User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2008/November

ACORN
We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your note on my Talk page, GD: the source is the Philadelphia Inquirer, an eminently reliable source. Describes this whistleblower's testimony as "scathing, though at times vague." No apparent verdict one way or the other on her credibility, other than "scathing, though at times vague." It's worth putting into the article since others are angling for a way to get ACORN's self serving spin doctoring into the article, one way or another, and they weren't under oath. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what we know, from this reliable source, is that a person of unknown credibility went to court and said some things about ACORN. If she hadn't been stealing from ACORN, and had worked for them for a long time instead of a brief period, then perhaps she would have good credibility. As is, I think for the purposes of this encyclopedia, I am being magnanimous in granting her unknown credibility instead of testimony-likely-to-generate-a-perjury-charge credibility. Look... The Philadelphia Inquirer is not saying that her testimony checks out or is true. They are saying that she has given testimony, and they are quoting it. That's it. They lend equal credence -- and perhaps greater credence -- to critics of her testimony. So unless you want to turn the article into a he-said-she-said tug-of-war, quit it. Stop misrepresenting that source, and stop holding her up as some fabulous whistleblower. Have the patience to wait to see if her testimony turns out to be credible, because for the moment, it looks pretty poor. -- Good Damon 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Eventually, I foresee some of ACORN's self serving, spin doctored crap getting into the article if it's prefaced by "David Lagstein, spokesman for ACORN's Detroit office, said ..." Surely you don't want their self serving version to go unchallenged, do you? Anita Moncrief worked for Project Vote, a closely intertwined, symbiotic ACORN subsidiary, for three years - as long as Obama has been a senator. Call her "fired ACORN worker Anita Moncrief said," put the verifiable facts into the article and let the reader decide. I'd like to review what people in my profession call "reliability indicators." If she gets caught lying, she faces 5 years in prison on a perjury charge. If Lagstein gets caught lying, he faces ... no consequences whatsoever. Now please answer my GM analogy on the article Talk page. You've been carefully avoiding it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've been busy IRL. I'll respond in detail when I can. You'll note that except for cleaning up a talk page, I haven't made many contributions in the last 24 hours, although I'll tell you now your GM analogy is absurd; comparing a short-term employee who used the company credit card for personal expenses and got fired over it to a long-term employee who served the company loyally for 20 years? Don't be ridiculous. Now then... No, I don't want their "self serving version" to go on the page without any qualifiers, but their public-facing statements on the issue do carry sufficient weight to be in the article about them. Surely you don't think the defendant's defense in a lawsuit isn't as notable as the prosecution? As her reliability, you and I don't get to make that determination. That is ultimately up to the judge, and the newspapers that report on the trial. And so far, the judge has made no determination, and your own source describes her in less-than-glowing terms. -- Good Damon 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One other thing: stop calling it "stealing" or "theft." That's a BLP violation. No charges were filed against Moncrief. Her version is that she believed the credit card charges had been authorized, and she was paying them back, which strongly suggests that there was no intent to steal or defraud. Employ the very same "give them the benefit of the doubt" you've employed when contemplating the accusations against ACORN. It is not our place to make judgments about such things. We just report verifiable, notable facts. WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My "oh come on" alarm is blaring at 30 decibels, but all right. I'll mince those words. It's perfectly understandable to be given a company credit card and believe you don't have to pay for stuff anymore until you get caught. But all that aside, consider this the one and only "warning" I'll accept from you. You're a sockpuppeting, single-purpose, frequently-blocked, POV-pushing account who will probably vanish after election day, assuming you aren't blocked again for disruption sooner, and stopping you from turning articles into attacks on their subjects is tiresome. -- Good Damon 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Obama
I reverted my last comment as I didn't notice you already addressed the editor and closed the conversation; sorry.  Digital Ninja  22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It happens. No worries. Sigh... I wish the POV pushers there would find an article to defend from POV-pushing instead. -- Good Damon 22:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like myself? :)  Digital Ninja  22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you've shown a stronger interest in learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and refraining from linking to or pushing content that violates those guidelines. I don't think you're coming straight from FreeRepublic.com to Barack Obama with the latest campaign talking points. So no, I don't include you in that. You've brought up points I disagree with, but there's a world of difference between that and the kinds of demandingly intrusive and disruptive behavior coming from the likes of WorkerBee74 and his sockpuppets. -- Good Damon 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes me feel better. I was really hoping I wasn't turning into a POV pushing maniac.  Interesting to note; now that I've been working on this article, it's actually made me much more open minded.  People who are brain washed from FreeRepublic into thinking Obama is a terrorist, socialist, demonic, demigod, I actually feel bad for them.  I finally realized that Obama is actually an accomplished, decent person whom simply has different views from myself, which is perfectly healthy.  Thank god you and Wikidemon (and Grsz11) were able to pound some sense into my head!  Digital Ninja  02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! And please remember, thickheadedness is not associated with any particular political view. Most of the same arguments I've made could equally apply to the John McCain article. His BLP doesn't deserve to become an attack article any more than Barack Obama's, and the lies told about him, while different, are no less pernicious, and do not belong in his article. I happen to personally be more interested in Barack Obama and related articles, but I see no reason why the same logic and respect for policies and guidelines don't apply there as well. -- Good Damon 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You sir
Are the fastest man alive! I barely had a chance to responded before you addressed the issue. Cheers!  Digital Ninja  03:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... I just happened to see it first. -- Good Damon 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

divorce
The divorce is not needed or appropriate in my opinion. What is appropriate (as it has been covered in the mainstream media) is a sentence or two that Obama challenged all of his opponents and got them off the ballot (by examining the signatures of the petitions). It has nothing to do about divorce.

The Richard Nixon article says how he won by calling his lady opponent a communist. Novel campaign strategies are notable, like Nixon's and Obama's. Just because one is a Democratic does not exempt him as Wikipedia is not DemocraticPartipedia.

Note that I am not for smearing Obama with Muslim and Ayers stuff. This is just historical stuff about his Senate election. Midemer (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, your choice of wording: "Obama ran unopposed after he got his opponents thrown off the ballot on technicalities." That reeks of POV pushing. Secondly, the details are already in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. The article is in summary style, which means that is a sub-article, so you're duplicating something that's already there, and you're doing it in a POV-pushing manner. Finally, adding that POV tag during the same edit was utterly inappropriate. Last warning: Stop. If you have specific wording you would like to have added, discuss it first. But not in a closed thread where you declare consensus without actually having achieved it. -- Good Damon 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow lots of editors
Doesn't seem like there are now an avalanche of editors on Barack Obama now. It seems like we don't need to be watching it as much as we had to before. Hopefully we don't have to deal with the SPA's as we had to before he was elected! Though I will say it was semi fun, in a masochistic kind of way. It seemed like every day/hour there was someone trying to push one conspiracy then another. I enjoyed working with you and the others and hopefully we'll still get to have some kind of editing fun! (OH, long live the knights who say nee cabal!) Brothejr (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding! Since I started patrolling the Obama page for wackjobs whose conspiracy/fringe theory just had to be in the article now-now-now-now or we were suppressing the TRUUUUUUUUUTH... it's been hard to do any productive article editing. I have other interests on Wikipedia, but boy-howdy it's been hard to keep up on them. Oh, hey, as members in good standing of the cabal, do we get a super-sekrit handshake? :) -- Good Damon 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep and a decoder ring too! :D Brothejr (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Your good cheer whilst whacking fringe theorists, trolls, and POV pushers at Barack Obama related articles was greatly appreciated. Good job and congratulations, ~ priyanath talk 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A friendly tap on the shoulder
Hello there! Hope you didn't have too much trouble with POV pushers during the election. This is just a friendly tap on the shoulder from a fellow Scientology editor. The article has several issues as it stands, and one of them in my opinion is size. If you look at my edits you'll see that I've made quite a few changes to the page, in an attempt to better summarize the information. I think I'll be looking at shortening the controversies section to more of a summary style, and migrating the bulk of the info to Scientology controversies. Anyways, hope to see some of your edits on the page soon. ← Spidern  →  21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I feel about that. I'm ramping down from POV-pusher defense right now and haven't had a chance to look over the latest edits to the Scientology article, but moving the controversies out of the main Scientology article brings about its own issues. First and foremost, much of Scientology's notability is derived not from the belief system itself or its membership, but from the scandals and controversies associated with it. Minus those controversies, Scientology is a small and minimally notable religious sect. So what's left, when you take away the scandals and controversies, is mostly supported by primary sources, a big no-no. The reliable secondary sources generally take a fairly negative view of Scientology, a majority view that Wikipedia has to reflect. -- Good Damon 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Having discussed it with some of the other regulars on the article it was mentioned that the controversies section was a bit of a "ghetto" of secondary sources, and the main article rife with primary sources. My main reason for bringing it up was in regards to the size of the page. I think what we need to do now is prune some more primary sources from the main article and re-integrate the information from the controversies section into the article itself. This will kill 2 birds with one stone, hopefully. ←  Spidern  →  21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to help with that once I get some time. I plan on paying more attention to those articles again, now that the election is over. -- Good Damon 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Bloodlines
"It wasn't removed, it was consolidated with your other discussions and closed..."

Oh, ah huh, right. Different thing.

"...with a suggestion to make a separate article on presidential lineages"

Sounds interesting. Is this page being written?

Neurolanis (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Why don't you start it? That's one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia. -- Good Damon 03:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elect the Best Financed, Least Offensive Person For the Job (aka Oregon COTW)
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem???
All of the edits at ACORN have already been thoroughly discussed, vetted, poked and prodded here (first bite-sized chunk), here (second bite-sized chunk), here (first vetting of "11 state authorities"), and here (final vetting of "11 state authorities"). Four different sections. Two full weeks of discussions.

The D-Day invasion wasn't planned this thoroughly.

What's your problem? Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And no consensus from any of them, along with blocks on several of the involved users as tendentious and disruptive. Now a premature declaration of consensus when none has been achieved. The fact that I tentatively support the edit in question is moot. There is no consensus to include it, and ongoing arguments opposed. Now, as a tendentious editor recently off a topic-ban yourself, you could go a long way towards establishing yourself as an editor in good standing again by exploring why there is so much resistance to the edit in question, rather than prematurely declaring the discussion over. -- Good Damon 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think I'm doing? I'm exploring why there is so much resistance. I believe that I already know why, but I'll let you explain. Take a look at the editing pattern of the editors you're not attacking, starting on October 12.


 * Why is there so much resistance? Do we have to break it down into one-word chunks, and discuss each one for 8-10 weeks, to satisfy you? Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly remind you that the editors I am "not attacking" have not been frequently blocked for disruptive and abusive behavior, while the others whose edits I am concerned about have been. This is not the way to go about editing upon return from a topic ban, and could lead to an extended one if you persist in calling out editors who have not been disruptive in favor of editors who have been. As for the content in question, I personally think it's fairly well written and neutral, as I have stated on the talk page. I would tentatively support its inclusion. But the tendentious manner in which you prematurely declared consensus, and included the opinions of a blocked user that is largely regarded as a puppet-master as if that would help, prevents me from being able to support that consensus. -- Good Damon 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly remind you that the editors I am "not attacking" have not been frequently blocked for disruptive and abusive behavior Please review this and consider telling me the truth. .... prevents me from being able to support that consensus. So you don't object to the content? You just object to the velocity? How slow do we have to go, in order to satisfy you? Will we make this edit (which you acknowledge that you don't object to on a content basis) any time within the next four years, GoodDamon? Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I object to the inaccuracy. Declaring consensus when it hasn't been achieved is premature. I am the last editor you want to antagonize on this, since I like the proposed content. Declaring consensus based on the opinions of two editors in good standing (myself and Wikidemon) and a large sampling of consistently disruptive editors is absurd. Now, as for Lulu, even a cursory glance at his block log indicates most of the entries are blocks that were quickly reverted after admins assessed the situations those blocks happened in. Half the entries are for manual unblocks. This contrasts quite a bit with the disruptive editors I'm referring to. -- Good Damon 03:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama in Kenya
Please explain your deletion of referenced information on the Barack Obama talk page sub section I have initiated. Be sure to fully explain how you have interpreted WP:UNDUE, and how it applies in this instance. Glen Twenty (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See the article talk page. I've responded there. -- Good Damon 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, will it ever come?
Before the election, how did you and Wikidemon deal with freak-show like RfC's, discussions, and most importantly, single purpose accounts? It's extremely discouraging and casts doubts if I lest should even consider reading a politically charged article.

Anyways, thanks for letting me use your talk page to vent :)  Digital Ninja  02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Believe it or not, before the election started getting close, I didn't do very much with incident reports or anything of that sort. I was primarily interested in articles about Oregon, science fiction (I'm a science fiction writer), and various religions, including the family of articles about Scientology (as a science fiction writer, I find the rather cult-like belief system that sprouted up around L. Ron Hubbard to be fascinating). I actually came upon the political articles more or less by chance, and found to my astonishment that they were under pretty much permanent attack. I've certainly been involved with controversial articles, especially Scientology. But I've never encountered anything like what I found going on in the political articles, especially around Obama. It's been pretty draining. -- Good Damon 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you were a science fiction writer! That's undoubtedly my favorite genre in both books and film (if you couldn't tell by my user page).  I'm also largely into astronomy; it's fascinating to me.  I can read articles about cosmic theories and stare through a telescope all night long.  Never really took a hard look at Scientology, I'll have to do that.  It really amazes me though when I get on Wikipedia, I'm drawn to the controversial articles instead of editing what I "read" the most.  I guess I just don't want so screw up the important stuff ;-D


 * Well, if you ever publish please, by all means let me know about it! Cheers,  Digital Ninja  04:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

what are these messages about?
i comeon here to look somethings up and finding messages that i vandalize? not so! why say? 24.119.52.86 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For reasons like this:. Block him, please.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Usertalk page has been pirated
Since you created your talk page at, User talk:GoodDamon, without expressly adding any copyright contingencies or notices, your hard work has now been stolen and used for the sole purpose of benefiting the thief, here User talk:DigitalNinja.

Any retaliation will result in the immediate vandalism of your now unoriginal talk page by replacing it's contents with that of an article regarding the use of staplers. Happy Holidays.  Digital Ninja WTF 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heheh. Enjoy. Frankly, I swiped my code from someone else, anyway. :) -- Good Damon 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks
block log here. [] Frankly, i think you're showing too much goodwill. We'll see.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Don't feed the trolls is always good advice, though of course hard to take. I'm going to try that course. I really feel it's the drame he/they are after. Article to talk page. Talk page to Ani. Ani to user talk pages. And round and round it goes. Go well, hopefully we'll get a productive edit in somewhere, someday.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. I'm just afraid that if someone doesn't point out the argument flaws, an admin who's less familiar with the situation might come along and decide to reverse it all. -- Good Damon 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mistook an unsigned comment of yours on Bai's talk page for his. The insinuaation on that in regards to Norton is not helpful. Bali has already leveled several bad faith accusations of sock puppeting. Please do not feed the trolls.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bali isn't a troll. Bali -- and I, and several other editors -- have recently discovered we'd been subjected to sockpuppet abuse for months, and we're all a little raw on the subject. So when someone comes along and defends the sockpuppet army, it's easy to leap to conclusions on the matter. I admit I have had my own suspicions since Noroton showed up at AN/I to defend an obvious sock. So don't accuse Bali of being a troll, or me of feeding one, please. -- Good Damon 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * His bad faith accusations look, walk, and quack like WP:DUCK. Please rein him in then. His bad experiences do not give him a free pass to say and act how he pleases. I have my questions too about some of those blocks; however, I am certainly not a sock. Please talk to him about his assumptions of bad faith rather than condoning them. The issue is not that Noroton is raising valid issues in the appropriate forums, it is that he Bali is personally attacking him (and me). Excusing poor behavior rather than confronting it is a good way to encourage it.The ad hominem attacks are extremely unhelpful.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments on the offending users talk page. I would point out that I am not a SPA, as your post says by the use of "other" in conjunciont with Noroton, my name, and SPA. Anyway, good work on reining in the abusive user. I do look forward to your objective review of the recent talkpage discussions at ACORN. Cordially,Die4Dixie (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. No, you're not, and a look at your editing history confirms that. -- Good Damon 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * would you mind posting that to that talk page since you basically are retracting part of what you said. You will find me an amicable enough editor when not accused of such things( nor personally attacked). Perhaps Bali will discover this too if he continues in the most (very) recent vein he has exhibited for the last hour and a half. Since he archives my comments quickly, it appears that your indictment of me as an editor is your final word. ThanksDie4Dixie (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mast Cell
I responded to your concerns on that talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does a hat need a close?
Because poor User:LealandA is very confused that no further entries to the page appear after your change. Acck, nevermind, someone fixed it. Shenme (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The IP editor badly attempted to reopen. God, these nutcases... -- Good Damon 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama birthplace controversy
I made no attacks. http://www.obamacrimes.com is the bona fide nane of the website of a the Democrat former Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania. It is no "attack." Your blatant, and likely politically motivated censorship, however, is an extreme attack on the human rights of all mankind. BTW - since you still can't produce the list of sites not allowed on eBay your position is as arbitrary as it is fascistic. --DaleEastman (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleEastman (talk • contribs)

"Unsigned," is it? LOL. Good thing the Wikipedia's automated personal attack machine is of the same fine consistent quality I've come to expect here. --DaleEastman (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look... The lawsuit will fail, as did the last one, due to lack of evidence. Believe me when I tell you this: If the absurd happens, and somehow despite the state of Hawaii authenticating his birth certificate, despite the hospital records which indicate he was born there, despite the birth announcement appearing in the newspaper the next day... if somehow, all of that is disregarded and Obama is barred from the Presidency on the grounds of his birth, despite the complete and utter lack of evidence and the utter lunacy of this whole absurd lawsuit... Believe me when I tell you, under those highly unlikely circumstances, that information will end up in Wikipedia. But right now, at this time, it has no place here. Anywhere. At all. GIVE UP. Accept that you are pushing a fringe theory that does not belong in Wikipedia unless and until it becomes not fringe. This isn't censorship; you are free to spout whatever lunatic claims you feel like making. Go somewhere else to do it, though. 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN/socks/meats/etc/etc
Hi GoodDamon. I still don't really understand the arguments that were/are under the ACORN section on the AN/I page. Yours arguments seems to be that just because a group of people agreed on something that they should be banned, whether they were sockpuppets or not. Am I right, or am I missing something? By the way, I have no interest in the ACORN subject or related (So far, I'm not even sure what the two sides were arguing about anyway). I would appreciate it if you could explain what the issue was, and why Wikipedia isn't surely benefiting from editors with different perspectives. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it had little to do with the ACORN article, other than that was where the disruption lay, nor with the perspective of the various accounts. In fact, see User:Die4Dixie and User:DigitalNinja as examples of accounts that have not behaved inappropriately, and whose contributions I've even defended, despite heartily disagreeing with both of them.
 * Now, I'm not an administrator, so I can't pretend to know for sure exactly what admin-only evidence was seen during that report, but let me see if I can break it down.
 * is a known puppeteer who used multiple sockpuppets to support his POV-pushing in several articles. Those earlier accounts, near as I can tell, were all eventually traced to the same IP address. They all used the same editing style, they all focused on the same group of articles, they all made the same spelling and punctuation mistakes, etc. All of them frequently missed edit summaries. When they did use edit summaries, they were frequently misleading as to the extent of the changes being made. He tried to vary it up with a few of the sockpuppets, claiming with several of them to be a supporter of the opposite POV he was pushing, but using those accounts to say his other accounts had valid points; basically, they were concern trolls.
 * So... Fast forward to recent events. WorkerBee74, Curious bystander, Marx0728, 300wackerdrive, and Kossack4Truth all appear on the scene. These accounts edited in a variety of articles, but generally tended to avoid too much interaction with one another too simultaneously. Because of similarities in style, spelling, punctuation, edit summary usage, etc. (see a pattern?) there were several sockpuppet reports on them. But the individual sockpuppetry cases always came back inconclusive. Yes, the results would say, WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive edit with remarkable similarity, but they use different IP addresses. So nothing came of it.
 * It wasn't until several of the accounts appeared on the ACORN article to vote-stack for a particularly contentious piece of content that I took the time to go through all the prior reports. And after reviewing all the evidence that had accrued, I felt there was, at minimum, a very good case for meatpuppetry, and in several instances, there were accounts whose behavior, on their own, should have resulted in bans. Now, when I submitted the final report, I hadn't yet heard of BryanFromPalatine, but one of the administrators mentioned him, and told us the editing patterns were remarkably similar. The same patterns of missed summaries, the same editing style and, lo and behold, Kossack4Truth resembled BryanFromPalatine's concern troll accounts. Then it came out that Curious bystander and Marx0728 were confirmed by checkuser, probably a mistake on the puppeteer's part.
 * At that point, the other three accounts received a more thorough examination. It was discovered that:
 * 300wackerdrive edited without exception from the same IP address as BryanFromPalatine.
 * Kossack4Truth edited without exception from a residential IP address in the same area.
 * Their editing periods never overlapped. This makes it appear to be a single person, always editing from work with one account, from home with another.
 * WorkerBee74 always edited from a mobile phone device. Not only is that extremely unlikely behavior -- what, he never had access to a computer, but could afford a fancy, internet-enable phone? -- but it also smacks of checkuser avoidance, one of the reasons checkuser is only one of the ways in which socks get found out.
 * The administrators found this to be extremely compelling evidence of a puppeteer who had simply gotten clever enough to proxy different IP addresses for different accounts. In the case of Curious bystander and Marx0728, the puppeteer used the same address, probably hoping to avoid their detection by mostly avoiding the same articles.
 * So... We have an established pattern of a puppeteer, now known to be BryanFromPalatine, who is clever enough to use different IP addresses to evade checkuser, and it took comparing the evidence accumulated from multiple incident reports and sock reports to finally put all the pieces together. Does all this help? -- Good Damon 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing answer
Hello Gooddeamon, since I wrote my answer to your last message about a month ago, nothing has arrived back. I don't understand why. What is wrong? Regards, Taodeptus (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Taodeptus


 * Hello. I actually answered you here, but it must have archived before you saw it. -- Good Damon 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvest Time @ COTW
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology
You asked for calm talks and went away. Shall we? Shutterbug (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was taken away by RL. -- Good Damon 03:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Happens! The article is now frozen. That should give us enough time to sort out the backlogged issues. Shutterbug (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Heads up
Thanks for the heads up. All I was really trying to do is to push towards some sort of consensus so that we can identify the troubles and move on. I hadn't realized that you filed the report, or else I would have waited. Anyways, I guess we'll just see what happens. ← Spidern  →  15:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm recusing myself from it. I wanted to respond in the affirmative when I saw what looked like a real and quality consensus forming. -- Good Damon 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey mon
Hey, I commented in your ANI report. Much as I respect you, I really think that you are wrong-headed bringing that up there rather than asking the arbitrators to reopen the case if you think they are "doing it wrong". That is unfair to Shutterbug as some green admin might make a mess of things that then needs to be undone. I also think that you let your issue with Shutterbug get the better of you with that thin-skinned "incivility" thing - "utterly inappropriate edits like that which smack of POV-pushing and conflicts of interest" are strong words. If you want to say things like that then please grow some thicker skin. Reporting Shutterbug for replying to those words is also unfair. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel, and respect your position. But as I said at the incident report, this is no longer an issue of content. Take a look at the evidence. If it walks like a duck...
 * As for the civility issue, perhaps my skin has grown a little thinner. But think of it from my perspective... I wasn't involved in that ArbCom, and only yesterday finally took the time to comb through it enough to see the evidence of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and even WP:ROLE. I strongly defended Shutterbug and several of the other accounts several times, taking what I thought was a stance of neutrality. Perhaps I'm feeling thin-skinned because in good faith, I defended the edits of accounts that were not editing in good faith. That does get on my nerves. -- Good Damon 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, WP:DUCK-time! Please look again. I sent you a message. Shutterbug (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How many
Hi GoodDamon, re 3RR – you are making your argument on AE in good faith, but please take a mo to look at WP:3RR. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period whether or not the edits involve the same material". Unfortunately, the way it is set up, editors don't start again at 0 for every separate issue that is being fought over. Cheers, Jayen 466 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot about that. Fair enough, and thank you for pointing it out. I suppose it's moot now anyway, as I'm voluntarily waiting for the incident report to be resolved, but you're right, I did technically hit 4RR. Thanks for your diligence on that, and I should have been more diligent myself. :) -- Good Damon 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)