User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wiki Game Article

Hi Che, (sorry if this is a double post, but I submitted an original and it didn't seem to appear anywhere).

I'm writing an article on the Wiki Game for a magazine, and I've tracked you down as the inventor and/or one of the original testers. I'm wondering if you can confirm you are the inventor or point me to the inventor(s) of the game. Regardless, I would greatly appreciate it if you had the time to do a quick interview via e-mail or phone on the subject. I'm leaving my e-mail address, so if you have the time, please do get in touch with me and let me know a) where I can find the inventor(s) and b) if you can do an interview. I'm not on a strict deadline or anything per se, but as usual, sooner is better than later if at all possible.

Thanks, Gabe e-mail: gabe AT ghscommunications DOT com --Potterhead4 04:58 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse Wikia

Hi Che, as you may know, I've joined the Buffyverse Wikia. As you created WikiProject Buffy I thought you might want to take a look and help a little.--Gonzalo84 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omura Arb

[[1]] here I have replied to you. The gist is you totally missed the real motivations involved. I have no doubt that you were acting in the best of good faith - but that doesn't change people's motivations, their actions, and the substantial real world harm that they have done, which could have been prevented, but was not (by you et al).Richardmalter 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Che, are you prepared to work on the article at all, even in the capacity of an editor? Soon, it seems I will be blocked. I still think the article needs some completely neutral people involved. For example:

Crum375 has reverted the POV template I put above the article, saying that it is not very non-neutral as a whole. I have said that as a WP editor who strongly disputes the neutrality of the article, I have the right to have this template up.

Re content, I have finally persuaded the main defamory statement by GhengizRat about Omura to be deleted. But there is still much to do towards a neutral article. This quote from the NZ Tribunial, that you included in your stub:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

Crum375 is arguing that this is "confusing" and so not allowed. Obviously it is important because it makes the Tribunial have a different 'light' on things altogether. It also corresponds with what Omura states in his statement. I strongly contest this and see this as clear POV omission, and see no reason to omitt it except POV.

Do you have any willingness or energy in this?Richardmalter 09:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your message to me

I took it in the context of your talk page where you demanded a response and I patentically responded. And you indicated (perhaps I am interpreting wrongly) that my reply was ridiculous with something like "You expect me to believe that!" or something of the sort. It has taken me all this time to realise that the whole thing was supposedly settled in the RFC against me referenced in the links I gave you. Since you have never bothered with me again, neither apologised or requested more information or anything -- no response, I felt that your were treating me as if I am not a real person in need of a response (as this is the first I have had from you over this issue since). I am very much wondering? Where is the evidence for your sly statements indicting me on the basis of my perennial and consistamt attackers, without new evidence, and disregarding totally the work put in on my behalf by others on the RFC against me? I'm not understanding your total disregard for me as a person and as a contributor to Wikipedia to the best of my abilitity. And I am feeling that you and others ("Mattisse Redux") are taking me as a joke. This is your first response to my response to your serious accusations directed at me which was totally based on the work of those that have been attacking my on the basis of Starwood all these months. I hope I am explaining myself clearly, but probably not as I seem a mere excuse for other people's aggrandisement at this point. I don't really expect you to be different from the others. But I do thank you for responding as that rarely happens and shows that you are hundreds of measurements above Wikipedia in general. I definately thank you for that! Sincerely, Mattisse 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) --Richardmalter 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your message

Attempt to respond to your message on my talk page. (And I am under stress too and sick and on the telephone now and for the last two hours with my health insurance, on hold on and off, as I write this.)

  1. You allowed and prolonged a discussion on your talkpage over something that happened months ago and had aready been settled by RFC/Mattisse and numberous other ANI complaints and Suspected Sockpuppets and CheckUsers.
  2. You seem unconcerned that at least one user has been driven away by this, so I am obviously clearly expendable. I have tried to be a good contributor.
  3. Your talk page forum on me resulted in further harassment of me and in prolonging the sockpuppet accusations and other harassments and stalking of me in an attempt to discredit me on other user pages.
  4. You never bothered to look at any evidence, only taking the word of the people who have been harassing me since August. The links on your talk page as "evidence" against me are not evidence of anything.
  5. Your talk page forum resulted in the Arbitrator Ars Scriptor filing an ANI against me "Mattisse Redux" making a joke of me and using the information on your talk page as a basis.
  6. The net result appears to be that I cannot participate in anything Starwood related -- as you said "since Mattisse seems disinclined" the accusations in the ANI do not matter. If I do participate, my impression is, the whole thing will start up again. I cannot even ask a question as that brings up the sockpuppet stuff and forums about me by people such as you. (Ars Scriptor has hosted such forums on his pages previously.)
  7. Never did you clarify that no sockpuppets, alleged or confirmed, are involved in the current situation. You gave the impression that only because I was not participating were you going to stop making an issue of me.
  8. Maybe you were not WP:CIVIL but you were not gracious as you seem to be to everyone else involved in this.
  9. Your last words to me were "And is it your honest contention that these users are not you?" What was I supposed to answer? I wrote as honest an explanation as I could to BostonMA because I trust and respect him and I know he is ethical. That was used against me. I gave you a list of the Checkuser and suspected sockpuppet reports. You never bothered to answer.
  10. You did not point out that there are "confirmed sockpuppets" of Mattisse for which there is no evidence -- at least I cannot find it and no one else has so far either. You furthered the impression that all these sockpuppets had been proven. You accepted gossip as fact.
  11. Final result of your talk page forum is that I have been further marginalised on Wikipedia, made fun of as "Mattisse Redux" and treated like an object and not a human being. When you burn out on the Starwood issue, then a new person similar to you will arise and start the whole thing over again. It will never end.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry!

The diff you offered was a wonderful thing as that user has stalked me and harassed me in every way possible. I was talking about the user who exposed all the search engine links that HD and the others had been inserting into the articles and was driven away entirely from Wikipedia. Thank you for that. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To explain further, the user you are so worried about driving away is the same one that opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse after he had told me to stick a sharp object up a part of my anatomy and been blocked for that comment. This was in the middle of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. He received no support for the RFC against me and ultimately withdrew his own name from it. So I am having a hard time understanding your point of view and your prioritising of people. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also call your attention to this [2] Sincerely, Mattisse 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what that comment by yet another of your sockpuppets is supposed to prove. It was never answered. It is simply a question you asked, while pretending to be someone else. The user is not required to answer it. Real life identities are presumed private on Wikipedia. —Hanuman Das 06:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainz Cathedral comments

In my GA review, I was actually referring the nominator of the article, User:Symposiarch, who (according to their user page) lives in Mainz. The GA review general comments can certainly apply to you, as you are one of the editors working on the article. Sorry for the confusion. Green451 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actions by party to mediation

Just want to let you know that Paul Pigman has recently taken a number of actions which seem incompatible with a sincere desire to allow mediation to achieve a mediated result.

  1. violation of Wikipedia privacy policy with respect to Rosencomet
  2. Attempted recruitment of multiple parties sharing his POV: [3], [4], [5], [6]
  3. Admission of a bad faith effort to hurry the mediation to a conclusion of his choosing rather than an honest result of mediation: [7]

These activities do not seem compatible with engaging in good faith meditation. What should be done? Can a party to mediation be removed from that mediation? While I am not currently engaged in the mediation, I am interested that the mediation proceed fairly. —Hanuman Das 10:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi Che, I hope that you are feeling well and that your tests have been going well. I am writing to report to you news of the Starwood mediation. Things seem to have broken down to the point that a request for arbitration has been filed. This puts a question mark over the mediation. (I don't think that it necessarily rules out mediation, because it is still an open question of whether the arbitration committee will hear the case). On the other hand, from your point of view, you may decide that mediation is over. In any event, I wanted to thank you for your efforts, and to say that I'm sorry that we were not able (at least for now) to present you with a successful case in which the parties learned to see eye-to-eye. Please let me know what you think of all this if you get a chance and feel the energy to do so. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Arbitration Again

I'm sorry I didn't notify you about this. Despite some progress in the mediation, I have slowly begun to feel that focus was being lost. This had nothing to do with your mediation. The most recent event in the mediation was when you focused on two basic questions and I found Rosencomet's response was, well, unresponsive, argumentative, and distracting. As you know, this conflict has essentially been going on in various forms since August, 2006. When Hanuman Das slapped a policy violation on my and BostonMA's talk page for our speculation about Rosencomet's connection to the director of ACE and conflict of interest, it was the last straw for me. I dislike being bullied and harassed; I felt this was both. By this action, I think Hanuman Das is being quite disingenuous by claiming to be "out" of the mediation simply because he hasn't posted on the page. I viewed this as a clear attempt at intimidation. Piggy don't play that game.

Add to this my solidifying opinion that the issue may boil down to policy-level violations and I'm becoming less willing to let any part of these additions and links slide. I'm not normally adamant about such things but between the conflict of interest of Rosencomet and what I perceive as harassing tactics from some of the other people, I determined the issue needed a different approach. I believe arbitration will provide a more definitive result and solution.

Again, I'm sorry to have sprung this on you. It really was not the result of your mediation skills in the matter. The arbitration might not end exactly as I might wish, but I trust it will at least settle some of these issues. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no! I didn't take your comment as an indictment or accusation. I'm just feeling guilty for kicking it up another level even though I didn't feel like I had much choice. I also realize the request might not even be accepted. (wry grin) Then won't I be fun to have around in the mediation? Still, even if the request is turned down, that too will provide additional grist for the mediation. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, even if the request is turned down, that too will provide additional grist for the mediation. How so? I would be concerned that one side might interpret a rejection of the arbcom case as a vindication and as a show of support for their side. --BostonMA talk 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

I just wanted to let you know that I have formally stated my opinion on Rosencomet's conflict of interest on the mediation page and on his user page. I feel that this is an important issue, which bears on the current mediation and needs to be addressed. - WeniWidiWiki 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have logged my formal support. It is because the issue of the COI and linkspam is so clear that I felt mediation was not the way to go with this. Had I happened on this situation when it was first starting last summer, I would have taken it to Admin Noticeboard. But by the time I discovered it, the first mediation attempt had started so I respected that. While I respect your decision to take this on, I don't see what continuing to let Rosencomet attempt to bargain his way around WP guidelines and policies is going to accomplish. Despite the confusion and chaos that has been generated, I feel the issues in this case are clear-cut. Right now we have people joining in on the mediation to argue who don't even know the background of the case, and asking people who were long ago sick of the whole thing to re-state what's happened is making people more frustrated, not less. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, agree with both WeniWidiWiki and Kathryn NicDhàna. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Links: the Real Issue

Dear Che, I have been trying to get some feedback about an actual compromise position which would allow me to proceed with some actions that would satisfy those trying to dump my work, but I just don't seem to get any response from them on any constructive path. I am prepared to begin reducing the number of links and names myself (actually, I took down a number of the external links that had been untouched by Pigman in his last round). I would like your opinion on these questions:

1. Is this something that would help or hurt? Is it improper to make ANY changes while the mediation is ongoing, including some that might help allevate the conditions that inspired it, or would some real actions on my part to change the situation be welcome?

2. I am still not clear as to when EXTERNAL links are appropriate or even NECESSARY. If a mention is generally NOT considered non-notable (for instance in the article of a subject who has written a published article mentioning his appearance, or has been quoted in a book discussing, it or posted info about it on his/her website), should there be an external link to support the fact of the appearance to the program for the event in question?

I feel that I have obviously made mistakes in the way I've gone about things, but there are some like Hanuman Das who went from initial criticism to a great deal of help showing me how to reference, cite, verify, and otherwise wikify my work, and others who (to put it mildly) are not interested in such a path. I have made what I consider real contributions to Wikipedia, creating roughly 40 new articles and contribution to even more, and I wish to be able to continue. I would like to make things right, rather than constantly having to defend myself against what I perceive as hostility. I hope you can advise me on such a path. Rosencomet 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know that your comment is directed to Che, but I will offer you my (univited) opinion. I think that if you voluntarily removed some of the links it would greatly help to reduce tension. The external links to rosencomet dot com are in my opinion not necessary. Assertions in articles must be backed by reliable sources or they may be deleted. However, it is not a requirement that reliable sources appear as external links. Mention in the talk page is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. I.e. no one should remove assertions merely on the grounds of lacking reliable sources if those sources have been provided, even if they do not appear in the text of the article. --BostonMA talk 19:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some action taken

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omura Arbitration

I would respectuflly suggest, Che, that if it's practical/possible, any clarification you might present as to your perspective, however favorable or unfavorable to any particular party or parties, might be helpful, as the Evidence page seems now to be showing signs of the tendency to endless back-and-forth with which you're all too familiar from the mediation process. I note your indication that you have more important real world priorities, and if they preclude any further participation on your part I respect that, but I thought I'd ask. Best regards, GenghizRat 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheNuevara, I am requesting your comments

I have just filed a formal complaint against BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A., alleging that they have formed a cabal or meatpuppet partnership, in violation of WP:CABAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Suspected_cabal_or_meatpuppet_relationship_between_BenBurch_and_F.A.A.F.A.

I notice that you have encountered their special brand of tag-team intimidation in the past, and I encourage you to comment on your experiences at the page I have linked above, during the investigation. Thank you for your input. ArlingtonTX 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Festival & RasputinJSvengali

First of all, Happy New Year to you.

I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rasputin again

Dear Che,

Once again, User: RasputinJSvengali has added "Satanists" to the list of Starwood attendees, in spite of your note to him:

Also, please refrain from adding potentially provocative and controversial material, particularly to such a contested article as the Starwood article, without sourcing them. The claim that Starwood is popular among, for instance, Satanists would require sourcing. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion, but I hope such actions can be prevented somehow. I also wonder who this person is (a sockpuppet, perhaps?), and what his motivation is. Certainly not to contribute to the quality of the article. Rosencomet 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this person was named in the sock check request on the arb case, no? - Che Nuevara 06:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on the Workshop page. [8] Rosencomet 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up--Template:Construction

This is up on WP:TFD from the 11th. // FrankB 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Arbitration

Dear Che, I am still struggling with the Starwood arbitration. Those on the other side of the issue have refused to acknowledge any progress on the issue or any of the work I've done reducing the number of links (especially external ones), supplying third-party citations (which now exist for more than 90% of the remaining articles)[9], and supplying more references. They have characterized your input as having been to declare that 1. the mediation has concluded, and 2. that there should be no links "promoting" Starwood. They have further accused me of "ignoring the mediation" and have pointed to my subsequent edits as proof. I pointed out that it was they who were ignoring the mediation by starting an arbitration DURING the mediation (as soon as it wasn't going 100% their way), and that I consulted you before editing the article again, and have only done so since then to REDUCE the links, substitute 3rd-party citations for links to the ACE website, or add a reference (and the occasional non-controversial edit like typo, spelling or grammar corrections).

I contend 1. that the arbitration was begun while the mediation was still taking place (even though several editors protested to this as an attempt to circumnavigate the mediation), 2. that the mediation was arriving at a compromise position in which links could be kept if supported by 3rd-party sources and/or other means of establishing notability (mostly via the input of BostonMa and Septegram), 3. that there was no blanket guideline to establish the appropriateness of the links en mass, and that therefore 4. each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis via discussion on the talk pages. My feeling is that you had said that the external links were sufficient, but not necessarily necessary, simply to verify the truth of the appearance, but that the notability of the appearance (and therefore the appropriateness of it's placement in a particular artist's article) was a different thing, and that concensus was that there were too many (at that time).

I am hoping you will weigh in on this, at least to the point of whether you believe I have changed my ways and worked to correct things over the past two months in accordance with the stated criticisms in the mediation. I am very concerned, particularly about an arbitrator named Fred Bauder who has signed on to a proposal to ban me INDEFINITELY from ANY editing on ANY article that even MENTIONS Starwood, and has used language referring to the ban as something that should apply to "The promoter and his friends", and when I pointed out that I have made over 40 articles and improved as many as 60 more (with bibliographies, discographies, etc), and asked if he really wanted to prevent me from being able to edit almost anything concerning members of the American Neo-Pagan community that lecture (and much of the world-music industry) at all, he answered "I certainly do, you have made lots of trouble." I fear he is acting more as an advocate for one side than an arbitrator. At the same time, he has argued that the 18-sockpuppet behavior of Mattisse that started this whole thing isn't important because it isn't recent, and has not supported even a temporary ban on her.

I have few people left to turn to. Ekajati has been banned for two months (in my opinion without due cause) based on a sock-puppet accusation unlinked to any actual wrongdoing, Hanuman Das and Ars Scriptor are both retired, and while Mattisse has stated that she has withdrawn from the arbitration she continues to egg editors on via talk pages and other methods. Another arbitrator posted several IMO one-sided proposals against supporters on my side, then recused himself. I feel I am in deep waters here, and do not know how to proceed when working to comply with these editors does no good. Rosencomet 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy Summers

Hi, I'm leaving this message because you're the creator of the Buffyverse project. I recently created a sandbox to improve the Buffy Summers article, please take a look at it here. I really hope to get this article to FA one day, but haven't been getting much help from other editors. On the project page, it describes the structure of Spike (Buffyverse) as a good example. Instead, I've been using the Jabba the Hutt and Jason Voorhees pages as a guide, and taking an out-of-universe approach. The article still needs improvement; I need to cut down the relationship section and expand the characterization, but I think it's going to be better than the existing article. Please tell me your thoughts and give me any advice. Paul730 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Amherst College Seal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amherst College Seal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)