Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChrisDJackson/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:ChrisDJackson (Kingturtle)

Chris Jackson has made more than 150 edits to Al Gore in less than five days. Who knows what damage is done. It is going to take some time to make sure nothing important was lost. This is a waste of all our time, and a burden. This craziness has got to stop. Kingturtle 08:18, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • I would like to replace my comment from 2 months ago. Chris Jackson is making a strong effort to learn the wikipedia-ropes. His posts, knowledge and energy are a boon to wikipedia. Have patience. Be a teacher. Kingturtle 04:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would like to add that the comment from 2 months ago is still accurate today. The longer we wait to stop this, the worse the damage is going to be. I've seen him supposedly make an effort time and again, but then he goes right back to making claims which turn out to be false. Perhaps he just doesn't understand, or perhaps he is being obtuse intentionally, but it's not worth it trusting him any more unless he is going to start documenting every single one of his major edits. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The user in question appears to be a partisan of the Democratic Party; his goal seems to be to provide POV articles on Democratic politicians, whom he name-drops often. Scooter 09:39, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am a democrat, which is documented in my talk page. However, I don't believe that info such as the Clinton Administration creating 22 million jobs and such is POV. You may not like it but it is the truth. If you can point me to a page from my contributions where I have had a POV towards a Dem, please let me see. If you notice, I also have edited Republican pages fairly like the Quayle page. I helped that page immensely. I also do not name often. I stated that I knew Al Gore and that is it. It seems the problem here there are a few people who want to lie and exaggerate on me, that is it. ChrisDJackson 23:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Name-dropping is not a crime around here. Also, according to the U.S. national archives, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton years. How is that POV? Kingturtle 23:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anthony is taking down the link at Earth in the Balance which links to a compendium of the book. Someone please check his behavior. ChrisDJackson 23:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress:

Appears to be vandalizing Al Gore. Seth Ilys 04:29, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Has now created the User:ChrisDJackson account, but continues to vandalize Al Gore. RickK 04:11, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Now messing with Clinton-Gore Administration, formerly Clinton administration. - Seth Ilys 00:19, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Much of Clinton-Gore Administration is copied from http://www.americanhistory.or.kr/book/files/ethirteen07.html. But I'm tired of not getting any support in my battle with this guy (hear that, Jiang?), and have given Chris full support to wage his POV war. RickK 00:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think part of his website [1] sheds light on why he might be having problems writing neutrally. Maximus Rex 00:26, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
He seems to be generally well-meaning, just writing with a *very* strong POV. - Seth Ilys 00:34, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please, someone with the proper counselling skills tell this guy to stay away from the Al Gore article and any related subjects. This is more of POV over-enthusiasim than vandalism. Make Clinton-Gore Administration into a redirect to bill Clinton, like Clinton Administration is. --Jiang 09:00, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
User:ChrisDJackson has now set his sights on George W. Bush...as you may infer, there are several unflattering items that have been added which probably should be more carefully researched, or at the very least, NPOV language should be employed. Scooter 00:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
ChrisDJackson contravenes the basic rules of wikipedia by making offensive personal attacks against other users. eg, "Hey stupid, how about you just mind your business." and "if you can't do better than that in your feble attempts, go home little child." (from User talk:ChrisDJackson). --snoyes 06:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You dang right I do. You can report it all you want. This is a troll who is making false accusations and I want it to stop. ChrisDJackson
Who is the troll? You seem to call everyone who questions your edits a 'troll'. I guess that would make me a 'troll' too. Out of your 435 contributions, you have edited Al Gore 181 times. It seems that you are becoming a bit obsessive. Here are a few examples of your editing style, with your edit summaries as the link:
STOP! IF YOU PUT GORE'S CONTROVERSIES AND CONSPIRCYS ON HERE, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO IT TO EVERY OTHER PERSON
(No edit summary)
(No edit summary)
(No edit summary)
(No edit summary)
Bottom line is, you seem to be an overly confrontational user who is obsessed with Al Gore, and let this obsession show through in your edits. - Mark 03:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Restoring the archived conflict subject. ChrisDJackson just made a massive delete of the talk at Talk:Al Gore without comment, after the page was protected because of an edit war in which he insisted on installing a copyrighted photo. Chris loves copyrighted pictures, and continues repeated edit wars in order to put the copyrighted pictures he's uploaded onto page after page. RickK 03:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick why do you continue to lie? I deleted it to make room for the new discussion because the old ones were dead. You would have to scroll forever to get to the bottom and you knew that. Your continued lying and exaggerating is pathetic. User:ChrisDJackson

Not one word was a lie. You DID delete the vast majority of the Talk page without comment, didn't you? RickK 04:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is an easy mistake. I made it myself when I was new here. We can't assume that every newcomer knows every single protocol here. Kingturtle 04:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I asked Chris to try to work to a compromise on the Al Gore disputed paragraphs. I believe that he was trying to make space for that conversation. I think it was a good idea that was poorly implemented. I have made an archive subpage for the prior discussion and asked that we work on an issue at a time before bringing stale discussions back to the Talk page. - Texture 04:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChrisDJackson (RickK)

User:ChrisDJackson is insisting on uploading photos whose copyright status he refuses to explain. His comment : I am not explaining everything I upload or add to this site, because I don't have to. RickK 00:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yea and I will continue to. This issue was resolved a month ago, so there is nothing to discuss. I do not have to explain anything, becuase I have already have. User:ChrisDJackson

Could you please provide a link to where you already have explained everything ? theresa knott 04:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Chris, please get in the habit of giving explicit descriptions for each new image you upload. As for previous images, you may have explained things, but you have not fully updated the descriptions in the photos in question. Make sure that gets done too. We cannot take chances on copyrights. Kingturtle 10:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If this doesn't stop, he needs to be banned. A quick sampling of his "contributions" to the Al Gore article shows the majority of it to be copied from other places on the internet. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and consider that it might not be malicious, but even so if he cannot be convinced to stop contributing copyrighted works to wikipedia he is causing us far more harm than good. Anthony DiPierro 05:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are thousands of photos on wikipedia of unknown status! Why pick on these in particular? Secretlondon 20:07, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

To step out of character for a moment and support Anthony's position... Any user who is discovered to repeatedly submit copyrighted material is reason to pick on those images and that user. Why those in particular? Because (if true) they were investigated and determined to be copyrighted. The ones of unknown status will be dealt with when investigated. (In any regulated environment, you do not have special responsibiliy to report illegal actions until you are aware of them - then you must.) - Texture 20:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Submitting copyrighted images should not get people picked on, because we want copyrighted images. All GFDL-licensed images are copyrighted and them being copyrighted is key to how and why the GFDL works. The "GFDL is against copyright" view is one often espoused by those who want to portray the GFDL as an attack on copyright, not as a user of copyright, so we shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing with them. What we have problems with are images with unkown origin and hence unknown copyright status, because we can't tell potential reusers anything meaningful about whether they are reusable. That means that they must all eventually be replaced with images whose origin we do know. Jamesday 06:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well said. I think many of us concerned about copyrighted images are referring to images obtained without permission or images of unknown ownership. - Texture 06:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What texture said. But to ask a rhetorical question in response, there are thousands of other users on Wikipedia. Why are you following me around in particular and criticising everything I do? Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just got this on my talk page:

Let me tell you, you have to be the biggest ass I have ever saw. You came here a disrupted troll and have managed to do enough favors to become some type of police person. You do nothing expect stalk and cause problems. You can take your copyrighting and suspect investigations and shove them. User:ChrisDJackson

Anthony DiPierro 00:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the same guy who came around here at the begining of the year as someone who did not have an account and was being a troll and uploading nasty images. Now he thinks he can go around questioning everyone and accussing everyone of things he knows nothing about. He has tried to revert everything I add and I am getting tired of it. And no, I am not going to stop just because this jerk is a stalker. User:ChrisDJackson
Chris -- whatever Anthony has done in other instances does not make it OK for you to be involved in an edit war with a bunch of people. You were reverting other people's changes long before he became involved: [2]. Please reconsider your position while the page is protected. BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:57, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

ChrisDJackson has, from his first days on Wikipedia, repeatedly engaged in edit and revert wars (on Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle and other articles), reverting back to edits that are contrary to stated and widely accepted Wikipedia policy. He has been called and confronted on these issues numerous times and has not demonstrated even a willingness to change his behavior or be open to other points of view. He has personally insulted multiple Wikipedians, including Angela, Jiang, Anthony and Mav. He is, in brief, an unrepentant nuisance. - Seth Ilys 03:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another copyvio, from http://www.oldetimecooking.com/People/adlai_stevenson.htm (search for toyed). I have serious doubts as to whether any of this guy's contributions are his own original words or images. Anthony DiPierro 05:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[3] from [4] (search for spending)

[5] from [6] (copyright The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)

    • Are you gay? Or are you just an obsessed stalker? Can you not find anyone else to follow? As I said the Stevenson peice was adapted from the Princeton Review, which is open source. If you would have read the link you provided saying it was Copyvio, you would know that from there too. The Tipper Gore story is no where close to being copyvio. There are only about 2 things that are the same in there, which is hardly copyvio. So grow up and quit following me you stalker! User:ChrisDJackson

And this nonsense is typical of the response I get. Can someone do something about this? Or are we going to continue to allow our works to be destroyed by this? Anthony DiPierro 13:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ban him please. Anthony DiPierro 02:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

James Carville http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=James_Carville&dummy=1&diff=2489651&oldid=2420918 from http://www.carville.info/jcbio.html reverted

John F. Kennedy unverified Image:Jfkheadshot.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Robert_F._Kennedy&dummy=1&diff=2708144&oldid=2667392 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Robert_F._Kennedy&dummy=1&diff=2489741&oldid=2424738 from http://pages.prodigy.net/kpmcclave/RFKbio.htm