Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 31 May 2009

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Request from Strmlbs to unblock 70.71.22.45

FisherQueen, Nga... , I wish to appeal the block for 70.71.22.45.

I do not know 70.71.22.45, and did not know about this block until this evening. But, I think the reason that 70.71.22.45 did what he did is because he saw me being tag teamed by some of the regulars at the Stephen Barrett page, and tried to help me. I didn't request the help, but it was apparent what was going on to anyone following the talk page by my comments there and on my edits. It started with this conversation within Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Board_Certification between Fyslee/BullRangifer and me. It went downhill after he implied I was a puppet, made some weird reference to Scientology, and you can see with the edits here how it went.

Then Fyslee/BullRangifer hatted the discussion without asking me. I did not want the discussion hatted.. I didn't want my comments hidden. I did not want to continue the discussion on Fyslee's talk page, but wanted to start Fresh with a new discussion about Board Certification on the Barrett talk page where everyone could participate.

However, when I tried to remove the hat, which I did not agree to, Fyslee/BullRangifer put it back, telling me this was "standard practice". And this is where the back and forth about the hatting begines between me and Fyslee/BullRangifer.. then later Verbal, Ronz, and QuackGuru joining in to keep hatting the discussion when I tried to remove the hat.

If you keep going through successive edits here, you can see where I specifically object to the hatting on the talk page as well as in the comments. This is where 70.71.22.45 probably read about my objection to the hatting. Here, Fyslee/BullRangifer restores the hat again, because I did not reply to his demand for continuing the conversation on his talk page. I unhatted it again.

At this point, the tag teaming starts. Verbal puts the hat on again, with the comment: "Per WP:TALK, next stop AE.". I'm not sure what "AE" is, but I figured that it had to do with 3RR and that I was being set up to be blocked.

So.. I quit trying to revert the hat, and instead went to the Editor Assistance Board to ask what the official Misplaced Pages policy was on hatting a discussion. As you can see, Fyslee/BullRangifer and Verbal followed me over there. Fyslee all of a sudden remembered the "consensus" part of hatting when he talked about hatting on the Editor Assistance board. However, when I pointed out that he had never mentioned this part of policy before, then he went into how I should just accept whatever a "more experienced" editor decides. You can see what I replied there. Verbal showed up at that point to put in his version of the hatting policy which evidently is written in the twilight zone, because I couldn't find it in the wikipedia help.

In the meantime, 70.71.22.45 probably read my objection on the talk page, looked at the edit history, and saw other editors were just hatting the discussion to impose Fyslee's will, and that none of them even had a part in the hatted conversation. So.. 70.71.22.45 reverts the hat - I assume to help me. Then, if you follow the edits from this point on, you see that Ronz and QuackGuru go back and forth with forcing Fyslee's hat and 70.71.22.45 reverting the hat... knowing that 70.71.22.45 is a new editor and just walking into a 3RR. Imo, this was a tag team Slam Dunk that was evidently meant for me, but unfortunately, 70.71.22.45 was the one that walked right into it. Then, Ronz runs over to the 3RR board, and gets the block slapped on 70.71.22.45, knowing full well why 70.71.22.45 did it. If you notice, Ronz reports just 70.71.22.45's 3RR with no mention of what caused it - no mention of their tag team effort to enforce Fyslee's hat.

Then, Ronz archives the Board Certification section. Then Quackguru archives the rest of the talk page!!! They don't bother to ask me or anyone else.. just archive it. One more instance of WP:Own, WP:Bully, and WP:Tag Team with this group at the Barrett article.

I come back to the Barrett talk page.. and the talk page is gone! So, I got into another struggle to get the current discussions back. And that is why I didn't even notice what happened to 70.71.22.45 until now.

I hope you will remove the block on 70.71.22.45 (and from his record). 70.71.22.45 and I are the 2 new editors that don't share the opinions of the regulars here, and there seem to be some WP:Own issues here. If the games Fyslee, Ronz, Verbal, and QuackGuru played with hatting and archiving aren't tag teaming.. I don't know what is.

I hope that you will reconsider the block on 70.71.22.45. Thanks for your time and listening to my side of his 3RR.

--strmlbs|talk 06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

dont worry about it man it expires tommorow so i can handle it... by the times i get to work in the morning it will be expired 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ok. Sorry about the block. Well... now you know about the 3RR - what a way to learn!

--strmlbs|talk 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, and a friendly suggestion

hi, 70.71.22.45! I see that Levine2112 already welcomed you. I would like to welcome you, too.

As for the friendly suggestion I referred to in the header, why don't you come up with a name for yourself? There are a lot of IPs around, and sometimes it is hard to remember an IP number when you are conversing with someone. The IPs all kind of blend together. Plus, the IP might change from session to session depending on your host setup.

I hope to keep seeing you around, and let me know if you do decide to assign yourself a name.  :) --stmrlbs|talk 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the section header below so that it didn't look like I was the one blocking you. --stmrlbs|talk 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks... i understood that, but i guess i still dont understand how wikipedia works... ive been reading up on some of the policies and stuff too but apparently my edits are disruptive, yet when QuackGuru goes on a mission to change stuff, despite the sources saying the opposite its neither disruptive nor vandalism? if only i hadn't read about not using wikipedia to make a point i might have gone and changed a bunch of other stuff to be not according to the source... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize QuackGuru does some outrageous stuff and gets away with it. I added a search box on a page with a lot of archives, and Quackguru reverted it "because the archives are just a bunch of nonsense". . He vandalized Levine2112's user page twice when Levine2112 wasn't around. Between nonsense reverts, accusing everyone of being a sockpuppet and archiving talk pages in the middle of a discussion, he can be a real pain. But QW does this to drive people that don't share his POV away from "his" articles.

I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of suggestions.

• Make sure you put your reason for reverting in your reverts in with the revert. Be as specific as possible. If QG keeps reverting you, don't get into a revert war.. this is what he wants. They want you to walk you into a 3RR. If you have a revert left, then put the reason, and add "take it to the talk page". Then post your reason for the change on the talk page. By discussing these points, you will learn more about how Misplaced Pages works.
• Try to argue content and/or specific actions, not editor. I know this is hard with an editor like QuackGuru - but he gets off on provoking people, hoping they will do something foolish, and it must work because he does it a lot. You can't change people's personalities, but you can document why you did what you did. It will help when you talk to an admin to be able to link to your reasons.
• If you are confused about policy, just add the text {{Helpme}} to your talk page and write your question below it, and someone will come and help you out as soon as possible.
• Think of a name for yourself and register. A lot of people accuse every IP of being a sockpuppet for their own purposes (like QuackGuru), so why give them more fuel? Also, you can edit on articles that are "semi-protected" agains IPs. Sometimes they will semi-protect an article when they think that an article is being manipulated by sockpuppets. If you are still operating under an IP, you will not be able to edit that article. It doesn't matter if you have nothing to do with the IPs that are causing the disruption.. all IPs are blocked from certain articles.

You don't have to give any personal information to register. If you want help with that, let me know.

Also, if you have anyone that was keeping track (besides you) when you and Quackguru were going back and forth, maybe they might speak up for you. I wish I had known sooner when you had that block before. Hey, I tried when I found out about it.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

here is a link you might find useful. Template:Helpme If you need help on how to use it, or just want to ask me a question, let me know - although, I haven't been an editor that long either. But, who knows, I might be able to help anyway. --stmrlbs|talk 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

message from Nakon

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Nakon 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Content disputes aren't vandalism. Stop edit warring. --jpgordon 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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 guy goes around Misplaced Pages making misleading edit summaries such as "typo" when he is actually changing articles to make them NOT agree with the source used, and I get blocked for disruptive editing?? please explain so i can learn for the future... also why are you telling me stuff about vandalism when I revert (, , , , ) vandalism? i also haven't been putting in any random text, spam or any of those other things! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

these are apparently the type of "disruptive" edits i have been banned for... , , , , , , , , , ... i used an edit summary, checked the source, and found that the source calls him the founder, not co-founder of wikipedia... isn't wikipedia supposed to be all about verifiability? what is the point of having references if we dont use them and instead go and change articles to what we want them to say, instead of what the source says? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ok so i just went an re-read WP:V since it seems to be at the core of the issue here... and it says "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article"... but thats the thing! The source cited DIDN"T support the information as QuackGuru changed it to... it supported the information the way it was before (probably why the editor who added it wrote it that way)... further it says "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." so he adds stuff that isn't in the source... i remove it because that is NOT what the source says... he doesn't meet the burden of proof... and i get banned... this seems to be opposite to the policies... is this a prank or are you guys friends with QuackGuru or something? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

again... i dont know why you guys keep mentioning vandalism... what have i done that is considered vandalism? and can you explain how my edits were disruptive (and/or more disruptive than QuackGuru's?) i'm honestly trying to learn to understand wikipedia but it is not making a lot of sense! i cannot understand how i should be blocked for reverting the changes of someone who purposefully hid his edits as if he were fixing a typo, and purposefully changed the text to be different than what the source said, on multiple articles... i thought i was doing wikipedia a favour, because right on my screen now it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"... and the sources used for those articles said he was the founder not the co-founder... this is bizarre. i'm sorry but if i don't get either an actual explanation for why i was bannedd (and please stop mentioning vandalism, unless you can explain how my edits were vandalism) or get unbanned then i guess you will have probably lost an editor...

Decline reason:

Expected criteria to be addressed in request not covered. Accounts can still log in, thus there doesn't seem to be any collateral damage. Nja 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

bans are supposed to be preventative... not punitive... right? but no one has explained to me why i was banned (or at least why my edits were considered disruptive)... so how am i supposed to learn from this and prevent me from making the same mistake in the future? and the thing at the top of the page seems to indicate i am allowed to edit if i create an account? is that ok? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see this as punitive. You have been inserting founder against consensus (most recently seen here). This seems disruptive from my perspective. Also the reference to typo was not descriptive but sarcasm due to Wales' own comment. Are you going to continue with such edits against consensus if unblocked? That you cease and discuss would be a requirement of unblocking as far as i can see. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Response: i had never seen the Jimmy Wales article before the other day... and therefore didn't see a consensus... if there IS such a consensus to ignore WP:V, and have the pages say something other than the references they use, then yes i will abide that consensus... but please show me how i was supposed to know about a consensus that wasnt on the talk page of any of the pages i edited? thank you for the explanation of how my edits can be considered disruptive... but i just dont know how i am supposed to know about a consensus that exists in the archives of a page ive never visited... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So at no point did this consensus come up when you were being reverted? It should have been mentioned. David D. (Talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For your information, SqueakBox was warned. I'm surprised you were not either. Why didn't you take this to guackguru's talk page or the talk page of at least one of the ten or so articles you were 'correcting'? David D. (Talk) 05:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I did take it to QuackGurus talk page , but was quickly reverted by him... i asked him to stop the edits because they disagreed with the sources used in the article and that his description of the edit was misleading... and no at no point was a consensus mentioned... not that i saw anyway! most of the time i was reverted with either no explanation or again with the description "typo"... i wasnt warned either, it was just blammo, your banned... without a real explanation... which is why i was asking for an explanation... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is likely you will be unblocked as long as you don't continue the edit war and, instead, try and discuss the issues. I have contacted Nakon. In addition, why not sign up for a user account? It can actually be more anonymous than an IP address and you will have access to the useful watch list feature. Editing as a regular IP user can be difficult, first, semi protected pages will not be editable for you; second, your edits will always draw more attention since many IP accounts are used for vandalism. Long term IP accounts are few and far between although they do exist. Lastly, when editing from a different computer, and logged in, your edits will always be attributed to that account. It is very hard to follow discussions when an editors IP signature keeps changing or switching back and forth. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i am not really interested in having an account and i think that if my edits draw more attention then that is a failure of wikipedia - isnt one of the basic guidelines to assume good faith? i dont have a dynamic ip so i dont think my ip is going to be switching back and forth... i will not edit war over this issue, although there is still one page that WILL need changing (the Mark Taylor page) i will take it to the article talk page and hopefully someone sees it... it says that the "According to the Associated Press, Internet entrepreneur and Misplaced Pages co-founder", but they actually called him founder so it is attributing a false statement to the AP... in fact the references in that article should probably be cleaned up because it is hard to figure out which statements go with which source, but from the AJC, "The founder of Misplaced Pages, Jimmy Wales, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the editing of Taylor's biography led back to the Cox campaign"... the reference from Online Athens needs fixing because the google cache doesnt work but the actual link still does (maybe you could fix that while i'm banned?) but that article doesn't mention Wales or the AP . i did a google news search and couldnt find ANY articles that used the words associated press, cox, co-founder and Jimmy Wales... so someone is misquoting the AP... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say my main reasoning was that you will be locked out of semi-protected articles. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing you should do is look through the Talk archives in in the Jimmy Wales article. There you will find a lot of previous discussion. In that way you will save yourself the trouble of rehashing old arguments. There may well be discussion in the Larry Sanger talk archives too. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i dont mind being locked out of semi-protected articles if they were protected for appropriate reasons... according to policy. but ips are also currently locked out of the chiropractic article, which was semiprotected for reasons other than what are listed as appropriate reasons to lock it for... but i can always propose an edit on the talk page anyway... did nakon say anything when you contacted him?

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

Request reason:

• "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked."

no clear and specific block reason was given, and when asked for an explanation there was no reply from the blocking admin

• User:David D. said that he thought it would be likely that i would be unblocked, and messaged the blocking admin... who has yet to respond even though he has since edited.
• i agree that i edit-warred (yet why the other user wasnt also banned when his block log is a page long i dont know) and will abstain from doing so and will take a 1rr restriction until June 30th instead, so that i can show that i can be a productive editor - however, i do maintain that my editwarring was in good faith, in that i was removing contentious unsourced content about a living person, and did not know there was a consensus to abide by as it was on a page i hadnt edited
• in the future when i revert an edit i will then post on the talk page of the article following BRD... unless it is vandalism and if i am reverted again i will take it to an admin
• WP:BLOCK says "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations" - i was blocked for "disruptive editing" yet had a block MUCH longer than 24 hours... which i believe was excessive especially when i wasn't trying to be disruptive and was editing in good faith...

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=*"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." :no clear and specific block reason was given, and when asked for an explanation there was no reply from the blocking admin *] said that he thought it would be likely that i would be unblocked, and messaged the blocking admin... who has yet to respond even though he has since edited. *i agree that i edit-warred (yet why the other user wasnt also banned when his block log is a page long i dont know) and will abstain from doing so and will take a 1rr restriction until June 30th instead, so that i can show that i can be a productive editor - however, i do maintain that my editwarring was in good faith, in that i was removing contentious unsourced content about a living person, and did not know there was a consensus to abide by as it was on a page i hadnt edited *in the future when i revert an edit i will then post on the talk page of the article following BRD... unless it is vandalism and if i am reverted again i will take it to an admin *WP:BLOCK says "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations" - i was blocked for "disruptive editing" yet had a block MUCH longer than 24 hours... which i believe was excessive especially when i wasn't trying to be disruptive and was editing in good faith... ] (]) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=*"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." :no clear and specific block reason was given, and when asked for an explanation there was no reply from the blocking admin *] said that he thought it would be likely that i would be unblocked, and messaged the blocking admin... who has yet to respond even though he has since edited. *i agree that i edit-warred (yet why the other user wasnt also banned when his block log is a page long i dont know) and will abstain from doing so and will take a 1rr restriction until June 30th instead, so that i can show that i can be a productive editor - however, i do maintain that my editwarring was in good faith, in that i was removing contentious unsourced content about a living person, and did not know there was a consensus to abide by as it was on a page i hadnt edited *in the future when i revert an edit i will then post on the talk page of the article following BRD... unless it is vandalism and if i am reverted again i will take it to an admin *WP:BLOCK says "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations" - i was blocked for "disruptive editing" yet had a block MUCH longer than 24 hours... which i believe was excessive especially when i wasn't trying to be disruptive and was editing in good faith... ] (]) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=*"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." :no clear and specific block reason was given, and when asked for an explanation there was no reply from the blocking admin *] said that he thought it would be likely that i would be unblocked, and messaged the blocking admin... who has yet to respond even though he has since edited. *i agree that i edit-warred (yet why the other user wasnt also banned when his block log is a page long i dont know) and will abstain from doing so and will take a 1rr restriction until June 30th instead, so that i can show that i can be a productive editor - however, i do maintain that my editwarring was in good faith, in that i was removing contentious unsourced content about a living person, and did not know there was a consensus to abide by as it was on a page i hadnt edited *in the future when i revert an edit i will then post on the talk page of the article following BRD... unless it is vandalism and if i am reverted again i will take it to an admin *WP:BLOCK says "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations" - i was blocked for "disruptive editing" yet had a block MUCH longer than 24 hours... which i believe was excessive especially when i wasn't trying to be disruptive and was editing in good faith... ] (]) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

In reviewing this block, I think the 1 month block was not inappropriate. You were edit warring across multiple articles, at high speed, and had been blocked before for reverting the same user (QuackGuru). I think the 1RR proposal is a good step in the right direction, but I am more interested in more information before deciding. First: I understand that the consensus about describing Wales as a "co-founder" is not something that's readily apparent, something that decidedly was not helped by QuackGuru's lack of response to you and the "typo" edit summaries he was using. But, now that you know about it, and have presumably read the discussion, will you stop? Second: can you agree to stay away from QuackGuru? Twice now you've been blocked after reverting QuackGuru multiple times over a single issue. Mangojuice 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

as stated above I will abide by the consensus... despite how bizarre it is... however there is one article (Mark Taylor) that needs to be changed and is not covered by that consensus as it is falsely quoting the associated press... but i will take that to the article talk page and not edit war over it... as for avoiding QuackGuru im not sure that is an option as he seems to be on a lot of the articles that i am interested in editing. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to unblock on the condition that you accept a 1RR restriction concerning QuackGuru's edits until the end of June (meaning, only one revert of any of QuackGuru's edits on any page, per day). If you can't avoid him, you can at least completely avoid reverting him. Additionally, I'd like you to agree that if you register an account, you notify me or another admin by email about it. Mangojuice 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock