Difference between revisions of "User talk:142.177.114.25"

Revision as of 02:06, 10 July 2015

142,

On Wikipedia, you have been infamous. There has been some questions on whether you are this person, and many have suspected that you are. I suspect that the identities "24" and "142" are collective accounts, and that one person is a member of both. Is this correct? Reviewing 24's contributions, I agree with whoever says it is unethical to attribute the contributions to one person. I am very curious, as to who is behind you and 24. Do you personally know 24? Did 24 move to another city and become 142?

Apparently, Wikipedia thinks both IPs are one person. Many wikipedians attribute 24 and 142's contributions to one person, one person being the name of Cr--g H----y. Most people think that the Cr--g H----y person moved to somewhere else, and H----y's IP range changed. However, some Wikipedians agree with me and think that you are a DramaticIdentity. I do not interpret what you did on Wikipedia as any kind of threat, and nothing that deserved your hard ban.

The person by the name of Cr--g H----y is apparently some kind of politician, a green economist, and a member of the Canadian Green Party. However, a Google search for your name reveals that many people have used your name, none of which is the "real Cr--g H----y". Because of this, I dispute whether Cr--g H----y is a real name, or just a multiple use name. There may be a real person by the name of Cr--g H----y, and this is another thing that I question. If there is a real Cr--g H----y, are you the real Cr--g H----y? If not, are you related? Are Cr--g H----y a "they" rather than a "he" or a "ze"? (Are there multiple people behind "24"?)

I am not trying to stalk you, but: who are you, anyway? _ANONYMITY^@ 02:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd that you redact part of someone's name in the first few references and then just use it. In case this was a stupid error, I redacted all of the uses of that name just to be consistent.

Just to correct one incorrect statements, Wikipedia does not "think" anything, the user "24" was still free to edit as of January 2005 (the last contribution at [1]), which was long after the last contribution by the other addresses accused of conspiring. So it cannot be the case that "24" was considered to be the same person or conspiracy.

The rest of the story is ridiculous since dozens of accounts from IPs all over the world creating thousands or tens of thousands of articles are involved.

The attribution of all this work to one person was due to 1. Larry Sanger claiming that the first person who asserted certainty that Wikipedia have an independent board must necessarily be the first person that suggested this to Sanger...?!!? 2. Someone at a 142 address claiming to have authored all the material from all 142 accounts, all accounts with "troll" in the user name, and these other earlier writings - just one claim, once, and never verified, and impossible now even to find. 3. Louis Ryu claiming that the named person had claimed credit for one of the paragraphs at Wikipedia, which the named person denied, and for which Ryu had no source or link. 4. A shared attitude of disdain and unconcern for Wales' opinion and for his sycophants' opinion, e.g. [2] shows that up to the last moment one of the accounts was doing ordinary editing including policy editing. Most of those attitudes, e.g. [3] are very similar to those a typical anarchopedia contributor would have. They were less common attitudes in 2003 than in 2015 but still common enough.