| Revision as of 02:56, 6 October 2005 editViper Daimao (talk | contribs)178 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 13 October 2005 edit undoKatefan0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits TaggingNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :::Also, do you work for the same company I work for? I only have the conflicting IP address because of my proxy server at work.--] 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | :::Also, do you work for the same company I work for? I only have the conflicting IP address because of my proxy server at work.--] 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Tagging == | |||
| Please don't use <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> for discrete sections. You should use {{sectNPOV}} for discrete sections. The NPOV template is for the top of the page, meant to suggest that the entire article is under dispute. Thanks · ]<sup>]</sup> 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:04, 13 October 2005
Welcome,
I noticed your message on Kate's page, and appreciate your logging in.
Regarding the bullies, liars, and just plain unwik people on the Coulter page, I do not know what Kate can actually do about it except stop by and tell them to play nice. Perhaps she can take their charges seriously, and either have them investigated (although sock checks are not easily done), or block the accusers for making specious and obviously disingenuous and inflammatory accusations. From what I have observed, neither of those things will happen. It doesn't matter how nice you are to them, they will still revert your edits. I have been nice, and have had my edits treated exactly like those of Big Daddy. This in itself completely exposes their intentions and, of course, their bad faith.
Of course, they are all leaving an unforgiving edit history behind them, so it's not like one can't review it and see their patters of behavior, and study their tactics. They are much more transparent in their motives than the conceits they utter.
Keep up the good work, and let me know if you need assistance from an intelligent and fair user. If you're wrong about something, I won't lie and say you're right, but if you're right, I will defend you.
Also, try to get some work done on non-disuted pages, if you haven't already (I haven't checked your history). The uncollaborative and ungracious folks at Coulter are not interested in contributing to those, so you will get some work done there, unless they stalk you.
Regards,
From the Other Big Daddy :)
Welcome! I think you're great and am terribly sorry you had to endure the scorn that was specifically intended for me. lol! I appreciate your courageous move and hope this puts an end to the slanderous charges bandied about. Keep doing the excellent work you have to remove POV from conservative columnists articles. I GUARANTEE you we will succeed as this is what founder Jimmy Wales wants. Don't let the humorless or the hateful deter you. I still get the biggest kick out of Misplaced Pages. It's an ingenius idea and will prevail as Jimmy envisioned it. A FAIR encyclopedia, not a breeding ground for people of just one single distorted view of the world. Ps Paul Klenk is right. You will not find a fairer, more even handed editor here. He cares passionately about his excellent work at Misplaced Pages. I observed with my very own eyes how, though he literally bent over backwards for these people, they just spit on him like he was refuse. Something's got to be done about this...Big Daddy 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Your message
I agree that everybody working on the Ann Coulter article should try to calm down a little bit and start talking about content instead of endlessly discussing each other. There's only so much I can do, though -- what we have, functionally, is an editing conflict over content, and while that is frustrating, there's not much I am empowered to do to solve that. I can't make people agree with one another.
Paul implied that I will only be taking your concerns seriously if I either "have them investigated" or block them for being uncivil, which I take issue with. The fact of the matter is that you yourself are empowered to "have them investigated" by using Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, you don't need me to do it for you and in fact it would be highly irregular if I did, since I've not been involved in the issues myself. There's not really been anything that I can block anyone over, quite frankly -- although personal attacks and incivility are considered against policy, administrators are strongly discouraged from blocking users for violations of these policies unless they are particularly egregious (racial slurs, physical threats, lawsuit threats). And if I was going to block folks for making "inflammatory comments," practically everybody editing on that page would end up with a block, and that certainly wouldn't help discussions. Basically, everybody needs to calm down and try to work together. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everybody sit down and listen to one another, but I can't. Try opening an RFC or engaging a mediator. · Katefan0 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and I am glad you opened an account. Much of the time anon contributions on Misplaced Pages are not given as much credence as those from registered users. So this was a good step if you're serious about contributing to Misplaced Pages. Good luck · Katefan0 15:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ohh, I see; I thought you were referring to the fireworks on the Ann Coulter talk page. Well, as for sockpuppetry -- checking takes a heavy toll on the servers, so typically only developers are able to perform those checks. The only user that can perform them is User:David Gerard. Your only option really is to make a request to him; it's far beyond anything I can deal with myself. · Katefan0 16:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
From Paul to 67124 and Kate:
Actually, Kate may have misunderstood what I was getting at -- maybe because I was not very clear. I know she takes your concerns seriously. If you read what I wrote, I was referring to taking the accusations of sock puppetry seriously, in addition to her other actions (among which are 1] keeping an eye on the page and 2] telling people to play nice). What I mean(t) by the "seriously" remark is:
- When people speciously (or stupidly) throw around such accusations, it is highly disruptive. Calling people's bluff and asking for real, not imagined, evidence (this is what I mean by "taking seriously") should either shut them up or get them to spill their evidence, if indeed they have any. This should quell some of the disruption.
- If it then becomes obvious that there is no real evidence, the user needs to own up to this. The accusations I have read are rarely even qualified as "suspicions" -- they are out-and-out statements of "fact", and is making it harder to edit the page, get along, calm down, and collaborate. It is, I believe, an ugly tactic to attack other users, sully their reputations, and drive them away.
Kate is also correct to point out the many other options. I didn't mean to imply that anyone's options are so restrictive. However, I did mean to imply that, judging from the increasing incivility and recklessness of that page, there isn't a whole lot that Kate can do (not judging her intent or quality of work, just the outcome so far). She has tried her best to keep her eyes on that page, and it is getting worse.
It is informative, Kate, to hear the prevailing thinking about blocking. I respect admins' reluctance to block, but I do think that a one-hour block, from time to time, can send the right message. It need not be punitive; it can just tell the accuser to cool off and be ready to stop the accusations and apologize when they return. Calling someone a sockpuppet is an extremely serious charge; in the context of this talk page, could be construed as gaming the system. Inflammatory comments are one thing; the inflammatory and false accusations in question are, imho, outrageous and a more serious matter. paul klenk 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it appears that the accusations were in fact not false. So I guess that takes care of that. · Katefan0 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- no. still wrong. 67124etc 03:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about that.
Here's what Katefan posted on my talk page about two weeks ago -
Be careful...
...you are coming perilously close to being blocked. Please read my comments at Talk:Karl Rove. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And I might add I was still pretty much a newbie at this point (I began Sept 1.) The incident was INSTIGATED by ryan freisling unilaterally ERASING my commentary in an ARTICLE talk page!! (I know...it's never happened before or since.) Being new and completely clueless as to whether that was kosher or not, I thought, 'If Ryan can do that to me, I'll do that to her', so it went back and forth for a little bit until Kate stepped in within minutes I might add... with the above threat. Big Daddy 19:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- That was over 3RR, not over personal attacks. Blocking policies for 3RR are swift and sure, unlike with personal attacks or incivility. · Katefan0 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
To 67.124.etc.
This is the editor who uses 64.154.26.151. I would like to ask for your help to foil those who would wish to profit in confounding our identities. I case you didn't know, beyond the childish slurs others have come up with (and others have ignorantly, disingenuously or dishonestly validated) to halt reasonable changes to the Coulter article, there is a kind of preliminary to a roundup going on on Big Daddy's arb page. One arb has made a list of presumed aliases of Big Daddy and some of your and my IDs are on it (there is much more to this, I will get to it in a minute), so I think if they come up with sanctions against Big Daddy, it will affect us as well.
I think the Admin, who I read you tried to send an e-mail to (and who was now himself reprimanded for breaking the 3RR rule ) has a weak case against us, if he wants to prevent us from collaborating on the page in the future (that is if you still have the stomach to confront the nauseatingly tedious charges that will be bound to follow should the collaboration resort to reverting). It substantially amounts to "How could three reasonable people all have something more than negative to report about such a woman?"
The potentially serious complication to this, is that this 64.154.26.151 account is now being accused of misuse in a manner in which I do not understand. On October 4, 2005 about 10:30 (UTC) David Gerard, the admin whose page you visited to inquire on allegations of sockpuppetry against you, blocked three users: BarneyGumble, PaganViking, and LEONARDWATSON for infinite time. Only one of them has an edit history. All three users were accused of sockpuppetting the other two accounts and all three were accused of sockpuppeting 64.154.26.151. This admin is unavailable for comment, since he will not respond to Gator1 for a half a day now. I have no idea when this sockpuppeting happened. This week? Six months ago? A year? I have occasionally looked at the 64.154.26.151 history page, which belongs to a network I share, and saw no talk page references that would indicate any kind of edit disputation or back and forth discussions other than my own very recent ones. I am responsible for roughly 75% of the edits of that user ID. I have certainly never seen the names BarneyGumble, PaganViking or LEONARDWATSON before today.
Once that obstacle is overcome, and it can be determined that I can continue or refrain from using that account, if we could clear this up with the offer to meet a representative arbitrator in Yahoo chat or some other large public chatroom, it would be greatly appreciated. I think many would agree we are owed an apology should it have to come to that, so the offer would be a powerful disincentive for the line of attack that has been used to cloud the issues in the Coulter article.
If you live in an area distant from the network I use, perhaps what you suggested, a telephone call, can accomplish the same thing.
If either is agreeable to you (and BigDaddy if he is still being accused) we can begin a request for comment to start to clear our reputations from these juvenile accusations that have stuck due to the questionable actions of an admin who exhibited a political bias in his very response, and broke the very same rule he was authorized to enforce. 216.119.139.73 06:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- yeah the whole thing has gotten stupid. I'm not planning to give in. I emailed Fvw, and now Fred Bauder (the arbiter that put up ) about telephone conversations just like you suggest. Unless that kind of thing is "improper" or something (which would just figure wouldn't it), I will keep trying for someone impartial till I get one willing to inject some sanity here. I wouldn't worry those who are unhelpful or use the rules in a wildly one-sided way against us. We do have the truth on our side. It just might take some time.
- I live in Carlsbad, CA area btw. I understand from what Fvw posted you're in Houston? I'm kinda surprised Gerard didn't point at least this much out. Ah well the hunt continues. 67124etc 07:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't want to reward the kind of attempts at invading my privacy by Fvw with info, should he choose to list out my edits and make more trouble for me. I'll reveal my location on a need to know basis. Someone on my network isn't pleased he revealed the node I used, though. If you go to you can type in your ip address and find out the location of where the network is based. But I can tell you, we're not in the same area code.
- Big Daddy says Fvw keeps redoing the block so he can only edit his own page. The abuse here seems to have gotten pretty serious, and I am afraid of being framed again. The block list indicates someone using an IP address Big Daddy uses trying to log in and then Fvw blocking him for another 24 hours (it hides the IP under another number). So what? Someone sharing Big Daddy's IP address is causing him to get blocked? That's why I'm afraid of my IP address being on that block list. What kind of manipulation is going on there? I don't know if it's automatic or what. Well have a good day anyway. 216.119.139.73 08:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, are yall talking about 64.154.26.251? Cause I also have edited with that IP. I did the edits to The Dead Zone and Newt Gingrich. I just registered this username to avoid future confusion. That address is the address for my work proxy. I did a google search and came up with 2,300 results, so it would seem there are more than just us using it. Anyways, I dont edit much at all, but I am still going to try and get this mess sorted out.--Viper Daimao 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, do you work for the same company I work for? I only have the conflicting IP address because of my proxy server at work.--Viper Daimao 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Tagging
Please don't use {{NPOV}} for discrete sections. You should use
 | The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
for discrete sections. The NPOV template is for the top of the page, meant to suggest that the entire article is under dispute. Thanks · Katefan0 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)