Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 3 September 2009

Re: Loci of the disputes

Is it possible that Fischer himself faked his death and is now editing Misplaced Pages? Shii (tock) 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Elvis lives? and Frodo Lives!? Sadly not, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fischer, Elvis, Frodo and Tupac are all sitting in orbit on an intergalactic cruiser, enjoying cognac and cigars and laughing at all of us chumpy toads down here. You know it's true. -GTBacchus 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed this. I noticed your comment on the original request, GTBacchus. The evidence appears one-sided at the moment. You implied in the original request that the behaviour of all parties should be examined here. Are you intending to present evidence? I'll drop a note at your talk page in case you are not following this page any more. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I don't know a whole lot about the case; my involvement has been minimal, as I stated in the original request. Nevertheless, I'll have a look at it later today, and see what I can offer by way of evidence. -GTBacchus 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. It has addressed my concern somewhat about the one-sidedness of the evidence. More than that, I will need to look into the context myself, since as you say you don't know a whole lot about the case. But thanks again for posting what you have. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive

This is all a bit excessive a ban for a year for arguing with Scjessey the vandal?

Anyone interested in knowing anything about the matter will see that I am contributing civilly to the Bobby Fischer article and that civil contributions are the bulk of my editing. I did have that one dispute regarding the article in which I went way overboard at the cost of both my own participation as well as the article and its something which I do regret, that is however long past and not the current situation.

As for my participation in the European union article it is trivial and not something which can be covered in a request for arbitration I am not an active participant in that article and I did not cross over any lines in my editing of that article.

As for the dreamhost article well it's most unfortunate that nobody else has dealt with the attempts to introduce advertising material into the article and in case anyone is wondering if I am willing to work colaberatively with Scjessey and Sarekofvulcan the answer is no, I don't see it as justifiable to use wikipedia as a form of advertisement and to write articles in a POV fashion and I have no intention to help those users make an advertisement for dreamhost.

Take a look at the articles current talkpage, that user is calling me a "Problem-editor" a blatant personal attack right there but no sanctions. Then he comes here to this cases evidence page and calls the retired user Judas a known sock puppeteer. Judas was never convicted of no sockpuppettry and it is highly inappropriate to attack that user in this manner now that he is retired.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I object to being referred to as "Scjessey the vandal". I would like to see that comment withdrawn, please. Furthermore, editors who continuously disrupt, rather than improve articles are indeed "problem editors". And the retired user 194x is referring to was found by an administrator to be related to Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - an account created solely to harass and wikihound me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not true.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not true that he objects to being referred to as a vandal? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What sort of a question is that? Answer: An escalating question one very appropriate for a wikipedia administrator to ask.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the allegation about Guantanamo247, it most certainly is true. This information was reported by administrator Jehochman to the Arbitration Committee on an earlier occasion. Having been found out, Judas elected to "retire" rather than be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Judas was never blocked for harrassing anyone or wikihounding. Judas interest was in the dreamhost article not in you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Judas wasn't blocked because he "retired" before that could happen - that is fairly obvious because of his exchange with Jehochman. But this case is about your disruption, not Judas or his motivations. Perhaps you should focus on defending your own poor behavior and let Judas defend himself, since he evidently left you holding the bag. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the one that should be blocked for your tactics. You can't "outrun" a block by retiring. Had the committee intended to block Judas for being a Wikistalker, a Sockpuppett or for harrasing Scjessey the vandal then it would have done just that regardless of any retirement. You're the one that causes the disruption and your blatant pov pushing at the dreamhost article is extremely shamefull.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to please withdraw your comments describing me as "a vandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Hence, there's no reason to block a retired editor, and your argument that the committee would have done so, against policy, is incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? Describing Judas as a stalker and a harraser is incorrect. Judas interest was in the dreamhost article, not in scjessey they vandal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, an uninvolved admin, made the determination that it was not incorrect. Take it up with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't care what determination Jehocman made, any reasonable person can see where Judas interests layed and you guys do not have the right to be smearing Judases good name in this manner based on some ill advised words of Jehocman. Describing Judas as a sockpuppeteer, a wikistalker and a harraser is in no way appropriate and says more about the people making those remarks than about the former user.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)