User talk:12.210.198.245

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FisherQueen (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 13 September 2008 (→‎A moment of sanity: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please stop and explain

You're making some unhelpful edits to the userpages of blocked users, removing information which is accurate and useful. I invite you to stop and explain yourself. Or, if you need help, I would be happy to block you so you'll have time to explain. If you want to block, let me know by changing the block template of a blocked user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User talk:Marthaerin1888. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep making these unexplained changes to userpages, I'm going to start considering it vandalism. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Margarethelen1864, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Message

Just got back out of my lunch break. Somebody is using my Internet Protocol without having my permission and without my knowledge! The IP address editing Wikipedia is shared address, which means people do edit into Wikipedia, although these editors are not vandals! And Undercovergals was not using this computer, rather some stupid moron might've sneaked in and perpetrated the edit without any presence of me! Whomever might have gotten ahold of my personal computer and triggered blocks on me and my editing group, who share this IP is unknown, but please tell me this: whatever should we do-I cannot commit unblock, 'cause Marthaerin1812, my edit gal, was slammed by the protection tag on a talks' page she owned, so whatever alternative to do? BTW-my editing partners are on a proxy serve area, and the Wikipedia mentioned it's difficult for administrators to tell the innocent editors against the Wikipedia vandalizers that also use this Wikipedia.

Susan

If you want the ip unblocked, please place a {{unblock}} template on this page you're looking at . Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you cannot secure your IP, perhaps your efforts are better directed at securing your computer and network before you go back to editing. Otherwise, you need to address your security concerns with your site administrator, and have them contact Wikipedia with the results of their investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Update: I performed some inquiries; evidence showed the following details-the proxy serving computers through which me/my partners edit Wikipedia may have been compromised, and Undercovergals does not vandalize. I think some hackering scheme might have taken place, causing my Wikipedia partners to get blocked for sockpuppet accounts-my partners wouldn't knowingly commit vandalism on my proxy service system!

Can somebody please extend the blocking through Friday October 24, 'cause investigations may take longer than one week, so please contact an admin for extensions of computer block until Friday October 24 '08 (Oct 24 2008), 'cause this needs extensive inquiry and urgent actions.

Whosoever used my computer without my permissions and hacked through should be dealt with, jus' letting you know.

And somehow, sockpuppet has the reputation of meaning two accounts or above regardless of using correctly or incorrectly-the editing partners would never commit vandalism for any reasons whatever.

Susan

  • Please clarify whether this IP is your personal computer or the proxy server. If it is the proxy server, I'll tag this page as a shared IP; you will need to advise on what your ISP says about the abuse of the proxy. If it's your personal computer, the block should stand until you can secure your computer against it being (ab)used as a proxy node. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a proxy server. Susan

Urgent Matters

All problems are corrected, although everyone should be very careful while operating proxy networks, this one included. BTW-when somebody receives an official sockpuppet tag/block and gets tagged under indefinite block does indefinitely mean permanent/forever or should the "indefinite" be until an unspecified period of time has finally passed since the blockings became attached on that users' accounts?

Also, our inquiries will continue about who contributed into getting our accounts blocked, including my partners Marthaerin1812 (actual name=Martha Erin), Barbara1888 (Barbara Christine), Tropicalstormshirley (her name=Shirley Ann), Standingout (her name=Annie), Amandajoan1872/Undercovergals/Amyjoan2015 (her name=Amanda Joan) and caused Wikipedia people into thinking we're vandalism committers which we're not!

Because actually, our intentions happened being editing Wikipedia only where it needed editings. We use hurricanes, tropical cyclones, droughts, women, gay-lesbian matters, fashions, beauty, feet issues, toe matters, Midwest and Northeast areas like Minneapolis, St Paul, New Haven, New London, Indianapolis, Louisville, Lexington, Milwaukee, Madison, the Fox Cities (Appleton-Neenah-Oshkosh), Rochester Minn, Baltimore, Portsmouth, Des Moines, Davenport/Quad Cities, politics, foods-whatever may need editing/update.

And thirdly, how could somebody request for unprotections of any certain accounts-we don't use email whatsoever; services involving e-mails are just not private enough for actual security.

And finally isn't it better waiting for Wikipedia blocks to expire instead of using unblocks? Cause too many people using unblocking templates are put on protections in their talkpage-Marthaerin1812 was an unfortunate one who fell victim to the trap without really knowing/realizing; she would not knowingly waste other people's minutes and their actual time.

Can an administrator please come and investigate these matters?

Susan

  • Susan, you say your intentions were to edit "only where it needed" editing. Had you, with this IP, gone about just making edits of article content—editing only where it was needed—the multiple-account situation would have likely gone unnoticed. By editing all the blocked users' user and user talk pages, however, that editor effectively lit up a giant neon sign saying "Hi! I'm connected to these blocked accounts!" That drew the attention of at least two admins.
The hallmarks of sockpuppetry are editing the same articles. There are three long-term vandals I can think of (but will not name), and each of them targets a specific article. Those articles are on my watchlist; when I see one of the abusive edits made, I just revert the change and quietly block the new account.
The difference here is that, user/user talk edits aside, the majority of the edits have been good faith, if not downright good. So it's not vandalism per se that led to the block; flaunting the blocks led to it.
As for the initial blocks, all the dealings with this situation seem to have been under guidelines for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Particularly, I point out WP:SHARE, the section on sharing an IP address. You might want to read through that one—and that entire guideline—and think about the implications of your "partners"' (your word) actions on your account. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

Thank you. I'll officially inform my Wikipedia editing partners. I monitored almost everything under WP:SHARE and closely read the Wikipedia details about shared proxies. We use proxy servers AND fire walls on every single area. Kudos.

More important, however-can you contact the Noticeboard and have them represent those accounts marked "sockpuppet" as compromised, 'cause whosoever invaded our proxies without us realizing it should be dealt with, although these incidents might've been happening since Tuesday Jul 08 2008.

The following Wikipedia acounts should be tagged for being the victims of compromise damage:

Marthaerin1812 Barbara1888 Carolyn1888 Undercovergals Coverts1300 Margarethelen1864 Standingout Tropicalstormshirley Amyjoan2015 Marthaerin1888 FTP2000s Marthajoan1812 Margaretellen1864 Margaretellen1812

Whomever destroyed my partners' editing accounts may be dealt with immediately, but what does Wikipedia recommend about dealing with the people that compromise others' proxy networks or accounts? And it's still being investigated through and through. Please consult Tim Vickers and Allison about these major questions, because we're gonna need really urgent help.

Please contact Tim Vickers-this is really urgent matters. Please consult me-extremely urgent matter.

Susan

September 11 2008

Hurricane Bonnie (1998)

I have reverted your edits on Hurricane Bonnie (1998). The reason is because there have been several less damaging storms than Bonnie that were retired. I personally think $720 million is quite high for a storm that was not retired. So therefore, "despite the damage" is preferrable. The name simply wasn't submitted to the WMO for retirement, which is required in order to retire a name. ANDROS1337 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mister Andros, I do not understand how edit crew on Wikipeida can accuse our normal Wikipedia editors of vandalism and using sock puppetry-we would never be vandalizing anything with Wikipedia. Can someone please contact us?


Shocked/surprised

SON OF A BITCH!!!

Listen, Mediacom owns our proxy network (almost five years; since Thursday Jan 01 2004). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.198.245 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I'm asking. Just whose proxy network is it? The IP is registered to Mediacom, but who are the end users? School, household, company...? —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apartments in southern Wisconsin where we live carry these proxy services of Mediacom in their building areas. End users that edit Wikipedia-User:Marthaerin1888, User:Marthaerin1812 (both the accounts under Martha Erin), User:Margarethelen1864, User:Margaretellen1812, User:Barbara1888 (actual name is Barbara Christine), User:Carolyn1888 (Margaret Ellen), User:Neurotic Heart (Heather Ann), User:Glenview Bells (aka name Atkinson), User:FTP2000s (his name: Lawrence), User:MDCCCXLVIII (her name: Linda), User:Undercovergals (her name-Amanda Joan), User:Incense1700 (his name would be Frederic), User:Tropicalstormshirley (or Shirley Ann), User:Claristahardin (her name=Clarista,) User:Bethanymaxine1812 (Bethany Maxine), User:No Trespassing-Keep Out (Peterson being his name), User:Amandajoan1872 (the same as the Undercovergals account), User:Hrcnjennie2010 (Jennifer), me (Susan). None of these Wikipedia computer users would make damage or vandalize any region of Wikipedia whatsoever. Somebody has been breaking inside the apartment region where we live and compromising our accounts and other peoples' Internet operating account, left and right.

Just three hours ago we found that the names of this proxy server=Hrcnjennie2010, Glenview Bells, Neurotic Heart, (whose account system proxy names are also under Mediacom), No trespassing-keep out and Incense1700 are all blocked under false evidence by some Wikipedia admin whose names we'd rather not mention (personal attack accusing against us is never appropriate-we avoid mentioning who perpetrated the unfair blocks).

And if whomsoever are blocked indefinitely, that would mean for how long, forever or for whenever, but didn't vandalize or commit any behaviors which would be substandard, we couldn't really request 'cause somebody from Wikipedia would tag protection on our page (Marthaerin1812) fell the victim because of unlistening people that put protection on Martha's talkpage.

Something's wrong and it's not good. The investigators are still handling how our accounts were compromised and whomsoever did it. Help me out-whatever advice will do you know.

And another issue-Google Web accelerators. We have Google Networks (broadband) from our apartments.

Thanks for the connections Fisherqueen.

We're needing Wikilove, not Wikihate!

Susan

Shocked (continued)

So, how did this mysterious hacker make all of these unrelated users, connected only by their apartment complex, choose usernames that were so close to being identical? And how did he influence them all to write in the same articles? Are we talking about hacking, or some sort of mind control? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible corruption of computers, the hacking and some other peculiar things with our proxies. It really began on June 28 although we might have not even suspected it during that point. It took around weeks for us to finally point to what might've really happened with our accounts. We wouldn't create substandard editing on any region for Wikipedia-besides, we are rather recent Wikipedia editors and some Wikipedia editors are thinking about what right sources can be inserted into Wikipedia. Something dubious is going on-connected through this hacker or hackers who is/are responsible over all this.

And getting bit by other editors is not good. Should we just remain calm whenever other editors are accusing us over vandalism we wouldn't do?

Susan

The problem is, if it's done by your computer/through your account, it's your responsibility. Password security rests on the user. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand. I hear you saying that Martha, Barbara, Margaret, and Bethany, all of whom I think you're identifying as separate people living in your apartment complex, chose usernames that are virtually identical by coincidence, before the hacking started, and all just happen to be interested in the weather, and they would all like their accounts unblocked? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also important

There's almost thirty thousand topics our editors and me are interested in-cities, weather, feet, rap, personal matters, gay-lesbian-the bisexual, erotica, the given names, science, loving, parent matters, politics, Baby Boomer issues, Generation X issues, abortion, religion, vehicles, social club, celebrities, Holidays (from Halloween to Newyears), the Ball Dropping, music, colleges, teachers, the past years, figure skating, Olympics, shoes, fashions, Girl Scouts, female matters, etcetera. We focus toward certain subjects under one time before getting on into others, and whenever there's very few interesting stuff from Wikipedia, we take breaks. Don't unblock the accounts, but understand we're only the actual editors, not vandalizers, that edit Wikipedia but may sometimes be misguided or rather uncertain. Better wait until around 2010 or 11 and then an unblock may begin. But whenever they are eventually unblocked where can our group continue on Wikipedia from there? If somebody's making hacking and controlling our account through the proxy there could be the eavesdropping issue. That could be likely.

Just research our accounts-you'll understand the difference of topics we perform.

Susan

And find little gems like User:Carolyn1888 admitting that she has multiple accounts [1]. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret-the real operator-mentioned that because of how hard is is to avoid sockpuppetry accusations from the other representers for Wikipedia. You know really oftentimes editors of Wikipedia accuse you for vandalizing and sock puppeting when reality indicates we're garden variety Wikipedia editors, making good edits even though Wikipedia might not really approve the edits (which are not vandalism). Same thing for Neurotic Heart (official identity=Heather Ann).

Susan

More explanations tomorrow, but the inquiries continue. Please inspect our editing patterns close-you know we're not vandals.

And also inspect here: Inaccurate or incorrect SOCK label or accusations, sharing IP addresses

It's clear from the inspection that the edit styles are very similar—similar enough to raise the question of whether it's really just one person at the keyboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, User:Standingout signed her talk page messages with "mcmlxxxviii"—yet another 1988 reference. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our group uses multiple accounts-whenever it's necessary-for segregation, never for vandalism. This "sockpuppetry" rumor makes us really worried, glum and very scared.

We love Wikipedia, although somehow the stupid admins (pop-up) editors are coming from almost nowhere and telling us we're committing vandalism or sockpuppets.

Please help us-even though it may take weeks or even months.

Admin noticeboard may have to investigate-I cannot stand these accusations against my Wikipedia proxy group. Susan

Also see Wikipedia BITE

We use hard passwords while editing with Wikipedia. But somehow the hackers responsible for compromising our accounts may have some somehow gotten directly ahold of our passworded codes.

Help us out.

Should I Takeover until these Sockpuppets' rumors stop or diminish when the temporary block expires

I've put my Wikipedia editing partners under break until further notice, because all these sock puppeting accusings that keep flying around have gotten too severe. We're like wanted criminals on this Wikipedia network, just for making article edits!

Please continue your inquiry, and our inquiry into the hacking and compromising will continue. Please contact me.

Susan

The Looking Into Continues-Who Ravaged our Account Names and Damaged our Ability to Edit Wikipedia

It's really the misfortune who someone can make puppetry accusations toward us when we share Mediacom proxy networks.

Sometimes, when people have gotten labeled sock puppet and blocked for indefinite for supposedly abusing the multiple accounts or doing some bad things while editing, like my Wikipedia editing partners did, something just isn't right.

Our content editing has excellent quality even though some people may not really comprehend whatever we are doing with Wikipedia. Edits we perform are inspected closely. You Wikipedia people might not understand but we welcome whatever help you're giving. Wikilove from Susan and her Wikipedian editing people.

But let Wikipedia administrators put more looks toward this-we've been compromised under the hackings and damages with our username accounts, so the inquiry should move on. We're cooling ourselves until this matter shall somehow recede.

And make sure the names of my Wikipedia edit crew are tagged as sharing the Mediacom IP address, including the protected Marthaerin1812 and also many others.

Whoever messed up our edit names on the area of Mediacom Proxy by which we edit Wikipedia can be dealt with in civil-minded manners. But how can we? Please give us examples.

We're sorry things happened this very unfortunate way. You seem saying that all my crew are similar when the fact has the IP address that we share makes everybody sound rather similar while editing Wikipedia (meaning people cannot tell garden-variety editors of Wikipedia from the actual vandals. Certain people editing Wikipedia-me included-may want to become system operators "sysops" in the future, others wanna be long term Wikipedia editing people, using Wikipedia from the Neutral Points of View even if you might not think of that. Love you.

Susan 12.210.198.245 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 12.210.198.245 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inform Notices and Calling Notes

Somebody please tell Atlan to stop removing the Mediacom Proxy Network messages off my partners' pages and inform her or him that we share this actual IP address belonging to Mediacom, the Internet Service Provider of our apartment region here in Wisconsin.

We are alleged sockpuppets, which some people editing the Wikipedia might have invented, meaning we are suspects, not actual perpetrators. Please look for Suspect-the differences between suspects and perpetrator is very clear in the Suspect articles.

Thirdly inform certain admins we're nobody's sock puppet-we are real Wikipedia editors and we want to do so around five to eight years (until around 2015). Somebody keeps putting out sockpuppets blocking on the partners name pages, accusing them of doing something wrong. We never use electronic mails; how do we call an expert on this major matter we're going through without emails? We are under fire. Please help. We can discuss any details you have.

Susan/12.210.198.245 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semantically, as a result of the request for checkuser, the result was confirmation as sockpuppets—partly due to the shared IP, partly due to the similarity in edit styles. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really mention Wikipedians' names because of the threatening fear for accusations of personal attacks, but everyone editing Wikipedia shares this IP in the apartments we are here in right here in Wisconsin. Please note-the Wikipedian names listed above perform on the editing Wikipedia with me and inform the administrators we share editing the articles from multiple computers from the Wisconsin apartments within which we live.

Susan/12.210.198.245 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A moment of sanity

Seriously? This user's claim is that nearly a dozen unrelated residents of an American apartment complex have banded together in a sort of Wikipedia-editing union. That they have chosen nearly identical usernames and made nearly identical edits. That a hacker caused all of these unrelated but nearly identical users to appear to be sockpuppets. That isn't just improbable; it is completely and entirely implausible. If it amuses her to spend her days writing this bit of fiction on this talk page, it does very little harm, but I can't see any reason for anyone to take it seriously, and if she is wasting the time of the community by using the {helpme} tag to draw more attention to her story, I can't see any reason not to protect this talk page from further edits. She was blocked for threatening to sue Wikipedia, and since that lawsuit still appears to be outstanding, she shouldn't be editing Wikipedia until it is concluded; another reason to protect this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fiction at all-the hacking incident and compromised account incident shall continue. "Claim" isn't the word-it is proven reality. {unanswered}} And nobody was really wasting any time. Nobody was amused-this hacker incident/compromised page incident has everyone highly worried. We're not very happy. When may you understand? Hackers can do anything nowadays.

And that account protected for that threat-real name was Amanda Joan-doesn't really have anything really filed: she just screamed those overreaction words from being threatened and feeling scared. Nothing was filed, nothing's pending-NO protection reason. NO suits are even on the book, and please try to at least look beyond these so-called allegations that we are sock puppets (which are hardly true).

And it's not fiction-it's the truth, you know. This may take months to solve/investigate, so please give us all time.

And besides, our editors may overreact sometimes-please give these people chances, though, to prove themselves.

You don't believe me-I spoke to Amanda about what she had said, her words were: "Those words were mentioned for feeling threatened, not because any real action would be taken. I was intimidated." So, we've talked to each other for many weeks and have regular discussions of Wikipedia.

Why would I do fiction on Wikipedia-you know the reasons are not really existing for that.

I cannot continue using Helpme contact. Whatever else can everyone actually do? Remember Wikipedia:Cool? Well everybody (my partners) are cooling off until matters will get resolved properly.

Susan & her partners/12.210.198.245 (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can respond:

The {3O} template isn't appropriate on this talk page; it's for article disputes, not usertalk pages. Use of the {adminhelp} template isn't helpful; you don't appear to be asking for any specific help, just for someone to listen to your story. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The help we are looking for is this-if somebody hacks the proxy serving computer and damages the accounts that you have or the partners have (and they're compromised)-whatever else can we do? Our accounts are destroyed-editing Wikipedia is what our hobby is and with my partners' accounts severely destroyed, there just don't seem to really be enough options for us here. Please help us there.

And whatever further action could help us editing around here on Wikipedia? There are no excuses, only explanations. Please contact the Noticeboard because we can't continue to explain until we are gettin' blue in the face and using helpme templates. So, please let the Noticeboard investigate the fact we are under compromise with our highly damaged accounts.

Susan/12.210.198.245 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-your turn to speak:

If the help you are requesting is that someone contact WP:ANI, I did that yesterday. The consensus agreed with me that while your story is imaginative, it is not even a little bit believable, and that no further action was called for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Help due to the Damage to our Network by Unknown Hacker

Alternative

Rather than continue arguing about the realities that we people are normal Wikipedia editors and that our names were all damaged by either hackers or zombie computer, trojan horses (truth, although the inquiry continues into how our Wikipedia names got destructed-no legal issues pending, just actual investigation and research into how our names were extensively cut down and blocked).

My partners are already stepping aside until further notice.

Susan/12.210.198.245 (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Indefinite & Permanent and Forever the Same Things when Somebody is Cut/Blocked

Your answer:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.210.198.245&oldid=238154004"