User talk:Rhode Island Red/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Rhode Island Red/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kf4bdy 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby warned. You are to stop attacking a certain product, which is protected by a company with considerable means. (Unsigned comment by Dr sears)

Hey, RIR, I think you are really needed at Juice Plus, I think you really could help us out. This whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, and it won't hurt if you helped. :) Yanksox ^(talk) 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the talk page? I applied an expert tag since I felt a third party was nominated. Then suddenly, "dr. sears" pops up. If you read the talk you can see the...I'm not sure what to call it. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help, please

I am the person on the Juice Plus+ article that everyone refers to as an I.P. address. I have made my comments and they have accomplished nothing at all. I am fine with that as this is your world and not mine. But, I would appreciate it if you would remove my I.P. address from the comments. If you have to, go ahead and remove my comments along with the I.P. address. There is too much going on over the Internet today and I don't need my I.P. address hanging out there and my network attacked. Please, I am asking you as nicely as I know how. I do not work for NSA or Juice Plus+. I do take Juice Plus+ and I have seen incredible results, and so has my family, extended family and friends. I think it's totally unfair that the product is being attacked like it is and the worst part is it may be depriving people from knowing about something that could really help them out a great deal. To me that's really sad, but this is not my fight (which it has turned into). I am not the same person as Dr. Sears either. If I wanted to I could come in using numerous I.P. addresses making it pretty difficult to block me, but I have no intention of doing that, I would just like my I.P address removed.

Thank you!

Nick (Unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

You don't have much of a choice, you editted on Wikipedia as an anon, and there really is nothing that could be done. have you considering registering a username? Yanksox ^(talk) 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Sears"

I would revert the blanking, I strongly suspect he's realizing it was a bad idea. Now, we need to fix Juice Plus up. You've done a good job! Yanksox ^(talk) 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on this IP, 12.73.181.83 (talk · contribs · email). He's blanking the original anon's sig. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

Dr sears is an enigma. First, I don't think he is the 'real' doctor sears from askdoctorsears.com. His claims were too outrageous and all the information he used was listed on the website, like a low-level marketing/distributor from JP+ was cutting and pasting. It did bring my attention to the website askdoctorsears.com which is a completely misleading 'appeal to authority' in the first place where 'he' (in the knowledge that NSA marketing types most likely wrote his site) blankets the site with his credentials then gives personal testimonals, that are by the way outrageous: "JP+ cured cancer, myopia, etc". The interesting thing, is that no effort was expended to conceal the fact that NSA/Juice Plus+ wrote the website -- look at http://www.askdoctorsears.com/html/4/T040500.asp and see the corporate graphics integrated into the site. Not only that but Juice Plus+ add banners everywhere. This makes me sad for the consumer out there is is trusting the credentials and not seeing the marketing links and money flow underneath the site.

As for the comments on the talk page, I don't really care. His contributions are not significant; their only significance is that they testify to the ardor JP+ folks will fight to defend their product. I would too if I put down that kind of money and time into a supplement. So I would let him remove his comments, no use entering an edit war over that and the comments are in the Wikipedia archives anyway.

What is more interesting is his warning on your talk page. I have to mull that over what 'he' is trying to accomplish there. Clearly, this individual is not too informed on how wikipedia works if he is trying to appear unbias and leaving warnings tied to his username. Maybe he doesn't know how non-anonymous Wikipedia is. Oh and BTW, Nick needs to learn about IP addresses (i.e. a hacker can't do anything with a ISP's ip-address), why doesn't he just sign up for an account? Tbbooher 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you deserve this

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Yanksox, award an old school barnstar to Rhode Island Red for such an incredible body of work and tireless efforts to keeping Juice Plus in good quality. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any alternative to Stephen Barrett, over at Juice Plus?

I'm appealing to you as the lonely defender of policy over at Juice Plus. I must confess that when I first saw the mention of Stephen Barrett at that page, I became nervous. Is there any alternative to using him there? I.e. anybody else who makes the same points. I gather that a lawsuit between Barrett and somebody else has been the subject of an Arbcom case. (Reference available on request). From his previous background, it's not obvious that he would be the world authority on MLM schemes. But you've looked at this issue more than me. If you were to drop S.B. from the article, it would only lose two sentences. Thanks, EdJohnston 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Update

Rhode Island Red, I'm interested in updating the USANA article to include what has been happening in the news over the last little while (Allegations/lawsuits and their outcomes). Since you have been involved in the article I would like you to post your thoughts or suggestions on the matter if you wouldn't mind. I'm not sure when I'll get started on this since I'm currently very busy but I would like you to be included because you have been involved in the editing of the article. I'll be opening this topic in the Discussion section of the USANA article.Jean314 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USANA

Rhode Island Red.

Firstly, thankyou for your contributions to the USANA article. The contributions, as they are significant changes, are currently for discussion. Please participate in this, to ensure concensus. I will revert your changes until we have some solid answers and suggestions on how to ensure the USANA article is informative, cited & correct, and neutral. Andrewmizzi (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) It's up there now coincidentally. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Julia Griggs Havey

I am going to strongly suggest that you refrain from editing this article and instead, contribute any concerns or discussion on the talk page of the article instead. Given your history with the subject on Wikipedia and your editing to the article, it is apparent that you are having difficulty maintaining a proper perspective when editing the article. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably a good idea. Will do. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate that. I've got it on my watchlist now, so if you make any suggestions on the talk page, I can take a look for you. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

Hello Rhode Island Red. Recently you posted a complaint about another editor at WP:AN3 regarding Juice Plus. So far no admin has responded. This report poses some difficulty for admins, since it is unclear that any 3RR violation occurred, and complaints of long-term edit warring usually need to show that the editor named is working against a clear consensus of the other editors on the article. It is worth considering if an official Request for comment should be opened regarding the wording of the lead. That would serve to clarify the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI RIR, I saw that you reported me for Edit Warring so I just wanted to clear up my point of view. I am a new editor but I am an avid Wikipedia reader. I used to read the talk page on the Juice Plus page years ago and you appear to be doing the same thing now that you were doing then, ignoring other editors opinions and forging ahead with your vision for the Juice Plus page. If you look at the page today, it is a mockery for any unbiased person to read. Luckily I have a new neat little portable computer now and my goal is to improve as many articles as can. If I may, why have you been so focused on the Juice Plus article for all these years? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you were reported for edit warring[1][2] because you repeatedly deleted content without justification and violated 3RR by undoing the reversions of two different editors. You also ignored the replies of the other editors on the Talk page and failed to include edit summaries. These kinds of actions are all frowned upon here at WP, and 3RR is non-negotiable, except in cases of blatant vandalism. The page has been indefinitely protected.

Second, the appropriate place to discuss potential improvements to the Juice Plus article is the Juice Plus talk page, where you have already posted several times, rather than my user page. If you have any comments or suggestions, they would best be communicated to all editors working on the article rather than just to me.

Third, WP policy dictates that you should “comment on content, not on the contributor”. Personal questions, like personal attacks, are inappropriate.

Lastly, I see that you had a 24-hour block for violating 3RR less than a week ago. If you continue to edit in this manner you may be blocked from editing permanently. Editing on WP is not a right, it’s a privilege that must not be abused. As a new editor, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of WP, as doing so may help you to avoid editing conflicts and violations in the future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macular degeneration

Hi there, have any new reviews been published on the efficacy of antioxidants in this condition? Most of the stuff I have seen recently seems pretty positive about these compounds as therapy. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found PMID 16625532 and PMID 18253971, you seem to be more up on the literature than I am! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 references make the point very well. I was at an international ophthalmology research review panel on MD last year where they went over all the major trials, and the results to date do not support the value of supplements for prevention or treatment of ARMD. There are probably other references as well, but the two Cochrane reviews make a strong case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tend to look at this topic from the biochemistry viewpoint, rather than the clinical applications. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I have quite a bit of experience at the research bench on this subject too so if I can ever be of assistance, just let me know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Nazi

don't tell me to 'stay cool' you are an asshole. (unsigned comment 17:23, 30 October 2009 Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs)

You need to take a time out to catch your breath. We don't say such hostile and offensive things to other editors here on WP. Zero tolerance for personal attacks is a cornerstone policy. Don't push your luck. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I find you to be arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing, obsessive and basically a Wiki Nazi. YOU exhaust people away from this site, you have not turned anyone against Juice Plus because of your obvious bias against it. I really hope you die a very miserable lonely death tucked away in your garbage filled house. I picture you as a dirty, greasy, old ugly miserable little sad man with little to no life outside of wikipedia. I am willing to bet you haven't been laid in years, likely due to your very small penis. Thus the Cock referrence in your 'handle', you want to feel big somewhere, and since it isnt' in the real world, you have chosen to be a Wiki God. Good for you. Well done. When you die, and hopefully the news will get out about who died on the same day you quit editing ( my money is on Dr. Barrett for your identity), no one is going to miss the wonderful Wiki editor who kept the world safe from fruits and vegetables. I doubt more than your mother, father and siblings will show up at your funeral,likely your siblings wont' because you probably bug the shit out of them too. When you take in your last breathe Red, are you going to be happy about the thousands of hours you spent here at Wiki railing against Juice Plus? is that going to be the measure of your life's work? Honestly, isn't there something in life you could be doing other than this obsession? Isn't there someone you could be talking to for help, for some companionship,or have you driven them all away by your obnoxious overbearing arrogant opinionated jerk peronality?

I hope this gets me banned, as I have a life to get back to now, but this great post will live on, life on line for ever and serve as a ass slapping to the biggest pain in the ass ever! Is there a barnstorming award for that? you win it!! you are a complete and total jerk off.

Dont bother posting on my talk page, warning me or thinking I give a shit about getting kicked off of WIKI...oh?! what will I possibly find to do in life?!the all knowing 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (unsigned comment 05:26, 3 November 2009 Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs)

I regret that you have escalated your attacks. A complaint is now been filed against you at Wikiquette Alerts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you don't seem to get the "I don't give a shit" concept Red. Let me make it clear, you don't intimidate me, I am a middle-aged guy with nothing to lose. I could care less if I get banned, my wrist slapped or even jailed over putting you in your place. You are an asshole and there are likely dozens of wikis who are applauding me right now, as we speak. LOSER!!!!!

So be it. I'm just following procedure, sock puppet. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked indefinitely by WP admin the next day.[3] As offensive as this users comments were, I am leaving them here for now to serve as an example of (a) what happens to editors who ignore WP rules about pesonal attacks and (b) the kind of obstacles that one must face when editing certain articles (like Juice Plus) where sock/meat puppets, SPAs, and COI violators are not uncommon. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Sorry about DubbaWubba

User:Rhode Island Red, I'm very sorry for you about what Dubbawubba said (the git), and I'm sure you're a very good person. :-)BuckyBKatt (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BBK! Much appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that what DubbaWubba said was way out of bounds. I'm sure that you didn't take it seriously. --TraceyR (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brave of you to step up in condemnation now that the issue has already been remedied; you weren't saying any such thing while it was happening or during the events that led up to it. Your intercession during discussions with this user seemed to embolden them to make these attacks; to the point where it looked as though you were purposely acting in cooperation (it wouldn't be the first time you have acted as a proxy for for a COI editor on the article[4][5]). You throw gas on the fire and yet you now cry crocodile tears. And yes, I do take such attacks seriously. It was violent, offensive, and disruptive. WP administration takes it very seriously; hence the immediate indefinite blockage of this user. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see your response to my well-meant comment. Of course the issue of user denigration is serious. I was referring to his descriptions of you, which I'm sure you didn't take seriously - water off a duck's back, surely. --TraceyR (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have played a significant role in the conflicts occurring on that article, including repeated personal attacks against me, it would be best if you refrained from posting more unconstructive comments on my user page, as I consider it to be ongoing harassment. It's enough of a burden having to deal with you on the article's talk page without it spilling over here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of puppetry: please desist

On a number of occasions you have accused me of acting as a puppet for other editors, notable for Julia Griggs-Havey. Here is the definition of "meatpuppet" for you to read:

"Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. "

Do you see why your attack was unfounded? Another factor for you to consider is this: my edit began with words to the effect "It has been drawn to my attention that ...". This also is evidence against the existence of puppetry in my case. Please withdraw this obviously incorrect accusation and, for good measure, post your withdrawal on Shell's talk page, so that she is aware of it too. And desist from future personal attacks of this nature. Thanks you. --TraceyR (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the precise terminology that best describes your conduct, that will be up to ANI to decide. In the meantime, you do yourself no favors by feigning inidignance on my user page WP:DUCK. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread has closed. In any case, Rhode Island Red, I think that instead of meatpuppet, a better term is single-purpose account. In my experience, anyone who spends the majority of their wiki-time battling on one article, usually has an agenda. Or in other words, it would be good for both of you to spend time working on something else than Juice Plus for awhile. Leave the article alone, leave the accusations alone, just go work on other articles? We definitely have lots of places where you could help! --El on ka 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even started an ANI regarding this aspect. I have no idea who it is that you are trying to defend from an accusation of meat puppetry. I didn't call this particular user a meat puppet. I have been a productive editor on this article and am guilty of no misconduct, while other editors are clearly behaving improperly. Your suggestion is duly noted but I don't feel that it was warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This chicken invoking the WP:DUCK test is a clear case of WP:POT! :-) You having been so liberal with your blunderbuss accusations that no-one knows who you refer to! --TraceyR (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is calling me a chicken even remotely constructive. Stop posting these foolish comments on my Talk page or I will have no choice but to report you for harrassment. Just stop it! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the law of unintended consquences? Perhaps you thought it clever to choose the username you did ... you can hardly blame someone for a jocular reference to it now and again. But that is just another diversionary tactic to 'duck' the issue. You are happy to insult others but when your comments come home to roost you call fowl. Remenber that insulting other editors is no poultry offence, so stick to the issue and avoid unfounded accusations. --TraceyR (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RIR, you are not doing yourself any favors with edit summaries where you call someone a stalker. Please stay civil, in both comments and edit summaries, thanks. --El on ka 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that I'm being markedly more civil than the person to whom I was responding. I'm cool. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm following procedure. If this situation escalates, I'll take it to ANI. I've got it covered, thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I'm following up my comments at Talk:Juice Plus#Outdated Image with the suggestion you take a moment before editing or discussing the Juice Plus article when there are changes. No doubt you've made good contributions there, but your attachment to the issue makes your interactions a bit caustic. One suggestion is that you avoid jumping head long into discussions and edits, and simply absorb such work into a personal copy of the article Special:MyPage/Juice Plus. Then synchronize and merge what have with the main article every so often. --Ashawley (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long history of socks, SPAs, and disruptive editors on the article. It's tough to keep things on an even keel with so few imparital editors contributing. I'll keep what you said in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request from Jackie JP

User talk:Jackie JP's unblock request is believable to me, based on her contributions. Is there additional evidence that she is a sockpuppet, or may I unblock? rspεεr (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brand new account (6 days old) has all that detail and backstory, knows Wikipedia that well and even knows the editing signature of the person she's claiming not to be? Either someone is coaching her or her unblock story is bunk and the behavioral evidence was correct. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with an unblock under the circumstances. Perhaps if the Jackie JP account would like to verify her identity and that she has the authority to release NSA copyrighted pictures under other licenses the OTRS team at info-en

wikimedia.org? At the very least, she does need to confirm permission for the images. Shell ^babelfish 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that this is a sock account based on the details provided in the original SPI and the points Shel raised above. A rep from this same company appeared back in 2007 and her M.O. was very different from that of this user. The company employee in that case gave a full name (Cindy Hofmeister-Thomas) and title (Director of Interactive Marketing, NSA) and e-mail with the company's (NSA's) domain (c.thomas@nsai.com)[6]. Coincidentally or not, on the same day the block of Jackie JP went into effect, a new anon IP/SPA began to vandalize the page,[7] and when the page was then semi-protected to block unregistered users, TraceyR directly made edits on behalf of Jackie JP, which bypassed ongoing talk page discussions.[8][9] There is clearly mischief afoot and some very disturbing patterns of user conduct and COI violations here.

Jackie JP initially stated that her purpose was to serve as a resource for the Juice Plus article, but all she did was provide a low resolution image, with suspect copyright details, to be included in the article. It would be suprising if a true company rep would go through all this trouble just to provide a single low-quality image with suspect copyright details. Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence to believe that this user:(a) is actually employed by the company, (b) is officially authorized to represent Juice Plus here. I am also not comfortable with the way TraceyR (who has been recently engaging in WPA violations[10]) appears to to be colluding with this alleged company employee.[11][12] It looks VERY fishy to me when one editor with an apparent COI acts as an advocate and defender for another editor with a definite COI and actively campaigns to unblock a slew of sock puppets (some of which were also vandals and NPA violators).[13][14][15][16]

Jackie JP stated that she wants to "serve as a resource",[17] but never replied to any of my comments or requests for information, and actually ignored my guidance regarding the placement of the new image she wanted to post[18]; it seems that she wishes only to be a resource for one editor in particular -- the same editor who is now unilaterally campaigning to unblock Jackie JP and several other blocked SPAs/SPs.

The controversy regarding Jackie JP has come amidst repeated flagrant policy violations (including vandalism and NPA violations) on Juice Plus by various SPA/SPIs, who have now been blocked. Unblocking Jackie JP is unlikely to positvely impact the article; quite the opposite IMO. 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention, Rhode Island Red: I'm not editing on anyone's behalf. You really must refrain from this sort of attack. I'm not colluding with Jackie JP; I treated her offer of help in good faith; I also happen to think that the up-to-date image should have been at the head of article from the start, regardless of whether she is a genuine Juice Plus employee or not; you didn't. That's it. No collusion, just agreement with her and disagreement with you. Is Shell also now guilty of collusion with Jackie JP, because she has now placed the up-to-date image in the logical place? How often do you have to be reminded that adding an image to an article does not constitute COI? This is explicitly excluded from the definition of COI. Look it up. As for your repetition of "apparent COI" in my case, this is becoming tiresome. Your editing at Juice Plus shows just as much or even more COI than mine appears to have to you; yours is so obvious that it has been noted by Shell in the past - "pushing against the product" I think she wrote - but in whose interest? Apparent COI? Who knows? But I don't bang on about your COI all the time. I have no COI here. Do you? Does this need to be referred 'upstairs' to get you to stop? --TraceyR (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case is closed.[19] The unblock request was denied and the reasons put forth by the investigating admin confirmed my comments about widespread COI, meat puppetry, POV editing, and disruptive behavior on Juice Plus. The mass block of all these clear COI/SPA/SPs made obvious sense. I hope the lesson is learned. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you misunderstand the result of the SPI block request. It is on-going. I see no confirmation of "widespread COI, meat puppetry, POV editing, and disruptive behavior on Juice Plus", as you claim. It was an SPI - i.e. a "Sock Puppetry Investigation". You can 'see' whatever mirages you like, but the occasional dose of reality would not come amiss. Several accounts have been blocked, that much is true, some of them obvious sock puppets. As I see it, the admins involved still do not agree that Jackie JP is a sock puppet of Julia Havey; this is as yet wishful thinking on your part. I really think that you should stop your personal attacks - the consequences might turn out to be other than you intended. --TraceyR (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is being discussed elsewhere so it serves no purpose to continue to post about it here. The reviewing admins statement was clear and I merely summarized the gist of it.

"Looking at the history of all the suspected sock puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuliaHavey, all the edits from all the suspected socks squarely fixate on the Juice Plus article and involve inserting some sort of POV-style edit every time, in a way that suggests that all these accounts have a COI with Juice Plus. All the accounts have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is spamming and making the Juice Plus article a vehicle for advertising/SEO capabilities, which is not what Wikipedia is for; you can clearly see it in Jackie JP's unblock request. Regardless of whether this is clear socking or even meatpuppetry (which I think, at a minimum, the latter is going on), these accounts' sole purpose is to claim ownership to the article and trying to scare off other editors in the process. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with an unblock here, given from what I have seen above. Other editors should be able to change the article as need be in an accurate, neutral fashion without fear of being hounded by whomever actually affiliated with the subject."[20]

You are entitled to disagree and make your own interpretations. Just, please, stop harassing me about the issue here or I will simply ignore and delete your posts. The communication is ongoing elsewhere. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ott jeff

Hi there. You've probably picked up on the same thing, but the posts from IP 199.243.173.154 on the MonaVie talk page appear to be a sock puppet of Ott jeff (single topic focus, similar awkward sentence structure, use of 'reframe' rather than 'refrain' etc. If so, this appears to be a violation of the sock puppet policy on the grounds of creating an illusion of support if nothing else. I'm not sure if there's enough evidence or reason to request an investigation at this point, but I thought it may be worth mentioning. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JAH -- I'm inclined to agree with you quite strongly. It might not be big deal if it weren't for the fact that the anon IP refers to Ott Jeff in the the third person[21][22] and is apparently attempting to create the appearance of consensual support for Ott Jeffs arguments. It looks suspiciously like a case of sock puppet/SPA/meat puppetry. I'd say that there is very compelling cause to file an SPI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Thanks for the laugh and the indicator you're not paying the least bit of attention.

Please, cut it out with over adding a ridiculous number of references to each sentence. It just looks like you have a personal debunking vendetta against MonaVie. The truth and a few facts are all that are needed. The COI produced a big enough piece of crap without adding vendetta writing to what should be a simple, small, factual article about a product. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's just done for consistency because the other statements have corresponding references. I don't care if we leave them all out or keep them all in, but it should be consistent one way or the other. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have 10 references on a 17 word sentence for consistency? I don't understand that at all. What? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion but you seem to think I'm arguing with you when I'm not. I agree it looks kind of ridiculous to have all those references cited in blocks in the lede. It came about quite organically though, through push-and-pull. Someone would argue that a claim in the lede wasn't referenced, so the reference would get added and then before you know it, there's 10 references in the lede. My point in adding the last few was just for consistency, because it makes no sense to have sources cited in some parts but not others. I don't think that sources should necessary have to be cited in the lede anyway, as long as the statements are supported by whats in the rest of the article. I agree that the lede now looks clumsy and needs to be rewritten. I'm curious to see what other people have in mind. I'm glad to see more input on the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's what happens when editors start arguing about articles like this, you wind up with references that supply one word in a list longer than the sentence. We'll move most out of the lead, rewrite the lead as prose, add the most important references since it is a negative claim, and clean it up that way. Cool. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're on the same page! Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad it's on one of the most poorly written pages in main space. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you've set the bar! You have to dazzle us. ;-)Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus

Ok, just to clarify a few things here.

Firstly, you're over-invested in the above article, for reasons unknown, to the point where other editors are unable to participate. It's classic OWNership. Two previous admins (Shell Kinney and Elonka) and now a third (me) have kindly asked you to back away from the article, yet you've refused to do so.

I never should have allowed these comments to go uncontested for so long, but quite frankly, I found them so innappropriate and exasperating that I couldn't summon the energy to reply until now. It is untrue that other editors have not been able to edit the article, and I have merely fought the efforts of sock puppets (evading blocks) and COI editors to sabotage the article. Whenever asked to back away (for example, to ease tension in the midst of edit wars) I have done so. I see no reason per WP policy that should preclude me from editing the article and I disapprove of the attempt to portray this as a WP:OWN issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have become obsessed - yes, obsessed - with an editor, JuliaHavey, now blocked - to the point that she felt harassed by you. I'm using the term in it's classic sense, not per 'wikistalking'. You posted personal details relating to her and her family, something I find unacceptable. When complaints were made, and when I subsequently blanked the SPI case, you came after me, demanding an explanation.

Obsession? My interest in this editor has been to stop them from using sock accounts to vandalize the article, launch repeated personal attacks against me, and evade blocks and WP:COI.[23][24][25] That should be applauded, not condemned. The feelings of an editor who commits such gross infractions should not be the focus here. I also greatly resent my efforts being portrayed as wikistalking. I launched a sock puppet investigation for good reason, and the WP community deemed that there were gross violations being committed by this user – they were permanently blocked as a result. I did not post personal details on this user as you allege; I posted a link to the IP registration info for the company to which the user is affiliated[26] and this was part of the SPI investigation. I certainly did not post any details or comment in any way whatsoever about this user’s family. I also didn’t “come after you” as you allege; I asked for a reason why the sock puppet investigation details were being blanked, because it made it more difficult for other editors to see the history of abuse. By blocking policy violators and socks, we had finally made some progress in stabilizing the article from edit warring; deleting the details of the SPI is a hindrance in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record;

TraceyR (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to JuliaHavey (talk · contribs) - about as geographically unrelated as it is possible to get.
Zefr (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to JuliaHavey (talk · contribs).
Jackie JP (talk · contribs) is Unlikely to be JuliaHavey (talk · contribs).
Klhilborn (talk · contribs) is exceedingly Unrelated to JuliaHavey (talk · contribs).

All per checkuser. I think you can see where this is leading.

Yes, all too clear. It’s leading to the strawman argument that I made reckless accusations about sock puppetry in reference to the above-mentioned users – a patently disingenuous insinuation and a gross misrepresentation of the situation. I identified what I suspected to be sock accounts of the user in question and the WP admins agreed that they were. It is inappropriate to attempt portray me as a villain for merely taking the necessary steps to uphold WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Havey no longer has any interest in this article, truth be known. As part of my work with OTRS, I ended up contacting her in person and spoke with her at length. I know where she lives, where she has edited from, etc. She is highly concerned that you have taken an unhealthy personal interest in her and her somewhat tenuous connection to the Juice Plus article. You have made comments about her, her husband and her business issues which have been unrelated to anything going on here. You have posted her home address, etc, etc, to the point where she has issued complaints to the WMF, asking that this harassment be stopped.

Those accusations are grossly inappropriate…I am astonished! Her connection to the article is not tenuous. She has made a concerted effort for over 2 years to sabotage the article and bypass WP:COI; and when she was unable to do so using her regular user name, she resorted to sock puppetry to avoid being identified, to evade the blocks that were imposed, and to bypass the COI issue. Furthermore, I did not post any comments about this user, her husband, or her business that were unrelated to WP. I also did not post her address -- I merely posted a link to the WHOIS registration info for one of her business entity’s websites, as part of an ongoing SPI. She was never arassed; she was merely censured for conduct that violates WP policy. If she doesn’t like that, she should stop violating WP policy. It's also unclear what your vague use of the term "etc" is supposed to refer to; if these details are as important as you portray them to be, then you should take the time to be specific. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is no longer about sock-puppetry or POV or whatever - it's now about you and your ownership this article. Not only are your issues causing problems for Ms. Havey, they're now causing problems for the project. Ms. Havey is a very real person, identifiable, has edited under her real name and is a BLP subject. You, on the other hand, are a pseudonomous editor named after a chicken who claims to be a scientist and an academic. You could be anyone, quite frankly. Julia Havey is not.

If you anyone thinks that WP:OWN is the issue, then they should make an RfC or a formal charge (eg arbitration) and I will defend myself against the accusation. The editor to whom you referred used a variety of sock accounts – THAT was the issue, but it is no longer the issue because of the SPI I launched and the subsequent blocks that were imposed. If the consequences of being legitimately blocked and outed for using sock puppet accounts disturbs the user in question, then so be it – that should be the last concern of WP. And why even bother referring to the pseudonymous nature of my user ID or questioning my identity? There is no WP policy that requires editors to disclose their identity; quite the contrary in fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you in the strongest terms now. to step back from the Juice Plus article, give others a chance, and stop obsessing over Ms. Havey. It's causing serious problems. We have over 3,000,000 articles on here - there's plenty else to do, so please choose another area - Alison ^❤ 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped back for 6 months. The article was substantially revised, and yet the POV tag that you slapped on the article is still there. No one has outlined any SPECIFIC reasons as to why it has been placed there, why it should remain, or what editorial measures should be taken to remedy the situation. THAT is unproductive. The bigger issue here is being glossed over. Editors affiliated with the company in question have been deliberately sabotaging the article, in violation of WP:COI; impeding efforts to improve the article; derailing discussions on the talk page; and subverting WP policy by using sock accounts, personal attacks, and other methods that are in CLEAR violation of WP policy. Those issues should be thr primary focus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this suggestion. While we certainly appreciate the hard work that has gone into the article over the years, you've developed strong opinions about the article and people related to it. The concerns over your continued interest in Julia Havey are serious. This certainly doesn't undermine the value of your previous contributions, but it is making it difficult for you to work with others and accept changes to the article going forward. Your commitment to quality writing and sourcing would be welcome in any area of Wikipedia - please explore a bit and see what else might catch your fancy. You might find it easier to disengage if you take the Juice Plus article off of your watchlist; I know that always helps when I've gotten too involved. Shell ^babelfish 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case the above was not clear, do not edit the article - period. Any further edits will likely result in a block. Shell ^babelfish 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very unclear. I have not committed any infractions and I don't appreciate what appears to be a kangaroo court approach. If there are outstanding issues about conduct, then they should be resolved through proper channels and with the input of the Wikipedia community. My edits aren't contentious not am I trying to own the article. I outed a distributor for chronic violations and for using sock puppet accounts to bypass WP:COI and blocks; the consensus of the WP community was that my action was warranted. Then I got flamed for it because the distributor sent a private e-mail to Allison accusing me of stalking her (ridiculous). If there is an issue that needs to be resolved, let's do it properly and transparently; not like this. I'm OK with formal mediation if that's necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do not reference me in any way shape or form

Go pluck yourself Rooster Boy. I have nothing to do with JPSupplement or Patrick Havey. The edit done was NOT done from MY home or even the city that I live in. You are so convinced of a conspiracy theory it is starting to seem deranged and crazy--which of course is quite concerning to anyone in the public who has to deal with nut jobs swiftly as one never knows when a deranged stalker will turn to violence. Your continued obsession and frequent reference to me is a violation of cyberstalking laws and I am going to seek a restraining order against you, as I am well aware of your real identity and location/exact location. ONE more mention of ME in any way shape or form and the proper legal channels will be dealing with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend the user posting this see WP:LEGAL regarding no legal attack. This user has however been blocked as a sock puppet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that tirade was amazing. Glad this user has been blocked, yet again. What a laughable threat. The user may be insane but I have no fear whatsoever that they know anything about me or my location or that they have the grounds or wherewithall to issue a restraiing order...it's just idle chest-thumping. Nonetheless, I appreciate that this was followed-up on and the user was blocked, again. Thanks to all involved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JuliaHavey1

Hello. I believe that you and this user have had a little brush up. I don't see activity on that account, other than the message that she just left you. I asked at the IRC channel regarding abuse on how to proceed with this and they have recommended possibly discussing this at WP:ANI. A similar message has been sent to that account. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the user was blocked and had their case dismissed. Do you need any input on this from me? I'm more than happy to discuss the situation on or off WP. Been meaning to take this to arbitration for a while to get remedial aciton against this persistent SOCK/COI violator and block-evader but it looks like that side of the issue has been cleared up, at least for now. May need to clear the air with respect to any suggestions about improper conduct on my part. I don't appreciate the asperisons or anything that may infinge on my ability to edit freely on WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration discussion regarding you

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Sandstein 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked

Rhode Island Red, you have been warned on multiple occasions by several administrators, including warnings from both Alison and Shell Kinney within the past few months, clearly directing you to step away from anything to do with Julia Havey. Tagging the userpage of the (clearly identified) alternate account she made in order to attempt to draw attention to what she felt was continuing harassment from you is the last straw. Your behaviour is inappropriate. You now have six months to reconsider the manner in which you interact with other users. Risker (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you block me for that? The editor who blocked the account in question identified that the user was a sock account and was bypassing a previous block. I added the suspected sock puppet tag in accordance with that determination, so that the history and connections could be referred to down the road. Kindly lift the block so that I don't have to go through the trouble of appealing it. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities here: Either you genuinely do not understand how threatening and harassing your behaviour toward Julia Havey is, or you are enjoying behaving in a threatening and harassing manner toward Julia Havey. I have assumed good faith and consider that it is the former rather than the latter; if I thought it was the latter, the block would have been indefinite. You have repeatedly been told to disengage from anything to do with Ms. Havey: both on the Juice Plus article and in anything to do with her; tagging her recent userpage was just the last straw. You were warned just a few weeks ago that any further editing of the Juice Plus article would likely result in a block, and yet you still edited it several times in the interim. You have been told that you give every appearance of being obsessed with the subject of Julia Havey (including editing the Juice Plus article), and that you needed to step back, and you have blithely continued on, ignoring every warning given to you. It's become apparent that you lack the self-control to keep yourself from anything to do with Ms. Havey or from Juice Plus, so the block will help you to disengage. I believe you need to spend time away from the project in order to start absorbing the serious impact your own behaviour has on others, and on the community and the project as a whole. A few months from now, if and when you come to understand that your actions on this encyclopedia have had real-world impact on actual people, and when you can agree to stay away from this topic area, you will be welcome back to work on all but a few of the 3.5 million articles in the project. Risker (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to completely endorse what Risker has said here. She put it better than I could have. This block was more than warranted - in fact, it was a long time in coming - Alison ^❤ 04:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest legal threats from the user in question were part of a long history of abusive behavior, which has been well documented. This user was just blocked for making legal threats, and the admin that blocked the user listed it as a sock. I merely added that sock user name to the list of other suspected sock accounts that were already associated with the same user. Chronicling this was for the ultimate benefit of the project, since the user, through sock accounts, had been disruptive and violated several WP policies. I can only assume that you have both failed to properly review the history here, because adding the sock tag in such an obvious situation hardly constitutes harassment, not have I ever harassed this user -- certianly not to one-tenth the degree of the harassment I endured from them – again, review the history. What evidence of harassment are you basing your allegation on? It was simply unwarranted. As for not editing the article page, why? There’s never been any determination of WP:OWN or any other impropriety against me. It’s rather arbitrary for an admin to suggest that I shouldn’t edit, without providing a proper rationale, and then behave as though I’m forbidden to edit forever. That’s not how due process is supposed to work on WP. Why are proper procedures not being followed here? I’ll be appealing the block if it's necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until just the other day, I'd only heard of this situation in passing and had never read up on it; however, I took the time to do so, and am actually surprised that you haven't been blocked long before this. It is increasingly clear that you do not recognise how incredibly disturbing it can be for a BLP subject to have a single person paying such intense attention to them despite multiple requests to stop doing so. Your inability to recognise that your own actions are perpetuating this situation is why you are blocked. You have received multiple escalating warnings to stay away, to move on and work elsewhere, and you've completely refused to do so; you have given the project no other choice but to remove you entirely, since you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort at self-control. There is no way to block you from just a few articles. When you continually take actions that any reasonable person can see would reignite a longterm battle, you are causing harm to the encyclopedia. Your history with Julia Havey, which includes massive BLP violations on your part and an obsessive level of interest in her personal life (including posting of obviously personal information about her and her family), is unhealthy for Julia Havey's well-being, for the project, and quite possibly for you, too. Your excuse for continuing, which essentially boils down to "she's a jerk too" doesn't cut it; do you honestly think that people are so stupid they won't realise that User:Julia Havey1 is probably related to User:Julia Havey? Editing Wikipedia is not a right; if someone is doing things that are bad for the project, and they refuse to stop doing them, then they need to be removed from the project. Risker (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

The specific action for which I was blocked was adding a sock puppet tag to an ongoing list (started by WP admin) of suspected sock IDs for a user who made repeated personal attacks against me, was blocked for WP:NLT, had violated WP:COI, and had been chronically disruptive on an article page I was working on. The user, after being blocked and using several sock accounts to bypass the block, countered with an accusation that I had subsequently harassed them by posting a link to the public WHOIS registration details for a company webpage connected to the user in question as part of an ongoing investigation of sock puppetry, WP:NLT, block evasion, and WP:COI. My identification of the latest sock account was an attemot to catalog another sock account used by the editor in question, as had been done with previous scoks associated with the same user. The user’s prior inappropriate conduct had been very well documented by other editors and administrators. I understand why harassment would be taken seriously by WP, but I think a hasty and inappropriate judgment was reached that resulted in my being blocked. I had repeatedly asked for help when I was the victim of ongoing personal attacks from this user. I had asked for some clarification as to why identifying socks associated with this blocked user was inappropriate but never received a compelling answer. If the posting of this suspected sock puppet tag, in good faith, is indeed a violation of WP policy in any way, then of course, I apologize for doing so and won’t do so again. As it stands now, I will avoid having direct contact with this user in the future, and I will not post sock tags if they again try to evade their block; instead I will report directly to WP admin in the event of such a recurrence. I hope this explanation is satisfactory to have the block overturned. I will be more than happy to provide very detailed history on this case including editing diffs, talk page comments, etc. I really do have the best intentions here and the best interests of WP at heart and am willing to take the time to see that this matter is resolved fairly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem, which you do not seem to understand, is that you have been asked multiple times to stay away from this user and yet continue to involve yourself. I don't see why you felt it was necessary that you had to tag this account in light of these warnings, especially considering that we have SPI clerks whose job is to do just that. You are not an SPI clerk nor an admin, and really have no business doing that. Citing inappropriate conduct from Julia here is totally irrelevant; it does not excuse your actions, which in the brief look I've taken do seem to be harrassing and disruptive. Until you understand all of this, and most especially the impact your continual presence is having on this person, you have no chance of being unblocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm appealing this block once again and responding to some of the comments in my declined request above. Like I said, I thought at the time that it was innocuous to add a user account identified as a sock (by someone else) to a page listing the blocked user's suspected sock accounts. It was not done to inflame; it was intended only to catalog the user account so as to help control some of the conduct and editing problems that had been taking place. If my adding this sock account was overstepping my bounds as a non-admin, then that is certainly news to me and I apologize for the transgression. I was merely emulating what I had seen other editors do with respect to cataloging previous socks associated with the same user. No one commented in the past when this was done, so I had no reason to assume that it was improper to do so. I certainly didn't think it would be construed as harassment at the time, and wouldn't have done so if I thought that it would be. I would never have taken any action that I knew to be directly contravened by policy. I unequivocally state for the record that I have no interest or intention in enegaging with this user again. Unblock is again kindly requested. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, you were fully aware that it would be construed as harassment: you were warned to leave the other editor alone, full stop, and were warned of the repercussions. You were under a validly-placed restriction. You wantonly broke that restriction. The issue is not that you placed sock tags on an editor's page - it's that you did it in violation of a restriction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 23 September 2010 (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.