DCsghost

Welcome!

Hello, DCsghost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hughesdarren (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hempton

Hi, I padded out the reference with more details on the Hempton article, Thanks for your addition and sorry to undo it but it was easier for me to start back from scratch then reinsert your work, Hughesdarren (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

________

No problem. Looks good. I new to wikipedia. Like really new. I was looking for a "reply button" to get back to you! I think i might be blocked from editing judging by the notice i just received from Doug Weller. Hopefully I won't get into more trouble for asking this but what actions can I take if I feel I have been a victim of bullying from high level admins? I did everything (or so i thought) to avoid "edit waring", including kindly asking for discussion on the talk page of the article, but there was zero respect given to that and they went in one after the other in succession, reverting my 'reversions' (sorry I don't have the wiki lingo down yet)now it appears i might be blocked.

Take a look at what went down. They keep reverting to an edit that names the wrong CEO of a publicly traded company. I provided a link to SEC filings which clearly shows the edit is wrong, but it appears they don’t care about accurate information. I am not asking you to do anything i am just asking if you could help explain to me if this is really how wikipedia works and how admin editors can get away with this? DCsghost (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

OK, I've had a look through the logs and read the talk page comments by everyone involved. As far as I can tell the page has been subjected to alot of edit warring over the past few years, particularly by those who have a personal or professional connection with the subject. Generally speaking most of the comments by all the users have had a extremely belligerent tone. Unfortunately you have chosen a contentious topic to start with and there seems to be a great deal of hubris attached to it. I would suggest that you give it a couple if days then add small ammounts of referenced text one piece at a time then you only have to discuss small edits rather than that larger ones. Most importantly though is when you do discuss it use a more cooperative and less accusatory attitude. If you read the links at the top of this page they should give some oversight on what is important when editing. Best of luck Hughesdarren (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You aren't being bullied, but if you really want to complain, go to WP:ANI but beware of WP:Boomerang. Why not just use the article talk page? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I assume you were leaving the message above for DCsghost. DCsghost did attempt to use the article talk page but has not understood the history of the article or the talk page process very well and also didn't read the links you provided. Coupled with a combative attitude and a sense of persecution, it all went downhill from there. I'm assuming good faith on DCsghosts part (given the Hempton edit was legitimate) and hoping he may take my advice. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hughesdarren thanks, I really appreciate your input here and hope you can stick around to watch how the editors on this article behave.

I am actually very familiar with the history of this article as well as dozens of others I have watched over the years. This is one of the reasons I decided to start editing to make Wikipedia better.

Whether or not the page has previously been the subject of edit warring, hubris, COIs (on both sides), etc, should have no bearing whatsoever in the removal of clearly inaccurate information (particularly on a BLP) backed by SEC sources that nobody is even contesting (eg. Ermanno Santilli is not the CEO of Magnegas corporation) But unfortunately I believe this event proves that it does matter and that needs to change.

If this goes to arbitration will David Eppstein or Jzg or Doug Weller argue that Ermanno Santilli is the CEO of MagneGas? Obviously not so why do they insist (in Doug Weller’s case, let it go on an article he has monitored and edited for years) on having false information on a BLP?

Because anyone who deletes indisputably inaccurate information on BLP simply absolutely must be one of “Santilli and his acolytes”(-jgz) or “black evader” (-David) and needs to instantly be reverted without any regard to facts or the principles of Wikipedia, and that is what is improves Wikipedia? That is in my opinion unfortunately about the gist of it and I am not going to stand for it.

I will heed your advice “add small amounts of referenced text one piece at a time then you only have to discuss small edits” -- but recall that is exactly what I did and my edits were instantly shut down and my requests for discussion on the articles talk page ignored. Just look at Doug Weller comment to me above where he asks me why I don’t just “take it to the talk page”, after explaining to him that is exactly what I did and how David Eppstein disregarded the request. Is there a Wiki term for Gaslighting ?

I am acting in good faith. Are they? Please watch over me as I am all alone here. The editors on this article have been together for many years in what might be described as a pack. Thanks DCsghost (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Doug thank you for the warning about WP:Boomerang but I am not too concerned that deleting indisputably inaccurate information from a BLP will come back to “get me”. Since you have a been an editor on this article for 9 years, can I ask why you don’t go in a remove the inaccurate information that I am bringing to your attention? I have already pointed out how the article names Ermanno Santilli as the CEO of Magnegas which is just flat out wrong.

Then there is this part (which David Eppstein and JrZ refuse to allow be removed) that states: “due to their holdings of preferred stock, "the Santilli Family has the ability to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by stockholders of our company." His wife Carla is a director.”

This is also false. According to SEC filings, all the controlling Series A Preferred Stock were repurchased by the company on Nov 2nd 2018 so the Santilli family no longer has any control and Carla resigned as director in June 2018.

With precedent now established by all current editors that information about MangeGas corporation is relevant to this BLP article, I think accurate information about that publicly traded company should be presented.

So for the record, you are now aware that inaccurate financial information about a publicly traded company is on a Wikipedia BLP article you monitor and edit and as of the moment, have not gone in and improved the article. Please know I am not saying you are obligated to do anything here, only that (as of the moment) you have not done anything. Recall WP:Boomerrang. I will even add my request that you correct the inaccurate information since my request to JrZ went ignored. Again, just my suggestion.

I could take this over to the article talk page, but will you join me in the discussion? It would be great if you could since you've been on this article for 9 years. Thanks! DCsghost (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

December 2018

Your recent editing history at Ruggero Santilli shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Because I am really not the sock puppet of some 83 year old man who thinks Wikipedia editors are trying to suppress him. This is completely bogus. The record clearly shows the allegations JgZ leveled against me were completely fabricated and retaliatory in full view of Wiki arb com member Doug Weller, after I complained that JgZ was now stalking me around Wikipedia and targeting my edits for undo. I am genuinely new to Wikipedia and even had ask Doug Weller for help in stopping the abuse against me. He did nothing. I asked if they were all editing in good faith on this BLP of a subject they all openly ridicule and despise. In an effort to silence me before I officially called for any investigation, I suddenly find myself completely blocked with no way of defending myself with this bogus “checkuser” block. No rational person could review what I wrote here and say it fit with what JgZ alleged. Further, no honest review would conclude I share any similarities between any of the “socks” previously blocked here, with exception to maybe a shared desire to improve and balance a BLP article – which is not “evidence” of being a “block evading” “sockpuppet” but a Wikipedia editor acting in good faith. As for any checkuser IP scans, I can guarantee you there was nothing found there. I can also provide my real name which will prove beyond doubt that the checkuser case against me was totally bunk. I want my case heard and a chance to defend myself. I would also like to formerly register a complaint against JgZ, David Eppstein and Doug Weller for editing and acting in bad faith. Please someone help me.

Decline reason:

1. Please read WP:NOTTHEM 2. The block was placed by a CheckUser, who has advanced access to logs and has determined that you are very likely abusively using multiple accounts. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am resubmitting this new unblock request on the grounds of a clear COI and abuse of power as the admin who denied my initial request is the same admin who I wanted to file a complaint against for harassment, stalking, bullying, editing in bad faith and clear abuse of power. (case in point he is now ruling over my appeal for the charges he fabricated against me in the first place. He is aware of this and I imagine figured he could get away with it)

To isolate my reason for requesting my account is unblocked, I will try to make it simple again and avoid any WP:NOTTHEM conjecture. I am not a “sock puppet”. I have never before edited any articles on Wikipedia, let alone been blocked. In fact, as a video blogger, I recorded via display capture with a face camera overlay, all of my interactions from setting up my account to me editing the articles. I thought one day it might make for a good educational video on my experiences learning how to edit Wikipedia. As of the moment, where I am still recording, it appears that if this channel of appealing my block is again suppressed, the footage will be a shinning example of an unfortunate truth that Wikipedia has been systematically corrupted by a handful of high-level admins who operate outside the rules and spirit of Wikipedia without any level of decency or accountability.

This was the reason given by the COI admin who denied my first request:

“The block was placed by a CheckUser, who has advanced access to logs and has determined that you are very likely abusively using multiple accounts.”

“very likely”? “suspected”? Based upon what? There was no evidence presented (for a reason, there isn’t any as it is totally false) and there was no discussion. I have video recordings of me editing and can provide a signed affidavit attesting the charge is completely false.

Can a ruling editor on my request here in good faith actually deny my request--or even a trial or reopening the discussion – which remained open for about 20 minutes-- with such evidence that clearly should overturn the unfounded hunches of any checkuser who presented no evidence whatsoever? I ask any editor who is going to rule on my request here, that in good faith, you 1.) take into consideration the counter evidence I can provide which clearly disputes the charges against me and 2.) you take a minute to review my last talk contribution on Ruggero Santilli, from 9 December 2018 21:57 --not the current talk which has had comments of mine since censured.

I have been a model Wikipedian acting in good faith. If you disagree and instead side with the allegations of the admin who “reported” me, out of good faith, please provide the specifics from the record which support the admins allegations. Yes I made a rookie mistake of not knowing that I cannot revert edits, no mater how blatnelty false they are, and fully accepted the “consensus rules”. After I was warned I immediately stopped reverting and have not made 1 revert since. Days had past and only after I mentioned that the admin who reported me was clearly stalking my edits on other pages (yes I was editing other pages despite the admins allegations I was not) he accuses me of being a “single purpose account” continuing to “edit waring” and “showing no sign of accepting Wikipedia processes”. This is not true as the record clearly shows. Any good faith editor ruling on my request here for being unblocked, should out of good faith take this into consideration.

I also ask out of courtesy and good faith, should the ruling editor decline my request to unblock me as I am NOT a “sockpuppet” of an 83 year old scientist (which again I can easily prove), please provide a newbie like myself what steps I can take next to escalate my request. Is there a group I can email or call?

I know about the arbitration committee but I also know that one of the editors I wish to report for misconduct, who watched this all happen on the talk page, sits on the arb board and another member is good friends with the admin who made the false allegations against me.

Is there any truly neutral group at Wikipedia not compromised by personal relationships between friendly admins that I can contact? I will never give up on this. Of course I am still holding out that won’t be necessary as my unblock request will be granted for the simple reason there is no possible way that I am the “sock” of a 83 year old scientist who accuses Wikipedia of colluding against him, as the checkuser falsely and without any evidence whatsoever assumed. (I’d love to see the evidence, but it will not be produced because it cannot exist because it is not the truth.. the ruling editor should be able to produce the evidence he/she reviewed in this decision on my request should it be rejected and I make another appeal.)

For one last time to make this clear and not have my request clouded with related but ultimately irrelevant issues like WP:NOTTHEM, I am not a “sockpuppet” and have never had an account banned nor ever before edited any article on Wikipedia. My account was blocked for these untrue allegations that I can disprove and therefore the block should be removed.

Thank you for your consideration DCsghost (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the private checkuser data and find that Bbb23's conclusion is reasonable, and no, the data will not be reproduced here. Furthermore this request does not address the reasons for the block but merely alleges a grand conspiracy against the user (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM, but now also with supposed video evidence which in context I'm interpreting as equivalent to a legal threat). For these reasons the unblock request is declined, and I endorse revocation of talk page access given the circumstances. DCsghost, if you wish to pursue your appeal, you will have to contact the Arbitration Committee privately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)