My edits to the Brandt article were not only accurate and NPOV, but were explained in the article's discussion page. Curps, in my view, clearly has some sort of political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant being accused of "vandalism", when he gave no reasons whatsoever for the reverts to my edits
- Unblock request denied. You weren't being bold, you were challenging consensus. Vandalism after the first IP doing it was blocked. NSLE (T+C) at 12:38 UTC (2006-03-08)
- There is one thing... you were likely blocked indefinitely because you were repeating edits made by other blocked users/IPs, and that leads to a sockpuppetry suspicion (fairly so, in this case, as they were your 2nd and 4th ever edits). I will suggest that you remain blocked at least a week on suspicion of sockpuppetry, but as it stands the indef block works just as well. NSLE (T+C) at 12:45 UTC (2006-03-08)
- Thing is though, it's grossly unfair. I gave reasons for my edits, I outlined these in both the discussion of the article and as sidenotes in my edits. My version of the article, IMO, gave an accurate and fair representation of what has happened with Brandt, and it stuck firmly to NPOV. No reasons have been given by Curps as to why he felt the need to constantly revert my edits to the article, which means that the must have had some sort of deeply personal vendetta against me to be so fascinated with the prospect of engaging in what I feel to be a form of online bullying. I mean for God's sake man, at least I wasn't going around shouting "WikiFascists!" within vandalisms as I do believe another who uses the same IP address has previously done. Speaking of which, can you please tell me how it is that someone can engage in deeply personal attacks and yet only recieve a 24 hour or 48 hour ban, and yet you can give reasons for your edits, and be constantly targeted by a WikiAdmin who gives no reasons at all for reverting your edits and be banned indefinitely.
This is hugely wrong and unfair and I must protest against what Curps has been doing to me. I request immediate unblock so that I can discover just what the hell Curps has against me. Jonathan 9 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Unblock request denied. --pgk(talk) 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Why, I might ask? Jonathan 9 13:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- See above. I have looked through the situation and agree that the block is reasonable. --pgk(talk) 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that it totally isn't. Look, as proof of my innocence and the fact that I have been targeted, here's the argument I presented in the Daniel Brandt discussion forum, and what Crups IGNORED:
reverted back to a 4th November version of the page because it is the most fair and NPOV way of presenting the article. I'll let the guy behind the page explain:
Jucifer, I *did* discuss my edits and my reasons for them on here, but there's been no further discussion of them from you.
I fail to understand why you felt it necessary to remove every single improvement I made. You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps. Evidently you prefer the spin.
I give up. As long as people like you are going to hover over this page day after day and remove any constructive changes made by others, there's no point. I can't keep hovering over this page myself, though, because I have a life. Nor do I have time to waste arguing about what constitutes coherent writing with someone who can't even spell the word "coherent".
And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely.
While there is little to add to this, I should point out that articles such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan articles, despite the fact that the subjects have significant hate proportions, the fact remains that this doesn't stop the articles from being NPOV and not offending them. Why? Because these guys have had no conflict with Wikipedia. Therefore, Brandt gets demonised in the existing article, whereas the proposed revert to 4th November is a great deal more neutral, and if the thing is not gonna be deleted, the least that can happen is that he is painted in a fair light.
So there it is, my arguments-clear as anything. And yet Crups ignores all this and simply gives me robotic answers which give no real insight into why he sought to constantly target me. It's annoying people, and it's an unfair form of online bullying. Jonathan 9 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- The block was valid, if perhaps a bit too long. A week is certainly a good starting point. Stifle 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets that are used to try to circumvent policy (such as WP:3RR, the three-revert rule) can legitimately be blocked indefinitely. Some weeks earlier you were blanking the Daniel Brandt article; arbitrarily reverting it to a months-old version is hardly any more acceptable. -- Curps 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
One: I have never met Daniel Brandt, nor do I have email correspondence with him. It's not such an unusual idea that someone can get support for a controversial cause. Hell, even the BNP get support.
Two: You should note that the IPs between myself and Brandt are very much different, so how can I in fact be Brandt?
Three: Clearly there is no evidence that I am a sockpuppet of Brandt otherwise the "evidence" part of your Sockpuppet Brandt thing would be full
Four: I have already said I am not the same person as the Vandal who kept proclaiming "WikiFascists!"
That is all Jonathan 9 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
My post on the Talk Page of Daniel Brandt, which User: Freakofnature IGNORED:
Okay, so Brandt has been involved quite a lot with this article, as the archives do tell us. And he has had a tendency to point out that information published about him is either inaccurate or incompetent. In response his views are often criticised, but he does have a valid point. You see, if I was to suddenly achieve fame for being a Wikipedia user or a famous Wikipedia critic, I would make DAMN SURE that the person who was writing the article was someone I either knew or was able to trust, or hell, I would write it myself.
Let us take, for example, Jimmy Wales. The same principle applies here. I'm going to be willing to bet that the article was not written by Mr Wales for the purpose of NPOV, but was written by someone that he knew he could trust.
In Brandt's case though, I do believe his article was originally written by one SlimVirgin, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has been nothing but critical of Brandt. Isn't it rather odd that despite the fact that people such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan have significant hate directed toward them, the connotations of hate towards them are not nearly as addressed as much as in the present article. Hell, even other Wikipedia critics don't get as much negativity as Brandt. His only "crime" it appears is to have set up a website opposing Wikipedia practices.
What are the advantages of this proposed version of this article? Why, I do believe that's already been covered:
"the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."
Plus, Brandt has previously expressed the desire that if there is to be a Wikipedia article on him, it should be restricted to the status of being a stub article. Obviously deletion is impossible because Brandt is a notable persona, but what this proposed version of the article is something that can help to achieve a compromise between both camps, a more simplified version of the article that both Brandt and Wikipedia can be satisfied with. Just keep the current versions of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch as they are, and of course the reference to Brandt in Criticisms of Wikipedia, and voila! All the basic necessary information on Brandt that you need. Everyone's happy.
Of course, you know, disputes like these could easily be resolved if Wikipedia were to be a reliable source of information. But it's not. The key distinguishing feature of Wikipedia is that it does not have any moderators. While other websites are able to provide accurate information due to the fact that they are strictly moderated, Wikipedia is crippled by the fact that it has no moderators. As a result, exchanges such as when Brandt made an edit labelling pieces of information to be "utterly incompetent". Someone then reverted this by saying "no it isn't" Excuse me? Just who is more likely to hold accurate information in this regard? The man to whom the subject is about, or someone who clearly has something against Brandt?
Finally, seeing as how my previous account was suspended because I was allegedly acting as a sockpuppet or impersonator of Brandt. There were several problems wth this theory:
One: Not once had I ever met Daniel Brandt, nor have I ever had any email correspondence or similar with the forementioned person. Sheesh, it's not so abnormal or unusual that someone can generate support for their cause - even the British National Party gain votes.
Two: Unless I am into to extreme extensive travelling, it should be noted that the IPs that Brandt and myself use are very much different, so therefore any theories that I was the same person as Brandt were invalid.
Three: There didn't appear to be any "evidence" to support the assertion that I was what was being claimed, otherwise the "evidence" part of "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Daniel Brandt. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence." would have been filled in. Therefore, it was an unfair ban.
Four: From the very beginning, it appeared that Curps must have had some political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant that even now, he has never given a proper reason to revert my edits more than three times, and yet he was not banned for breaching the 3RR rule, a showng bias on Wikipedia's part.
Five: I already tried to explain that I was not the same person who gained notoriety for randomly proclaiming "WikiFascists!" and repeatedly blanking the page, and yet Curps seemingly has no idea on the concept of "diffentiation" as he appears to enjoy lampooning both myself and the forementioned vandal as being one and the same.
Thank you for your time.
So tell me, how the hell does this constitute "sockpuppet used abusively"? I request immediate unblock because I feel that both Curps and Freakofnature have been abusing their Admin powers and have thus been seeking to bully me out of Wikipedia.
EDIT: Please, this is getting horrible. Freakofnurture deleted everything I had to say on my own user page that I accused him of bullying, and its really hurtful that he's taking such joy in harassing me. Jonathan 9 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)