User talk:Achidiac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re:The Ant Surfaces

That's fair enough but any content that you do add must be backed up with references. Without references the mass of the wikipedia community will just see your edits as vandalism, as the content you're adding is not well known unlike the rest of wikipedia's content. If you have any problems with the article, you can leave a message on my talk page and I will try my best to help. Happy Editing Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elendor‎

GreenJoe 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Achidiac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How To Delete 'retired" accounts

Accounts cannot be deleted. Just abandon it. Also, if you want, you can have it renamed to something like "Retireduser21" by going to WP:CHU, and then abandoning it. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just hang onto it for now, but will keep this in mind when I do want to do it. Ta! --Achidiac 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated Page

Hi Ant, thanks for adding my article to yours. I've made some updates, and added it here too. Hope you like them. T. --T3Smile 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Again Anthony, I've again updated your copy of article in my user space. I'm not really liking it anymore, the article intro is sucking a bit and everytime I try to do something with it I get rude responses from my efforts to try and get others to assist. One guy is now saying its a Conflict Of Interest writing an article of you and I don't even have contact details of you except for your PR Agent. Another quotes sources such as YouTube being an "unreliable" source - I don't get it - the videos show your work and the credits for citation purposes - ie it is a method for presenting the reader with the video evidence of projects. PS - yes, I was in the best of bits video at Jooce Nightclub. Hope u r enjoying your holiday. T --T3Smile 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Again, sorry to bother you User talk:Orderinchaos is looking for information pertaining to Group CDB - can you give "from horses mouth" details? He might post you a few Q's for you to answer. Hope you can help once again, T --T3Smile 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Achidiac

User:Achidiac, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Achidiac and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Achidiac during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi anthony, I think they want to delete this page because YOU ARE NOW PUBLISHED in mainspace. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that. cheers T--T3Smile 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your userpage as a "keep", after marking it more explicitly as a userpage. If you wish, you might consider further revisions to it, to make it appear dissimilar to your article. (In particular, perhaps you'd like to share your personal views on the encyclopedia's work, which would not be appropriate in article, but which are often featured on userpages.) That remains your choice, however. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anthony Chidiac

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anthony Chidiac, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination). Thank you. -- Ben 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

image and NDA?

Hey, man. I know there's a lot going on. When it clears up (and if you have time) you could help me by clearing up something about an image... try this link. I started a discussion over there and invited the copyright holder to the discussion. Taking the image out of the article it was in didn't remove it from wikipedia. -- Ben 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Gnangarra 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Sorry. Looks like we've been sucked into some wikiwar and I'm really sorry about it. Some people need to get a life. rgds. T --T3Smile 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Hi,

I was already on the case when I saw your note.

I'll write at length in a little while, when I've read the rest of the background in more detail. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now responded - see below FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent disputes

Hi,

I have reviewed the entirety of this discussion and feel it might help to sum up what's going on and what it means. This will be a bit of a long post, because a lot's gone on, but hopefully the information will be useful and make up for it. If after reading, you have queries about it, please comment below, and I'll try to help further.

Note that I have assumed zero knowledge, partly so I don't assume your awareness of matters that you might have no reason to know, partly so others can comment and review my comments for accuracy if there is a question of factuality or policy interpretation.

Update: Following review, I have blocked all 3 accounts concerned. The brief reason is as follows: Legal threats by Achidiac, one of three closely connected single purpose accounts. [1] Apparent intent being to somehow force an "A. Chidiac" article to exist despite 2 AFDs, a DRV, and 3 SPEEDY deletions of recreations of the newly AFD'ed material. Apparent spurious accusations of bad conduct, couldn't see evidence to warrant this. (I have requested that if this is wrong, to inform me). A SOCK inquiry closed at WP:SSP with the recommendation "These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry". [2] An unblock appeal would be in order but would depend upon the above being resolved, and agreement on future editing approaches.

More detail follows if wanted.

Basics of Wikipedia

The basic premise of Wikipedia is, it's an encyclopedia. That means we have strict policies about what is, and is not, suitable for an article. Articles should meet all these criteria to be considered sustainable. We also have policies on how one may act, how certain borderline cases such as should be reviewed, and what is or is not acceptable conduct, too. These apply fairly to all editors, and all articles; as I'm sure you will appreciate that's essential in order to be credible as a reference source. I'll mention relevant ones as I come to them.

Dispute history

Part 1- events of July 2007

• July 17 -- T3Smile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) creates an account and creates an article Anthony Chidiac ("AC") article. This is listed for deletion on 18th July and following communal discussion deleted 24th.
• July 18 -- Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) creates an account and begins editing on the same articles, adding AC links to various pages. [3][4], uploading images of Chidiac's internet cafe, and contributing as a "strong keep" to the AFD [5].
• 19 July -- Achidiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) creates an account and begins editing on the AFD [6] and similar related articles.
• July 21 -- Achidiac posts about "w@nkers that interpret their own set of rules derived from their own head" and "I know another two words people can say to you too", a breach of our policy on civility that was not necessary or useful. [7] In the same post the subject asks for the article, and his account, to be deleted.
• July 21 -- This is followed by a request for help, stating that "I felt rather uncomfortable about it, and understandably, with the treatment that some loons on here have given these people", another incivility/attack [8].
• July 24 (00.51) -- the deletion discussion ended and the article was by communal consensus, deleted. This was after a full 5 day discussion.
• July 24 to 27 (multiple incidents) -- article recreated (and redeleted) later that day. And again on July 26. And again on July 27.
• July 31 -- Rdpaperclip writes to T3Smile in the context of Chidiac related media pieces and samples, "Don't edit any of the pieces unless you get the OK from Anthony" [9].

Part 2 - events of October 2007 (incl. deletion and review)

• Oct 17 -- T3Smile recreated the article again, and also added AChidiac links to Internet cafe [10], Lebanese people [11], DVD authoring [12] (possibly viable), various music related articles [13][14], created a school article to add a Chidiac link there [15], edited the geographical article to add Chidiac to that [16],
• Oct 23 -- A second deletion discussion opened. Extra time beyond normal was given - the normal close should have been Oct 28 but this was left open untilo Oct 31. I closed this discussion and again it was deleted per the rationale in the discussion header, which was lengthy in order to explain it better to those involved.
• Nov 1 -- T3Smile asks for help. I review the draft as an administrator, and make suggestions, for which he posted a strong thank-you note [17]. T3Smile then rewrites the article, commenting that "I have followed your recommendations but simply cannot in such a short time provide the citations aside from the subject himself and his colleagues", and listed the article for deletion review to gain independent views on the rewrite. [18].
• Nov 3 -- Achidiac states that, "[I]n the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life. I've only given the ok for [T3Smile] and the uni folk to publish a wikipedia article for encyclopaedic reference, and would appreciate it being neutral in its tone. After all, what is there to promote about me now?" [19].
• Nov 5 -- At the time of writing, the deletion review (still open to discussion) shows some 8 or 9 experienced users endorsing the rationale of this discussion, with none dissenting [20].) One DRV comment reads, "The subject has been pushing hard to get his article here and that makes protestations that the lack of sources results from a desire for privacy somewhat difficult to swallow" [21]. An analysis of the problematically low level of serious media mentions by Sarah would also seem to add weight to this [22]. Others concur that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards.

Part 3 - Allegation of puppetry

• Nov 4 -- a Wikipedia administrator, Gnangarra, expresses concern over "puppetry". That is, the concern that there may be multiple accounts run by one individual, or closely connected individuals, possibly attempting to "stack" the system. The concern was taken to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets for discussion, and a basis of concern was posted there.
• The basis stated is that T3Smile, Achidiac and Rdpaperclip are "SPA" editors. This means, "Single Purpose Accounts", ie accounts created for one task only; in this case the promotion of Anthony Chidiac and writing of articles and adding of links and images about him. They also edit pictures each other has uploaded, including changing the licencing information on them to "GFDL-no-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0". :* In response, T3Smile posted that "I have interviewed chidiac (Achidiac) and RDPaperclip is my lecturer" [23].
• Achidiac states that Gnangarra is a "Bit of a bully really. Please respect my privacy and close this and other outstanding discussions of and about my name. If this behaviour continues I will be taking further action out of pure necessity to protect my name and my past career" [24].

Chidiac is asked to clarify if this is a formal legal threat, and linked to WP:LEGAL for more information. There is no response.

• user:Nick Dowling, a long-standing editor with some 9000 edits on Australia-related topics, comments that "This article has so far remained deleted after some very unusual looking reviews in which anonymous IPs appeared out of nowhere and voted to restore the article as their first ever edit. I would argue that the claimed relationship should be treated with extreme scepticism and not be taken at face value. It defies belief that a masters student and their supervisor would appear out of nowhere and dedicate their time to fighting to keep a distinctly non-academic article up on Wikipedia while also spamming other articles with references to Mr Chidiac's business and adding personal photos of Mr Chidiac and his family". [25]
• The SSP reviewer concluded: "These accounts are [either] the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry". [26]

Part 4 - other issues

• Nov 5 -- Gnangarra posted for administrator discussion, that T3Smile had breached the policy on no personal attacks. The response by T3Smile was "Dear Gnagarra ... thanking you as inspiration to such. Are you of aboriginal origin? Or do you have a lot of time on your hands? cheers" [27]. Both Gnangarra and another administrator noted this was a further breach of policy (No Personal Atacks and also Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make or illustrate a point).
• Nov 5 -- T3Smile reverts the action by Sarah, reinstating the Chidiac links to Internet café [28] and adding a second link [29]. A note was posted to Sarah's talk page asking for an explanation of her revert, "Please provide reason as to why you keep reverting it without discussion. That is the main issue, you need to get off the subject of chidiac and read the references. thankyou" [30].

Part 5 - legal threats

• Nov 5 -- Achidiac posts to user:FT2 that [31]:

1. "I note that you have been the most informative and neutral admin on the subject of an article written about me".
2. He states a hope that it will be possible to "action the cease and desist of behaviour by a group of people keen to discredit and defame my name by taking discrediting and derogatory actions against others that have an interest in writing about me",
3. that T3Smile is "being bombarded by a 'bully' war and my name is implicated as the motivation",
4. that this is "defamation by proxy" legally and "My LA Lawyer can quote you laws on it",
5. that "If you believe the actions of these initiators, I apparently am of aboriginal origin, a lecturer, and the subject of article at the same time - thats the way this group of people are trying to portray it",
6. and that "If you cannot sort out this I am afraid I will have to as a last resort, ins[t]igate legal action in both the US and Australia on the offending persons and wikipedia".
7. Achidiac also states that "I have, and will allow User:T3Smile and her teacher to work on an article that meets or exceeds the quality standards set here on wikipedia and its guidelines, if in fact my career qualifies for such inclusion. This warring via "investigative efforts" by people with too much time on their hands needs to stop as I have been innocently been dragged into the crossfire, and privacy breaches will also be of concern to me and noted by my legal representatives in such case",
8. and that "Please e-mail me or message me directly with your take on resolving this issue that impacts on my good name and career. I believe you have a penchant for sorting out messes".

Further information: Edits by T3Smile , Achidiac and Rdpaperclip

T3Smile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Interiot/T3Smile

• Including deleted contributions, T3Smile edited July 17 - Aug 5, slightly on Aug 9-10, 23, 28, and sept 15, 18, then recommenced editing Oct 17 to date contribs.

Achidiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Interiot/Achidiac

• Including deleted contributions, Achidiac edited July 19 - Aug 8, briefly Aug 21, then recommenced editing Oct 21 to date [32]. contribs.

Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Interiot/Rdpaperclip

• Including deleted contributions, Rdpaperclip edited July 18 - Aug 5, again Aug 9, then recommenced editing Oct 22 to date [33]. contribs.

Note that 1/ Peter Andre, Pretty Poison, Bundoora, Internet cafe, DVD authoring and images beginning "O1/2/3" are Chidiac related items for the purpose of reviewing this dispute, and that 2/ All deleted contributions of these editors are the Chidiac article or related to Chidiac.

Opinion

I have summed these events up in some depth insofar as they are pertinent and policy related, so that I can be sure I have captured the main events in this incident. Based on this history, I will try to sum up where the matter stands.

The article Anthony Chidiac was reviewed first time round, and upon re-creation, both in the normal way. Following discussion the second time, I closed that discussion based upon policy and contributor's views, which together indicated there was not evidence that our strict criteria are met. It is also relevant that I am an experienced closer of these discussions, and as you surmize, well respected on difficult closes. I also discussed the article with T3Smile and what exactly from an encyclopedia viewpoint might help. (User_talk:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac). You can seek independent review of this conclusion at deletion review, which is our appeal process if you feel the close was in error, and that is your right at any time. However the review that has taken place is of a proposed rewrite, and that too has failed to obtain agreement that the subject is notable.

Unfortunately, this seems to be best characterized as a hoped-for article for Wikipedia that is ultimately unsupportable - this was affirmed at AFD (july), AFD again (october) and now finally the rewritten article has failed to gain consensus at DRV (november).

Notably, the subject himself is evidenced above as stating several times that they do not wish for attention nor for an article, and that the article should be deleted, so I feel the result needs to be that T3Smile and colleagues must move on to a new non-Chidiac related project on a subject where they do not have such problematic connections.

I do not concur that you were "dragged in". Nobody has made you edit, and as an experienced "man of the world" you might have been expected to advise any others involved to respect the norms of this site. Instead you yourself arrived here two days after the account T3Smile first edited, and within 48 hours you yourself posted your first three incivilities/attacks. Others find your words (that you do not want controversy or an article especially) at odds with your actions, and feel that our policy on multiple accounts should apply to the three accounts named. (That is an administrative decision, if it happens, and also open to appeal.)

I have also looked hard and even after much searching, have not seen significant evidence of improper actions on the scale and type that you suggest exists. T3Smile asks Gnangarra if he is "aboriginal", not the other way around, for example. The actions I have seen by far, are, editors and administrators who have repeatedly attempted to point out that Wikipedia has strict policies about self-edited articles, and strict policies on article inclusion and conduct, and who have applied those.

There are clear warnings at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest about the problems which self-edited bio articles (or articles edited by those close to a subject) so often create. They state most clearly:

Consequences of ignoring this guideline "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about."

It is because of problems such as the present case that we advise so strongly against this. This advice has been ignored now multiple times (some 5 or 6 times I think) with sadly predictable results. It's time to respect the multiple-stated wishes of both subject and community.

That said, if there is evidence of personal attack or defamation, please point me to it to look into, and I will most surely investigate it. Note that a mere statement of concern or reasonably founded request for discussion of evidence that an editor may be editing in bad faith, is not considered defamatory. The evidence at WP:SSP was appropriate for such a discussion, and such discussions happen dozens of times a week. This is part of our fact finding as a community, to which each and every person seeking to edit is answerable.

(On a side, user pages and sub-pages are not to be used to host copies of such material, other than transiently for active development of a likely mainspace article. To clarify this, user spaces are not in fact "owned" by any users. I don't own mine, you don't own yours. They are community space allowed to be used by that user for Wikipedia editorial purposes, and on which a certain latitude is allowed within limits. Please see policy Wikipedia:Userpage.)

So...

I think it's fairly evident the article was appropriately judged for deletion by the community. That is their place to decide, and the decision was not a marginal one. There was incivility and attack in certain posts you made, which I'd ask you refrain from whilst posting here, but would not suggest are important unless the behavior repeats, in which case they would then be seen as significant.

I think the sockpuppetry discussion is valid. Note that as part of our policy, it has been repeatedly held that individuals who are editing in common in this manner and cannot be distinguished from forbidden use of multiple accounts, may be treated as equivalent to one person using multiple accounts. That is a communal decision rather than an "attack", and those raising the question were doing so legitimately. Again, this is why the advice that all three accounts ignored related to editing on an article where one has a significant interest, was there initially.

You have stated that you wish to not have high visiblility in the media, and such, and only want an article if genuinely merited, and only for encyclopedic utility (if any). You also stated to delete it on at least one occasion. Wikipedia's community has been asked three times now, and each time decided that in fact no such article should exist as well. This should resolve the matter.

The serious problem remaining is the legal threat. The post to my talk page was a clear threat of legal action, and that is a bright line rule. It is enforced without bias or favor.

Summing up

My personal view is therefore as follows:

1. The edits and posts added which are problematic in respect of WP:COI will be removed. This includes:

   • The article itself to be salted -- that is, protected against recreation until such time as good evidence may exist the community agrees the article is justified in advance. This is because it has been recreated multiple times.
   • The Chidiac-related user pages being used to mirror the article will be removed
   • The excessive Chidiac-related links added to other articles will be removed unless highly relevant (according to Wikipedia:External links, and the view of the community).

2. The three accounts concerned will, unfortunately, be blocked and will be asked not to edit under any name, whilst the option of legal threats is outstanding and until agreement is reached on future conduct. This is a fixed rule that applies to all (WP:LEGAL refers).

   • The accounts of T3Smile and Rdpaperclip are being blocked in accordance with WP:SOCK, since we have no evidence that these are people intent on writing an encyclopedia, but there is evidence that they have one agenda in common, namely re-adding the same article above, they are your close associates or connected parties at best, and the presence of these accounts and theur continuing single-minded attempts to reinsert this article and Chidiac-links are what is fueling the problem.
   • The above policy specifically covers and includes borderline and uncertain cases when there may be doubt. This is without prejudice and without any accusation; it is a purely impersonal comparison of the circumstances of the case, and applied neutrally.

I have left this page open to editing, so that you (or T3 or RD) may respond or seek a second opinion if you feel the above misses some crucial point. I also stand as ever willing to have my decisions double checked or critiqued by multiple others in the community. I have also noted it at WP:ANI.

Please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block if needed. The main issues will probably be the concerns of multiple accounts, the editing intent and focus of their owner/s, and the threats, but others will also have their views on what else must be agreed, in order to allow editing in future.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above summary - this has wasted hours of the community's time, and several parts of the narrative of these three individuals do not stack up. I'd be particularly interested, were the original narrative to be held to, to hear explanations from the parties regarding the 31 July post above, which seems to indicate a role quite unlike that of a uni lecturer (I should know, I've spent far too much of my own life in and out of academia). It's fundamental to Wikipedia administration that admins who are trusted and appointed by the community after a period of service and having volunteered to the task, have a responsibility to the community to manage situations and investigate allegations - if it had emerged that Gnangarra (I pick him only as he was singled out) was way out of line and the claims were baseless, there would have been no problem as evidence would have come forward confirming this. In fact it went the other way - more and more evidence seemed to point to a situation of three people working together to promote one of them on Wikipedia. (Some have suggested the evidence points to one person pretending to be two others, but I'm willing to assume good faith here.) Furthermore, as FT2 said, Wikipedia is being utterly consistent in noting that violations of WP:LEGAL are a "bright red line" and we have no choice but to act.

It should be noted that the decision to ban is never a personal one in these sorts of cases, but deals specifically with Wikipedia - I (and I'm sure others here too) wish Chidiac the best of luck in his future endeavours in the business and entertainment world. Orderinchaos 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi FT2 - Thanking you for the summization. It may take a few days to review your notes as I am across the article, am in communication with the main writers, but remain distant on the actual writing of article on myself being the subject. That has been stated previously and in conversations here, so theres no new news there. The "push" to publish article on me is due to the student (T3Smile) completing her educational year. What inclined me to ask you for immediate intervention was the allegation that I was all three or four people in question. It was made clear by the students user page that she "always had some affiliation with the articles (she) wrote.", or words to that effect. If thats not a blatant statement to declare that articles by said author may be written with a form of slant I don't know what is. Note to other admins, when one notes such it is a form of declaring the potential for non-neutrality in what the author writes, and is a form of disclaimer that the author thereby absolves themself personally from any legal action arising from their work here. This could be a good or bad thing for wikipedia, depending on the subject edited. But it is a public statement on a public site declaring such and this negates liability on the authors part, period, fullstop, end of subject.

However, the actions and behaviour of other admins in this entire process is something I would want to pursue, first by taking such issue to you Sir (FT2) and if no resolve can be made - as a last resort letting the lawyers take care of it. The other concern I have is that I did not have a desire to be noted by Wikipedia, as its common knowledge that anything can be considered notable for inclusion on this site. Example -racehorses seem to escape notability guidelines for inclusion into wikipedia when in fact they should be merged into events such as "The Melbourne Cup, "The Kentucky Derby" or similar if they actually won the coveted prize. By not adhering to a consistent policy about such this leaves open a very wide door to having people write about their dog appearing on Letterman as being stubbed as notable. So, anything can be considered notable can be here. Its not a career advancement on my part to have a BIO on wikipedia, but just a nice fuzzy feeling. My career did change an entire industry. It had a lot of coverage in print media back when the internet was a military project, and there are millions of copies of Cd's and Vinyl out there with my credit, nom-de-plume, stage name, or otherwise. If I wanted coverage I would turn to Newspapers and Reuters as my PR Agent has done previously on a few occasions over my long career. These are credible, professional publishers, not an electronic version of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". When approached by student for interview I didn't think it would hurt to have a little mention here, and helped out when I could - not knowing the rules at the beginning - as I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor and I never had claim to such. I could contribute a lot to some very badly written articles here. They are so bad they shouldn't even be on here, it doesnt give credibility to this site. However my reward for such time is usually payment or something "in kind". I don't know what "in kind" consists of here on wikipedia, but a stub of my achievements would have gone a long way into me taking on a new hobby to bring up the quality of badly written articles with factual information, and I can write with neutrality first and foremost. By the way, I note that my career achievements go uncontested - funny enough nobody tried to contest or dispute that "it was really xyz person that changed the music industry from analog to digital editing" as an example. In any AfD, discussion or otherwise, were the nominations and comments from people other than T3Smile and RDPaperclip meritous or the postulization of ones power as an admin?

Though I still reserve the right at this early stage to take further action against certain individuals who are likely the suspects that spurned the lecturer and student to behave - as you put it - uncivily, if there were 10,000 of you on here FT2 there would be no reservation over taking any further action as there would be no issue at all in the first place.

When I can ascertain the specifics I humbly ask you that these individuals are dealt with accordingly and without tolerance. I believe that would save last resort legal intervention. I agree that the lecturer and student accounts stay blocked as they are going to the press about such incident, and I am unsure as to whether I would support their cause or support the group of admins here. With the sort of accusations presented by such group of admins without conclusive proof or evidence, I am of the opinion to support the student and lecturers cause at this stage. And for me, Reuters, AP, and coveted award winning press out there can report objectively about events - albeit without neutrality in some cases but thats another debate.

On the note of whether I should be granted editing access, its up to you but I truthfully admit that I opened this account specifically to monitor the progress of the article written about me by the two others, and used it to intervene when I thought the article would infringe on my good standing in the industry I am in. I am saddened by the fact that very few people actually helped in making the article compliant and most just spent time in enforcing AfD and processes in order to politically posture, not correct, disputed neutrality, or any other claim. I note again, that nobody tried to contest or dispute that "it was really xyz person that changed the music industry from analog to digital editing" and not me. Neither has anybody laid a contested claim for the other four points that T3Smile presented in the last revision of the article. As an example I can place a patent application in the US and get a patent for an idea, until such time someone else comes along and contests my patent with a similar patent, I have the patent for such idea. That is how wikipedia should work too, especially in this case where the admins who AfD'd quoted on writing style rather than contesting achievement to that of another person who already exists on wikipedia. I think I am more notable than a racehorse that hasn't won a major horserace, but the writer who volunteered to cover my career that changed an industry on this site is also a volunteer mutually inconvenienced in their time by all of this political posture without the assumption of good faith at all times by the intervening admins. I believe the reaction by such persons aiming to publish an article of me to be completely within the bounds of reactionary discourse when being prodded by abrupt procedural methods which were harshly applied without just reason, and the BIO Stubs of horses just kept appearing...

I'd like to help to further the cause of wikipedia but my observations of process in this instance have not been good, except your work FT2. So if I have offended anyone or any horse in my statement above I am sorry for that as it is unintentional. Thankyou. --Achidiac 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:O3 ph5.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:O3 ph5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jreferee t/c 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Jreferee t/c 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• FT2, could you please provide me with copy of last edit by T3Smile in my userspace for review? Jrefree, could you please hold off on deleting orphaned pictures until I have some time in reviewing all of this? FYI Jrefree, note Ben's form of consultation before taking abrupt actions, I now am beginning to understand why T3Smile and RDPaperclip reacted in such a way. Thanking you in advance for "assuming good faith" especially in my call for such intervention.--Achidiac 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins involved in Behaviour that is "Not In Good Faith"

Hi FT2. Without content about article of me, and I'm not as good searching historical information about it all either, I will ask that these people comment on acting in bad faith towards the writers. I believe that this behaviour displayed by such people is the basis to which the controversiality began. I will add more people here when I get time to do so, and I will assume good faith at this stage in that the individuals acted to protect my good name when interacting with the two editors:

7th November 2007:

User:Sarah Engaged in a Revert War with T3Smile without a consultation process and assuming good faith. As far as I can see, T3Smile cleaned up article and added references, in-line citations, and a very small paragraph about my research project in its history section. Also, Yahoo competition was a notable competition from a notable company that received world press.

User:Orderinchaos In adding comment here on my userpage - why? I asked for a response and intervention by FT2 and he needs no re-enforcement. FT2 doesn't need "backing".

I will provide more details but I'm in and out of here as I have other priorities, so please excuse me if it takes me a few days to come back here. Thanking you in advance for thoughts. --Achidiac 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Anthony, I think that the problems here boil down to some very profound misunderstandings about Wikipedia and our purposes and goals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum or an open website and we have policies and guidelines that we follow.

You state above "its common knowledge that anything can be considered notable for inclusion on this site." Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Notability (people) states: "A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article; however, this criteria is less stringent." Again, there are many, many people who are just not considered notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Your belief that anything and anyone is considered notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia is completely false. I really wish you would read some of these policies and guidelines we have given you because I think you would come to understand that you are completely mistaken about Wikipedia and what we do here. We can only find four independent articles that mention your name and none of these give significant coverage about you. Your bio simply does not meet our notability standards for inclusion.

You also say that in these discussions no one challenged the truthfulness of the claims made in your bio. Our Verifiability policy states that the "test" for "inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V also states that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is why, in each of the discussions, about this article, the focus was on the lack of verifiable, reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy.

You have reaffirmed above your legal and media threats against the project, and individual editors who have been trying to apply our policies and guidelines appropriately since mid-July. Four months is far more than what most similar articles get in consideration. The fact you have reaffirmed your legal threats means that no administrator will unblock you. Please read through WP:LEGAL, which states: "we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels...Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." You are more than welcome to pursue legal avenues should you wish to, however, you should note that Wikipedia is a private website, and as such, we are free to set any policies and guidelines for inclusion of material and the community is free to block people according to our own standards. I'm afraid another administrator has now protected this page because it is inappropriate for you to be editing here while you claim you are pursuing legal and publicity actions.

As far as the issue of allegations of proxying and sockpuppetry, the evidence has been reviewed by more than one uninvolved administrator, and it is generally felt that there either been sockpuppetry in violation of policy, i.e. to give the impression of more support for a position that what there really or, there has been a concerted effort of proxying or meatpuppetry. Either way, the sockpuppetry policy clearly states: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." I understand that it is upsetting for you, but there is considerable uncertainty whether there is one person here operating three accounts, or whether there is two or more people acting in concert.

Finally, you complain in your last message that I removed your personal photos and edits from the Internet cafe article without consulting you. I'm afraid that I am under no obligation to consult when removing spam.

You have been at this for months now and all your accounts are indefinitely blocked. You are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Please try to understand this as I get the impression from your comments that you do not understand that your accounts are indefinitely blocked and under the WP:BLOCK and WP:LEGAL policies, you are not welcome to edit. Sarah 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Achidiac you were blocked on the 5th November due legal threats this was explain at length by FT2 (talk · contribs) diff. You then responded reiterating those threats here, you have since returned and made accusations here against specific editors violating no personal attacks. As such, to stop continued harassment the User and talk pages of User:Achidiac have been protected. Under these circumstance all complaints and requests should be directed to The Wikimedia Foundation. Gnangarra 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by FT2

Okay, let's sum this up. This should be read in the context of my longer summary higher up.

1. You have stated many times you do not have an especial interest for a bio on Wikipedia, that you only wish one if the community deems you notable, and that you have in fact paid a PR company to remove mentions from the public. You have stated you are here only to support a student and to watch the article, if one should exist. Very well. I take you at your word. On 3 occasions now, the community has spoken and each time decided (racehorses aside) you are not due a biography article. So you and the community agree. So the bio article has been deleted. Subject closed. That's one issue solved.
2. There are three accounts editing closely on this. One of these, T3Smiles, is described as a student of yours, and is pushing that bio, bio links and the link onto the site. This is against your stated wishes and those of the community. Very well. You need to please deal with that, and make clear that since the community has firmly decided, no biography is to be uploaded again. You need to make clear to any other person involved, that you have firmly stated that you do not wish publicity nor a bio if it would differ from the community's view. That solves that problem too.
3. The community has expressed concern that the situation as described is implausible. Exactly how many "students" have you had who push with their "lecturers" to promote their teachers and nothing else? Exactly how are your protestations that you do not want an article at all (if against communal norms) to be squared with the impassioned claims of notability and apparent demands that these have to be recognized? Exactly how many students write to websites to reiterate legal threats on a "will HAVE TO" basis on behalf of their teachers? The concern is a rather plausible one, that there may be some improper editing going on.
4. The community does not say there is such. Rather, it has a rule that says if unsure then it may be treated as if it is, without assumption or prejudice as to fact. The community, without judging those involved, has decided for the purposes of Wikipedia editorial policy to treat the three accounts involved as either one person, or as "on behalf of one person".
5. The right to edit does not exist. It is a privilege. See WP:FREE. In addition, you have made legal threats. In email, T3Smiles has repeated those. Legal threats are further incompatible with editing access.
6. You have made a statement that an administrator breached 3RR. Please email or post the exact edits (or diffs, or their timestamps) for the edits concerned, to check this out.

Last, to fill in one gap, you ask why there is "backing". Wikipedia is a community. You have noticed that I have a good reputation in dispute resolution. Part of that is that I have traditionally asked for criticism and correction from others. user:Orderinchaos knows this, as do many others. In addition, it is a common thing for administrators here to review others actions here and comment. In fact we have a complete noticeboard basically for such consensus-checking. It is done, because of consensus, not "backing", so we may see how a wider range of parties (both involved and independent) view a decision, if reviewed.

Anthony, the problem is this. You (and all visitors) are warned and strongly advised not to post self-related material, in our guidelines. This was reinforced at the deletion discussion, where the material was assessed and deleted in the fairest way we have, a process which examines evidence carefully. Since that time T3Smiles has done nothing except try to reinsert that one article (and chidiac-links)... and clinically, you have done little except state contradictorily that 1a/ you wish no article if not due, and shun publicity but 1b/ press exceptionally hard for all the reasons you are due one and should be allowed one, whether for notability or to help your student, and 2/ make legal threats on grounds that I cannot honestly see having any merit. As a man of the world, that's just not on.

An indefinite block exists to allow a problem to be resolved before editing continues. Editing is a privilege, not a right. The stipulations on editing access that I would regard as a minimum to do anything more on this are therefore at a minimum:

1. No editing can take place whilst any legal threats remain stated and unresolved (standing policy). You have to choose one or the other, and nobody here can help you in that decision.
2. You have said you would like to be unblocked and can contribute a lot. My other stipulation for that, is that if unblocked, no editing takes place that is in any way related to, or linking to, anything about yourself, websites concerning you, or things you are involved in, and so on. By any of the 3 accounts concerned. At all. (Note: the foregoing should be read as examples only; any chidiac related editing whether direct or indirect is what is intended.) That is because all problems of editing to date have arisen from ignoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and chidiac-promotion related activities. If you (or any person) wants to edit on MPEG technology, or Australian history, or racehorses, or university subjects, or hobbies and interests, or buddhism, or military history, or geography and towns of Victoria, or anything else, please do so in compliance with policy. But you are not, nor are any of your close associates, to ever edit any Chidiac-related content, in any form whatsoever. That subject is to be given space and distance, in its entirety. That is to protect yourself and all involved from the obvious conflict, and protect the community from more problems.
3. Respect for communal decisions, processes, and conduct norms (no personal attacks, civility, deletion processes, appropriate use of user space, and the like), and appeal via communally sanctioned routes (dispute resolution, request for comment and the like). This includes no "concerted editing" (that is, multiple accounts under close connection editing on one issue) takes place, to ensure WP:SOCK is visibly not breached.

If you are willing to fully agree to these, please let me know and I will ask that your page be unblocked so you can say so and discuss further. If you feel that you cannot in writing affirm that these are agreeable to you, then I will not be able to endorse a return of editing rights. Note that I cannot speak for others or the community, but my impression is that this is a view which will be widely supported. These are conditions we apply universally, and are important for the integrity of our reference pages. They apply, or editing cannot take place.

Let me know.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)