Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 2 March 2007 (decline unblock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

So, can everyone that sides with user:miracleimpulse on the sweetest day page issue expect to be "infinitely" blocked from wikipedia? Am I experiencing a malicious block that is a result of admins attempting to manufacture consensus? I'm beginning to wonder.. Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary.|decline=Contributions and immediate focus are way to similar to User:Miracleimpulse, which would make this an alternate account used to make a point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just a comment: ordinary editors and admins don't have access to logged-in users' IP addresses per Misplaced Pages privacy policy. Only a very select few would be able to look at your IP address to see if it is shared with other editors. Just making sure you know that. Not a dog 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted the blocking admin for comment. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Meisterchef is definitely not a sock puppet. JzG owes him a big wikipology. Miracleimpulse 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we really having such a hard time with determining that I am not the user you're accusing me of being? Is it really so hard to believe that I agree with him, and am otherwise unaffiliated? Can you really justify a blanket indefinite ban as a result of a single post that agrees with another user? I'm totally amazed honestly.

And how can you possibly say that I'm using complex[REDACTED] procedures and must therefore be a sock puppet? Me signing one post incorrectly is what started this mess to begin with. Someone please submit this issue to an impartial admin with actual authority. IP addresses must be reviewed in order to clear this up. I'm not user:Miracleimpulse, but I do agree with his viewpoint. That is all. meisterchef 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on the admin noticeboard to see if another admin would be willing to review the situation. I will also say that when you start off posting with a distinct lack of assumption of good faith as you did in your point 3 of the post at Talk:Sweetest Day you can't expect people to be overly willing to go out of their way to extend WP:AGF to you.--Isotope23 20:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Still not unbanned, still not a sockpuppet. Oh the injustice of it all...

And in point 3 of my post, I didn't make any assumptions at all. I only posted what it looked like to me. The post in question asked specifically for an outside opinion and I gave it. Sorry if you found it offensive!

meisterchef 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I love how theres some kind of "wiki-trial" going against me here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/miracleimpulse

..and I can't even post on it in my own defense because I'm banned.

meisterchef 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can't post on the admin board either.

meisterchef 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who." I'd say that is an assumption on your part and not a good faith one at that. It has nothing to do with being offensive, it's simply is jumping to an conclusion; and in this case an incorrect one... and the outside opinion I was looking for was on user:Miracleimpulse's disruptive actions surrounding several articles and debates here, not on the article content which I think has a pretty good consensus and it has been strongly demonstrated several times now that the version of the article user:Miracleimpulse favors is too reliant on original research and draws far too many conclusions not supported by the sources thus far provided.--Isotope23 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing... Sockpuppet investigations tend to take a long time... I initiated one near the beginning of November and it still has not been undertaken yet. There is a faster method that could be done if it is accepted and I'd be willing to initiate it on your behalf, because I suspect you are not actually Miracleimpulse. Before I do that though I'd like you to confirm something. This has no bearing on whether I'll help you or not (if you ask me to I will initiate the process), but it will help me with said process.

From the looks of it, you logged in as meisterchef and made your post to Talk:Sweetest Day, then logged out and pasted the same post to the Admin Noticebard from your IP. That IP had earlier corrected a spelling error by User:Eyetomhas, an account with only one edit. This would circumstantially seem to suggest that User:Eyetomhas is an earlier account that you used at one point, but then later created meisterchef and are no longer editing from User:Eyetomhas. This would not be a WP:SOCK violation if these are both your accounts since you are not actively editing from both, but if they are both your accounts, they resolve to the same IP, and you state that here before I initiate the process it goes a long way towards establishing that you are telling the truth (and if they are not both your accounts, you state that , and they resolve to different IPs that is fine to). Either way it is going to help your request to go on record here. Can you confirm or deny this?--Isotope23 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

They are in fact both my accounts. I'd honestly forgotten I created the earlier one. (As I said, I've been watching this article for quite a while). As to the logout, I had closed out wikipedia, and reopened it. My browser settings logged me out upon closing it, and I didn't realize it. It was my intention to post the same comment in both places with the newly created account. Any assistance you might offer me would be greatly appreciated.

And my original post was meant to convey that I don't feel that user: Miracleimpulse's contributions to the sweetest day page constitute original research. Every contribution Miracleimpulse has made has been previously published, and I still find his contributions to be valuable. If anything, the appeal of his contributions is his neutral presentation. The information, while somewhat condemning, speaks for itself. This is why I feel the need to advocate it, and why I support its inclusion in the[REDACTED] article.

This is just my opinion, I have no intention of editing the article in question at this point, as I have no new information to contribute. I only posted my support on a forum, as I must always advocate the truth, especially on Misplaced Pages. meisterchef 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) meisterchef 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will initiate a checkuser, which should clear this up.

On a seperate note, the problem is that every contribution User:Miracleimpulse has made has not been previously published. If you go back and look through the history of the Sweetest Day article to the version that he was reposting there, it was full of originial research insomuch as sections of the text he put into the article were original ideas & conclusions that were not published anywhere else. If you look at the current version of the article, it states exactly what can be verifiably stated based on the sources that exist at this time. Somewhere in the archives of the page is a line by line analysis of User:Miracleimpulse's version of the article that shows exactly why so much of it is originial research or reliant on false syllogisms. The other parts of the text that were removed were long tracts that didn't add anything to the overall article; it was trivial information. The sources User:Miracleimpulse brought to the article are valuable and they are included in the current version. What isn't valuable is his insistance of originial research, edit warring, WP:POINT-making, and other disruptive behavior he has brought to the article as well. One of the core principles of Misplaced Pages is WP:V which states verifiability not truth and the problem is that the "truth" about Sweetest Day is still indeterminate based on the sources so far uncovered.--Isotope23 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

I've opened a checkuser request on your behalf here.--Isotope23 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

meisterchef 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of sockpuppetry withdrawn

Meisterchef, I've withdrawn the sockpuppetry accusation against this account and miracleimpulse, although my suspicion continues that you and miracleimpulse are in fact the same person operating different accounts. Further explanation may be found on the talk page of the erstwhile accusation. On the chance that you actually are not a sockpuppet, then may your future activities here attract far less intrigue. —Ryanaxp 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats lovely and all.. but I'm still banned indefinitely. Your accusation, withdrawn or not, was a secondary issue. The primary issue here is that an admin indefinitely banned me without a second thought, or investigation, PRIOR to you opening some sort of bogus preceeding against me or the other user. He violated wikipedia's own rules to do away with me, because my opinion differed from his. I've never even edited a page! I expressed my opinion exactly once, and not only did an administrator ban me immediately, and another support it, but several editors even jumped on board after the fact and created some bogus tribunal to lend credibility to it. Both of the administrators in question have been very active in editing the page in question, and therefore they cannot possibly be considered impartial.

One person looking at one IP log is all it's going to take to determine that I am my own entity, but it has yet to happen. Why is this being allowed to stand? Who polices the police of wikipedia?

This is rediculous, and I'm over it.

meisterchef 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per the results of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miracleimpulse, the withdrawal of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/miracleimpulse, and the assumption of good faith, I've unblocked this account. Please accept my apologies in this matter -- as is often lamented in the "real world," the wheels of justice move slowly. Request handled by: Luna Santin 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fresh start

Luna Santin, I greatly appreciate your attention to this issue. Thank you for any measure of time you invested in it. Thank you also Isotope23 for submitting the checkuser request on my behalf. It was a truly helpful and courteous thing to do.

meisterchef 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you indefinitely as your edits (not a m:Checkuser) confirms that you are a sockpuppet of Miracleimpulse. For full reasoning, view my comment at the Community noticeboard where the ban is being discussed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully support this indefinite block. Per the once again... comment that begins the complaint below, this account admits to being a ban-evading sockpuppet. Durova 02:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Ryulong has gotten blockhappy once again. See the correspondence regarding the last time he blocked me below for my reason for this request. He has unjustly blocked me for voicing my opinion once again. This is inexcusable, and his administrative privileges should be revoked.

Decline reason:

Per Ryulong's CN rationale and Durova. You do not even appear to deny you are a puppet. Note also that unblock requests that are essentially personal attacks on the blocking admin are rarely successful. — Sandstein 05:31, 2 March 2007 (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.

BIG FREAKING SUPRISE!

Once again, banned for no reason, without editting a single page. Your administrators are clearly working in your best interest wikipedia. This project is broken. I don't even care.

meisterchef 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an email I received after the first time I was unjustly banned.

I follow Unblock-en-l and your case appeared in it, hi. Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Misplaced Pages has no policies, applied consistently.

All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Misplaced Pages as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:

a voice from within Misplaced Pages's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Misplaced Pages pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Misplaced Pages by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy."

On the nature of Misplaced Pages: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Misplaced Pages"

and a former admin, leaving Misplaced Pages just recently, on 6 Oct 06: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html " Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...

The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054951.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.

Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php "You are not the only one who has had problems with Misplaced Pages taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group "Yes ... this is my opinion of Misplaced Pages. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/

" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/

and this is the complaint log number for me reporting Misplaced Pages to the FBI for the copyright theft committed by it retaining any of my words in its articles: I05090317204525, 3 Sep 2005. I have no connection with Sarfatti, a former Misplaced Pages member who posted in Wiki-en-l last Aug-Sep, but I mailed this reference to him in case it's of any help with the legal action he announced at that time.

There is so much truth here it's truly astounding.

meisterchef 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)