User talk:Floquenbeam

MEH

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

Cyberllamamusic

Hi Floquenbeam. You may want to have a look at an SPI I just opened concerning User:Cyberllamamusic, to whom you gave a one-year block a couple of months ago. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems pretty obviously the same person, doesn't it. What a sap I was, to change an indef block to 1 year as a favor. I'm not sure a CU is going to comment (they don't like linking accounts to IPs), so I'll probably action it myself. Thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action so promptly. --Viennese Waltz 07:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor

I hope you find this of interest.

Disclosures. Apparently using an IP address to contribute is a violation, so I have adopted the screen name of Aabcxyz. All my statements are supported by evidence, which I present at the said talk pages. In the comments that follow I provide additional evidence in parentheses. For the benefit of El C as well as for that of all who read this, a user has volunteered to review my comments before I post them to ensure that no further violation of wikipedia rules inadvertently occurs.

Issue #1. On June 19, El C put a stop of my editing resulting from allegations posted by Objective3000 using an ID other than Objective3000. The allegations were 1) vandalism, 2) use of multiple IP accounts, 3) a third allegation using Wikipedia jargon to which I am not familiar. This was a star chamber proceeding, not allowing a defense and not providing the identity of the plaintiff, here the accuser. Because I had removed citations to the self-published webpages of Objective3000, it was a direct conclusion that he had filed the complaint, verified by looking at his user log, in which Objective3000 used a different user ID. (Evidence: 19 June 2021 IP vandalism • Card counting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) • Blackjack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Temp semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 16 or so repeated deletions in the last week by multiple related IPs. Refusal to go to TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg User(s) blocked. El_C 16:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC) )

Concerning allegation 1, I removed multiple references put in place by Objective3000 (the evidence for this allegation appears at Blackjack and Card counter talk pages) as self-published web pages with commercial content. Only one other edit, to improve the quality of Blackjack was made. I considered the removal of citations one of cleansing rather than vandalism; no actual informative page content was removed. Concerning allegation 2 by Objective3000, the evidence (log of my edits at the two pages) not only does not support the allegation but DIRECTLY REFUTES IT. I can respectfully suggest that these weak and verifiably false allegations should not have passed muster for conviction.

I take note that Objection3000 uses at least two other ID’s, O3000 (Talk of Card counting, section 24, O3000 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017) and O3000, Ret. (User talk:Objective3000 ; O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)) If an allegation of use of “multiple IP accounts” is grounds for being banned, then certainly use of three is grounds, unless there is something I don’t understand (highly likely) or the rules of Wikipedia are to be construed arbitrarily and capriciously.

I also take note that Rray had not worked on Wikipedia since May 30, 2021, when he quizzically, of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, decided to visit Blackjack and Card counting on June 14, 2021, to reverse my deletions of citations placed by Objective3000 to his self-published webpages, with the comment to “assume good faith.”

He also commented on Card counting, “These references have been here for years.” If there is a statute of limitations relevant to violations of WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS (see Issue #4 below), it might be put forth as an affirmative defense, but I have found nothing in Wikipedia rules to that effect.

Issue #2: One of my actions was to delete at Blackjack under Blackjack Literature a link placed by Objective3000 to his webpage “book.” That was reversed. On consideration, Rray validated my concern and removed the link based on “This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the books on this list for obvious reasons.” (22:15 15 June 2021). That justification was articulated by me on my act of removal: Blackjack literature: self-promotion of commercial website; not a peer-reviewed book like all the others cited; shameful abuse of WP for self-advertising (1:29 12 June 2021). In light of Rray’s deletion, which stands, that act does not constitute vandalism in the eyes of other users.

Issue #3. The evidence shows that before 8/31/2007, no citations to Objective3000’s self-published commercial webpages existed on Blackjack, Card counting, Hole carding, and Martingale (betting system), and Shuffle track. After that date, the evidence shows that Objective3000 inserted citations to his self-published webpages with commercial content, namely, qfit and blackjackincolor, more than once a month in the next six months. At the talk pages of Blackjack and Card counting the evidence that ten such insertions were made by Objective3000 is presented. Under the doctrine of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I cannot say whether others subsequently inserted such citations in these or other webpages, but the evidence is irrefutable that a) Objective3000 inserted such citations to the five articles in the six months after he became active, b) NO OTHER user had inserted citations in the five articles to either of these self-published webpages BEFORE he became active, and c) NO OTHER user inserted such citations to any of these articles during the six month period examined.

Issue #4. It was interesting to find that currently Hole carding lacks the two citations to Objective3000’s self-published websites that he had placed on 12/24/2007 (see Blackjack for evidence). A search through the log shows that from 23 December 2010 through 27 December 2010 two users tried to remove references that Objective3000 had placed to his websites. (See Issue #5 and Hole carding talk page for Evidence.) On 27 December 2010 user TransporterMan began a discussion with Objection3000 based on the merits of citations inserted by Objection3000 to qfit and blackjackincolor being in violation of both WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS.. TransporterMan noted the following on the talk page of Hole carding: “Let me note in passing, however, that the links being removed appear to me to be very iffy as reliable sources to support the assertions in the article. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 27 December 2010.” The rest of the discussion appears on the talk page of Hole carding, including his opinion that WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS are being violated and that a referral to Reliable Sources Noticeboard about these sources would substantiate his opinion, stating “I'm fairly certain of my analysis and the probable outcome.” To summarize, TransporterMan finds fault lies in Objective3000 not being an expert according to the Wikipedia definition “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. None of Objective3000’s “work,” using his actual name as provided on his commercial webpages, has either been published as a peer-reviewed journal contribution, been accepted for presentation as a paper at a scholarly meeting (Evidence: google scholar, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/authors.html), or has not been published in book form by reliable third-party publications (Evidence: amazon.com search).

One may conjecture, sine testimonio, that Objective3000’s not pursuing the matter with TransporterMan was a case of discretion over valor: The Hole carding article has about 50 daily visits, whereas Blackjack and Card counting together have about 2300 daily visits, 50 times more traffic. A determination that the citations to qfit and Blackjackincolor violated the doctrines of WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS would be global rather than local, meaning that such citations would necessitate removal from ALL wikipedia articles. Apparently, an appeal to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard committee suggested by TransporterMan was pursued by neither Meisner nor Objective3000. Such a determination for removal, the probable outcome according to TransporterMan, would have been dispositive.

Issue #5. The evidence shows that others have disputed the appropriateness of Objective3000’s citations to this self-published webpages. I was not the first. The evidence in the TransporterMan discussion indicates one such user. In Fred Bauder’s personal page, User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Conflict_of_Interest.2FAdvertising.2FContentiousness, there is evidence of two others, Mr. Bauder himself and a user referred to by Objective3000 (Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011), wherein Objective3000 refers to the banning of the user. In Hole carding, two users removed the references placed by Objective3000. One got banned for life. (Evidence presented at Hole carding.) In four instances, including mine, the modus operandi of Objective3000 is to begin the process of getting those objectors banned from editing for vandalism or other causes. Under the doctrine of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I cannot say whether other users have found citations to qfit and blackjackincolor inappropriate and whether Objective3000 files claims of vandalism or other causes against them to get them banned, but the implication survives on its own merits. In such cases, judging from the editing histories of these four users, the objectors are new users on Wikipedia and fell prey to violation of its guidelines as alleged by Objection3000 to protect his citations. That was certainly the situation in my regard.

Issue #6. On June 19, 2021, Objective3000 posted a message asking that Blackjack and Card counting be given protected status. This action is taken to cease inappropriate editing on controversial articles, articles about celebrities and political figures, and the such, not to ensure that Objective3000’s citations to his self-published webpages with commercial content be preserved. Both Blackjack and Card counting have the lowest ranking of completed article, C-class, the editing needs of which are described as “Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.” Yet, Objective3000 wanted both protected. In consideration of the above, I will respectfully continue to seek the following relief by any and all means appropriate and legal under Wikipedia guidelines: a) Removal of citations to Objective3000’s self-published webpages with commercial content globally and prohibition of additional citations being made by any user to the self-published webpages with commercial content, or, in the interests of a settlement, b) retention of the citations but under the condition that all commercial advertising be therein removed by Objective3000 or his agent, including but not restricted to banner ads and links to software sale sites complete with pricing, such a settlement requiring a published waiver of their policy from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard committee concerning establishment of expert standing and other relevant criteria for posting of references to self-published material.

Aabcxyz (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz