User talk:Peacekpr/archive2

Sockpuppet Discussion

Hi, I see that my name appears in your investigation of User:SkinnyMcgee. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I did not follow proper procedure in filing a checkuser report, I believed I followed the instructions carefully and someone with the checkuser tool confirmed that both User:GuardianZ and User:Oroboros_1 are the same person. [1] Judging by your user contributions, you seem to know quite a bit about Wikipedia, despite creating your username just a day ago. Do you have a previous username, and if so what was it? Dionyseus 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You showed a certain bias and unwillingness to try to mediate between the waring parties. I think you were eager to report one or two people only because you agreed with the other, who was in more need of policing than those you punished. I think your report was incorrect and slanted. Oroboros made a post within minutes of Guardian being blocked. You then rushed to report Oroboros' IP. I think you mislead the admin into making the block. You might want to look at the evidence very closely and see if you offer anything. If not, then we can wait for others to comment. I was just alerting each editor in the page history out of courtesy. And, no offense, but I prefer not telling you who I am. Peacekpr 12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oroboros made a post within minutes of Guardian being blocked. You then rushed to report Oroboros' IP. I think you mislead the admin into making the block." That's a fabrication. As for you not wanting to disclose your previous username, I wonder why that is. Was it banned by any chance? Dionyseus 12:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the blanking of Oroboros' post [2]
You rush to post a request for block [3] and you do not consider requesting an investigation of the other sockpuppet activity (it's very obvious).
You never even warned User:Skinny_McGee that he had exceeded 3RR and you had several chances to do that when you were posting those same warnings for GuardianZ and Oroboros. You also made an earlier block request prior to 3RR, which was denied for GaurdianZ, but was employed for SkinnyMcGee. Then you went back shortly after and requested another block for GaurdianZ after he reverted from your revert of his edits. You may not have incited this edit war but you are not helping. You may want to look closer into the citations that were placed in the article by Oroboros or GaurdianZ. They do appear significant. SkinnyMcGee has not made his point, and you and he seem to hung up on promotion, yet he is doing no different for the other band member. Anyway, I'm not going to argue the article's problems on my talk page. I will request investigation, arbitration if neccessary, etc. Peacekpr 12:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said I reported User:Oroboros_1's IP, that's a fabrication, I simply requested a block due to the result of the checkuser request I filed, which was that User:GuardianZ and User:Oroboros_1 are the same person. [4] [5] Furthermore your order of events is wrong, you claim that Oroboros (who is actually GuardianZ) posted a message and that I then rushed to report the IP, when in reality I requested the block an hour before GuardianZ posted the message. I didn't warn User:SkinnyMcGee because User:GuardianZ already warned him and he was blocked for 3RR. As for promotion, I do believe the version User:GuardianZ was pushing was a Joseph Vargo promotion, and I disagree with your notion that me and Skinny are trying to hide Joseph Vargo from the article, Joseph Vargo is credited for being a previous bandmember as well as his roles as a bandmember. Dionyseus 12:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from report page

Peacekpr accuses me of a false report of sockpuppet, this accusation is false and unwarranted. You can find my checkuser request here: [6], and my report here: [7]. Also, when I asked this user to reveal his/her previous username in the user's talkpage, the user refused to do so, I'm beginning to suspect that this user is another one of User:GuardianZ's sockpuppets. Dionyseus 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request of an investigation into sockpuppets for SkinnyMcGee, since you did not, and since I think it is pretty obvious but more complex. I only mentioned you as being biased. I did not request an investigation into your actions, nor did I report you. I only mentioned you in my comments. The sockpuppet report is just a report on the IPs and names. And I have moved your notes here to keep the report page short. And if you think I am one of the sockpuppets for Oroboros or GuardianZ then I suppose you have a right to think that, but I'm not.

Dionyseus, listed below are your recent actions compared to actions of other editors which show you simply reverted (mimicking the actions and comments of SkinnyMcGee), and did not try to discuss changes that were proposed in the discussion, nor did you report McGee for any abuse. It shows a bias, that's all. I am not saying you're a sockpuppet, and perhaps you were correct in reporting a suspicion but you did not show fair treatment to two waring users, and seemed very eager to report and show only ONE side of the arguement. All I'm saying is that you show a bias. You may agree with McGee, but you seem to be very insistant about reporting one abuser and not the other. I don't belive I got this out of order (following). All I'm saying is we need some non-affilated input on this one. Peacekpr 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 20 November 2006 [8] Dionyseus (rv to last version by Skinny McGee. Oroboros_1 and GuardianZ continue to try to push a Vargo promo)
20:29, 20 November 2006 GuardianZ (correct info, sans the site Skiiny doesn't like, but ALL info is verified and correct, not propaganda that Skinny keeps posting)
19:38, 20 November 2006 [9] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (User:Skinny_McGee reported by User:Oroboros 1 (Result:))
14:16, 20 November 2006 Skinny McGee ) (Remove Vargo/Monolith Graphics self-promo. Remove defamatory references and links.)
12:25, 20 November 2006 GuardianZ (clean up)
02:21, 20 November 2006 Skinny McGee ) (Remove Vargo/Monolith Graphics self-promo. Remove defamatory references and links.)
01:24, 20 November 2006 Oroboros 1 (rv from Ed Douglas vandalism of factual content and self-promotion)
19:34, 19 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Talk | contribs) (Remove Vargo/Monolith Graphics self-promo. Remove defamatory references and links.)
21:40, 17 November 2006 [10] Midnight Syndicate (rv to last version by Pumpkinhead5. Oroboros and GuardianZ version is a Vargos promo)
19:49, 20 November 2006 [11] Talk:Midnight Syndicate (Cleaning up and restating purpose)
10:12, 17 November 2006 [12] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (User:GuardianZ reported by User:Dionyseus (Result:))
10:11, 17 November 2006 [13] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (reporting GuardianZ)

If you review the Midnight Syndicate talkpage you'll see that both me and Skinny attempted to compromise with User:GuardianZ, but GuardianZ ignored us and with the help of his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 he kept trying to push his Joseph Vargo promo, sometimes even using deceptive edit summaries. Dionyseus 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I see that you and McGee just don't seem to like promoting the one band member's work, but do like promoting the other's work, and that much of McGee's statements are contradicted by citations that were introduced by the other users (those citations having been removed by McGee and his actions sanctioned by you). I may discuss more later on the actual talk page for that article. I'm still comparing material from both sides. Right now I'll just wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. Peacekpr 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Midnight Syndicate article, not the Joseph Vargo article. Joseph Vargo is already credited as a former bandmember. If you want to promote Vargo and his new band, create an article about him. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. Dionyseus 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and Undue Weight

Please read Bias and Undue Weight. I think you and the other editors of that article could learn from the following passages:

A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.
Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I think Oroboros tried and went overboard, but GuardianZ did present a fairly-weighted article. Problem was that McGee felt compelled to shift that weight unto Edward Douglas by inserting more claims (mostly unverified) which in appearance lessened the credentials of Joseph Vargo. Again, you are stuck on the promotional thing, but the article is not supposed to be a band promotion. It is supposed to be a factual article about a band; that includes ALL members. I think McGee has introduced a lot of sensationalism into the content, and that GuardianZ and Oroboros were trying to counter that with some of their own. I think the editors need to reduce the sensationism and stick to facts that will not be in dispute. I think I'll include these notes on the article page as well. I think they may help future edits. I also intend to write up a list of facts from the material provided by all the parties. Maybe then we can make peace. Peacekpr 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic: Dionyseus on Notability

First of all it has already been proven that Oroboros_1 is GuardianZ's sockpuppet. [14]. As for the "facts" you speak of, I don't think interviews conducted by Midnight Syndicate's main rivals can count as facts. Dionyseus 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana have been determined to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please see the AfD page for Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Vargo. Dionyseus 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Vargo in this article is not in question. It was determined by several discussions that he is notable, and was voted to keep with changes. However, it appears his business partner was the one to request a removal of the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Vargo after it was attacked, much like this article has been by McGee and previous editors. (That discussion was also blanked by Jimbo Wales, so you might be in violation of that decree by retrieving it from archives). Again, I think you are just biased against him for the previously stated reasons in this section. It is not a notability issue (he has certainly published more than two Midnight Syndicate albums) but a neutrality issue we are dealing with here. I will await the sockpuppet investigation, however, to see what it turns up in regard to my suspicions about McGee and the other suspected aliases. If that turns up positive, then you may have to re-evaluate your arguement. You've only strengthened the arguement that you are biased by making this into a notability issue when it is not. Peacekpr 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False, in the AfD it was determined that Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Only after the AfD was completed did Jimbo Wales blank the discussion due to a request. The discussion you linked to is the talk page of User:Blooferlady who has admitted to be Christine Filipak, Joseph Vargo's partner, webmaster, and business manager. [15] Despite your claim to the contrary, there's nothing in her discussion page in which it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Dionyseus 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that discussion indicates is that the copyvio was placed and that Blooferlady had approved the use of text. I don't understand what that old discussion has to do with the Midnight Syndicate article? Obviously, she was just defending a copyright, or in that case defending the right she gave for use of the material. McGee has supposedly been "granted" use of materials by Midnight Syndicate whom he claims to have emailed. Do we copyvio that as well? I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are grasping at straws. Peacekpr 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to previous: She also didn't know about WP:NOR and she certainly wasn't trying to hide her identity. She may have violated the No Original Research policy, but she wasn't acting as a sockpuppet either. You really have not addressed the arguement as to the WP:NPOV issue. I think that the content provided for this article by McGee is sensational and unverifiable. At least GZ provided verifiable info, albeit not something the band wants to promote. THAT is the issue. As I stated previously, the article needs to be de-sensationalised and verified, fairly weighted and unbiased. I think any other editor would agree. Peacekpr 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on IP reporting

My point is that you continue to state falsehoods. You earlier accused me of making a false report of sockpuppet, I have proven your claim to be false. [16] [17]. You then made the claim that I quickly rushed to report Oroboros_1's IP after GuardianZ was blocked, this is of course obviously false as the only reason they were both blocked was due to the report of sockpuppetry I posted an hour before the blocks. Now you claim that in User:Blooferlady's talkpage it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable, yet again you make a completely baseless and false claim and then try to get out of it by asking what it has to do with the Midnight Syndicate article. Dionyseus 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And would you stop leaving duplicate messages that I must respond to both copies, please. I will talk about the format of the article on the Talk:Midnight_Syndicate page. The post by Oroboros shows a different IP that the one you reported. As to my belief that you are biased... and AGAIN, I ONLY charged you with being BIASED... you are proving that assertion with every single message you leave. Thanks. Peacekpr 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not stop posting my replies to comments which involve me. As for GuardianZ (remember that it has been proven that Oroboros_1 is GuardianZ) making a post after one of her IPs were banned, that's called evading a block and it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, User:khoikhoi warned GuadianZ not to do that again. [18] Dionyseus 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, we'll see what happens. Peacekpr 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that I never acused you of purposely making a false report, only mistakenly making the report, then failing to report the other party which seems the more obvious choice, at least to me. It is also possible that User:khoikhoi made a mistake or an error in judgement because he received only half of the information. Peacekpr 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]