How Did It Come To This?

Well, you might begin here:

User:12.75.22.13&action=history

The Anonymous IP User:12.75.22.13 keeps being listed as a sockpuppet of Jon Awbrey, but the Anon IP in question has no edits whatever in its contribution history!

So WITDIGOH !?

Does some clever WikiPrivateDick think that it's cute to associate an IP Address with my IRL name?

Really, folks, any WP:Gumshoe who wants to know where any Real Person lives these days can pretty much find them in the phone book, dontcha think?

So the only sense I can see to this practice is pure and simple harassment, and hardly of me, who is more than used to it by now, but harassment of a whole population of innocent bystanders who get assigned that IP Address, willye nillye, on a dynamic random basis.

Well, that just about cuts it for me.

So I'm calling a Block-In Protest against Wikipedia.

I'll be using every IP Address that comes my way from this day forward to join the previously called Writers' Strike.

And I e-courage those few of you present who still have any gonads left to do the same.

Jon Awbrey, Address Unknown

I don't like what they are doing so I think I'll just attempt to revoke GFDL, pick up my marbles (articles) and go home. Seriously, to remove content like that, that you gave your word to license to GFDL. If we don't have our good name, then we having nothing. You speak of your name, but what are you doing to your good name, sir?

Connaître est puissance, oui Monsieur Johnny ?

O

Thank you for explaining what a strike is, 'cause I'm sure it's a novel concept to grass-roots populists of a certain generation.

Jonny

Oracle, do you feel that the Wikimedia Foundation (hosting Awbrey's creative output) is doing an adequate job upholding the terms of the GFDL license? Have you even read the license?

Greg

I know I've said this like 50 times already, but these Strike Calls have nothing to do with GFDL. The letter of that license will be become relevant the day that Wikipediots As A Hole (WAAH) begin to honor its spirit — a likelihood that weighs in at a Vanishing Asymptotic Probability (VAP).

But I realize that some viewers have but recently wandered into our theatre of re-enlightenment, so give me a chance to dig up a few old links by way of bringing our new arrivals up to speed.

Jon Awbrey

That may be, but the only possible way to get Wikipedians to accept it is pointing out that they are violating the license. I didn't intend to say that it would be perfectly acceptable if only they had picked a different license.

Good Gosh, did you think I was talking to Wikipediots?

Jon Awbrey

Good Gosh, did you notice that I was?

The ip has no edits at all, deleted or otherwise. Someon more familiar with checkuser might be able to explain how the hell that IP comes up when it hasn't edited.

If I understand how checkuser works, it will show all IPs that someone has used to edit from, whether or not those IPs have edited by themselves.

If I understand how checkuser works, it will show all IPs that someone has used to edit from, whether or not those IPs have edited by themselves.

Did you even read what you just wrote?

Jonny

Oh scuse me — idiotic of me. Of course, that IP has presumably been associated with one of the JA accounts, because presumably a sock account, or one that is thought to be one, has edited using that IP.

No, what he means is "that a user banned, or a sockpuppet thereof, may at some point in time, used that IP address as a logged in user", not just a 'random IP address'/anonymous user. Obviously if you had that IP address at some point, edited, while logged in as you, your edits are going to come up as you, not "ip.ad.dr.ess". But (as is the whole point of Checkuser), the DB knows that that was you (at that point).

The issue of it being an address allocated to AT&T and the several thousand people it could be? Well, that's another matter altogether.

No, what he means is "that a user banned, or a sockpuppet thereof, may at some point in time, used that IP address as a logged in user", not just a 'random IP address'/anonymous user. Obviously if you had that IP address at some point, edited, while logged in as you, your edits are going to come up as you, not "ip.ad.dr.ess". But (as is the whole point of Checkuser), the DB knows that that was you (at that point).

The issue of it being an address allocated to AT&T and the several thousand people it could be? Well, that's another matter altogether.

some more interesting stuff from my perspective.

Apparently checkuser was used in my case to identify [a] accounts that had been created, but never used and [b] accounts that hadn't edited for several months — but that I may have logged in with …

the implications are fairly clear to me …

I'm in kinda off and on discussions with the Foundation — pursuing a related complaint, and am keen to get a sensible answer to this one.

If I understand how checkuser works, it will show all IPs that someone has used to edit from, whether or not those IPs have edited by themselves.