User talk:DownRightMighty

Hi DRM, Can you kindly point me to the edits you made? I don't see them, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Thanks, OO

You are very funny; however, vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --DownRightMighty (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not being funny, DRM. You asked if anyone had questions. Let me point out my specific questions and get back with you. Ollyoxen (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Thanks, OO[reply]

Hi DRM.

I am new-ish to Wikipedia. I got your message but I don't know how or where to respond, so I hope writing here is appropriate.

I am confused by your accusations about me having multiple accounts and harassing you. You are sorely mistaken.

I am considering whether or not it would be constructive to engage in dialogue with you about our edits/reversals on the Mercy Ministries page. At the moment, I am leaning towards a "no" on this, but I will let you know if that changes.

Miss Sherry Bobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have edited Wikipedia before (several years ago without creating an account), I am "newish" as well. I should point out that although you may feel that your edits were useful, they were not. I introduced information into the article and removed others based on the talk page information. There were concerns with information being from a neutral point of view and also your edits re-introduced maintenance tags, removed the logo, and also reverted content back to what the issue was in the first place. You should not "lean towards a no" without even knowing me. So far, I have introduced well-sourced factual information into the article, you have removed it and left the article in a poor condition which is where it was when I edited it. I would be more than happy to discuss any information that you would like; however, you removing all of the edits that were done without even a reason for why you did it will not be tolerated. Please tell me what information you do not agree with and we can see if we can reach a consensus. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Regarding your comment/question at WP:RFPP on multiple accounts: multiple accounts are allowed, but they cannot be used deceptively (to look like more than one person is contributing to the same article/discussion), nor can they be used to "stack" discussions. Please note that you generally shouldn't accuse other editors of operating multiple accounts without evidence. What other accounts do you believe User:MissSherryBobbins is or has operated? I would be happy to look at what you think you've found; if you have evidence, there's a process we can follow to investigate further. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made the accusation as right after Miss Bobbins reverted the information in the article, the condescending comments "Can you kindly point me to the edits you made? I don't see them, but perhaps I'm mistaken" were left above on my talk page. This was the only comment from that user and it was based on me stating on my user page that I created an account to edit the article. I did create an account as I see multiple edits made to the page from IP addresses so I wanted to make sure that my edits were out in the open and not secret like others tend to be with their edits to the article. From the history of the article, there tends to be plenty of edit warring and you are correct with your comments on the talk page. There is probably too much information that I put in the article but I guess that I can talk it out with Miss Bobbins or request consensus for anything we cannot. My concern is that Wikipedia are using Wikipedia to make a point or to be disruptive. From the history of the edits, people are using the article to make a point and disrupt Wikipedia because of the something they either have against the organization or someone within the organization. Either way, I apologize you had to get involved. I will be happy to discuss the issues with Bobbins and go through the normal consensus channels if needed. The multiple account issues is something you can look at if you want, but I am confident based on my previous statement that these accounts are connected and more than likely the same person. Why else would one reverse all of the content and then the newly created account with only one edit, on my talk page, made to rub in that they reversed the edits. This is truly disrupting Wikipedia. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRM--I asked the question about the edits, not MissSherryBobbins. Ollyoxen (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)OO[reply]

I still don't understand. MissSherryBobbins edited the article, and she left a message for you above. That's one named account. What is the name of the other account you think she is using?

As for the more general issue, what I think is actually happening is that both you and MSB are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote an agenda. You're trying to "defend" the organization, while MSB is trying to damage it. Neither is appropriate, but, in rare cases, having two strong opposing viewpoints can result in a balanced article. It's especially promising that you're willing to talk through the issue, as that is the key to producing a good article. No need to apologize for involving me; I'm volunteering my time on Wikipedia, and choose what and where to work, just like you. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Accounts - Sorry I did not point it out earlier. The comment left at the top of the page started with "Hi" and at the end it was manually signed "OO." There was no Wikipedia signature so I looked at the history of the talk page [1]. You can see from the history that the comment was left by "Ollyoxen" which can also be attributed to the "OO." This was the same time that MSB reverted the content. MSB second comment on my talk page is started and formatted in the same manner as "Ollyoxen." That is why the accusation as if it is a coincident that MSB and OO are NOT the same person, then maybe they can provide me with the lottery numbers for tonight.

Consensus - Understanding the consensus policy of Wikipedia, I am pleased that you have allowed us to continue dialogue to address the issue. I am more concerned about the 2nd account now since MSB denies it. However, I will continue the dialogue to see if a consensus can be reached. Thanks. --DownRightMighty (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now--I didn't notice that separate user. Well, in this case, there's no problem. While, yes, Ollyoxen may well be the same pers as MSB, the accounts haven't been used in violation of WP:SOCK (the multiple account policy). Ollyoxen, in fact, hasn't made any edits other than the one single edit to your talk page. As such, we can't say that the Ollyoxen account is being used to deceive, or to avoid sanctions, or to make a discussion look like it has more support than it actually does. Users can actually have more than one account as long as there is a legitimate reason for doing so that isn't deceptive. My guess is that the person registered one account, then forgot the password or decided they didn't like the name, and so just registered another. As long as Ollyoxen doesn't edit again, then we can just ignore it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now Ollyoxen, MSB and IP 198.176.189.201 are all "three" chiming in on the MMOA talk page and I am being accused of harassment for pointing out the suspicion. --DownRightMighty (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I am slow to agree that it was an errant mistake on the part of MSB. I will however assume good faith and do as you suggest, and just ignore it. I hope to reach a consensus on the article as there does appear to be quite a bit of disruptive editing over the years. I will leave you alone and take up the fight on the talk page as well as introduce the independent and reliable sources as you suggested. I would like to leave you with one thing: I reviewed the SOCK information that you provided and at the end of the page there is a link to an essay about recognizing multiple account activity [2]. Again, I will assume good faith but ask that you take a look at the edit and talk history of the MMOA page. There are a lot of comments by accounts that are left unsigned. They state that they were signed by a "bot" which means they keep forgetting to click on the signature link. This is the same type of behavior exhibited by MSB. Finally, many of the comments on the talk page that leave off the signature or have a signature from an account with only MMOA edits start by stating the name of the person being addressed. Although this is probably done by many editors on Wikipedia, there is a resemblance here. I want a consensus here, not an edit war with a single person using multiple accounts. --DownRightMighty (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little more suspicion. MSB is canvassing for people to come to the talk page. While that is fine with me, it should probably be done with ALL editors, not just editors that she/he feels will benefit their point of view. My suspicion comes down further to this message [3]. There was a message left by a user named Appletree80 in 2009. There was also a recent message left by MSB. Notice the use of the parenthesis in each statement. In addition, Appletree apologizes for using the talk page of that editor in a similar fashion to how MSB used my talk page to apologize. If I read the essay on multiple accounts correctly, this looks to me that there is a single account trying to leave messages on accounts that they own. Then when these accounts "come to life" after all of these years, that person will gain the consensus that they are looking for. This looks like it fits the definition of a SOCK. I will still assume good faith and not make the accusation on MSB talk page. I do want to point out that these accounts could mysteriously appear and take the side of MSB to create a false consensus. --DownRightMighty (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DRM.

As a way forward, I would like to keep our discussions relevant to the article at hand, and as such, I have posted further comments in the article talk page.

Kind regards,

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRM, I'm hearing what you're saying, and it is a possible concern. But, let's wait and see what happens. For some complicated technical reasons, and some procedural ones, there's nothing we can do at the moment, but if a sudden consensus seems to appear in the way you describe, we can deal with the matter then. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't really care. I just want to make sure that there is only a single person from a single account instead of a single person trying to make it look like multiple accounts. As you can see, I have not tried to get people to the talk page in the favor of the edits that I have made. I am going to be peaceful and work out the content of the article. Let's focus on that!--DownRightMighty (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DRM.

With regard to me posting on other editors talk pages, you can find my response to Q (and yourself) on my talk page.

With regard to your continuous accusations of me having multiple accounts, and those comments spilling over onto the article’s talk page, I am beginning to feel quite harassed. Until or unless you obtain hard evidence of this, those comments are defamatory to both OllyOxy and myself, and I ask that you kindly refrain. I have conveyed to Q that I would be more than happy to assist with any investigation that he or Wikipedia wish to conduct into this matter. Should you continue to make accusations and remarks in this regard, on our talk pages or on the article page, I may consider reporting you for harassment. This is not an avenue I wish to go down, but I am becoming very tired of your remarks. I have had suspicions about your integrity, yet I do not have the audacity to make accusations or even comments without undeniable evidence. Therefore, I would appreciate the same in return.

I again propose that we limit our conversation to the article talk page and only to discussion of content of the article.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins[reply]

I understand your concern about being harassed and I would never intend to harass you. I am only stating a logical conclusion that can be drawn from edits made by you, Ollyoxen (you again), and now an IP address who is leaving comments on the Mercy talk page. I am one to assume good faith as Qwyrxian stated above, believing that this was a possible mistake that you lost your password or did not like your name. However, you now adamantly deny it, even though there is evidence to the contrary which I have stated above. As far as harassment, this is my talk page so keep that in mind when you say that I am constantly harassing you. The only comments left on your talk page have been in response to your comments. This is not a game that I am trying to play with you and I frankly do not care about your motivation for editing the article or wanting to create a masterpiece of negative information on an article. What I care about is that there is a fair and balanced article. So, with that in mind I would ask that you report me for harassment or shut up. I am trying to be polite with you and I AM WILLING to work with you on the article; however, all that seems to come from you is complaint after complaint. I am sorry that you are not able to get everything that you want by simply complaining. Talk it out on the article talk page which is what I am trying to do at your earlier suggestion. Also, you do not know me so do not ever question my integrity. If you do not want me to make such comments, then use a single account to make your edits from and stay off of my talk page. Go to the article talk page and introduce what you feel should go into the article or be removed from the article. You have brought up a few good references but I have seen nothing proposed from you by way of wording for the article. Tell everyone what you think should go into the article or be removed from the article and we can go from there. --DownRightMighty (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked based on an investigation with a user by the name of morning277 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277). It took me a while to read through the entire sockpuppet investigation; however, I see why you have a concern that I am connected with morning277. From the statements in the investigation, it is because I used a logo that was previously uploaded by this editor. I obtained the logo by typing in “Mercy Ministries Wikipedia” in Google. If you do the same, you will see that it comes up as the 2nd hit on the first page of search results. It took me a little longer to find today, but this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morning277/sandbox/MM) also hit on the 1st page when I first Googled “Mercy Ministries Wikipedia.” I did not know that the two were connected as the image was not on the article when I originally copied it. And yes, I copied it from that user. I went to the edit function to get some of the information to use as a basis for the edits that I did. When doing so, I saw a message that the user was blocked so I had no hard feelings about using the entire article. However, you will see that it was only used as a template for the article, the version that I did is very different than the one this user was editing. I am also not sorry for taking the content from this user as I do not feel that the article has been unbiased and wanted to make the edits prior to anyone else using it to insert even more ”over-weighted” content. Also, there is a heavy accusation against me on the MMOA talk page that states “Sadly, it turns out that DownRightMighty is a serial abuser of Wikipedia operating under dozens of names, who, we believe is being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a large number of companies. While some corporate representatives and PR agents act in good faith, this person is not (given the amount of effort they're taking to remain hidden).” I do not work for MMOA nor am I being paid by MMOA. I am a single person using a single account for the purpose of editing an article that I feel was extremely biased and non-neutral. I am in no way associated with MMOA and again I am not being paid to edit the article. As far as “whitewashing”, I also see how my edits seem like I am coming to remove negative information. Please consider the information that I wrote on the talk page. At the suggestion of Qwryxian, I have proposed wording to the article that conforms to Wikipedia standards. This includes introducing more reliable sources and cutting down the funding section of the article. I am also unopposed to other editors editing the article or introducing information that they feel is important to the article which is also what I have discussed on the talk page. At this point, I cannot weigh in as a contributor as I have been banned for being associated with morning277. I have no issue with others editing the page; however, the current editor who has an issue with my edits is using two accounts to edit the article. I have an issue with the content being introduced but there is no way for me to weigh in my opinion. Regarding using multiple accounts, I am telling you that I do not nor am I a multiple account of another person. I would also like to point out that I have been editing according to the guidelines as I understand them and at the advise left by others on my talk page. As pointed out on my talk page which linked to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK), the use of multiple accounts is allowed under certain circumstances. From what I gathered from my talk page, as long as a user is not using multiple accounts for things such as “creating an illusion of support” or “contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts) then there should be no issue. I am not a multiple account; however, even if I was I am not doing anything that would be considered an “inappropriate use of alternative accounts.” I bring this up as there is currently an editor on the MMOA page who IS using multiple accounts. I pointed this out to Qwyrxian on my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DownRightMighty) that the account “Miss Sherry Bobbins” and “Ollyoxen” are the same person. I also wrote out the evidence of why I feel such. I also included it in a note of the talk page of MSB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MissSherryBobbins). I was told that as long as Ollyoxen was not editing any further, then there should not be an issue. However, both MSB and OO are editing on the talk page of the article in an attempt to give the appearance that they are two separate editors in support of introducing negative content to the article that they feel is weighted appropriately. I have no problem if you want to ban me; however, neither account MSB nor OO should be allowed to continue to edit the MMOA page as it is one person using multiple accounts. I have read through the guide on appealing blocks and I am trying to do everything that it said to do which includes staying calm even through it is difficult. I am worried that I will not be allowed to edit the article that that a single editor using 2 accounts will be allowed to do so. Yes, I understand that the guidelines state not to complain about other editors, but that is part of the reason why I want to be unbanned. I need to be able to weigh in on the topic as there is currently a single person with 2 accounts and no one else there to voice an opinion based on guidelines and policies. I am not sure what else to say except that I have edited in what I feel is in accordance to guidelines. When it was stated by an experienced editor that they felt the sources were too primary, I took the time to gather more independent sources. When statements were made that the funding section was too long, I took the time to propose new wording. I do not feel that anything that I am doing is disrupting Wikipedia. I understand from the lengthy investigation of morning277 that you probably are tire of dealing with the person but I am NOT that person and would like the opportunity to continue editing. So again, I affirm that I am not a paid editor or that I am being paid or receiving any type of compensation to edit any article, including MMOA. I also affirm that I am not editor morning277 nor do I have multiple accounts that I use on Wikipedia. Please allow me back so that I can continue the discussion of the MMOA article. Thank you for considering my request DownRightMighty (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

According to the blocking admin who is a checkuser, you are editing through the same proxy as the sock farm reported in the SPI case on Morning277, and have a demonstrated similar topic interest. We may reconsider a future request more seriously if you move to another ISP. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

He is in fact a paid editor

He is in fact a paid editor [4] and has been for quite some time. Don't unblock him. In fact, we need to track down all of his paid edits [5] and undo them. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to know, but being paid for editing is not grounds for blocking, as long as the edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about fifty of his socks have been blocked for it. So you have quite a few arguments to make with a lot of admins. Qworty (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were not blocked for being paid editors, they were blocked for disruption and violating Wikipedia policies. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then after the guy is blocked fifty times, he's allowed to continue to edit around here, whether paid or not? I think not. Qworty (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Paid editing isn't grounds for blocking, period. Furthermore, he isn't allowed. He's blocked. I declined the unblock request. If you object to the suggestion given there, take it up with the blocking admin, from whom I passed it on. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in all his 50+ permutations is blocked, correct? That means that he is not allowed to take money and create a new account and create articles, correct? He is a blocked paid editor, and all of his future paid editing is therefore against Wikipedia policy. If you saw him come back and edit, and you knew it was he, you'd block him immediately, right? Qworty (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]