User talk:WikiGnosis

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello WikiGnosis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Legal threats

This edit appears to make an oblique legal threat by labeling comments as libel. Wikipedia has a strict no legal threats policy, I urge you to reword your comment, I don't get the vibe that that was your intention. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have respectfully appended a reassurance to my comment, that it is not a legal threat. No legal action will result from it alone; however, perhaps some brain cells might become engaged. Thanks for looking out for me. --WikiGnosis 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnosis, we generally refer to Wikipedians by their online handle, not their full name and state of residence. I've replaced the subject's info with his or her username. Regards, Iamunknown 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note (or, apparently not) that User:Chairboy had given his full name and state (and city, to boot!) of residence in the very same thread that I was responding to. My use of the real name was intended to be something of tongue-in-cheek humor, since we were talking about a "legal" issue. Wikipedians generally need to unwind themselves a little, too, it seems. --WikiGnosis 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps read a bit of the Meatball Wiki: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?LegalThreat, stop making personal comments directed towards me when I made none to you and consider that legal insinuations, whether "philosophical" or not, act as a chilling effect. --Iamunknown 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When words like "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" are being used to describe a fellow User of Wikipedia (who has just been reinstituted by the co-founder of the whole project, no less), perhaps some "chilling" is in order?

And since when is leaving a personal comment on someone's Talk page NOT "making personal comments"? This is really very telling about some philosophies here! --WikiGnosis 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats block for realsies

I've blocked you indefinitely for this edit in which you persist in making another legal threat (your rhyming cypher was pretty easy to crack), despite being repeatedly counseled regarding Wikipedia's WP:NLT policy. An indef block is not an infinite block, you may appeal this with assurances that you'll knock it off and will receive a fair review. I hope that you will, legal threats have no business on Wikipedia, they have a chilling effect on our efforts to create a free encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely for issuing legal threats.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the texts by WikiGnosis being cited as "legal threats". See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a complete joke

I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia "real" world. ~~I have no desire to~~ It becomes a challenge to work within such a dysfunctional community. --WikiGnosis 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, since it will bring some embarrassment to the out-of-control admins who are blocking access to a free encyclopedia because users are attempting to freely talk about potential legal consequences -- not threats, mind you, but merely potential consequences -- I suppose it is worth an unblock request based on the

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiGnosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule

Decline reason:

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." Then there is no need to unblock you. — John Reaves (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

. --WikiGnosis 02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice regarding your unblock request here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. That's mighty nice of you to do. Looks like someone with a level head considered the situation and concluded, "no way that edit is a legal threat", which is what I've been saying all along. A "rediculous (sic) ban reason". You folks are way too wound up about lee gawl threh ets. --WikiGnosis 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiGnosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let's try again, since John Reaves seemed to WP:POINT

Decline reason:

reason — see below reblocking rationale, incivility does not warrant an unblock. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Accusing an admin of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is pretty serious, please explain your rationale. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a deep breath, Chairboy. Relax. Calm down. All I was saying was that Reaves seemed to be trying to make a "point" (maybe not a WP:POINT) to deny an unblock request because I happened to say something critical about the WikiCulture in general. That's all. If you must have an apology, then... "I'm sorry." All better? John Reaves, I am also sorry to you, if you felt hurt by my "accusation".

I see I'm blocked again now, by a new advocate for Wikipedia's right to print the uncited medical particulars of living people, and to describe how sexy it is to dress up 15-year-old girls if you get them in just the right outfits. I looked for reputable, vetted journalistic sources for these things, but I couldn't find any, at least not in the English language. Is this what's called "inclusionism" in the encyclopedia? I call it "inappropriate", so I deleted them, but that's just me. Must be my 1950's Midwestern upbringing. That, and the fact that Jimmy Wales said, "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight." --WikiGnosis 06:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Consensus seems to be leaning towards your text not being an explicit legal threat at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikignosis_block_for_legal_threat, so I've unblocked you. I hope you'll address my WP:POINT concerns regarding the declined unblock, it remains a pretty serious charge, but in the meantime I urge you to re-review WP:NLT. If you have a legit concern about a potential libel case, don't be cutesy about it, but be verrrrry careful to avoid implicit legal threats. In the meantime, my apologies for the inconvenience, and I hope to see you out and about on the project contributing positively. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnosis, please let the arguments made on your behalf not turn out to have been wasted. I agree that you did not make legal threats (either explicit or implicit), but unfortunately your phrasing has been subject to misinterpretation. A bit more care with clarity and diplomacy might help avoid such misreadings in future. I know full well that less care is needed in other settings such as Usenet, chatboards, and blogs; but Wikipedia isn't any of these. Due to the wide spread of cultures from which editors come, as well as the subculture that has developed here, it is much much easier to give offense here than in (for instance) a newsgroup accustomed to rough-and-tumble debates. I hope you'll continue to participate here, with the concern for WP:BLP you've already demonstrated, but I hope you'll also step gently around the pitfalls and beartraps. Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reblocked for different reasons

While you have been unblocked for the legal threats (which I disagree with, for the record), you have been re-blocked for your prior disruptive editing regarding removal of information as well as your hostile and incivil edits and accusations/personal attacks towards the other admins involved here. Your block will expire in 1 week from the time of this edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiGnosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no diffs provided as evidence of my "crime"

Decline reason:

Checkuser suggests likely identity with permanently banned editor. Sam Blacketer 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd like to comment that I think WikiGnosis should be unblocked and that I agree with Ben's assessment. --Iamunknown 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Swatjester, you would like to be on record as saying that the size of someone's kidney tumor is an appropriate biographical element for a living person listed on Wikipedia, even if completely unsourced other than non-specific "References" at the bottom of the article which point to unauthorized "fansites" and not a single credible journalistic source? Okay... Have you ever heard of HIPAA, and why it's generally a good idea? Next time you're in the hospital, I'll just go ahead and speculate on what your malady was, and I'll just "report" on it on your User page. Fine by you? I'm thinking you had a 3.6 cm hemorrhoid removed. Sound good? I'll blog about it first, so that we have a "Reference."

Seriously, find a credible, vetted news source that states the size of Kobashi's tumor, add the reference to the Kenta Kobashi article, and I'll gladly abide by the one-week block. Then again, if you want to be really ethical, you should take a look at what this one editor thinks is really important to say about a 15-year-old girl, despite it being completely WP:OR without a single reference citation. --WikiGnosis 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. I found a reference here that depicts Mao Kobayashi at the age of 13, as "Sponge Bath Betty". If we can just get past that little problem of WP:OR, maybe the Wikipedia article about her is perfectly fine. We should probably add at least a couple of news sources, though, don't you think? Here are the news articles that a Google News archive search produced. Think those are enough to describe how sexy this 15-year-old is when she dresses up as a schoolgirl, swimmer, or maid? Or, is it possible that you're not even thinking about what you're putting back into Wikipedia, because the vendetta is more important to you than the content? --WikiGnosis 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the unblock reviewer: the thread discussing this user's editing status is at WP:ANI#Wikignosis_block_for_legal_threat. It is my understanding that the sysop who imposed the current one week block reached a reasonable conclusion that, although I and a second admin were willing to extend benefit of the doubt and reverse our indefinite blocks, a shorter block of one week is fully justified as a preventative measure based upon this account's recent activity. Durova^Charge! 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (again)

Since Checkuser has shown that this account is likely a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz (see [1]), I have blocked this account indefinitely. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" rather than "Confirmed", and with commentary that suggests an opinion rather than a finding? That doesn't seem like a high level of confidence. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely enough for me. I don't mistrust the CheckUsers nor think that they would flippantly suggest blocking. --Iamunknown 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the Checkusers suggested blocking at all. See WP:RFCU/MyWikiBiz. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, there are technical limitations to Checkuser, especially with dynamic IPs. If you're unfamiliar with how DHCP and TCP/IP works, we can discuss it on your page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite the point, Chairboy. I understand that in the case of dynamically assigned IP#s, no two sessions (separated by a modem reboot) may have the same IP#, and that sharing the same range of numbers may be as close as it gets, but Iamunknown was under the impression that "the Checkusers" suggested blocking, and in fact that's not a suggestion "the Checkusers" made. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the contrib histories, I don't see the similarity, past having disputes about editing policies -- which is not uncommon. Editing topics and actions: MyWikiBiz was openly out to make a profit by adding corporate-related content, WikiGnosis has deleted what seemed to be WP:BLP violations in articles on individuals, arguing against defamation on ethical and policy grounds. Editing styles: MyWikiBiz often spoke of himself in the first person plural, not so WikiGnosis (that I saw). Self descriptions: MyWikiBiz's press release says he is in Pennsylvania and his posted photo shows a man in his 30s or possibly early 40s*, WikiGnosis speaks of an upbringing in the 1950s Midwest. Granted these might conceivably be feigned differences to disguise identity, at least they are differences and not similarities. So what in the editing histories is similar?
(*Kohs's Centiare directory page gives a birthdate in October 1968.)
MyWikiBiz contrib history on Centiare: http://www.centiare.com/Special:Contributions/MyWikiBiz
MyWikiBiz contrib history on Wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/MyWikiBiz
WikiGnosis contrib history on Wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiGnosis
-- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". It seems less and less likely that these are the same person. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]