Misplaced Pages

False Accusations

WP:SOCK Violations

Please read WP:SOCK and refrain from editing from your user id and your non logged in ip address. Thanking yourself on the ip talk User talk:67.185.221.175 seems rather deceptive. Please avoid deceptive editing practices and comments. If you continue you are likely to be blocked from editing. Vsmith 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is a simple misunderstanding. I have been working to prevent vandalism to a page I created. Because the vandals who are using Sock Puppets (I've checked the IPs) were constantly watching my edit/contribution history, I felt the need to log out to ask another person for help. I didn't want the vandals to know that I was asking for assistance.

While, I was logged out, I had to revert vandalism to the page in question. So I accidentally did this using my IP address. Again, this was not intentional. I agree, the cute little note where I thank myself was deceptive, but for good reason. I didn't want the vandals to see my IP address and put two and two together. A person's IP Address can be easily hacked. Which is why I plan on renewing it shortly.

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of asking for help from Brusegadi. Brusegadi became immediately hostile, claiming that I had violated the WP:SOCK policy.

Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry policy states,

"A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.

The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably."

The request for help from Brusegadi was a harmless act. Moreover, the comment to myself on my own user page was a harmless act. - ICarriere 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a sock for the purpose of deceiving others is not honest nor harmless. Vsmith 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention on my part to deceive anyone. Misplaced Pages does not deny us the notion of privacy when communicating with another user. As to the edit, I have explain that I did not intend for the edit to show with my ip address.

I have also explained why I added the comment afterward. Somewhat stupid? Perhaps, but as I said, I did so to conceal my privacy from would be hackers. I did it for my protection, not to cause harm to anyone else. The fact that you chose to believe something else is outside my control.

Frankly, the hostility on your part is truly questionable. From what I have read, the admins are suppose to be welcoming and helpful. Instead, you've been accusatory and vendictive * . - ICarriere 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR Violations

I have protected the page due to the ongoing edit warring there. Note the protection does not endorse the current version. You have been involved in a protracted edit war and appear to have violated WP:3RR, please avoid such behavior in the future. Your edit warring and admitted sock usage could easily have resulted in a block, please consider this a warning for the future. I expect to see some civil discussion on the talk page involved in an attempt by you and the other editors to resolve the issue. Vsmith 04:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While I truly thank you for protecting the page, I disagree with your claim I have violated Misplaced Pages policy.

The policy clearly allows exception for removing content that violates the WP:BLV.

WP:3RR Policy states,

Exceptions:

Reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons)

The only reverts that I have made to the page were for the purpose of retaining the pages' integrity.

I would appreciate your response. - ICarriere 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Others have a different view of your actions, including another admin. Calling another users edits vandalism does not make it so. There may be some BLP issues here plus some notability problems - however "clearly libelous" and "poorly sourced" have been disputed on the talk page by others. At that point your continuing edit warring became a problem. I have no interest in the details of the dispute - quite simply move on and resolve the issue. Vsmith 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was defending the page I created from repeated vandalism by a 1-2 users. The user/users both hide themselves using a proxy and multiple user accounts. Now, if you don't mind, I'll defend myself,

I hope after a careful review of the record, you will see that I did not violate WP:3RR. Thank you. - ICarriere 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Headers

Please do not edit the comments of others. It is bad practrice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Statsone (talk • contribs) 15:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the comment, but you are way out of line. I realize you want to place your comments at the bottom so that everyone can see you in all your self importance. But discussion pages are meant to be well defined so that new users can contribute. I reordered the page to reflect new comments to the bottom. That is not the same as editing your comments. - ICarriere 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK/WP:CHECKUSER Request

This is a very complex subject, but if you look over the information I have compiled, a destinct pattern begins to emerge.

I used ARIN to located the physical locations Anonymous Users making edits on the Erin Burnett History page :

http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl

Here is what I found:

216.16.232.250 - ON, Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151022459&oldid=151015070

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Newsbusters (BLOG)

209.160.104.203 - Rochester, NY

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151521193&oldid=151477027

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Crooks and Liars (BLOG)

206.223.219.31 - Ketchikan, AK

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151313432&oldid=151299873

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Consumerist (BLOG)

170.63.96.108 - Chelsea, MA - Massachusetts Department of Revenue (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=148124687&oldid=148051237

Edit: Erin Burnett is a enjoying undeserved success after being continually hyped on MSNBC by Joe Scarborough.

Cited: NO SOURCE

148.177.1.211 - Raritan, NJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151015070&oldid=150848357

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Crooks and Liars (BLOG)

140.247.152.251 - Cambridge, MA - Harvard University VALID

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=149501912&oldid=149388815

Edit: Revert Controvery Section title to Popular Culture

124.217.63.180 - Milton, AU VALID

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=148897081&oldid=148859294

Edit:

72.92.15.183 - Reston, VA VALID

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=149388815&oldid=149356058

Edit: M

72.70.224.38 - Reston, VA (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151901431&oldid=151899537

Edit: Quotes Proving That She Is A Quasi-Fascist

70.177.246.33 - Atlanta, GA (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151376761&oldid=151375820

Edit: "On August 15, 2007 Burnett repeatedly made disparaging comments about the people of the State of New Jersey while appearing on the "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC, eventually referring to the state as "the armpit of America." It is unclear whether this comment was made as a result of impirical reporting, was the opinion of both CNBC and MSNBC or was just her personal, uniformed and unprofessional opinion. Her comments have prompted calls for her ouster."

Cited: Consumerist (BLOG)

70.44.153.46 - Palmerton, PA (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=148859294&oldid=148846328

Edit: Burnett is young and has no M.B.A., but is often featured on shows as an "expert" on the economy and the markets.

69.142.245.22 - Mt Laurel, NJ (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151375820&oldid=151374802

Edit: "On August 15, 2007 Burnett repeatedly made disparaging comments about the people of the State of New Jersey while appearing on the "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC, eventually referring to the state as "the armpit of America." It is unclear whether this comment was made as a result of impirical reporting, was the opinion of both CNBC and MSNBC or was just her personal, uniformed and unprofessional opinion. Her comments have prompted calls for her ouster."

Cited: NO SOURCE

68.63.187.12 - Mt Laurel, NJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151451927&oldid=151451834

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: NO SOURCE

66.245.41.236 - Atlanta, GA

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=150581532&oldid=150047256

Edit: Add link to fan club

64.180.8.165 - BC, Canada (VANDALISM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151653671&oldid=151652786

Edit: Deleted sourced material from 'Career' section

24.131.127.14 - Mt Laurel, NJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151639550&oldid=151633789

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Consumerist (BLOG)

4.236.222.149 - Broomfield, CO - Level 3 Communications, Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151960649&oldid=151918118

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Crooks and Liars (BLOG)

4.231.238.99 - Broomfield, CO - Level 3 Communications, Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151885023&oldid=151880841

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Crooks and Liars (BLOG)

4.231.233.88 - Broomfield, CO - Level 3 Communications, Inc.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=151918118&oldid=151917342

Edit: Add Controversial Quote

Cited: Crooks and Liars (BLOG)

Feedback

Theresa, as you indicated, this could be the work of bloggers; but I have a feeling this is the work of one or two people. I'm not asking you to do anything, but I would like your feedback on what I should do next.

The only program I could find that uses this random method of IP Addressing is called Anonymizer .

I would like to get to the bottom of this. So on Monday, I plan on calling the support department to ask whether any of these IP Addresses belong to their company.

Do you think I should rewrite my request for WP:CHECKUSER now that I know more of what's going on? - ICarriere 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you are seeing what you want to see. I'm seeing a whole bunch of different users from all overthe place. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that what using a proxy address does? - ICarriere 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no European proxies on your list? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. I guess, Anonymizer is an American company.

What's the significance of European proxy address? - ICarriere 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to use a list of open proxies, wouldn't you use them from all over the world? I would. But all the edits above appear to com from North America. Also the edits are all different. Some add the quote, some add other stuff, some vandalise others revert vandalism, some add a cite, some don't. Of those that do they cite from multiple different places. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All of what you say is true except, Open Proxies and a program like Anonymizer are very different things.

Moreover, what makes me suspicious is how that many Anonymous users would try to add the same group of blogs that statsone had cited on the EB discussion page. When if you read the EB discussion page, the argument had already been made that Blogs are not considered citable sources per WP:BLP.

Don't get me wrong, it's possible that all of those people had the same intent and the same reasoning skills, but I find it highly unlikely.

Anyway, thank you for the feedback. I really do appreciate at. - ICarriere 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes. That way, your username and timestamp will be generated automatically and make responses on talk a little easier. If you don't have the tilde key, there's a thing you canclick right at the top of the editing box underneath the save, preview, and show change buttons.

As for your request, I have to concur with Theresa - I don't see the pattern you see. When something gets on the Internet, a lot of people are going to see it, and there are plenty of like-minded people out there. The quotes aren't a BLP violation, because the sources are valid, though I gather the issue is "is this really as big an issue as people want to make out?" That is debatable, and it's purely a content issue. I think a CU isn't going to get you the outcome you expect to the degree which you expect - the IP data is too disparate, though you might find a sock here or there. I think you've got to try discussion first, and if a solid attempt at that fails, then go to ANI, though the page has been protected already, so you've gotten to about the endpoint of ANI already. If you've filed an SSP, wait for it to finish first before you do anything else process-wise. You may simply have to wait and see what happens; there's no magic button to press to resolve things like this. MSJapan 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Although, I'm rather confused about the tildes comment. I looked on your discussion page and see my username/timestamp shows there. I wonder if I have a problem with my account. I've noticed that people say that even though my username/timestamp are present. ICarriere 11:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because wiki formatting is dependent on the server and not the client. As long as you format properly, it works - what you're probably doing is typing your username and five tildes, which gives you a timestamp only, and not the username wikilink. MSJapan 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Image:Agatha Christie in 1937.jpg

I have tagged Image:Agatha Christie in 1937.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Burstmeets 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: King James I

Take a look at what they tried to add to the main page. I removed it, but we might as well stop talking to this people and just start reverting them. Korismo (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)