| Revision as of 14:52, 4 December 2014 view sourceKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,776 edits →Vindictiveness: Agreed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,441 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives|search=yes|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| {{nobots}} | |||
| ==Sockpuppet investigation== | |||
| == Get well soon == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into ] by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at ], where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ], and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you ''have'' been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.{{#if:| ] (]) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| |] | |||
| }} ] (]) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. ] (]) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ] (linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. ] (]) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. ] (]) ] (]) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff going on... <small>'''] (])'''</small> 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day. | |||
| ::I took a look at the lead of ] and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of ] within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – ] (]) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching ''The Lion in Winter'' (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go! | |||
| :::Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. ] (]) | |||
| ::::There are multiple review processes. One is ]. Another is ] (see ]). Another is ] (see ] – you too may apply to join the ]). Another is ] (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my that I marked revision 1136740705 of page ] patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently , plus administrators). And then there's ], which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! ''']'''. – ] (]) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. ] (]) | |||
| == Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation == | |||
| == Block notice == | |||
| Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about ], a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here ]. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. ] (]) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| :Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. ] (]) | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] ''''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ]{{#if:]| per evidence presented at ]}}. Note that multiple accounts are ], but using them for '']'' reasons '''is not''', and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans ]. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to ]. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the ] first. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}} | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|Per ], which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks.|decline=I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| {{unblock|Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision.}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| :If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| ::Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk {{ping|Rschen7754}} is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent? ] (]) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| {{unblock|About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space.}} ] (]) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Salvio replied to my question regarding the block extension he placed. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=636148503&oldid=636122559 ] (]) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thanks, I saw that, but I'd still like another admin to consider my appeal. Of course I'd like personal info revdeled - and I've got outstanding Requests for that - but I wouldn't just try to delete it. That would be stupid, and it (simple deletion of a couple paragraphs) wouldn't do much to address my underlying concern/request. ] (]) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The info you want revdeled, is it the info in the diff I posted above that was used to extend your block? I'm not sure that is rev-del worthy, as it is just referring to information that you posted on wiki, but in any case you could request revdel directly from oversight by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the specific info you think should be removed. ] (]) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|SlimVirgin|TParis}} can you please at least undo the block extension while I'm waiting to here from someone privately about the first block. This was not me. I don't live in Phoenix, and I was out to dinner with my husband when that happened. {{ping|Salvio giuliano}} I've done some stupid things in my life, but I wouldn't do anything that stupid. Please help. ] (]) 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am quite sorry, but as I said on my talk page, applying Occam's razor, my conclusion is that the IP was operated by you. Of course, I accept review of my actions and, so, if another administrator wants to revert my block extension, they can do so. Concerning your request for revdeletion, I can only say that it's being discussed on the dedicated mailing list and you should receive a response soon. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| === Block questions === | |||
| Can {{ping|Salvio giuliano}} or some other functionary explain this to me? | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALightbreather | |||
| </div> | |||
| --] (]) 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 --> | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| :This edit from a Phoenix IP, removing information about you. Presumed to be block evasion. I have posted a message to Salvio with some thoughts. ] ] (]) 04:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| ::On my mother's ashes, it wasn't me. Also, could someone please revdel the location info? ] (]) 04:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| ::Also, {{ping|GorillaWarfare|Newyorkbrad|Worm That Turned}} could you please block Hell in a Bucket for a bit, or ban him from the GGTF ArbCom pages? And maybe PROTECT those pages? ] (]) 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| And is this kosher? Especially while I'm blocked? ] (]) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages - plus one that has been banned for disruption == | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| Since some editors have expressed such concern about whether or not the ] (say, perhaps, for ''privacy'') of an IP address is overridden by ] (take your pick), especially in an ArbCom case, here are some IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages that, for some reason, have not been "scrutinized." | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Delhi, ''India''. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. | |||
| #] (]) Gelocates to Ontario. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater ''Manchester'') | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater ''Manchester'') | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Istanbul. | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| The following IP editor found the above information so disturbing that he/she kept deleting it from my sandbox! (He/she has been banned for disruption.) | |||
| #] (]) Geolocates to United Kingdom (''Manchester'' ISP M247 Ltd). | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| --] (]) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| I don't know enough about all of the involved parties and others who are participating at the GGTF ArbCom, but I know that two involved parties - {{ping|Eric Corbett|Sitush}} - are from or have recently been in Manchester, and that at least two others - {{ping|J3Mrs|Richerman}} - who have commented on the case have strong ties to Manchester. Therefore, I am concerned that at least three of the IPs given, the Manchester IPs - could be sock or meat puppets. ] (]) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :I'm not one of them. That is a pretty specious connection you are making and you may wish to reconsider it. - ] (]) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| ::Without evidence it should be ignored out of hand, the differences in blocks here and Lightbreathers is that there was more evidence other then just a location to indicate sockpuppetry. It will all be behavioral based and there really isn't a lot so unless it's completely telling it's an argument that doesn't hold water. If evidence can be given other then just a location then that's a different story. ] (]) 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :That's a very serious allegation you're making. ] ] 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::It looks like one editor will be banned for, among other things, making unsupported allegations and wild assumptions. ] (]) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| Wait a minute... At least ''nine'' IP users comment on the GGTF ArbCom page, but only one is picked out of the bunch to check as a sock/meat? More than one person there suggested that IP users may ''not'' participate in "discussions internal to the project." Others talked about ''avoiding scruitiny'', and in a way that suggested that scrutiny overides the legitimate use of alternate accounts for privacy. Why aren't these other editors held up to the same standards as the one? Is there a double standard? ] (]) 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :You getting caught socking isn't a case of being "picked out" (picked on?) randomly. There was clear behavioural evidence that gave you away, not just location. State your behavioural evidence and I'm sure someone will transpose it to SPI. ] (]) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| :{{edit conflict}} So ask a CU to check out those IP addresses, but I absolutely guarantee that ''none'' of them will correlate with the users you've named. ] ] 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::CU's won't publicly link the IPs with registered users like that - as was seen in the Lighbreather SPI case. It will come down to behavioural evidence, hence my request to Lightbreather to cite her behavioural evidence. In the Lightbreather SPI case, she was caught socking through behavioural evidence after the CU was declined.] (]) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's certainly the official line, but I think we all suspect that CUs are performed in secret all the time. ] ] 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I can unequivocally state that I have never commented on that case under anything but my own username. In fact, as far as I remember, I have never contributed to wikipedia as an anonymous IP. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Flyer22}}, since you claim to have some skill at sniffing out socks, I hope you don't let this drop. It won't help me, but it will take some of the sting out of being singled out as someone whose privacy means ''less'' than at least ''eight others'' who are commenting anonymously, without scrutiny, on the GGTF ArbCom. ] (]) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Evidence re Manchester (possible) socks/meat | |||
| ;Evidence for Manchester IP address 2.125.151.139: | |||
| One to the GGTF ArbCom | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629250227 | |||
| :There is an interesting comment in this post: | |||
| ::''If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you ''didn't'' apologise/retract but obviously should have done.'' | |||
| :This immediately after saying: | |||
| ::''You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man.'' | |||
| :Which reminded me of this ] discussion, especially the comment by J3Mrs, ''Don't forget when an editor disagreed with you on the GGTF page you accused her of being male....'' | |||
| And one to a user talk page | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=629276476 | |||
| :I've seen this same sort of comment (sometimes playful, sometimes like a dissertation) over what a term means multiple times by Eric Corbett and Sitush. | |||
| My gut tells me (as Hell in a Basket says) that this IP editor may be J3Mrs. Or, considering the "in hiding" remark and things Sitush said that are given in the next section - Sitush. | |||
| ] (]) 22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Your gut is 100% wrong. I don't even live in Manchester or even Greater Manchester. I suggest you retract it. ] (]) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you ever visit Manchester? ] (]) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I do visit Manchester, it's still not a crime, but you can't seriously think that I would travel there to edit anonymously? I am perfectly capable of speaking my mind logged in. I don't know whether you can categorically deny you haven't edited while logged out but I can and I think you should apologise. ] (]) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Evidence for Manchester IP address 90.213.181.169: | |||
| Three to the GGTF ArbCom (for a total of about 2.5Kb added to case discussion) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629742872 | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629743261 | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629780209 | |||
| And one to WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=629759866 | |||
| All of these posts were on October 15, 2014. In an talk page discussion ], Sitush said: | |||
| :''Doubt I'll be adding evidence. I am once again briefly in Manchester but will soon be leaving and am thus spending my short bit of time here refuting errant claims etc in the Workshop phase.'' | |||
| At this point, Sitush had already announced his "retirement," and in this post he says he doubts he'll be adding evidence. He also says that he is in Manchester. | |||
| All of this - Manchester, the GGTF ArbCom, India-related topics, the timing - suggest to me Sitush. | |||
| --] (]) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Evidence for Manchester IP address 91.232.124.60: | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/91.232.124.60 | |||
| *When I became aware that this editor was going to just keep removing information that I had in my sandbox to study, I asked him/her to email me so we could discuss. | |||
| *He/she replied, "I'll not be emailing you. Do not provoke EC and Sitush with this. It is EXTREMELY unwise." | |||
| This person deleted this information over 36 times, and was finally blocked by {{user|Samwalton9}}. | |||
| --] (]) 22:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In what sense is that "evidence"? Evidence of what? ] ] 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If nothing else, it's ''at least'' evidence that someone in Manchester really doesn't want to have IP editing in Manchester related to the GGTF ArbCom case scrutinized. ] (]) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Lightbreather, this kind of tit-for-tat will get you nowhere. I have queried the necessity of your block on the SPI page. I hope you get unblocked, and make careful and thoughtful comments at WP:ARBGGTF/PD (talk) if you wish. If not, then a week goes by surprisingly fast, especially if you forget about WP. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>00:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Lightbreather, I think the section above is causing more of the same drama that we saw at GGTF and ought to be closed down. 90.213.181.169 and 2.125.151.139 are Sitush editing logged out (not socking, just not logged in – e.g. ). | |||
| Re: the IP that was reverting your subpage (91.232.124.60), consider requesting a CU by email. Ditto with any of the other IPs if they were causing a problem. Posting a running analysis here is just going to cause more trouble. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, SlimVirgin. I am just out the door to dinner with my husband. If I can't get back on tonight, I will be back tomorrow. I will think about what you and others have written here. ] (]) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::(some sort of edit conflict, not sure what is going on) Well, if that is me editing while logged out then I apologise, even though it makes no difference really. I'll dig around what was happening at that time. I can absolutely guarantee that it was not deliberate and I suspect a similar thing has happened inadvertently even on the arb's voting page. I'll let you know the cause if indeed there was a cause. Chances are, it relates to using my mobile phone while away from home. FWIW, I think my ISP should locate to Sheffield but it has changed recently (and bears no real similarity to my actual location, which is in Wales), so who knows? - ] (]) 00:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the you give above is me. I even said so. - ] (]) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*No idea but there are obvious reasons why someone from Delhi might be contributing | |||
| :::*I suspect that might be accidental (]) but, really, does it matter? | |||
| :::* but not me | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::*. I can send a CU some stamped photos that would demonstrate why this might occur. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I've recently switched mobile phones and was at a relative's house at the time (a house that is approx 200 miles from Rochdale, but that's how geolocate works sometimes) | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::Hope this helps. Please note that the ones that were me are now irrelevant due to a change of ISP that has been forced upon me by a situation that is far, far more severe personally than the stuff relating to GGTF. | |||
| :::I am happy to release that info to arbcom directly and I'm happy to absolve WMF to speak with arbs about it. Far too many people have absolutely no idea what has been going on and, alas, there is a limit to what can be said publicly. You either ] but, either way, it really makes no difference in the context of the diffs given. I have no opinion regarding your own SPI situation: I had a gut feeling but did not pursue it because, as I said at the SPI case page, I didn't think anything would come of it anyway. - ] (]) 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Attempted outing == | |||
| Without confirming or denying the accuracy of the information, I would like to charge {{ping|Hell in a Bucket}} with attempted ] of my home or work location in relation to his speculating about my use of an alternate account. As I am still waiting to hear from someone privately regarding my block, how do I go about starting this process? | |||
| --] (]) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the process would be to write a post here and use the {{tl|helpme}} or {{tl|adminhelp}} templates to ask for it to be copied to ANI. This may get declined, as since you are currently blocked, and this is an appeal of your block or anything, some may think it is out of process. | |||
| :Also, without any comment about the merit of your particular issue, I think people may be weary of the drama related to the case, and also wary of the newly placed Discretionary Sanctions in the area. I fear you may get thought of in a tit-for-tat scenario, especially when it ''may'' appear you are doing it in response to your own block, and pinged numerous arbs and admins and not gotten anywhere. But in any case, that is what you would do to try.] (]) 21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't seem to get anyone to understand how scared I am<s>, and your reply doesn't help. Sorry. I'm not saying you're trying to scare me, but I don't feel encouraged.</s> I have sent an emergency email to Wikimedia, as TP suggested earlier. Thanks. ] (]) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|SlimVirgin|TParis}} if nothing is going to happen with this, is there a way to just close out my account and delete everything associated with it? ] (]) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You may not currently qualify for ] since you have a block active. Perhaps after your block expires though. You could also ask for your user page, but all of your various contribs in the rest of wiki would remain. (If you are allowed to vanish, they would get renamed, but your signature lines in various talk pages would remain) Per vanish, you can ask for your user talk to be deleted, but such is the exception and not the rule. Also per vanish, due to licensing issues, it is not possible to actually delete an account. ] (]) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As you have attempted to tie my user name to a location all this seems somewhat, I can't decide what word to use here but you get the gist. ] (]) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|J3Mrs}} I panicked, and I apologize. Not for bringing up the eight IP addresses that no-one put before SPI, but for bringing up names. However, I still think someone should investigate those IPs. In addition to my original focus (hatted/habbed above), I think these two look very suspicious: | |||
| ::*] (]) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. | |||
| ::*] (]) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. | |||
| ::But to repeat, I apologize. If you've never been through an SPI - I hope you never are! ] (]) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for acknowledging your error, attempted outing isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. ] (]) 11:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm the Stamford IP and I spend time reading Arbcom pages and the Drama pages to fill some blank time at work. I'm not related to anyone else. I've done some IP editing here and there as well. Sorry if you think that I'm related to a sockpuppet conspiracy. ] (]) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Question for administrator == | |||
| {{Admin help}} | |||
| Actually, I have two related questions. The first is the more straightforward of the two. | |||
| *I asked to have my block extension reviewed because that IP action on the GGTF ArbCom page was not me. Plain and simple. The request is above, dated 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC), along with a comment from the admin who extended the block, who says he accepts review of his actions. <ins>(Per ])</ins>. | |||
| *The day before that, two days ago now, I begged to have the original block reviewed privately because there are things I cannot share without potentially outing myself. Can this, as Mike V suggested, be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question (privately)? | |||
| --] (]) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Key evidence that Sue Rangell has a puppet account == | |||
| I have presented elsewhere evidence of why I believe {{ping|EChastain}} is a puppet for Sue Rangell. The best evidence that I've disclosed publicly seems to be getting lost in the weaker (but still noteworthy) evidence. Discussions seem to be focused on the weaker evidence and paying little to no attention to the better evidence. So, to make the better/best evidence clear: | |||
| :*Sue Rangell edited ''both'' the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and the Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) articles. | |||
| :*EChastain did not edit the former, but she edited the latter in a manner that was an extension of the edit Sue Rangell made to that article. | |||
| Look at this: (short list) | |||
| === AE Warning === | |||
| In July, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments: | |||
| *I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner {{user|Sandstein}} | |||
| *I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests {{user|Lord Roem}} | |||
| *I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing {{user|EdJohnston}} | |||
| === New, personal evidence === | |||
| And finally, early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly ] - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business. I think she used my email address to research my real-life identity. | |||
| If she did discover my real-life ID, then '''Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place ''that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited''''' after creating her account. | |||
| I think it very unlikely that these connections - articles about two Robert Spitzers, plus one place - ''out of 4.6 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages'', are mere coincidence. | |||
| I have more, but I will reveal no more publicly. If a functionary contacts me, I will be more than happy to reply privately. | |||
| --] (]) 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Vindictiveness==== | |||
| It is often the case that when someone gets caught they seek to redistribute blame as they miscalculate this will put them in a better light. It seldom works out the way they intended and they often end up being seen as vindictive as well as guilty of the original offense. It is often best to listen to the communities advice and let a temporary ban go by without attempting to burn others to get even. That get even strategy may boomerang and turn into a permanent ban. DISCLAIMER: This is general advice and not an accussation of any wrong doing by any parties. However I feel my two cents is really a waste of time as some will never concede to sound advice due to a getting even nature. ] (]) 04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the IP here, let it go Light as you will feel better in the end and everyone can move on. So many have tried to help you here, you are doing more harm than good. - ] (]) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024
Get well soon
Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. Lightbreather (talk) Lightbreather (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day.
- I took a look at the lead of Eleanor of Aquitaine and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of consanguinity within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching The Lion in Winter (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go!
- Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation
Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about Kessler Foundation, a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here Talk:Kessler_Foundation#Kessler Foundation Edit Requests – October 2022. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. Dogmomma529 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. Lightbreather (talk)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)