Do you understand what you did wrong and promise to never do it again?
Fred
From: Stewart Pederson stewped@gmail.com Reply-To: Stewart Pederson stewped@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:23:15 -0900 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
The reason given is this:
Reason "Creation of hoax article, use of sockpuppets on VfD, kmeeps uploading slef-made images to go along with hoax article. Wipes talk page of warnings. Warned several times.". Your IP address is 68.116.108.65. Please include this address in any queries you make.
I didn't receive any warnings, just people voting to delete the article because they believed it was a hoax. I know the article sounded fantastic, but its based on real research. In retrospect, I should have had everything organized before beginning to post the article.
There were two of us working on the article, one on copy and myself on the media/images. What was wrong with me creating a picture for the page also? It was just a digital representation of the man during the era. Obviously, no photographs exist from the 13th century. The other comments are not "sockpuppets" of me, but actual other people (most of whom I know) that added their comments on it. Another part was wiping the talk page of warnings? After I answered a question left on my talk page, (which was a question, not a warning), I would remove the question so I wouldn't try answering it again. Does wikipedia have a policy about not editing your own talk page?
As for the ban, here is what it says on my talk page:
"I've gone ahead and deleted it. Oh, and consider yourself permanently blocked. I laughed, and even had a bit of an edit myself, but at the end of the day we don't really want you around. Cya! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
I can understand wikipedia's desire to only have well documented and published research. I didn't have everything organized to go forward with this article, but I will have a few more (verifiable) publications for the future.
Thanks for your consideration,
Stew Pederson
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:09:25 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in so we can check on what was done and the reason given?
Fred
From: Stewart Pederson stewped@gmail.com Reply-To: Stewart Pederson stewped@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed. You would think I was some sort of vandal. True there is a similar style in several of the keep votes. This is because I phoned several friends and colleagues to support this article. Some didn't take it as seriously as others.
A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two different keeps) both worked on the article. This is true because there were TWO of us working on the article. I'm being permanently banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments by friends of mine that are a bit silly? Isn't that a bit extreme?
You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia. But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
Stewart Pederson
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900 From: Stewart Pederson stewped@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
Dear Wikipedia Folks,
I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add information. The article is currently a VfD candidate and the democratic process has been occuring until today. The apparent reason for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts? Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax? He also mentions the use of self-made images. These images are related to the article and it shouldn't matter that I created them. The information being presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me, remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic process has completed.
Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case. If you don't like the research, vote the delete it. If you like it, vote to keep it. Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources that help the article.
I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a reply. I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
Thank you,
Stewart Pederson
Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the VfD discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the contributor responded with a single citation:
Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature. http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions permitting, in Spring 2005."
As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep, until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and all recognizably similar in style.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l