User talk:WavePart: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:37, 4 June 2010 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,556,421 edits Added {{tilde}} note.← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:02, 9 June 2010 edit undoWavePart (talk \| contribs)188 edits rm SineBot notice. Comment was signed anyway...Next edit →
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\|}		\|}
	:*From what I can see here, this indef block for socking was based more on suspicion than evidence. All I can say in defense of my fellow administrators is that climate change related articles have been subject to a horrendous amount of disruptive editing and deceptive practices, and we've gotten perhaps a little to vigilant in looking for ghosts and goblins. As I said above, your explanation of events seems equally as likely as the blocking admins, and without a full case or ] it is probably not enough to warrant an indefinite block. ] (]) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)		:*From what I can see here, this indef block for socking was based more on suspicion than evidence. All I can say in defense of my fellow administrators is that climate change related articles have been subject to a horrendous amount of disruptive editing and deceptive practices, and we've gotten perhaps a little to vigilant in looking for ghosts and goblins. As I said above, your explanation of events seems equally as likely as the blocking admins, and without a full case or ] it is probably not enough to warrant an indefinite block. ] (]) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

	==Your recent edits==
	] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 09:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:02, 9 June 2010

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked on groundless suspicion of being a sockpuppet. I am not a sockpuppet, and there is no basis for calling me such other than apparent paranoia. The justification given was that I had a small number of edits before editing a controversial article. I have had and used this account for about seven months, and recently over the three-day weekend decided to contribute more regularly when I saw some articles lacking content about which I had expertise, and some which needed nudging toward neutrality. Obviously the latter is controversial on certain articles, but if you check I have gone well out of my way to be polite, respectful, productive, to move toward compromise, and to follow all rules. There is absolutely no justification for a block, except attempting to manipulate article contents by blocking new editors. It is disappointing seeing how carelessly such a block is applied here.

Decline reason:

I'd believe you more if you didn't make such a quantum leap from one subject matter that's noncontroversial to one where the controversy is so thick you can smother an elephant with it and if this account's first ten or eleven edits were in areas at least related to the subject matter. As it is, this account's behavior makes it come across as an autoconfirmation-buster (especially since the article in question is semiprotected). Declined, though I would imagine explaining your situation a bit better might cause another admin to lift your block. —Jeremy 22:45, 1 June 2010 (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.

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

Request reason:

What is there to explain? While relaxing over the weekend I saw an article in the news about global warming on Saturday, thought I would look at the global warming wiki page, and noticed that it was suddenly much more opinionated in the introduction than I remembered it from the last time I had seen the page a year or so ago. So since I had some time, I checked the history to figure out what went wrong, and saw it was largely due to the recent edits of a single editor, and I saw that these edits were being complained about by others on the talk page, although no one was actually fixing it. So I decided to chip in and try to move it toward neutrality. I think wikipedia should sound like the non-controversial articles even in the controversial ones, and so I don't consider this a "quantum leap". It's just apparently much more work to make them NPOV. (And, sadly, it seems that trying to edit controversial articles gets you in conflict with administrators even when you have done absolutely nothing wrong, other than having a short edit history.) I'm a busy man, and don't often have time to spend editing wikipedia, which is why I could easily go months without an edit. But I was under the (mistaken?) impression that occasional editors were valued here as much as frequent editors. (Sorry if this response with addditional info is formatted incorrectly. The page was unclear about how to do that.) *addendum* Seriously, the more I think about it, the less it makes sense. What do you expect someone who is not a sockpuppet to say to convince you they are not, when there was no basis given for calling me a sockpuppet in the first place? It only says something about a WP:DUCK test, which as far as I can tell consists of nothing more than I edited a controversial article for which OTHER people have abused sockpuppets. By basic test of logic it's often literally impossible to "prove innocence" on something groundless if one is held to such a standard, which is why there should always be a tangible reason for accusing people of something! Seriously, let's use some basic modern reasoning here! You have my story for why I edited it, and you have my word that I am not using any other accounts. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Like the blocking and reviewing admin above, I agree that this account's contribution pattern is that of a sockpuppet. Sandstein 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's not exactly true, is it? You say you were relaxing over the weekened, and then saw some article about Global Warming, and so you logged on Misplaced Pages to check out Global Warming, but saw that it was problematic. You're missing a key thing you did that you must have forgoten - before editing Global Warming you also dediced to edit Autocorrelation and Algorithmic efficiency. If you were reading an article about Global Warming, why did you decide to hop on and edit those two articles before Global Warming? Could you try to give the complete timeline of your weekend? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Since again more information is requested, let me clarify yet a third time. I did exactly what I said, read a news article about global warming, came to wikipedia to see what it said, and saw that it needed work. Upon trying to edit it, the site complained that I needed 10 edits to do so, and I had not yet accumulated 10 edits. So I moved along for a while and decided to look at other areas I could contribute, looking specifically for some areas that I knew enough about to make valuable contributions. NOTE: I took those 10 edits SERIOUSLY, and made genuine substantive contributions to other articles. When the site says you need 10 edits before you can edit a particular article, I take that to literally mean this, and so I put in my time contributing elsewhere. If you want MORE than 10 edits before you get blocked for editing, then make it ACTUALLY SAY you need more than 10 edits. IN NO WAY DOES THIS MAKE ME A SOCKPUPPET. To be a sockpuppet, you by definition have to be a sockpuppet OF someone else, and I am NOT anyone else involved in the article. While I acknowledge that the admins which have looked at this are probably acting in good faith, it's absolutely ridiculous when you consider it from the perspective of a user (ME) on the receiving end of something he had nothing to do with. You REALLY need to revise your standards for deciding when to block someone, because you are clearly throwing out a lot of innocent people with the garbage. *addendum* Please note below, while I was NOT blocked for any editing violation, I have voluntarily agreed to refrain from editing climate change articles for six months, purely as a sign of good faith of not being a sockpuppet.}}

I was just reading Misplaced Pages:Signs_of_sock_puppetry, to see what you guys think is apparently adequate evidence of somebody being a sockpuppet. It seems to say, "Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly." It'd be really awesome if someone here were actually willing to follow that policy... I also looked around at the other people getting blocked, and it seems that a lot of people are being blocked indefinitely without a justification given other than "suspicion" or "suspicious behavior", and when they complain they are just assumed guilty and ignored. (Kind of like me!) I don't know quite what's going on there, but from my perspective sitting here, I am sadly reminded of Hamlet... That is definitely not a good thing. WavePart (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. If I were a sockpuppet, I probably would have moved on by now. I would like my account back please. WavePart (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

If you weren't a sockpuppet and really wanted the account back as opposed to just wasting everyones time, you'd ask to be unblocked on the condition that you not edit any articles related to climate change for, oh, 6 months and 100 non-trivial mainspace edits, whichever came last. Just a thought. Oh, and the essay you cited? Not policy. 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC) (Comment by Hipocrite)

I can certainly voluntarily agree to not edit climate change articles for 6 months as a condition of being unblocked, if an administrator will accept this. So if you are an administrator reading this, please consider that as well, if you think that will be somehow convincing that I am a real person. WavePart (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I've lost my taste for editing those articles with how rude and hostile everyone is acting, such as name-calling, assumption of bad faith, and attempting to get everybody else blocked. It's ridiculous. Editing should be enjoyable, and the environment there is not. WavePart (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain it for you - the issue isn't that you're working on Global Warming-related topics, but the fact that you (1) completely jumped from an unrelated and uncontroversial topic into Global Warming and (2) you only started focusing on GW topics practically immediately after you'd achieved the bare minimum of ten edits for autoconfirmation. Those behaviors, in and of themselves, are like a large neon sign saying "I am a sockpuppet (shhh!)" strapped to your back, and the fact that you made your last few edits for autoconfirmation not even 30 minutes before you leaped into GW is making it virtually impossible for us to assume good faith. —Jeremy 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well excuse me, but honestly I had no idea you HAD policies or practice of interpreting that behavior in that manner. It has been many many many years since I've contributed significantly to wikipedia (my first edits were as a mere ip address starting around 2001-2003), and I because I have not been paying attention to all the commotion here, I had no idea editing with a minimum number of edits triggered such paranoia in response these days. Back then, there were no such conditions or reactions. I certainly wouldn't have edited a controversial article with a small number of edits if I did know you all reacted that way now!! Surely being willing to agree to not edit those articles is a pretty good sign that I'm not a sockpuppet. (Presumably people actually create sockpuppets for some sort of purpose on controversial articles, almost by definition, and thus it's pretty hard to keep calling someone a sockpuppet when they're agreeing not to edit those articles!) WavePart (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can at least fathom the concept that I'm telling the truth, and that I'm not part of some nefarious conspiracy, surely you can understand why I am justifiably frustrated with this treatment and response. WavePart (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What IP address, please? Hipocrite (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

...? Do you remember YOUR ip addresses from ~8 years ago??? I certainly don't. (And honestly if I did, I might not tell you anyway out of privacy concerns.) Why don't we try to stick to things that are relevant, so that we can actually resolve this witch hunt sometime soon... WavePart (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For example: Honestly, who do you think I am a sockpuppet of? So far no one has said, which I consider pretty strange given the definition of a sockpuppet... You can't even BE a sockpuppet without being a sockpuppet OF someone who posts in the same area, and I am not one of ANYONE. I challenge anyone to show some evidence otherwise. If you can't, the block is in serious error. WavePart (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You remember some of the edits you made as an IP, right? What articles were they to, and when did you make them? If you don't remember the IP from however many years ago, how could it possibly be a privacy violation? Hipocrite (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have bolded the relevant section above. No details from 8 years ago are at all relevant here, and there is no point in engaging in that digression. WavePart (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You have provided an explanation at least as probable as the suspicion that led to your block, therefore tthe policy that that we should assume good faith demands that you be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

From what I can see here, this indef block for socking was based more on suspicion than evidence. All I can say in defense of my fellow administrators is that climate change related articles have been subject to a horrendous amount of disruptive editing and deceptive practices, and we've gotten perhaps a little to vigilant in looking for ghosts and goblins. As I said above, your explanation of events seems equally as likely as the blocking admins, and without a full case or checkuser evidence it is probably not enough to warrant an indefinite block. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)