User talk:Fraberj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have written a lot of great stuff in the Self replicating machines talk page. Unfortunately I can't use it if its only on wikipedia, and I really need it to properly cover the dispute between you and the other guys. For example I can't find anything not on wikipedia about you going after them for the "trolley car means" or the use of colors in the cad/cam software. Unfortunately one can't site wikipedia itself, and I need to only use citeable material. Can you take your writing and put it on your geocites page or better yet start a blog somewhere and use the last week or so of your talk posts as your first entries in the blog. This would help immensely. Also you have a lot of material you want to send me, but it does me no good for writing the article if it goes directly to me. I have to be able to link to it from wikipedia. Can you upload it somewhere? You may be able to put that stuff on the blog host as well.

I have also noticed that there is no real mention of F-Units anywhere on the net. This is personal advice, but you may want to set up a website dedicated to them, there are both free webhosts available or paid ones, depending on the services you need. As you said, people need to know about F-Units, and you should promote them on your website. How else would a company interested in your reasearch get in contact with you? Also this benifits the article as I can use anything you write on your site as material for the F-Unit article. Look at how well the RepRap site promotes itself, and as you say it can't even replicate itself. You could also use your blog or website to cover your side of the dispute.

Anyway, without you posting your knowledge elsewhere I can't any of what you told me in the talk page as part of the article, and its making it very hard to write decent coverage. Bobprime (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Didnt see your response on the talk page saying you were doing just this. I will wait patiently for new material. I still would suggest moving the F-Unit article as a whole to its own full article and putting in my small bit. I think it would drastically reduce the vandalism and yet leave all of the content up there. Bobprime (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Humour 2 Block 3 Legal threats 4 Hacking report (and Request for Unblocking done by those hacking) 5 Page protected

Humour

Just a note to myself about this post. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

Your response to this eminently sensible edit was to descend into this torrent of verbal abuse. At least, I assume it was your abuse - editing anonymously is a cowardly act. It is clear to me that you are an unsuitable person to contribute to Wikipedia. If you make any further attempt to push your F-Unit invention, I will take steps to convert the block I have just placed on you into a permanent ban. I am sending F-Unit (self-replicator) to AfD.

The most I will offer you is to say that if you put the text of your article on to your geocities website, then I will create a link to it from self-replicating machine. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

As per WP:NLT, this account is blocked indefinitely until all legal threats are unconditionally withdrawn or until all legal threats are fully resolved. --Yamla (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacking report (and Request for Unblocking done by those hacking)

Hello admin,

This is a report on serious hacking, as seen of here:

[1]

NOTE! Anyone taking on this job here must spend the time researching and grappling with this extremely important and complex subject and the rat's nest now left by contentious kacking editors. This deals with the emergence of the first real line of self-replicator nanotechnology entities. This subject deals with very high technology (the highest there is) and various political groups such as the ELF and the like are working in the background to sabotage it so political neutrality is a must and intramural political university connections must not be an issue with admin. It would be best if admin is versed on hacking as such has occurred both in Wikipedia space and outside in tandem, singularly and in groups (both of which I consider hacking and hacking tactical activity associated with it). I have encountered vast and repeated attacks ever since I was written into the article Self-replicating machine (F-Units within) both inside and outside it and in fact had my personal MySpace site immediately deleted by hackers when linked to the F-Unit article.

My name is Charles Michael Collins [Rattler2] (former username Fraberj). I came to Wikipedia several months ago to defend my honor as a nanotechnology self-replicator scientist encountering biographical and copyright attacks which was being used as a cover in Wikipedia to having my innovations stolen by these NASA's two top scientists as seen here:

[2]

Certain actions have been taken upon the above aspects portrayed as "ownership" see here:

[3]

I strongly contest this and the blocks as "punishment" for my fighting back or allegations of "promoting" as the article is clearly about me (biography), been voted in solidly by other experts months ago (the just deleted favorable one) after literally hundreds of talk pages and if inaccuracies and copyright infringements are there it is not "ownership" or "promoting" to fight to have them removed. Such is the case particularly when I am the only expert upon this important subject that is an expert that exists anywhere (such goes on and Wikipedia seems to have no policy to accommodate sole experts writing on highly complex historical subjects shrouded in trade secrets) and it is too complex to be written by anyone else, though some have tried and failed and this is far too important an article to just delete it if written only by myself and no other cares to.

Nonetheless the F-Unit article is not now authored by me as it exists now and all wrong which is highly scandalous and was voted in previously in proper order. Further, I did not start the general self-replicating machine article but I am intrinsically involved in all aspects of it because large amounts of stealing, patent/copyright infringements and Scientific misconduct exist amongst other scientists portrayed therein who clearly are my competitors directed at me. This makes it difficult for Wikipedia editors who are GNU friendly to write an unbiased article on F-Units.

A debunk of this rat's nest of lies (which includes copyright infringements) written by myself can be seen here (mandatory reading before going further here):

[4]

Further, my technology is being stolen by Cornell University, also set forth in that above stated debunk site. No editor seeing these attacks seems to have been able to observe that these attacks consisted of nothing but generalities and innuendos (which is outrageous for people calling themselves "editors"). These attacks come many years after the device was made which is patently unfair and highly specious.

A working prototype of the self-replicator was presented to the patent office for patenting way back in 1998. Records exist of this in the file records at the patent office (AKA: file wrapper) and it is impossible to reproduce the experiments today due to the huge costs involved.

All these facts have been made clear many times through pictures, documents and my personal statements and vouched for by experts editing herein and elsewhere. Such has been continuously ignored and ridiculed by shallow arrogant editors here at Wikipedia who are clearly my competitors and hacking was clearly used. I take this very seriously. I also consider the deceptions and other secondary actions to be set forth herein as part of the hacking activity as such was launched in tandem and coordinated with the hacks.

Such was the actions by these miscreants, only after my linking of the F-Units article to my PCT world patent filings stirred up these overseas editors, clearly competitors even though early votes had a favorable article of the device posted to that effect and settled twice once for about four months and was written up with majority rule and pictures were presented of the device as well including reams of specification documents and diagrams and witness testimony presented to William R. Buckley, the only expert I've encountered here who favored the article three times in the talk at the Self-replicating machine article as seen here:

[5]

and:

[6]

and:

[7]

Also note that during this discussion Buckley also agreed with me and fought with me against other editors that we found were not in possession of enough technical training in the least for doing this extremely complex and intricate article and later such type absurd editors ended up destroying the above article. Now it is a absurd mess.

Of late, four contentious editors in particular (most from overseas to the United States): Yamla, RHaworth, Bobprime, FrankTobia... two of them seeming seasoned experienced editors (RHaworth and Yalma) working together as a malicious tactical unit with the other two (which I protest as gaming and bad faith, particularly when deliberately organized anonymously employing hacking and lies). RHaworth admittedly only has up to DOS programming experience and continues to viciously foist himself upon the project as an expert somehow (see his site admitting to this said experience gap[8] but talks of "hacking about" on his userpage and further posts threatening unkempt inappropriate photos [9] and talks of admitted and enjoyment of repeated newbie biting and displays general hostile attitudes in his diction and elocution in communicating therein.

Bobprime and FrankTobia pretended to be working with me to improve and develop the F-Unit article of late (like good cops) when immediately thereafter, before it was even well started with all editors mediating in talk, RHaworth (as bad cop,later working with Yamla) swooped down without any prior discussion and Yamla did the deletions behind the scenes (Yamla and RHayworth have never discussed anything with me ever) ...deleting the favorable article on me in its entirety without warning or talk whatsoever and leaving a contentious stub libeling me and the existence of the device and instantly thereafter entering into trolling tactics to get me blocked when I reacted to the tactics such as harassing me into reporting them to the police for hacking which occurred, see my earliest comments before I ever knew of RHaworth or Yamla:

[10].

I've worked all my life on this technology, well known, though work in trade secret after having previous patented technology stolen and saying such a ridiculous, highly inflammatory and contentious thing as is in the article now is like saying Edison didn't invent the light bulb.

It's radically crazy!

It gets complicated from there as I'm certain they seem to have devised it that way as quickly all favorable editors to my side got blocked including any new ones along with myself for "self promotion" which I bitterly deny and protest (I'm fighting a biographical attack and copyright infringements not just "self promotion" a fact which seems to be absolutely ignored without discussion by this cabal). After blocking (said to be temporarily) when my unsigned IP anonymous connection came back up unblocked I began to edit again thinking it was OK to do as it was blocked separately to my sign-in connection and I was threatened thereafter by Yamla via email to have my ISP nefariously informed on if I edit at all for that after a now permanent block (for "editing past a block"). All this before giving me any time to write up my side of the story to other admins on anything(they occupied me by forcing me to quickly put a site linked to F-Units and deleted it when launched during construction commenting on its "incompleteness") after my user page was as well totally deleted and all the talk for several weeks was deleted to cover their tracks:

[11]

while at the same time blocking me and friendly editors even in the talk section:

[12]

While Yamla worked the talk pages RHaworth worked deleting friendly edits and blocked the

article itself:

[13]

and:

[14]

These were sudden, mass deletions and actions planned far ahead of time I believe and done with no discussions with me or anyone open in the talks but behind the scenes discussions with Boprime and FrankTobia on RHaworth's userpage talk section:

[15]

Notice, in bad faith Bobprime writes:

"I was moving the full article out of self-replicating machine as part of a dispute with its author/inventor there simply to improve a more important article first by removing all of that text. The whole thing is pending a rewrite once I get time and at least this way the text is not visible to anyone who does not search for it directly. I could not think of any way to resolve the dispute between Fraberj (the inventor) and a large number of Wikipedia editors. It seemed better than the perpetual revert war that was happening."

He and FrankTobia had no good faith interest in doing any F-unit article on the most important event since the dawn of time and now I get a hacked up sliver while imbeciles like Britney Spears get page upon page. It is high time literary people in the media get their priorities in line and stop this mad discrepancy right here and now!

The massive number of editors and any new editors are now being blocked by Yamla and RHaworth alone indefinitely and were voting my article up, and the other two "good cop" editors never finished the article as promised me as well, of course and I am blocked as a "vandal for everything but the kitchen sink. What a joke. What absolute imbeciles.

Don't let the nice code talk between Bobprime/FrankTobia to RHaworth fool you into thinking they were good faith editing because note they were just pretending to "start small" and "add to" the article later (that, in bad faith never happened and was never intended but just a ruse)...baiting me the newbie to place the article outside the Self-Replicating machine article space where it would be quickly deleted by unscientific, unfamiliar and unfriendly editors who didn't have a semblance of a clue as to what was going on:

[16]

and:

[17]

They proposed an article with consensus wherein my complaints were voiced (but never to come

about):

[18]

They even deleted it completely for several days and tried to get away with it:

[19]

Pretended to be against the "vandalism" when planning themselves to do same later (IE:

trolling in the classical sense):

[20]

Any good faith editing I did with talk and consensus was called "vandalism" even when not in the article about me (which article now has no comments of my quotes of my side of the story which is highly non-neutral point of view editing). Anything I write is deleted instantly, even syntax changes even after others support it with talk and my reverts are called "vandalism" as well as the other editor's reverts against them.

Then things get really crazy as I encounter RHaworth's vandalism track it back to his user page and see his weird threatening face, clearly to scare and talk of hacking on his userpage: Rhaworth and when I report it to Yamla (as they clearly wanted me to do to set me up) she lies and says she does not see it (obviously working with him), see her email (Feb 27, 2008) text to me after I report it to her here:

"Although you claim that RHaworth has a rude picture on his userpage, I can find no such rude picture there. Additionally, I simply do not understand why you claim he is a hacker" I'll send you screen capture of this email if wanted as I sent such to my ISP that she threatened to have turned off in another email and in still another blocked me for calling police on the hacker activity calling the call "legal threats".

Later they attacked my own Geocities site, deleting it as I was just starting to construct it (as agreed) to keep me busy and to harass me. History and existing talk on this appears to be deleted, undelete these deleted huge sections and I'll provide the diff; As well, the accusations by RHaworth that I was a "coward" for editing anonymously when my sign in simply failed, and the war it caused afterwards has been totally deleted to cover tracks as well. These are mass deletions of talk page and article texts by two very hostile and contentious unilateral editors Yamla and RHaworth with no open talk who have zero apparent technical expertise in this highly technical and important subject. Note another editor named Populos poped up and, without any talk wrote a similar contentious snippet with rude sanctimonious comments of "self serving", mass deleting the old full article as well but was reverted as vandalism by another editor but should be noted herein as a contentious action:

[21]

As a tactic to trip me up (amongst the volumes and volumes of other machinations) they suddenly started posting notes on my user pages talk section for the first time at a critical juncture of new article creation (where they knew as a newbie I might miss it as it does not show in history of the article as a disconcerting action):

[22]

These vandals have called me the vandal and have deleted all the editing of other editors editing in my favor accusing them of being me because they live near me and have similar IPs (people at several local papers here are aware of this story, including the editor of Potomac News who may be editing and band experts as I am a well known lead guitarist on the side from my scientific work). They are conveniently jumping to conclusions on all this and have warded off all my friendly editors to my side as well after vilifying me on line.

The furious contention going on now for six months is about this single line: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in the F-Units article... as working models existed in this older technology back in 1998 which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to reproduce again today which is not going to happen just to give Wikipedia editors that can't read documents proof due to costs needed to do so. We are maintaining trade secret with all of our present work due to these attacks and cannot release any new work. That is no reason to ignore the past evidence which has been provided in reams to experts and jump to the extreme conclusion that no self-replicator has ever been constructed.

No editor at Wikipedia has any proof to substantiate such a lie and I demand right now that that contentious line put in there by hacker RHayworth be removed immediately and the copyright infringing book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" be removed and all derogatory links to me as well of it and my fair side of the story be told in F-Units as it is not at all' now. Further, what is this? All my other competitors admit to having no self-replicator at all and no such assertions have been made upon their work. Total bias, bad faith vandalistic editing and all I get is a stub while others get far more who have done nothing but steal my ideas like Ardian Bowyer's "ReRap", NIAC, Cornell and Frietas and Merkle. It is my hardened opinion that simply stupid editors be identified if over active like this and be blocked from high science articles and that only seasoned experts known to be neutral edit such important articles or the results will be trash as it is right now. Note that these stupid editors fight for their rights to edit even when they know nothing of the technology at all:

[23]

Remove that line "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in F-Units or let me do it because it is untrue and Wikipedia has no proof otherwise to such a contentious lie (and unblock and restore my account and userpage and ban Yalma and RHaworth and warn the other two against vandalizing the Self-Replicating machine page and F-Units). If discussions over this line replacement and its form and context etc. is needed so be it. That's what the talk pages are for. This fast track mind set on something this important is something that must stop.

I don't mind the short article if it will stop the fighting but Adrian Bowyers has huge articles all over the place in Wikipedia and steals my ideas and has no "self-replicating machine" and admits it. It should be in the "Rapid prototyping" article not here. This is ignored without comment because he is an open sourcer. It's just plain bias with this.

Note that I have been reverted on everything I have ever edited in this article by these four short of the fiction section (even articles not about me) and I am the only real expert in self-replicating technology editing here on the page even though I am a newbie at it. This screams of bias. Further, RHayworth has been warned about "biting newbies" before or so he says and seems to relish it as some sort of sport or personal attribute, see here:

[24]

and:

[25]).

This is absurd to the nth degree. It really is, every time a consensus comes to pass on a favorable article about me personally or with my side of the story bias editors swoop in tactically and scammed it out with highly contentious editing tactics incorporating gaming of the rules and now hacking. It stinks to high heaven. The main problem is a continual lack of intelligent neutral editors here and many are extremely antagonistic to this article and technology (note ELF are my rabid enemies). If they know not what they edit or are highly partisan they should not edit. Further, if they do wholesale contentious deletions while instituting group organized ploys Incorporated together and say nothing in talk to mediate they should be blocked (like RHaworth and Yalma have, working with the others Bobprime and FrankTobia).

Charles Michael Collins (Former username: Fraberj). Fraberj (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to continued personal attacks and legal threats, I have now protected this page indefinitely. You have been repeatedly warned about this and have continued your inappropriate behaviour. However, I will request that another admin review the block here. --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Second review of block (edit conflict): Your block log shows that you were blocked for persistent self-promotion and legal threats. After reading the incredibly long tirade above, I see no intention to stop those acts - in fact, quite the opposite. You have a problem with people stealing your inventions? Ok, take it up with the patent office; Wikipedia is not your battleground. You want to write an article about said invention? Ok, do it on your own website until there are enough reliable sources about it to allow someone else to write the article, so as to avoid a non-neutral point of view and conflicts of interest. You have a problem with our editors? Deal with it in a civil manner.

In order to be unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you are willing to abide by policy, especially those which led us to block you. In your case, that means an honest and sincere claim to not edit in a self-promoting manner, and unconditionally retract any legal threats you made on our project. As I do not see any evidence of that, your request to be unblocked is declined. Other admins are welcome to review this as they wish: if someone feels otherwise, they may unblock you, or at least unprotect this page. I, however, will not. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)