| Revision as of 21:44, 15 October 2013 view sourceTumbleman (talk | contribs)497 edits →WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:39, 10 June 2017 view source Home Lander (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,712 edits no need for this | ||
| (104 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ==About Tumbleman== | |||
| The name 'The Tumbleman' comes from the title of a story I wrote over 10 years ago and has stuck with me ever since. I am a wiki enthusiast, public speaker, media and technology professional, and developer of a collective editing platform for the purposes of online negotiation and problem solving. Of keen interest to me are online mediation platforms, collective problem solving platforms, and online dialectics for conflict resolution. | |||
| ==Point of View on Misplaced Pages== | |||
| <del>Misplaced Pages is one of the most impressive collective platforms in the history of the world. It needs help! When possible, I enjoy engaging in the 'talk' debates and RFD process to insure that reason, logic, journalistic integrity and objectivity is expressed and editors are without bias.</del> | |||
| ==Intention as a Misplaced Pages Editor== | |||
| <del>I am here <del> to do a little field study</del> for personal exploration into online <del>resolution disputes</del> collective editing, especially in consensus building platforms that rely on consensus rather than vote. <del>I am fascinated,</del> geek out <del>by</del> on the concept of 'wiki wars' where two ideologically opposed editors have to find consensus. <del>I hope my stay here provides help to both wikipedia and <del>my own work</del> into collective editing platforms.</del> My focus is primarily on the conflicts that arise when editors are faced with maintaining a neutral point of view with subject matters that have proven to be controversial historically. Although some suggest that objectivity may be a fleeting illusion, pure objectivity, or neutrality as wiki refers to it, is essential to distinguish in any collective editing platform. So my focus is more on the back end process that editors have to engage with and face.</del> | |||
| ==Philosophical/Ideological POV== | |||
| ]. | |||
| ==Case Study in Wiki editing and mediation: Rupert Sheldrake Biography page== | |||
| <del>Currently I have decided to focus on the biography of ] as a case study in online wiki mediation. I am agnostic as to Sheldrake's theories and admittedly have no qualifications one way or another to accept or refute them, I am intrigued by the reactions to them from both the scientific community as well as mainstream culture from an ideological perspective. I found the TALK section to often be a war between two sides of the issue regarding Sheldrake, both having various levels of bias. For me, this represents a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral, or objective reviewing when addressing contentious biographies or issues. What makes this a perfect case study for me is the issues regarding Sheldrake are very well documented and sourced, and considering it's science, easy to distinguish inside of a NPOV. | |||
| To any editor of the Sheldrake page who visits here, rest assured I have no ideological agenda, one way or another, regarding his theories and am not seeking to promote or condone them, rather simply listing the debate and historical record around them so they are framed within a NPOV and of course written within ] which the page is sorely lacking.</del> | |||
| :This is an admirably clear and concise statement illustrating ] — most especially ] (which specifically mentions case studies) and ]. You are engaged in an experiment using a wikipedia talk page as the platform and wikipedia editors as the experimental subjects? If so, what you are doing is contemptible. It surely violates policy on what article talk pages are for and arguably violates ethical norms about human experimentation without informed consent. ] (]) 02:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think D-in-DC has been a touch harsh, but in substance he's absolutely correct: if you want to be an editor here doing what all editors are supposed to do (improve WP) and along the way write something up describing your experience, that's fine. But when you start right out saying that your purpose here is to do some research on the rest of us, or on WP as an abstraction with the rest of us helping out as free labor, you're dead in the water from the very start. You may think that, because you're so sure you have some absolute neutrality on the article subject, you can be a genuine editor ''and'' carry out your research without tension between those goals; that's fundamentally impossible for many reasons, not the least of which is that we ''all'' have a point of view, and while most of us strive for complete neutrality few of us achieve it -- and even those who arrive at that state of perfection have no way of knowing they have done so. What's most worrisome is that you appear to be some sort of researcher, but don't understand WP well enough to have realized how unacceptable this is. ] (]) 03:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::], ], Sorry this was a noob move. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. After reading this I see what you mean. What I wrote above are my personal reasons and curiosities, I thought being transparent about them was in the spirit of WP. So I realize I need to clarify. I have no other 'agenda', no write up, field report, documentary, etc etc. I find the debates Rupert Sheldrake generates fascinating and am very interested in improving the NPOV on the page. That is all I am doing and will be doing. I personally 'geek out' on collective editing at large, and I think that confused things here. I will clarify this above and appreciate any advice you can give me in doing so. ] (]) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We all look forward to your contributions. ] (]) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hard to ask for more, absent ]'s DeLorean or ]. Thanks for you good reply. I'll close with my favorite Teamster salutation:<br>Keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down.</br>] (]) 11:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We should all be mindful that what have sometimes been called Sheldrake's "theories" are in fact only his "hypotheses". In other words, all this morphic resonance stuff is hypothetical. ] (]) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Olive branch == | |||
| I still can't tell if you're really serious or just doubling down. In any case I've removed the dispute on my talk page and I'm ready to be done with this. I welcome you to end this as well. Or if you like, I'll restore my talk page and we can continue. ] (]) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I accept your olive branch and I can assure you I am quite serious about my role maintaining a WP NPOV. I did notice that you took your page down, I undid it without viewing this first so please feel free to take it down once more. If you remove your page, I shall remove this page, and we can return to a purely NPOV conversation on the Sheldrake page when I get back to editing. Sound fair? ] (]) 19:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you Vzaak for your honorable resolution to this issue and I look forward working with you again maintaining WP NPOV. See you on the page! ] (]) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Be more careful in your editing of talk pages not to harm other people's comments == | |||
| I dont know but you messed up a number of other editors comments. I am going to revert back before that fiasco. Please be more careful. -- ] 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :thanks for keeping this editor straight. multiple tabs issue + @ work, will be more careful. ] (]) 20:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I have removed your comment from the section that is my statement. . If you wish to reinstate it under your comments or the general discussion feel free. -- ] 20:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2013 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 10:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] (]) The page in question is in violation of BLP and NPOV, and any actions I took were in response to edit warring from agenda based editors on the page and were done so with the full understanding that WP policy ] supports my actions. the page is both in ] and in ANI. | |||
| :I am not responsible for an edit war on the sheldrake page, indeed I have brought the concern to ]. If I personally made reverts yesterday they were done with ] and ] If I my actions were anything other, then they were mistakenly so and I am willing to correct them. I am taking two days off from editing and TALK regardless. ] (]) 15:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ]. Also, for the umpteenth time, your bizarre ideas about circumventing ] have no place in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) Come join us at ] | |||
| {{Cquote|<center><big>'''''"Make ] not ]."'''''</big></center>}} - ] (]) 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Regarding this investigation, it does seem odd that you mentioned you'd be taking 2 days away from editing the Rupert Sheldrake page, then a suspected sock with a Palm Springs IP address appears using similar turns of phrase. I could be mistaken. <s>However one thing that might help establish the two accounts are not connected would be if you would comment here at the same time the suspected sockpuppet is active.</s> Regards. ] (]) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies for suggesting that two accounts being active at the same time would help establish that they weren't connected. This was an error on my part due to my unfamiliarity with Checkuser functions. ] (]) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Please read the above carefully. I have not "retracted" my suspicions that you may have sockpuppeted using multiple accounts. I have only retracted my advice that you try posting while the other account was active. Please do not misrepresent my comments, thanks. ] (]) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just blocked you for one week for inappropriately using multiple accounts per the findings of ]. ] (]) 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? ] (]), it's strange is it? I decide to take a day or two off from editing, completely self imposed, so I decide to create a sockpuppet so I can post while I take a break from my other account? For what purpose would I even need to do this? If I wanted to make an argument, I would as tumbleman. as you can see I also do not need any help or need any sockpuppets because I already have support on the talk page. You and your group of skeptic pals have harassed me enough and should be ashamed of what you are doing to Misplaced Pages. We are not a soapbox for your ideological agenda. ] (]) 00:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) thank you for stating that, I appreciate it. Can you also state this on the ] as well? ] (]) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]), ] (]) - This is completely inappropriate. This is the FOURTH time these skeptical agenda editors have tried to remove me from the page for fabricated reasons. Every single time they have failed and this will be no different. I am NOT any of those two accounts, I do NOT live in Palm Springs. I am NOT a troll or have been trolling. I am NOT disruptive to the page. I am requesting these be IMMEDIATELY removed and I have no choice but to report this hounding to an administrator. Since I have arrived, they have exposed my identity, tried to scrutinize my account and claim I am running WP NOT, and then they try to get me banned for pushing 'conspiracy' theories and being a 'fringe' believer - all of which are completely ridiculous and not in the spirit of why I am here. Then they edit war and put a notice on my page for edit warring! Anyone can view the talk section of sheldrake to see what kind of an editor I am. ] (]) 23:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Tumbleman is not user: KateGombert.''' User KateGombert also has no activity on the sheldrake page, I can't find anything she has even done in talk or any edit. Suggestion: (]) ], ], ] Why not unblock that account, reach out to her, and ask her to post something the same time I am online? ] (]) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Because doing so would prove nothing. If I wanted to, I could very easily set up a new account and edit from both accounts within seconds of one another. I could even do it with different computers, working on different IP addresses, using different operating systems, and different web browsers if I took a little trouble. If I took a little more trouble, by using a proxy I could make the two IP addresses geolocate to different continents. If anything, if she responded to a request to edit while you were online, it would look rather suspicious: has she been sitting at a computer for hours, repeatedly checking to see when you are online? Or is she in close contact with you, so that she knows when you are online? ] (]) 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]) Well I am just trying to come up with a rational way to prove I am not KateGombert because I am not Kate Gombert. Under the conditions you set above, I guess everyone here can be a sockpuppet too. Although all of this evidence is circumstantial, and {{ping|Reaper Eternal}} ] already says that WP's server logs support my story, and I am willing to be completely transparent in this 'investigation', I guess I'm just a victim of WP's process, I just have to be guilty because a few editors were suspicious I was. I accept if this is the best WP can do. But it has damaged my credibility on the page where i was incredibly active and had a strong and influential voice. I also was in the middle of an RfC process which I now cannot assist in. I've been working on that page for a month so it's hard when good work goes to waste, I hope you understand my position, I don't see how this decision has helped Misplaced Pages or helped make the page I was working on better. Thanks for giving this your attention.] (]) 18:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I do understand your position, and I am now much more willing to believe that you may be an unfortunate victim of the ways that Misplaced Pages works than I was when I declined an unblock request from you. In fact, I would carefully consider whether to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock you anyway, if it were not for the fact that Reaper Eternal is dealing with the case, and having access to checkuser information that I can't see, is in a better position than I am to make an appropriate decision. My comment above was not meant to be a dismissal of your case, it was just meant to explain why the suggested method would not be helpful. It is a very unfortunate fact that there is absolutely no certain way of telling whether an account is a sockpuppet or not. We have to rely on making judgements as to what seems most likely in view of the available evidence, and sometimes what seems most likely is in fact false. If "KateGombert" is the "professional" that you allowed to use your account, then you may have unfortunately been trapped by the consequences of an action which you did with innocent intention, not knowing that it (a) was contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, and (b) might lead to the situation that now exists. However, even if that is the case, and you are innocent of sockpuppetry, there is still a large question of tendentious editing, so if you are eventually unblocked then you would be well advised to think very carefully about how you edit in the future. ] (]) 18:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] (])James thank you for your reasoned response. I would much rather defend any charge of TE, at least the case is clear. Thanks for your service to WP, at the end of the day, we all want to make this a better place. ] (]) 21:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Reaper Eternal}} ] (]) ] (]) asked me to contact you directly. I am sorry but you, Mark, and I are being WP GAMED right now by a group of co-ordinating ideological skeptics on the Rupert Sheldrake TALK page. This is the fourth time they have attempted to have me removed from the page, every one has failed so far. The last case I won and now the admins from that case have requested that I submit a detailed summary of their disruptive behaviors on the board, of which I can assure you this will be one of them. I am NOT a sock puppet, and do not know those accounts nor do I even live in Palm Springs. I am willing to share with you my IP address I post from one computer and you can see from my IP I only have one account. I want this removed immediately. I am shocked I was not even allowed to defend myself and even more shocked that I have been banned from all of WP. ] (]) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= Request a second independent opinion. I am requesting an unblock. I am not sockpuppetting, but now understand how it may have appeared this way. I did have someone use my PW and sign in to my account for a period of 6 hours last week to help me with references in my ''sandbox only.'' First opinion stated that because of this, there is no way to tell who now owns the account. I request a second opinion based on the following. | |||
| 1.) Person who signed into my account was concerned that the bad behaviors on the Sheldrake page would come to their account, like has come to mine and did so to protect their account. | |||
| 2.)My account PW was changed since then and I am the only person who has access to my account. | |||
| 3.) Providing evidence that this is the case that I am the sole owner is easy, as this account is directly linked to my personal email address with my personal name. I can be emailed with a reference code by any admin and can then post this to my talk section for verification. | |||
| 4.)I am in the middle of an RfC review of the page in question and have been requested by an admin to directly make my case regarding the bad behaviors on the page. I cannot make that case now because I have been banned. | |||
| 5.)I believe I am protecting the interests of WP in doing so and this banning is preventing me from doing so. | |||
| 6.)] has just posted an apology on my talk page about making a connection between me and another account and has retracted his original claim. | |||
| 7.)The issue of KateGombert is what is now making this an issue and I am not KateGombert, it appears my only mistake is asking a third party to help me build strong references in my sandbox, and her reasons for using my PW to do so are reasonable, I am asking that this be considered. I am only trying to make the page better and protect WP. What can I do to have this properly addressed? Any advice to this editor appreciated. ] (]) 17:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)|decline=Without considering the sockpuppetry allegation, which can remain on file, as you have admitted here to allowing someone else access to your password your account is ]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 18:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I am NOT those accounts - this is the 4th time editors on the sheldrake page have tried to get me banned. I am NOT SOCK PUPPETTING. They have been WP HOUNDING me and this is unacceptable. I ask for this banned to be removed immediately. I will share my IP address with any admin for proof | decline=While there is no unambiguous smoking gun, there are several pieces of evidence which all point to KateGompert being a sockpuppet of yours. The coincidence of those several pieces of evidence all happening to point in exactly the same direction is enough to make it far more than probable enough to justify the block. (Also, I see no evidence of hounding.) ] (]) 09:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Request for other independent opinions. '''User Tumbleman is not user KateGombert or any other user.''' The only reason I can think why my IP was showing up for another may have been because a few weeks ago I requested a professional to help me with my sandbox and for a day or two I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office. I only requested them to use my account and no other. I asked for help regarding references because I wanted to make sure I am editing with proper WP protocols regarding references and needed help. This professional works in public relations in an office setting so it is likely their office has WP activity since they do online public relations and outreach support for many social sites in general. IP logs should show if this is the case and if it is, it would only have been for a day or two and the log activity will show that they were active only on my talk page. '''Suggestion.''' Why not unblock that account, reach out to her, and ask her to post something the same time I am online? Also, the accounts mentioned that they are claiming I am using to sock puppet they have done no editing and I cannot even find any activity on KateGomber on the Sheldrake page nor do I see any evidence of any of these 'sockpuppet' accounts disrupting the actual Sheldrake page, I have seen no editing nor voting on these accounts. My presence on the Rupert Sheldrake page is critical, I have devoted myself to help make the page better towards a more NPOV and I take WP guidelines and policy very seriously. There is plenty of evidence of bad behavior on that page and I am here to help clean it up. I am also currently involved in an ANI case for RfC and have been requested to make my case regarding the bad behaviors on the Sheldrake page. I was supposed to present this information today and cannot now because I am blocked. I apologize if my earlier request sounded too emotional. It was upsetting to me to find this happen, please help keep this editor straight where relevant. Thank you. | decline=Unfortunately, sharing your password means that this account is now compromised and cannot be unblocked. If two people have access to an account, we don't know who is which. Any edits to your sandbox that you authorised should have been made by the other party on their account. ] (]) 16:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Actually, this explanation, as surprising as it sounds, does fit with the checkuser data available, and it is on that IP that he is {{tallyho}} from {{user|KateGompert}} and several other clearly unrelated (by behaviour) users. I can also say that were it not for those sandbox edits, I would have said {{unrelated}}; the computers are completely different. Recent edits technically match what Tumbleman used to be, so he does appear to still have control of his account. Please change your password immediately to prevent this account from being compromised. Please let us know when you have done so, so this account can be unblocked. Thanks, and please don't share your password with anybody, even a Misplaced Pages administrator. ] (]) 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That does however raise an entirely different can of worms of a sock farm of editors from a PR firm! -- ] 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you ] (]), confirming the PW has just been changed. I am also on standby to provide any other independent confirmation you need. Thank you for giving this your attention. ] (]) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you don't mind, could you email me which Misplaced Pages user / professional group to whom you submitted your password? For security purposes, please do not email me any private information. Thanks! ] (]) 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] (]) I don't have your email address nor do I know how to contact you privately that way, can you advise? ] (]) 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::you can use any of the free services like g-mail or hotmail to create a temporary account for this purpose. -- ] 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That wouldn't give him my email. Just use ]. ] (]) 18:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Okay ] (]) , I emailed you and you can respond there regarding how you would like to proceed. ] (]) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] I request that you do not comment on this issue as I do not believe you are a neutral party. I never requested this person to 'create an account', they simply wanted to use my account and not theirs because they were afraid that the editors on the page with poor behavior would come after their account for helping tumbleman, and I agree with that decision. However, I do work in media and technology, and many companies do have to manage or create accounts, usually for the purposes of compliancy, and they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS a platform has. There is nothing alarming happening with that, it's standard practice and occurs on any large platform online. ] (]) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :"they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS" LOLZ! | |||
| :Oh, thats a good one! You have shown right here that they don't. The have violated Misplaced Pages's TOS by using someone elses account so that their own actions would not be noticed. -- ] 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Kate Gompert's only edit was to support a comment by Tumbleman? . I think ] indicates socking, or in the least, ]. ] (]) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :KateGompert has nothing to do with my request to a professional to help me with references and compliancy. There is a reasonable concern that people have regarding privacy on Misplaced Pages, including creating more than one account, and this is covered in ] especially when editors behaviors on the page clearly show ], Hounding and harassment. I accept that will happen to Tumbleman because Tumbleman is vocal on the page regarding these editors behaviors. My friend's concerns were justified, and, as evidence shows, was correct. ] (]) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, you outed yourself. The diff still exists I believe. Some of us know who you are anyway. --] (]) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I suppose it's possible that someone who works in the same office that you do shares exactly the same opinions and "concerns" that you do and posts just one post to support something you said on a Talk page that she just happened to find on her own. In my opinion, it's more likely ] or ]. ] (]) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am requesting that ] (]), ] (]), ] and any other editor I have crossed paths with on the Sheldrake page to please stop commenting on my talk page, it just feels like you are harassing me and it's made me quite uncomfortable. This issue is now between myself and Misplaced Pages. I understand you want me removed from the Sheldrake page, that has been clear since I got there, but I believe you are WP Gaming WP to harass me and we can address this when I make my proper case to ANI regarding your behaviors. Until then, I ask for respect to my privacy and that you stop harassing me on this issue on my talk page. ] (]) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}} ] Again, please do not message me, ping me, post on my talk page, or engage with me in any other way unless it's to build a rational consensus on the Sheldrake talk page and any attempt to do so will just be considered further harassment. ] (]) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page ] that didn't seem very ], so you have been asked to remove it or provide evidence to support your claims. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> -- ] 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] This is clearly in violation of my request. Regarding your request, to provide evidence of my claims, I am happily preparing that now and will address directly in ANI, where you will be able to respond. Again, I request that you do not harass or message me further regarding this issue. ] (]) 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ====WP Guidelines interesting to Tumbleman case==== | |||
| ] Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. | |||
| User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space. | |||
| ] Misplaced Pages is highly visible in the Internet; any Google or other search engine search on a subject for which Misplaced Pages has an article is likely to display that article on the first page of results, and quite likely as the first or second result returned. If you edit that article, then anyone who is interested in the subject is going to be able to see what you wrote. They will also be able to track your activity across the site, in project and user pages as well as in articles. So anything you say here and anything you do here can have real world consequences. Consider carefully what you write; keep in mind that you (and other people) can get hurt. | |||
| ] As an editor on Misplaced Pages, you have a choice: You can let everyone know who you are. Or you can make your edits while hiding your true identity and keeping to yourself. | |||
| Remaining anonymous is your right. But there are ways in which your identity can be revealed, even if you do not wish. | |||
| For example, if you are so proud of an article you created that you tell people you know in person, they may read the article, and from looking at your contributions, they can then learn what else you did on Misplaced Pages. It is very possible that you do not wish for these people (who could be your relatives, friends, or even your boss) to know about other edits you have previously made or that you plan to make in the future. So before you go and brag, you may wish to be aware of this. | |||
| You may also get to "know" other editors on Misplaced Pages (without knowing their true identities) if you work on a project or on many articles within a common area. These are people you may end up in deep discussions with. You may not want them to know about your other areas of interest. | |||
| Hiding such edits from your edit history is a legitimate use for ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor. | |||
| The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. | |||
| ] (]) 20:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:39, 10 June 2017
Redirect to: