User talk:Don't lose that number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Block

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] TsunamiButler and HonourableSchoolboy

Thanks for your note. I put the block proposal up for review before carrying it out. It was reviewed and agreed by four admins before we discovered the sockpuppetry — Taxman, Ral315, WillBeback, and Georgewilliamherbet — and by a fifth, Thatcher131, after the check user. [1] In addition, Fred Bauder of the ArbCom commented on it, [2] and the admin who conducted the check user noticed independently of me that HonourableSchoolboy might be sockpuppeting. So all in all, seven admins were involved in this, including one bureaucrat and two arbitrators. That makes it a pretty thoroughly reviewed block.

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

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

The permanent block was for a violation of the ArbCom rulings and for WP:SOCK. The accounts are believed to be operated by a banned user. The ArbCom does not distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and they made that explicit in their LaRouche2 ruling. However, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to have another admin review the block — bearing in mind that seven admins apart from me have commented already — and then it will be as though that admin instigated it; or they may agree with you and unblock. If you want me to pick one, let me know; otherwise you can choose an admin and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the RFC you certified, since you obviously were not a valid second certifier. As the WP:RFC page makes clear, "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." Not only did you get involved in the so-called "dispute" after the RFC was already posted [3], but, as the comment above shows, SlimVirgin was perfectly willing to arrange for a review of the block, and you didn't respond, so obviously you haven't "tried but failed to resolve the problem". Finally, this complaint would more appropriately be place on WP:AN/I; all in all, it was an abuse of the WP:RFC process. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For other admins reading this page: the location of the deleted RfC is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin --Don't lose that number 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

I've removed your latest post from the LaRouche talk page because it violated the BLP policy. We don't use blogs as sources of information on living people (unless it's the blog owner), and that applies to talk pages too. See WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Briefs

I'm not sure why you restored the material sourced from the brief without answering the question of who the writers are and why we should use themn as a source. I don't want to get into a revert war, so the courtesy of a reply would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJASE1

You left a message at User talk:RJASE1. I'm pretty sure he's left wikipedia, or at least is no longer editing under that name. Regards, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbcom enforcement filed

Please note that a Request for Arbcom enforcement has been filed that cites your edits.--Cberlet 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that our responses be duplicated at WP:RfAR as a proposed new case, since Cberlet is not citing any actual violations of previous cases. Do you have any objections to this? --NathanDW 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "An appeal for a change in your behavior"

I've found that in Wikipedia, as in real life, the Golden Rule applies: treat others as you would like to be treated. I have counseled Cberlet and Dking to be less aggressive, and about the request for banning. I've also counseled, many times, NathanDW, Marvin Diode, and Maple Porter to avoid making negative personal remarks about other editors. It's the job of every editor, not just admins, to promote good behavior, first by setting a good example. As for the assertion that LaRouche is an anti-semitic fascist, it appears that it is the majority viewpoint. In the past week I've read hundreds of archived newspaper reports and have seen him described that way often. Even majority viewpoints should be presented neutrally, of course, and significant minority viewpoints must be presented as well. But if a hundred sources call LaRouche anti-semitic, we can't put our heads into the sand and ignore that. We need to say that it is reported, and that another viewpoint is that he isn't anti-semitic. I'll note that I proposed we merge two discussions of anti-semitism in order to reduce the amount of space we devote to the issue, but that you said you preferred the status quo. So it appears that the material isn't objectionable, just the editors. We all know that the LaRouche movement has an intense animous towards Berlet and King. They're welcome to their opinions, but they should not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. No one should. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've sent emails. You'll have to take my word for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi DLTN, I've blocked this account indefinitely for reverting to restore an inappropriate link to Chip Berlet, in violation of WP:BLP and the ArbCom rulings. The page you linked to was based on material published by the LaRouche movement and other unreliable sources. You were warned when you were unblocked in April — when technical evidence linked you to two other LaRouche accounts, but you were given the benefit of the doubt — that you must edit very strictly within our policies and the ArbCom rulings, [4] yet problems continue. Advice was sought from arbitrators and it was agreed that a block was the correct way to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)