No matter how much you hate me, personal attacks are not evidence for sockpuppetry. -- ßίζ·קּ‼(talk | contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The message cited by Crzrussian in User talk:71.132.154.106 proves that I once associated with 71.132.154.106, but it does not prove that I was associated with it when the last two AfD votes were placed. I use the AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Express Package which only gives dynamic IP's to customers[2]. This means that my IP can change at any time. I will further prove my innocence by immediately signing out of my account and posting a new message and it will be signed by a different IP. If that isn’t enough, you can further confirm my innocence by requesting CheckUser.
Furthermore, the most recent AfD vote, while signed by 71.132.154.106, isn't actually by 71.132.154.106. In fact, if you check the history of the AfD page, the comment was actually made by 67.170.237.109. 67.170.237.109 has forged its comment with a signature of 71.132.154.106[3]. I suspect Crzrussian fabricated one or both votes to try to aid his push in discrediting me and successfully removing Kiwi Alejandro Camara from AfD, albeit that could be ‘’proved’’ or ‘’disproved’’ by CheckUser.
Lastly, Crzrussian can go to hell. (Editors removing this comment on grounds of WP:CIVIL or WP:No_Personal_Attacks would be violating WP:CIVIL or WP:No_Personal_Attacks themselves because they would be disrespecting my religion, which by a 0.000000001% chance teaches that hell represents a place for good people.)
I'd like to further note that Wikipedia acknowledges the viccissitudes of a dynamic IP. This quote was grabbed from User talk:71.132.154.106:
"Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. If you're concerned with privacy, registering also hides your IP address."
I think Wikipedia needs to develop a policy for punishing accusers who are wrong. -- ßίζ·קּ‼(talk | contribs) 07:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, shall we put this one to WP:RFCU? --Dijxtra 12:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RFCU: "Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." Please don't pester me. Comment on the page I created for this case. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you buddy because you're the accuser, so you might as well use CheckUser as a last resort because as of right now, you have no case against me anyway. -- ßίζ·קּ‼(talk | contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(From my talk page.) I can't speak to your being referred to WP:RFCU; that's outside my knowledge. As to your request, we've got certain procedures about CheckUser. For one, we don't like revealing IP addresses as a matter of privacy. We make an exception only in cases of egregious policy violations. Your request didn't cite such violations. If you can demonstrate such I'll naturally reconsider. Furthermore, the user in question has admitted that he and the IP are one in the same. In such open and shut cases a checkuser really isn't needed. Mackensen(talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, before jumping to conclusions, please refer to my discussion about Dynamic IP's above. I know I'm sounding like an asshole, but this sockpuppet thing is dragging on and on and the entire reason why CheckUser was requested is already, simply above this statement. Thank you. -- ßίζ·קּ‼(talk | contribs) 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
