Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NSK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

NSK (User:NSK/user:www.wikinerds.org) has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Spam.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

NSK is the creator and manager of a MediaWiki site at http://www.wikinerds.org/ and has used two accounts at Wikipedia:

  1. User:NSK - his initials
  2. user:www.wikinerds.org - the address of his web site

NSK has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Gaming the system and disrupted Wikipedia operations by:

  • Spamming Wikipedia by creating an account whose very name is an advertisement for his rival wiki
  • Insisting that Wikipedia rules "require" a back link to his web site for articles he and his mates wrote.
  • Attacked UninvitedCompany by accusing him of "bullying" when all he did was try to enforce Wikipedia policies.

It was NSK who placed his own work at Wikipedia, not anyone else (see his use of the passive voice "articles which were copied" to shift responsibility). Wikipedia did not copy his work: he donated it. But he has imposed objectionable conditions on his donation, so we don't want his articles. Michael Snow has completely re-written Sphaera Mundi (now at de Sphaera Mundi) because of this.

The username should be changed as per Wikipedia:Changing username to prevent it showing up in page histories.

He's entitled to his own wiki, but if he wants interwiki cooperation, he'd better start by following our policies rather than by trying to impose his.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Gaming the system
  3. Wikipedia:Spam

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:Ed Poor#why.3F
  2. User talk:Www.wikinerds.org#Objectionable behavior here
  3. User talk:Www.wikinerds.org#User name
  4. User talk:UninvitedCompany#Citing sources
  5. Advert warning from Texture
I even went to his Jnana wiki and left a message offering to discuss the matter via IRC. He replied that we have nothing to discuss. I regard this as a refusal to engage Wikipedia at this level of dispute resolution. This matter will have to go to arbcom.
I think we might also add WP:POINT because he says he wants friendly relations but has rebuffed all friendly overtures and offers of cooperation - at least those which I have seen or made myself: his Www.wikinerds.org username leads to user:www.wikinerds.org which, since this RFC started has gotten an enlarged link to his website and renewed criticism of Wikipedia as not fulfilling some ideals he has for wiki use.
That is, he has disrupted operations by spamming with a URL for the purpose of making the point that Wikipedia is bad. Note: (1) He has the same right to criticize Wikipedia as you or I have; BUT (2) he does not have the right to disrupt our operations to make this point (or to advertise this point with a spammy sig). Uncle Ed 14:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't refuse to talk via IRC. I told you in which channel you can find me, but I added that I don't really have anything to say, which means I usually prefer to discuss more useful things on IRC, and I believe dispute resolution is more effective via asychronous communication anyway. However, this doesn't stop you from joining the #wikinerds channel in FreeNode (irc.freenode.org). I also regularly join #wikipedia, #wikimedia, #mediawiki and other channels of your community and I chat with members (ask your software developers Tim Starling and brion). I never turned down any offer of cooperation. The sig in Wikipedia is used as a means of getting more information about a user, so I made my sig to be my webaddress because that's where you can learn more about me. Please note that I added more information about me on my Wikipedia userpage after I was forced to change username. Please consider that if I really wanted to spam your wiki I would edit anonymously or pseudonymously. The fact that I contribute with my real identify (my real name is publicly accessible from my homepage) means something, and this is very important. I never spammed your wiki. As Wikipedia:Spam explains, spam is "wide-scale external link spamming". All external links I have added are highly relevant and useful to the reader. If they aren't, you are free to remove them, and I don't put them back. I never added too many external links, and most of my Wikipedia edits are improvements to your articles. Wikinerd 06:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ed Poor 18:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Awaiting a response - Anyone dropping a link to their own website to many unrelated articles is only spamming. Other edits show the user could be a good contributor but no one should use Wikipedia to advertise en masse. - Tεxτurε 16:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    All external links I have added are highly relevant to the edited article, and readers can greatly benefit from reading the extra information my links provide. If you don't like these links, you can remove them, and you have to recognise that I don't put them back. Also, I never added too many links. Wikinerd 06:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
All links were directly to his site to his versions of the articles. - Tεxτurε 17:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I have read through the associated materials and agree that its presentation of the events is accurate. Eienmaru 17:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC).
  2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. Particularly the bit about changing username; spam is spam wherever it lurks. -Splash 17:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. I am pleased that the username has been changed (see NSK's statement below), but I agree with this characterization of his conduct -- the attempts to advertise his site are becoming disruptive, and his response to being called on this activity was, in my judgment, not appropriate. Jwrosenzweig 08:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. This is either a spam campaign or an attempt to undermine the GFDL, take your pick. Either way, it should be stopped. android79 12:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. [[smoddy]] 13:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. I find the explanation incomplete. Robert McClenon 11:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I changed username (user:Wikinerd), although I believe your only problem with User:www.wikinerds.org is that you consider it a rival wiki. I should say that I use the User:www.wikinerds.org username in other communities too, where it is accepted without problems. All links I had added in Wikipedia articles were highly relevant, for example a link to How to run a Freeciv server in Freeciv. The user name is not an advertisement. Regarding the attribution links, Wikipedia requires from sites that copy its content to place a link back to it as well as a GFDL notice; we just require the same. It is true that in the beginning I contributed this content here, copied from my wiki, but later a sysop deleted it and re-created it by copying it again from my wiki, but other users kept removing the attribution notice. Now another sysop deleted it and rewritten it, which was the right action to do and I thanked him, therefore this issue is resolved and no further discussion is needed on it. User:UninvitedCompany was the first user to remove my attribution notices, which I sincerely believed was part of a bullying campaign, because Wikipedia contains thousands of attribution notices (with external links) in articles copied from other sites, even under the GFDL (FOLDOC), as well as "courtesy of" attributions in photos (Lev, Google search). So what I perceived was double standards, seeing the Bulgarian National Bank receiving proper attribution for its photos in article pages, but not www.wikinerds.org and I concluded that User:UninvitedCompany was doing that because of the allegedly "rival" nature of my website. However later User:UninvitedCompany said that FOLDOC and photo attributions in articles should be removed from the whole Wikipedia, and he actually removed the Bulgarian National Bank attribution in Lev. While I strongly disagree with this practice, not fitting my academic standards of giving credit where credit is due, I now recognise that User:UninvitedCompany was probably trying to implement his understanding of Wikipedia's policies in good faith and therefore wasn't bullying. I never tried to impose my views on the Wikipedia community, which I am trying to cooperate with, but my attempts constantly fail due to its groupthink and sysop cliques. We have a mutually beneficial participation in Slashdot, however, where my reputation is excellent and I am always awarded mod points, while my site is listed (and linked) at the Slashdot Supporters page, and I regularly post stories there, including exclusive content from my websites, and together with today's slashdotting my websites have been slashdotted 5 times in total. Other sites where links to my sites have been appeared include osnews and wikinews (not posted by me). This means we are a credible source offering useful information, as well as developing our own software. Therefore I believe other Wikipedia users will carry on placing links to all the useful information we have to offer, anyway. As I now feel being in accordance with all Wikipedia policies, I consider all issues to be closed, while I welcome community review of my edits. Wikinerd 20:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Wikinerd should be given a second chance in the light of his statement. I thought don't bite the newbies was policy or at least a guideline, and he has only been here 3 days. I think this Rfc should be discarded because of these factors, SqueakBox 01:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  1. He has not only been here 3 days. He was editing as NSK since last October. Angela. 13:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


Yes it was confusing. I have moved the article name to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NSK to make for less confusion, and using his real name feels overly persecutory, SqueakBox 23:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third-party view by McClenon

I would be very interested in a short explanation by the user or users in question. The user or users in question appear to be claiming that there has been some sort of copyright violation because material that originally appeared on their web site is not being attributed to their web site. Who submitted the copyrighted material? Was it the web site and its editors themselves, or other users? It appears that the users in question, or their web site, are attempting to impose restrictions on Wikipedia that are inconsistent with the GFDL and would subvert Wikipedia's copyleft on its own content. They have every right to ask that copyrighted material be removed from Wikipedia. However, they appear to be trying to make inconsistent demands. I agree with the originator of this RfC that the objective appears to be to game the system and post link spam. As it is, I am very puzzled as to how the user or users in question are defining what is subject to copyright or copyleft and what the nature of the intellectual property is. I am deferring endorsing this RfC only because the conduct in question is so strange that I would like to see an explanation. (I find the explanation inadequate.) 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by smoddy

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

The original author copied the content to Wikipedia. Therefore the original author is credited. Therefore the GFDL is fulfilled. Full stop.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. [[smoddy]] 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by WAS

I looked into this a wee bit and find only one real issue, but that one issue is that this person appears to be here ONLY to promote an ADVERT containing site he owns, operates, and promotes. In the article Jochen Liedtke he adds "http://portal.wikinerds.org/jochen-liedtke" to promote his wikinerd site. At [1] he uses a talk page to promote his revenue generating site. His contributions speak for themselves. I didn't see anything at his site I care to ever use or add to, but I wish him well in his self employment efforts and I feel we can best help him (and Wikipedia) by speedily convincing him he's throwing away his promotional efforts here and would receive a greater return on his investment of time if that time were invested elsewhere (perhaps Slashdot - another for profit enterprise most willing to collaberate for mutual gain).


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. WAS 4.250 23:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The Wikinerds.org website is NOT a commercial enterprise, and it doesn't really make any substantial profits. If we were a business we would have registered a .com, not an .org. Most articles can be downloaded in ad-free versions. Exempli gratia, although the online version of this interview has ads, but if you hate seeing ads you can access its HTML, PDF, or ASCII versions, and even download them. I started providing these ad-free formats after some users told me that they were philosophically opposed to advertising, so I thought I shouldn't force anyone to see ads if they really hate ads. Moreover, most content is available under libre licences such as GFDL, CCL, and "verbatim copying", which means you are welcome to copy the content, so it isn't different from Wikipedia. All users can vote on polls and give us feedback about the ads. Many of the ads are displayed pro bono (such as banners for the "no software patents" movement). The site is de facto non-profit, which means any money received from the ads is given back to the site for the purposes of server upgrades and paying for more bandwidth. Wikinerd 06:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Most new enterprises lose money at first. Congratulations on making any profit at all so soon. Further, providing gratis ads is typical in a for-profit enterprise attempt to gain mind share and in seeking good public relations. You are to be encouraged to keep up this clever and socially useful aspect of your business. There are no laws saying an .org can't make a profit. Being an .org proves exactly nothing. And finally, I'm glad to see you are growth oriented in that "retained earnings [are] reinvested by the firm". Keep up the good work. Elsewhere. (By the way, please see a lawyer or tax accountant concerning your taxes about issues like what can be deducted and "de-facto" and "non-profit". Just because you think it is non-profit, doesn't mean the government will.) WAS 4.250 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):


[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

  • In answer to Robert McClenon regarding his vote - In all the added links that I encountered they were all added by this user. New articles that have attribution to his web site are also added by this user. Examples below where he adds content and attribution to his own web site:
    • Charlotte Ross - section added by user with link to his web site (by reference to his product, JnanaBase)
    • Ian Fraser (columnist) - entire article added by user with link to his web site
    • Language as an Instance of Left Hemispheric Specialization for Temporal Processing - entire article added by user with link to his web site (by reference to his product, JnanaBase)
  • Doing a "what links here" check of his web site or the article about the product hosted on it, JnanaBase, you find that they were all added by this user. Hope this helps. - Tεxτurε 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)