Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 17 April 2007

Hello Don't lose that number! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Block

Hi, I've blocked this account because check user has confirmed that it's editing within the same narrow range as two other accounts that display the same pattern of edits, giving rise to a suspicion of sockpuppetry. If you have an explanation for this, by all means post it here, or e-mail me if it involves personally identifying information, and I'll be happy to review the block. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no explanation whatsoever, and I don't know what you mean by "personally identifying information." I don't believe that I have done anything wrong. How do I appeal this? --Don't lose that number 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can appeal it to me in the first instance; then you can ask another admin to unblock if you're not satisfied. A check user has confirmed that you're editing within the same IP range as a number of other LaRouche accounts, and you're making the same kinds of edits as they are. This gives rise to the suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, so my question to you is whether you have an explanation for editing the same articles as them and using the same IPs as them. If you do, I'm happy to consider your explanation and review the block. SlimVirgin 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in a big city and I use AOL, which has fluctuating IPs. I used to edit without a screen name, and I would occasionally get a message that I was "autoblocked" because some other person with the same IP was a vandal. I thought, naively perhaps, that getting a screen name would solve the problem. I have edited LaRouche articles, and so have you -- you seem to be one of the dominant editors on those articles. Are we both now "LaRouche accounts?" Obviously, I have frequently disagreed with your edits, but I have provided clear reasons for doing so on the talk pages. I think that if you insist on having pretty much exclusively the viewpoint of Dennis King, people who know something about LaRouche are going to raise objections. --Don't lose that number 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples of your edits before you had this account? Also, I have never edited exclusively from the point of view of Dennis King. I don't recall having added material from him to any article; if I have, it hasn't been frequent. I've tried to edit from all sides of the LaRouche issues, sticking closely to what reliable sources are saying. You, on the other hand, have edited entirely from a LaRouche perspective and from IP ranges used by other LaRouche accounts. SlimVirgin 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked again at your edits, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock. Please edit in very strict accordance with the content policies and with the ArbCom rulings from now on. There must be no promotion of LaRouche; no BLP violations; no original research; no attacks on other editors. LaRouche publications may be used as sources only in articles about LaRouche and the movement, but even then with caution. According to WP:V, which is policy, any material from LaRouche must be relevant to his notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving; and it must not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject. If you stick to the policies, you won't go far wrong. SlimVirgin 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

TsunamiButler and HonourableSchoolboy

Thanks for your note. I put the block proposal up for review before carrying it out. It was reviewed and agreed by four admins before we discovered the sockpuppetry — Taxman, Ral315, WillBeback, and Georgewilliamherbet — and by a fifth, Thatcher131, after the check user. In addition, Fred Bauder of the ArbCom commented on it, and the admin who conducted the check user noticed independently of me that HonourableSchoolboy might be sockpuppeting. So all in all, seven admins were involved in this, including one bureaucrat and two arbitrators. That makes it a pretty thoroughly reviewed block.

However, if you still feel uneasy about it, you're very welcome to arrange for another independent review. I can either ask an admin to look at it for you, or you can contact one yourself and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information.

As for the sockpuppet evidence, I can tell you that it was stronger than in your own case, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I was told of the Tsunami and HonourableSchoolboy accounts that there was no reasonable doubt they were operated by the same person. "They are certainly the same person" is the message I was given. SlimVirgin 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)