmcdevit·t 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Poke

Just reminding you about that request I made on IRC last night - curious if anything came of it. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs) socks

I noticed your comment here.

While you are at it, can you also block these obvious socks of the same user:

• MadJatt13333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kannan87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kapanad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and any related accounts. Let me know if you want me to file a formal RFCU instead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:STREUTH MARTINET

Could you take a look at this unblock request please? The user is blocked because of one of your checkuser blocks. Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the Jim Henson studio lot is blocked is a good one, as it is where the banned user ColScott (talk · contribs) edits from. As one of the previous sockpuppets was StreuthPuppet (talk · contribs), I assume this new account is likely to be ColScott again. Dmcdevit·t 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

fathi fathi gotlek ibne arkadaşım naber. sait faik abasıyanık değmesin yağlı boyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.230.193 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandlisim and Personal Attacks

A user named tripjohnson in vandalizing and making personal attacks. I personally think his ip number should be suspended, but that is not up to me. We have had disagreements on articles but he has taken it too far. He undos most edits I make now (doens't matter what they are). He also made this comment to another user, I guess it was deleted or something but it can still be seen on past version of the American Revolutionary War talk page.

Lying? Where the hell did I lie in there? I wrote that line before I even heard of the site. Do NOT accuse me of lying with no evidence, you hypocritical twat.

Here is the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206064346&oldid=206016865

Report me, you can't block me for editing. It was you two who began this whole mess, not me. Oh and, learn to spell and use proper grammar before you actually make this complaint. It was Red and Plains who began this whole vandalism mess, by reverting articles without discussion, and you two have the cheek to call me a vandal! Damn hypocrites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206017577&oldid=206016865

It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Harlem_Heights

Damn hypocrites. With you two it appears those who don't get a boner over the United States and those who disagree with them are wrong. I suppose you two are right and everybody else is wrong?

== http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206091601&oldid=206017743 Then he re-wrote his sentence

Lying? Where the hell did I lie in there? I wrote that line before I even heard of the site. Do NOT accuse me of lying with no evidence, you hypocritical twat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206091601&oldid=206054761 The furthest I went was to said he lied to me and called him stubborn. I would say his surpasses mine.I have no power in this, but if you look back onto his contributions you can see how many times he has ,for no reason. undone my edits. Please contact me ASAP. Thank you. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)) ==

Thank you...

...for fixing my talk page. It's bad enough to be called stupid, or an idiot, but a stupid idiot? Now, that's going too far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess who

New StealBoy accounts, new IP range (whois suggests the latest spree was done from his workplace). As usual, let me know if you find additional IPs and accounts to clean up after. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Earrrrr555567 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yearrrrrrr5555 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fornt67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 210.9.200.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I blocked an account, but it had no edits yet. Looks like that was all; they were all on that one IP. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq

As the initiator of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000, I believe you might be interested in seeing this discussion: WP:AN/I#WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by ethnic pressure group. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

See User talk:HolokittyNX. I must say, I myself wonder about the timing of this block. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing strange about it. When I find an account on open proxies who is clearly a sockpuppet, having immediately begun editing wikiproject and policy pages, and is making disruptive edits to pedophilia-related page, then I block it. Dmcdevit·t 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros10

Hello. Stjimmy61892 is a friend of mine who created his account at my house. he is not my sock. And I am not a sockpuppeteer.

It was a mistake to tell my friends about wikipedia. I told them that if they wanted to create usernames, they should. It is my fault for not knowing that they would vandalize under my name. Hear me out. I really apologize on behalf of them.

♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC):(

I can vouch for this. He is Shapiros10, and I am Stjimmy61892, and we're two different people, even though we have similar personalities, which really doesn't matter. I don't understand why this had to lead to his account being deleted. This really is stupid. I have just confirmed i am not his sock, and would like you to put back his account. Thank you.Stjimmy61892 16:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs)

Er, I wasn't even the one that made the block. I supplied the technical evidence, using CheckUser. According the the deletion log, his user pages were deleted by request. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either way, I got in touch with him, and I didn't have all the info for why he got deleted, and it wasn't for sock puppeteering.Stjimmy61892 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs)

User:VigilancePrime unblocked by User:Carnildo

FYI, VigilancePrime has been unblocked by Carnildo. It doesn't look like Carnildo talked to you about it. Its my understanding that self-professed pedophilia advocates (including those using self-made girllover userboxes) are blocked on principle. Carnildo appears to disagree. Avruch ^T 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Following on from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1

Following on from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1 I have a feeling Special:Contributions/Zimbian may also be another new user with Tor? I don't want to add a check user since it is unclear who is doing this but similarly I don't want to add extra comments to Tony's check user. Fnagaton 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same guy. I blocked the Tor proxies. Dmcdevit·t 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Is this Special:Contributions/Tarapotysk another one? Fnagaton 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, blocked again. Dmcdevit·t 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to trouble you again but another account has appeared who is intent on adding personal attacks and editing in the same places like MOSNUM. I've notified User:zzuuzz but the admin may be asleep at the moment. Fnagaton 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Earlier on User:Jaakobou tried to help by mediating with the new user account regarding abuse of my personal info and then this edit appears on Jaakobou's user page. Fnagaton 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The account is not on Tor, but is actually this guy: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x. I have oversighted the personal information and blocked that Tor node. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Fnagaton 07:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TBC

Hi, probably a bit of both to be honest - I'm not pretending it's a good article or anything, but the thing is that it's used at the moment on several articles that link from "TBC" or suchlike in tables, and having it on Wiktionary wouldn't be as useful in that respect. The article isn't really a dictionary definition, either. Once it's been transwikied, perhaps it could be put up for AFD to get a general consensus? Bob talk 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One year on...

Given that User:Poetlister's now unblocked, as the blocking admin do you have any objection to my unblocking Taxwoman? They're certainly not the same person whatever checkuser might say; it's now been a year so she's certainly had time to learn her lesson for any wrongdoing she might have done; and whatever you might think of the subject matter she used to work on, she did do a good job maintaining a number of articles which a lot of people steered clear of. I've discussed it with her off-wiki and she'd like to come back; obviously, if she starts abusing anything she could always be reblocked. — iridescent 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The block is not mine, or mine to undo; it is an ArbCom ban. I have thought for a while now that is was a mistake for me to have carried out the ArbCom ban as one of the CheckUsers on the case (it wasn't an issue I considered until after), because there is still confusion over that. Having said that, while I support Poetlister's unblock based on good behavior, I think you may have misread the situation. The accounts are all considered one person with sockpuppets by ArbCom; they have just given Poetlister a second chance because of her good work on Wikiquote, where she is even a bureaucrat, and trusted by the community. You will have to take it up with ArbCom, but be forewarned that the evidence has been reviewed by ArbCom ad nauseam over the months since the ban. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. The unblock was done without regard to the evidence. It was based on the high quality of Poetlister's contributions on other Projects as well as the length of time since the original block (as you know ArbCom generally only does one year bans). FloNight♥♥♥ 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it'll need to go via arbcom - was just sounding out the idea, since if you were opposed Arbcom would almost certainly oppose. FWIW I'm still not convinced PL and TW are the same person (I'm neutral on whether either was also Runcorn) - I don't see why a sockpuppeteer would continue maintaining the two SPA identities for so long and in so many places (from TW's spanking wiki to WR) after the block. In this age of multi-user wifi connections etc, checkuser alone doesn't constitute evidence.

Given the current situation, I don't think now's the time to be bothering Arbcom with anything non-urgent, but once the dust has settled I may re-raise the matter yet again as it does seem silly to keep someone blocked under the circumstances (even if they are the same person, I can't imagine any misbehaviour given that they'll probably be the most watched editors on the entire system) — iridescent 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit the contradiction in saying "checkuser alone doesn't constitute evidence" and then at the same time "I can't imagine any misbehaviour given that they'll probably be the most watched editors on the entire system)." If CheckUser is useless to detect sockpuppets, surely it's worse at stopping them. :-) But it is neither. I agree that CheckUser is an imperfect tool. We can't yet test the DNA or fingerprint of the user editing ;-). (Thankfully.) Even the clearest case of CheckUser matches could be two people physically at the same computer (though, being common sensical about it, if you throw out all CU evidence on that premise, you'll do more harm than good). I have been a CheckUser since just about the beginning and seen a lot. "CheckUser evidence" can mean many things. Sometimes it means little, and an overall case is still not conclusive. Sometimes it is very conclusive. If something could be explained away by something as simple as "multi-user wifi connections," believe me, we've seen it all before, and wouldn't consider it conclusive. This is why we have CheckUsers who are well-versed in the intricacies of CheckUser data, to interpret results.

This case has probably been the most reviewed in memory. I remember back in the innocent days of 2007; I think this was the first real case of admin sockpuppetry and and summary ban of an admin we'd had. It was not taken lightly. Over the many months, over half a dozen CheckUsers, at least, including the ones on ArbCom at the time of the decision have looked at the case and confirmed the findings. What I think we need right now is to gracefully welcome Poetlister back into the community, while avoiding making her personal case a political issue to pursue against ArbCom (not an accusation against you, just a general hope based on some recent comments). Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing link between Lyle123 and StealBoy

Hi again Dmcdevit. Let me know when you're completely fed up of doing these checkusers for me but here's an interesting one. CoolMattew8888 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has all the look and feel of StealBoy but a few months ago CoolMattew6666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Lyle123. Not that it really matters much... Still the 8888 one was active yesterday so it likely came with a flood of new socks and if you can let me know who they were, I'll go and clean up their mess. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolMattew8888 is in the same city as StealBoy, so it's likely him, though it's on a different ISP now. There are no other edits from other accounts on the IP, though; it may be too dynamic to catch them. I looked at CoolMattew6666, but it's too old to check. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

We have placed oodles of fake, inaccurate, or otherwise false images, text, and other media here. The ironic thing is that there are morons who don't realize it is bogus and they defend it to the hilt getting poor schmucks banned which makes people hate Wikipedia. This is a good thing as we are going to continue to do it until Wikipedia goes away. We enjoy wasting people's time. It is quite fun. That will make things better.

Ko Jumong unblocked

You blocked this user in late 2006 indefinitely. I have unblocked now per a series of requests in which I felt s/he sincerely understood what had caused the problem, s/he'd been blocked long enough for whatever they did do and that in any event three edits was rather minimal to brand someone a troll and block them indefinitely. Plus s/he's indicated some specific positive contributions they'd like to make. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Republic

You moved the "Republic of Formosa" article to "Taiwan Republic". On what did you base this decision? In the historical context, if any English name was used it was most likely "Republic of Formosa" and in modern usage the state is usually called "Republic of Taiwan". Do you have a source that calls it "Taiwan Republic"?Readin (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the common name for it in scholarship, except for some references to it as the "Republic of Taiwan" due to conflation with the modern country. I have in front of me an article by Harry Lamley ("A Short-live Republic and War, 1895: Taiwan's Resistance Against Japan"), who has written a lot on the subject, which starts with "The rise of the Taiwan Republic and the ensuing war of resistance were..." Try simply Googling "1895 "Taiwan Republic"" vs. "1895 "Republic of Taiwan"" vs. "1895 "Republic of Formosa""—the results are even more striking with Google Scholar. Dmcdevit·t 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue

This user was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Voice of Britain. East.718 says this was based on a checkuser you ran. Could you confirm this? I would decline the request but I feel that checkuser results need to be explicitly stated on-Wiki for clarity when they're being relied on. Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user claims to be a coworker of a Voice of Britain sock who was innocent. A bit convoluted, but what it boils down to is that they are a direct IP match with and making similar child sexuality-related edits as Voice of Britain (Farenhorst). Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the IP, by any chance, a proxy? Mangojuice^talk 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is, though the accounts both showing up on it is no coincidence even then. Dmcdevit·t 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your kind words on my RFA. I'm told we might have some interests in common...I'll keep my eyes open for your contributions! -Pete (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)