User talk:Kristen Eriksen

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kristen Eriksen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! macy (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, you now have rollback, not from me though - PhilKnight beat me to it. :)

thanks

For this. Gotta love it. Keeper ǀ 76 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, not once, but TWICE. That was very nice of you. Not many editors will take the time to revert userpages, since they are technically not articles. RandorXeus (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

There are those who stumble upon editing Wikipedia, those who walk confidently into the arena, and some who stride purposefully toward a goal (whatever it may be). I'm not certain when I last saw someone enter with a forward hand spring, pirouette, and finish with a swan dive into a forward roll. While it always help to be familiar with the background (and I do wonder how long you have been reading) it can be the case that sometimes contributors arrive pretty fairly formed. Like I said, "Interesting".

Speaking of fairly formed, what are you doing with your userpage? You do realise that the combination of five of the six userboxes are going to be the cause of spontaneous combustion among a lot of teenage contributors (mostly male, but - hey - its a big community!)? I said it before, "Interesting"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing for about a year as an IP, and just recently created an account. While I thank you for your concern about my userpage, I'll be fine :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is those afflicted with raging hormones that I am concerned about; you certainly seem capable of dealing with the environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about that -- we are talking about my fellow members of the human race, not a pack of wild animals. On the other hand, my recent contribution [1] to Experimental cancer treatment might well save someone's life, if they had cancer intractable to conventional treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation, and enrolled in a clinical trial for oncolytic adenoviral therapy. I'm just here to help make the world a better place, build Wikipedia as a respected reference work, and support a more pleasant editing environment :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Compassion Barnstar
		For your kindness in helping me to resolve Wikipedia-related stress. John254 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. John254 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you're warning vandals manually. In an effort to make your life easier, I created User:John254/for Kristen.js, which is a version of my monobook.js file without my variant of Lupin's RC tool, and without the AFD/FPC closure script (a review of the arguments about AFD closures on my talk page should indicate that you really don't want to use this script.) The tools for warning vandals are a customized version of User:Voice of All/nolupin/monobook.js, with modifications to render the warnings more useful, and to eliminate unnecessary tools that will cause browser slowdowns. Just add importScript('User:John254/for Kristen.js'); to your monobook.js file. Enjoy. John254 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's so sweet :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Checkuser evidence shows that you and User:Crimp It!, a recent doppelgänger of mine who tried to MfD your userpage, attend the same university and are very likely the same person. Perhaps you would care to explain? Thanks. krimpet✽ 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably my crazy ex-boyfriend Chad, who also attends my university. He's always trying to find new ways to cause trouble for me, and now it seems that he's trolling me on Wikipedia :( Kristen Eriksen (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. This situation is deplorable -- here we have a young woman being harassed by a real-life stalker. Instead of defending her against the harassment by deleting all of the edits of the "Crimp It!" account, many administrators have unwittingly facilitated this stalking by leaving the troll account's edits intact, then simultaneously calling attention to the troll account, and injuring the victim's reputation, through a bizarre accusation of a abusive sockpuppetry, as if someone would really nominate an article they had written and their own userpage for deletion. In no other case would an administrative response to on-wiki harassment reach this perverse result: I highly doubt, for instance, that if Gold heart had managed to obtain an account with Alison's ISP, then nominated her userpage for deletion, that there would be a multi-checkuser investigation culminating in an absurd sockpuppetry allegation. We should hardly be more willing to support trolling and harassment of an editor simply because of a bare disagreement with, or unsupported conjecture as to the inaccuracy of, the demographic characteristics articulated on the editor's userpage (indeed, we permit editors to contribute with userpages claiming entirely and obviously fanciful demographics), or because an editor has availed herself of our invitation to edit without registration, then subsequently creates an account when she has a significant familiarity with Wikipedia's policies, procedures, and practices. As to the question of why the stalker created an account which impersonated a well-known administrator, while I don't know Chad, I am thoroughly knowledgeable of the methods by which trolls attempt to disrupt the project, having participated extensively in efforts to suppress trolling. Quite simply, if Chad had created a randomly-named account, we would, in all likelihood, have simply been reverted, blocked, and ignored him. Trolling to which few editors would pay any attention would not be very effective. It is only by impersonating a well-known administrator that Chad could reasonably have expected to prompt an extensive, multi-checkuser investigation. Furthermore, knowing full well that users were already failing to assume good faith here, Chad could have reasonably predicted that by editing from the same university in a manner that would prompt a checkuser investigation, he would be able to create an abusive sockpuppetry accusation against a good-faith user, something which would attract considerable attention and inflict emotional distress upon the user wrongfully accused, and surely far more effective trolling than XfD nominations which would be speedily closed or deleted. Don't worry, though, Kristen: Wikipedia's administration doesn't usually try this hard to drive productive users off the project; the only people calling for sanctions at this point are trolls on Wikipedia Review. As you continue to contribute, you will be treated with greater respect and appreciation. John254 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. While I do appreciate you mounting a chivalrous defense of my reputation :), nobody is "try[ing]... hard to drive productive users off the project". Krimpet and the checkusers made a good-faith mistake, so let's forgive, forget, and move on. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_accusation_of_abusive_sockpuppetry. Please don't be discouraged, since

(1) Krimpet isn't a checkuser [2].

(2) I've been savagely criticized on Wikipedia Review as well.

(3) At least one established user finds your contributions to be quite valuable. John254 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the McCarthyesque nature of the accusations here, I've created an appropriate userbox:

This user has been checkusered for no good reason.

John254 03:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's hilarious :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of new evidence, I've brought this back to AN/I. krimpet✽ 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallaien,

og velkommen hit. Du virker som om du kjenner WP-systemet? Kan jeg få spørre om du også er aktiv på norske WP? (eller nynorske?) I alle fall: velkommen, Hilsen Huldra (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy translation: "Hello (header), and welcome. You seem like you know the WP system? May I ask if you're active in the Norwegian WP too? (or the "nynorsk" WP (nn.wiki...)) Anyway: Welcome, from Huldra" Lstor (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak Norwegian. I was born and raised in the United States, I'm Norwegian only in the genealogical sense :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sauce

Hey Kristen, this study in your question is actually a [[[Wikipedia:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|primary source]], s for a bigger challenge a Review Article (and hence a Secondary Source) may have been prudent. Can't think of any rooly controversial Review Articles OTTOMH but I am sure some are out there...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a review article would be preferable, but this was the best study I could find concerning the subject. I'm just an amateur at this; a medical professional such as yourself might be able to do much better :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for the user talk page revert. Cheers.--Faradayplank (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Incest

I think that you were right to support Okami's inclusion in this article, and have reinstated your edits to that effect. I do not - however - think that the editor concerned (who has been editing these articles for over a year) was attempting to promote the concept itself. I do recall him stating that the researcher Okami is compromised in some earlier discussion, and that sources must literally state the exact concept. Obviously, the former is wrong (all I can recall is some far-left feminist group attacking Okami) and the latter is a faulted rationale that could inadvertently and seriously bias articles on virtually unknown, fringe subjects and ideologies such as covert incest. forestPIG ^(grunt) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking/unblocking of Giano

Hiya Kristen. I'm calm about the whole matter; I'm so laid back, I'm walking on my shoulder blades. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice questions

...for the arbitration committee candidates. I didn't get around to asking my standard question, about the difference between Neutral Point of View and a scientific point of view, but your question 1, and maybe 3 as well, will be a good litmus test for the kind of perspective I look for in ArbCom candidates.--ragesoss (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the pointers ill be sure to do better now ill ban every one who vandalizes the rivington and blackrod page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngnutty (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Beat Me to It

Darn, you beat me to block-listing Qwertyy9784624548568725. Stupid edit conflicts. XP Silverseren^C 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for removing vandalism from my talk page... that guy was just disgusting. Lithoderm 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many thanks for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Being impressed with your superb understanding and masterful application of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and practices, I believe that you would be an excellent candidate for adminship, and would like to nominate you several months from now, when you should have sufficient experience and a sufficiently high edit count. While we've had some substantial disagreements over the Scientology arbitration, I support prospective administrators not due to the extent to which they parrot positions that I have taken on particular issues, but rather for their ability to exercise thoughtful and independent judgment, a quality which you have demonstrated in great abundance. Before deciding to accept any nomination, however, you should consider that there is a rather lengthy discussion dedicated to you at WR, and that WR posters will use this thread to canvass for users intent on disrupting any RFA. There are some bigots on WR who will attempt to derail an RFA with a plethora of racist, ageist, sexist, and erotophobic personal attacks, and will try to blame you for wikistalking by your ex-boyfriend. If you are prepared to deal with the inevitable trolling, however, your RFA might stand a fairly good chance of passing, though by no means uncontroversially. It would also be helpful if you were to publicly disavow any connection to the account in your name on ED. Keep up the good work, and happy new year. John254 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is sweet :) Don't worry, I'm not afraid of a bit of controversy at RFA :) And there's no connection between me and my Encyclopedia Dramatica impersonator. Really, a lot of what is on the user page for that account is just silly. I was raised from an early age in a clothing-optional household, so the idea that I'd have such a poor body image that I'd be hospitalized for bulimia as a teenager is ridiculous. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I like how much you're doing to keep images on the main page protected. We really want to keep the wikiporn confined to appropriate articles like ejaculation, not have some joker put it up on the main page. It takes guts for an editor to tell an admin how to do their job [3], but sometimes it needs to be done :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical Identification and Authentication AfD

Hi, I noticed you closed the AfD for Graphical Identification and Authentication as keep. I'm not interested in disputing this, I'm not bothered either way, but I was wondering how you decided it was a keep. What established notability for you, and what policy arguments swayed you? All the best, Verbal chat 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... there are no third-party RS in that article. But there was a unanimous consensus to keep it because the editors thought third-party RS could be found, meeting WP:GNG, since AFD isn't "source the article in five days or it gets deleted", and the community has rejected Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, a proposal along those lines. Or maybe they thought that this DLL was inherently notable, just as towns are, even if sources are sparse. Look at it this way: would an administrator read at discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical Identification and Authentication, and decide to delete the article? The possibility is exceedingly remote. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

WikiThanks

...for attending to my article. Only the best always.

-Sultan-Commander (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....for fixing my user page :) Merci beaucoup! Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I saw that you caught a bit of vandalism that I missed on Radiation. Thanks, keep up the good work! FaerieInGrey (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sig

Ummmm... I believe that there is so much irony abounding that you may start suffering metal fatigue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Metal fatigue"? So something like

is going to happen to me? Perhaps if I were made of tin, I'd be more worried :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A well thought response...

Appreciated your very cogent comment at the AfD for Hanuszka... enough so, that I visited your userpage. I too am interested in bodypainting... though usually as a subject for a project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm always happy to participate in AFD. And I find your work inspirational and intriguing - while the human body is a beautiful canvas, it's nothing compared to the canvas of the mind :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in turn. While being a canvas for art is great, being such for a narrative is even better... allowing the "art" to come to life and interact. Are you canvas or painter? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both, actually :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If our paths ever cross outside of Wiki, I would be honored to offer myself as a canvas for your arts... and hopefully include the results on my modeling website. But if we ever do cross paths outside this plane, let it be for the arts and not because of this plane. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds wonderful. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Renzo_Gracie_Legacy

I'm wondering why you closed the discussion so early. It had been running for barely three days (AfDs usually run for at least five) and there wasn't any clear consensus. I'm not going to contest your decision, but I'm wondering if you have a good understanding of AfD policy. I see you've been doing other non-admin closures - it might be better to (a) let AfD discussions run for the full five days and (b) let admins close discussions that might potentially be controversial. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure for more info. Graymornings_(talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination asserted that "No third-party sources" were available for the film. But the sources produced during the AFD and added to the article refuted your claim, so much so that one editor moved from delete to keep [4]. Actually, every editor who evaluated the new sources seemed to agree that they established the film's notability per WP:GNG. You didn't question the sufficiency of the new sourcing during the AFD, even though you were editing after the sources were produced. This effectively indicates a unanimous consensus to keep the article, and an AFD acceptable for non-admin closure. Should the AFD have been left open for two extra days when no one still thought the article should be deleted? That would be process for its own sake, with no benefit to the encyclopedia. You should read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR - they're quite informative :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention on my talk page

Thanks for your help on User talk:Old Moonraker. I appreciate it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hello, Kristen Eriksen. You have new messages at Dr. Blofeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptol AFD close

That was a good close. rootology (C)(T) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peas

NoVomit (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

WikiAbuse

It's well-known that he operated it. If you aren't familiar with the site (from looking at your contributions, you joined Wikipedia well after the site was gone), you can view an old copy from archive.org or read about it at Wikipedia Review. He created it, admits he created it, there's no question in anyone's mind that he created it any more than there is a question that the sky is blue or Barack Obama is President. --B (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your point that personally identifiable material should be oversighted, yes in an ideal world it should be, but oversight was only created in mid-2006. I'm sure there are plenty of instances of pre-2006 material still being out there. Also, even though personally identifying material should be oversighted, that doesn't mean it always is. Plenty of times, admins working CAT:CSD will just delete it and not bother sending the email. --B (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfAr

The header of the Requests for arbitration page, states "Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one." This is one of the few places where it really needs to be Clerks and Arbs only. While I appreciate that you want to help, removing arbitration requests is not a good place for it.--Tznkai (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

closing

When you close an AfD, please say that it's a non-admin. closure, including in the edit summary --avoids confusion. DGG (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread about John254 and Kristen Eriksen

Hello, Kristen Eriksen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John254_and_Kristen_Eriksen regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at the above-noted thread, I have blocked you indefinitely as a WP:DUCK-certified sockpuppet of User:John254. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kristen Eriksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per comment below, which I could have posted at the above AN/I thread if I weren't indefblocked first :( The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can post any arguments quite successfully here. — Viridae ^Talk 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kristen Eriksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Previous unblock declined without even mentioning at the AN/I thread that I had replied here. Shouldn't the participants in the AN/I discussion see my response before I'm banninated forever? The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Quite a few admins (and CheckUsers) have already or are continuing to look into this situation. An {{unblock}} request is unnecessary here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kristen Eriksen's defense against charges of sockpuppetry, and witchcraft

This is getting pretty silly. If you're going to say that everyone with non-overlapping edits for about three months whose "IPs involved geolocate similarly" to a major metropolitan area of two million or so people are socks of each other, we'll keep WP:SPI busy for the next five years :) People are allowed to edit as IPs, so its irritating that when I finally register an account, I keep hearing "You know too much about Wikipedia - you must be a SOCK!". The rest of this is selective presentation of evidence, noting only similarities in edit style and wikipolitical views between me and John254, but ignoring differences. For instance, in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John254 2, Iridescent pointed out that John254 is an ultra-inclusionist who almost never wants to have articles deleted unless they're speedyable "On a browse through his contribution history, I can't see him ever believing that an article should be deleted."[5] But in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiffer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fecuop, I took the lead in getting the articles deleted. John254 is a conservative about sexuality, whose first edit was on the supposed dangers of masturbation [6], who actually tried to put a stop hand symbol in the masturbation article [7] to call attention to this "danger". After this initial misstep, John254 seemed to settle into more NPOV editing, but it's still obvious which side his bread is buttered on [8] [9]. When he created the article "public health effects of pornography" [10], it included studies about the supposed dangers of pornography, and was richly illustrated with PD charts and figures from one of the studies, at a time when the "Effect on sex crimes" section of Pornography was unabashedly pro-porn [11] (he added the anti-porn studies there, too [12] [13]) Obviously, none of this is consistent with my userpage which Krimpet lambastes, especially not [14], and doesn't really jive with [15] either (BTW, my userpage includes none of the userboxes which Krimpet speedied). John254 wanted to have image censorship on Wikipedia (Talk:Vulva/Archive_2#Proposed_de-inlining_of_pictures_containing_graphic_nudity), something which I wholeheartedly opposed Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_children#A_really.2C_really.2C_bad_idea.

Now here's where the claim that John254 and I are the same person becomes Kafkaesque: we had a major disagreement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop. Seems John254 wanted Cirt desysopped and banninated (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposed_remedies), while I responded to by saying that John254 came to the worshop "bearing torches and pitchforks" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_Kristen_Eriksen). Actually, John254 seemed to have so much of a problem with Cirt that he nearly got himself banninated over it [16], but I gave Cirt a barnstar [17], which he "much appreciated" [18]. I gather from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Rootology and [19] that John254 doesn't think very much of Rootology, but I supported Rootology's RFA [20] and defended it against opposition [21] [22]. So either I'm one of John254's multiple personalities, or we aren't the same person :)

And if I'm here solely to ridicule Krimpet, why did I endorse her speedy deletion of a WP:BLP-violating redirect [23]? Oh, you could say that John254 did too [24], but not all editors who care about WP:BLP are socks of each other. Really, I think that Krimpet needs to leave me alone. Her last action with respect to me was to indefblock my account [25] based on checkuser evidence which didn't really exist [26] :( The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you admitted the checkuser evidence was accurate and "my crazy ex boyfriend Chad" must have done it? – iridescent 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was about the account User:Crimp It!, active last August. But Krimpet's November indefblock of my account [27] was based on me supposedly being User:Krimpets Tasty Cake, which I was unrelated to [28]. Krimpet apparently misread Alison's Wikipedia review post about checkuser results :( The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 17:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, my "Assuming Good Faith" barnstar to John254 was tongue-in-cheek, I thought he was foolish for believing that you were an 18-year-old female nudist of Nordic descent who stars in pornography. I didn't realize you were actually the same person, though--looks like the joke was on me. Keepscases (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Scientology case, which seems to be the only counterargument, it certainly looked odd to see two accounts who had no apparent stake in the matter take such an interest in the case--and particular such interest in one editor with whom neither had substantial prior contact. Upon further examination, looks like a classic case of a certain type of trolling. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Durova. When I agree with John254 we're votestacking socks, and when I disagree with him we're trolls, arguing with each other and taking contrary positions in a conspiratorial scheme to hide our common identity. But you could say that about half the editors on Wikipedia, and this is quickly degrading from a sockpuppet investigation to a witchhunt :( It's no secret that I've worked closely with John254, but editing the same arbitration workshop doesn't mean we're the same person. I suppose when I edit an article that John254 has never edited, like Alosetron, you could say "isn't John254 being sneaky..." There's no good checkuser evidence (same area with 2 million or so people living there isn't), there's no good behavioral evidence, and all you have left is coincidence of non-overlapping editing times, that we both live in the same time zone, and that we've both close AFDs at a particular time that usually allows us to do it before someone else does, but leaves the AFD open long enough that someone can't complain you closed it too soon. There's some major confirmation bias going on here, considering only the incriminating evidence and discounting any exculpatory information, and if this is how Wikipedia treats good faith editors, then I question whether I want any part of it :( The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the barnstar you had given me

I have removed the barnstar you had given me. I am surprised by the recent events revealed at ANI, and disheartened by the disruption this has done to the project. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]