Jump to content

User talk:Joe Bodacious

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Joe Bodacious! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Brendon is here 07:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Ditto

[edit]

Your latest comment on J. Johnson's talk page could be taken verbatim with the article name changed to 2014 Oso mudslide. What you described has been happening there, as well. In other words, the behavior isn't new and it isn't limited to one article and talk page. Just saying. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discussion at AN/I: WP:ANI#Disruptive_editing_by_User:J._Johnson. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that and added my concerns to it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left this same message on User:Robert McClenon's page:

So far at AN/I, it's three for a J. Johnson topic ban and one against it.[1] What happens now? Or does this just get stale and nothing happens? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've taken a problem to ANI, so I don't know what to expect. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schiller Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Yalta]] treaties, which have tossed us from one catastrophe to another for an entire century. (''Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anwar Ibrahim may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Anwar has made numerous remarks about a supposed conspiracy among the Malaysian government, [[APCO Worldwide|APCO}} (a public relations firm retained by the Malaysian government), Israel, and the United States.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Schiller institute

[edit]

You misunderstand. You need to post policy links in most cases when you make a policy based argument. You don't just a policy link. Your policy argument must also be clear. I should easily be able to go from your argument to the policy page and easily verify that the policy lines up with what you are saying. This is not the case though with you. You either don't link the policy or you don't give an argument. You are rarely clear. How many different policies have you flip flopped from in such a short number of days? Consider taking a little more time in between your posts and before you post to get your thoughts together.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Psycho, I have no doubt that my comments are unclear to you, but I am not convinced that the problem lies with my comments. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's truly intersting Joey. On Schiller Institute talk in the section labeled "Three repetitive sections on Jeremiah Duggan, all with same sources?" Waalkes opens with a policy argument. I ask which policy. You decide to respond with WP:SS. Another editor asks you which section of the summary style guideline you are speaking of. And you do not respond. You stood by a shaky BLP argument before that. You started trying to tie the allegations made to advocacy at some point. After that you shift to a weight argument which respectfully seems like an attempt to whitewash the page. Then you start shooting off about primary sources. When asked why you consider it a primary instead of a secondary you post a blue link to policy but give no actual basis for it. And the problem doesn't lie with your comments per se. I could after all do your job and feel in the blanks in your argument. Why would I do that? wp:teahouse is a place for new editors can get help. Check it out.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i saw your post

[edit]

on Fleethams userpage. I too feel he has followed me and is acting in an adversary manner.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Concerning conspiracies

[edit]

Could you put in an appeal. I think the case is quite clear that the article is not really up to Wikipedia standards in any sense of the world and that a good argumentation backed by WP policy will do away with this [Potemkin village|potemkin façade]. Thank you.Usersame (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS The page concerning new deletion reviews talked mostly about pages that had already been deleted...so I in my bureaucratic bewilderment turn to you to do the necessary steps. Please just cite any of the numerous and concrete WP violations listed on the talk page section. I think it is of such significant weight that it should make any unseaworthy sink![reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Schiller_Institute

[edit]

I've opened a request for mediation. I think it could help having an impartial mediator. Please cosnider going there and signing up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on that request page that says, "Additional issues (added by other parties)" You can add the specific issues you have with that article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Schiller Institute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're obviously revenge stalking

[edit]

[2]. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I left a polite message on your talk page when you first started following me around, which you ignored. Now that you have left a petulant and uncalled-for message on my talk page, I will have the courtesy to respond. I don't know what got you on my case initially, but I think that the best way to resolve it would be for you to sign on to Serial Joe Psycho's mediation. Perhaps if you and I interact with the benefit of a mediator, we can resolve whatever it is that needs resolving. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're in need of a little more experience as a Wikipedian, Joe. Be cautious of accusing people of 'following you around'. This is the kind of petulant behaviour displayed by newbie contributors who don't realise that it is standard practice to patrol a new or inexperienced user's special contributions. What you are expressing is a paranoid attitude that you are being subjected to some form of harassment. You're not the first newbie to mistake standard practice for spying. An experienced Wikipedian, such a VM, has better things to do than lurk around you as some sort of campaign against you. Conversely, given your recent sparring with him, your trailing his edits does smack of retaliatory, bad faith stalking. If this is your motivation, stop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I have wandered into more than one WP:BATTLEGROUND. And here I thought a Request for Comment was intended to bring in outside editors. Joe Bodacious (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the rationale behind engaging in the RfC is evidently a personalised one. You could also do with brushing up on how to participate in an WP:RFC (i.e., it goes on the merit of the arguments according to policy and guidelines, not the number of votes).
Please stop working on the premise that Wikipedia is a battleground and that you have somehow been targeted. I am trying to offer you advice in good faith, and you are not on anyone's hit list. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing "personalised" about my "rationale" for joining the RfC on Angela Merkel. I stand by my comment there [3]. As for the BLP noticeboard discussion on Robert Kagan/Victoria Nuland, please recall that I initiated it in the first place. Joe Bodacious (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I am jumping to conclusions, but it is notable that you have never edited the article or participated in the discussions on the talk page prior this one incident. Perhaps you're merely slowly branching out into vaguely related articles following a political tangent. I'll accept it as being an unhappy coincidence... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

It's like court, except me, you, and the others are the Judge and jury. Rather we make the final decision. The mediator is there to keep decorum and just help move the discussion forwatd productively. They don't have any position on the case at hand and they don't take part in the decision. They just direct us away from any kind of disruptive editing. We don't argue and accuse each other of water ever. We just talk content.The basis here is good faith. No one did anything wrong basically. The article in question was already locked. Since it was unlocked 3 editors have already went back to the same behavoir. IF this transitions into an edit war again the next step is AN/i, Admins, and bans or blocks. The other thing is mediation is completely voluntary. You do not have to take part. Understand?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we start it? Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we are waiting on a decision by the mediation committee whether they will take the case or not. VM hasn't accepted the mediation yet and well he's not turned it down yet. If this doesn't work though I do think those us who agree to this could come together and doa carefully written RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

[edit]
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Schiller Institute, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

[edit]

Dear Joe Bodacious: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

My name is Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs), and I'll be your mediator for this case. It's good to meet you! I'm currently in the process of researching the content issue regarding this article (and the wider dispute) in some detail, and I hope I'll be able to assist in bringing some consensus to this editing dispute. I would like to ask all parties to bear with me while I complete this research, and am extremely grateful for your patience whilst I get things underway. I will let you know as soon as things are underway.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Lyndon LaRouche shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You have now restored four times in less than 48 hours a section that has no consensus on the Talk page to add. WP:3RR isn't a given, make no mistake. You are edit warring against consensus. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pepe Escobar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was assassinated. <ref>[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/Escobar.html Biography of Escobar]] at ''Asia Times''</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Singer (businessman) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • debt-creditors-supreme-court/10572945/ Argentina refuses to submit to debt 'extortion'] ''USA Today]], June 17, 2014</ref><ref>Schmall, Emily, [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/world/americas/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Berlet and Lyndon LaRouche

[edit]
Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Reference Errors on 9 July

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

That mediation is taking a good minute. Abit of time is passed. Perhaps we should get everyone together and see if we can discuss the less contentious issues. What do you think?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss it wherever you like. Joe Bodacious (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

[edit]

Dear Joe Bodacious: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

I have written an initial analysis, and requested contribution from all mediation parties. Please read what I've written and participate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

[edit]

Please consider my suggestion of the RfC. If the admin who closes this says there is strong consensus for your position, then you can cite this as an example of Meat being disruptive should he try the same tactics again. And if you are wrong, well then I suppose the reverse could happen. But either way, this specific issue will be resolved. Best of luck.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll initiate the RfC now. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's not appearing on the biographies RFC page? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has corrected that oversight. I didn't think to include it. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FG Hemisphere

[edit]

Hey Joe,

I just created a page for FG Hemisphere and am respectfully asking for you to review and expand it if you have time. It's only a stub and could use some work. I would appreciate some help and another set of eyes on it. Let's be civil about this. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

This account has been blocked per the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky. Please feel free to post any comments here if you feel that this is in error, and I will consider them. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this simply represents harassment by Binksternet, a tendentious editor with whom I am involved in a dispute. If one wants to argue that editing similar articles is evidence of sockpuppetry, you might as well argue that I am Binksternet's sock, because unfortunately he and I edit many of the same topics. We are presently involved in mediation, where Binksternet made a very unusual statement, saying that the best way to resolve the dispute was to ban me so that he could edit the disputed article as he pleases.
Please note that Binksternet has a record as long as my arm of blocks for edit warring, whereas my record is clean. You may also wish to consider the possibility that Binksternet as been proxy editing on behalf of a banned user, Will Beback. Binksternet inadvertantly reveals here that he began editing LaRouche topics one month after Will Beback, who was obsessed with LaRouche, was banned. I don't mean to be endorsing these sorts of tactics, i.e. instigating investigations as a means of winning a content dispute. I'm simply saying that the charges against me are baseless, whereas Binksternet may be doing exactly what he is accusing me of doing. A little WP:BOOMERANG would be poetic justice. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that on the "sockpuppet investigations" page it says that "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." But of course, when I attempt to comment, I get a message that I am blocked. Is there not a rule that an editor must be informed when there is some kind of complaint filed against him, so that he may respond? I also see an allegation by you, Jehochman, that I have been "causing trouble." I cannot see any basis for this (again, see my clean block record) unless you are aligned with Binksternet in some way. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I would like to request that an uninvolved admin review this case. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

As noted above, there has been no credible evidence of sockpuppetry presented, and no disruptive behavior on my part is even being alleged (i.e., the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, and the block violates our blocking policy.) This complaint by Binksternet is simply a bad-faith effort by a very tendentious editor, with whom I am engaged in a content dispute which is under mediation, to gain the upper hand in that dispute. My block log is clean, and there have been no complaints about my conduct other than this recent one from Binksternet. If anyone would care to point out to me any misconduct on my part, I will correct it without hesitation.

Decline reason:

The unblock request does not adequately address the reason for the block, which was implemented because the SPI found that this account is a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky. I reviewed the information at the LTA report and SPI report and found the socking allegation to be a credible one. Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

@Dianna: says she reviewed the SPI report. The SPI report says two things: that there is no checkuser evidence that I am a sock, but that I would be blocked if I have made any "dodgy edits." In a subsequent post, the blocking administrator says I have been "causing trouble," and will therefore be blocked. WP:Guide to appealing blocks says that I must state my reason for believing your block was incorrect, and address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct. As far as addressing the concerns of the blocking administrator, I am at a loss to do so, because he never says what they are: I am simply accused of "causing trouble." I should think that if I were actually causing trouble, I should have some record of blocks, beyond the present spurious one. The person who accused me has a pretty spectacular record of "causing trouble." If it is demanded of me that I defend myself against charges that have not yet been made public, it puts me in a bit of a "Catch 22" situation. The block is also incorrect because I'm not a sock, and there is no evidence that points to me being one, other than that I evidently edited some articles that were also edited by a banned editor -- which is hardly "evidence." The motive of the person who accused me is obvious, I should think. He spells it out fairly explicitly in his statement in our recent mediation -- he wishes to remove me, by getting me blocked, from the disputed article so that he may edit it to conform to his own POV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have spent a considerable amount of time checking the editing history of this account against those of both the Herschelkrustofsky account and established Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets. The number of connections goes way beyond what could reasonably be expected if this account were independent of Herschelkrustofsky. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2014 (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.

Hi, I occasionally read some of the content written by Joe Bodacious, mostly that on the Earthquake Prediction page, and I've always found his comments to be reasonable and polite. I don't know about other issues that might be under consideration, }but I do think it is fair to ask that Joe Bodacious be given a chance to respond before he is blocked. Thank you. 109.144.242.28 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:9STEPS in action. Waalkes (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me emphasize that I am certainly not a LaRouche supporter! I'm simply curious about the process by which Wiki enforces good behavior and, in this case, guards agains sock puppets. Joe may or may not be a sock puppet. I don't know. But I think it is worth noting that while the evidence presented on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky

seems to indicate the existence of a sock puppet, it is does not present is any evidence that this sock puppet is also Joe Bodacious. In fact, the page does not even mention Joe. So how are we to suppose that the sock puppet and Joe are one and the same? Some circumstantial evidence is presented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive

but what this might just be is the demonstration of a correlation between an interested editor working on a controversial site that also happens to be a site that the sock puppet finds interesting. How are we to know the difference? It is stated, for example, that Joe has edited on about the same schedule as the sock puppet. I wonder, however, if this amounts to sifting through data until a correlation is found. How many editors do not have this schedule? How many do? How was the evidence shown chosen? Etc. This raises the possibility of falling into a statistical fallacy known as "confirmation bias", in which evidence to the contrary is ignored, and only confirming evidence is retained. An objective study for Joe's possible alter ego as the sock puppet, or, indeed, evidence for the very existence of a sock puppet, would include comparison against null hypotheses in which the behavior of randomly chosen editors would be analyzed. Do they also tend to show editing at certain times and not others? What is the rate at which false positives might be identified? etc.

And, again, once this more objective approach to analyzing data is taken, and if the evidence still looks convincing, then it would be very interesting, I think, to hear Joe's response. Indeed, if Joe is a sock puppet, his response might be very revealing!

So, I say, let there be a process which includes objective discussion of evidence and a bit of communicative back and forth. 109.144.253.21 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

	+
The way to get your case reviewed by an uninvolved administrator is to place a formal unblock request. Read the WP:Guide to appealing blocks which tells you how, and gives useful advice. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How long does this process normally take? It has been nigh on two weeks now since I placed my formal request. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an SPI expert, but I'll note with interest that Joe's unblock request does not even claim that the allegation is false. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation is false. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get another account! 166.147.88.38 (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I want my regular account unblocked. If it turns out that Wikipedia is a place where you can get laid low by sneaky bad-faith editors and the response of the admins is to yawn and ignore it -- then I'll let someone else write Wikipedia. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction. Thank you. I will append a note that your ability to comment may be impaired by your sockpuppet block. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Bodacious&oldid=1143091170"