User talk:Npcomp: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:55, 19 December 2015

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for from reviewing your recent edits, it appears that your primary purpose for contributing to Wikipedia is to add material advancing the complaints made by Dr Simon Spacey against the University of Waikato, largely supported by references to what appear to be self-published articles and other material by him (for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). This is clearly not appropriate encyclopaedic content, and is not neutral given that the matter remains under investigation according to this news story with the university disputing Dr Spacey's complaints. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for such material, especially given that its the subject of legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

The block was placed after I updated the Talk page for this article. Not the main article. The update was appropriate for the talk page as confirmed by for example the Wikipedia Admin Kelapstick who suggested a move of sections there. The move just copied previous items that had been on the main page for some time and had begun to be deleted after recent press coverage in Waikato New Zealand which discussed a new case (the case that was being discussed in the disputed Project Status section having been completed).

However, the move also added one piece of new information, namely a link to a blog article by Simon Spacey where recent edits by Wikipedia Administrators were discussed. In particular the deletion of the Project Status section from the main article was brought into question as its stated justification of "blatant copyright infringement" was not at all valid as discussed in the blog.

It is interesting that it was actually you Nick-D that did the deletion the blog brought into question and that it is you who then banned this account immediately after it provided a link to the blog on the OpenPAT talk page. It is also interesting that there were several other updates to the OpenPAT page by admins surrounding the admin article lock and, while the other admins like Earwig and Kelapstick read and made changes to the Wikipedia article, they left the Project Status section there. It was there until you decided to delete it.

It seems then the Wikipedia Administrator blocked the user because he:

accepted admin changes to the main article,
followed instructions and added items to the talk page and then
added a link to a page highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog

which seems very inappropriate.

While not really relevant for this account suspension discussion given the above, as the block brings the subject up, I submit the Project Status content explaining why the project had been suspended was valid in any case (although I accept it could have been reworded if requested). The content was valid because:

the discussed court case is exactly why OpenPAT development was suspended
the reasons for the suspension are Dr Spacey's to explain making a quote or similar from him giving his reasons appropriate
the reasons have been verified by the project site word-for-word here
and the OpenPAT status page clearly states a CC BY-SA license that allows the words to be used as a quote on Wikipedia (this is also discussed on the blog here)

it would have perhaps been better to ask for a rewording given the above rather than to suspend the account and if you needed a specific statement on copyright from OpenPAT I am sure they would have supplied one if asked as Gadfium has recently suggested. They already did that when asked to allow Wikipedia to use their logo.

Additionally, the claim of self-published items and an on-going case are not really valid:

all the references are real court documents which have been published through the court and released publicly under the rules of Open Justice

this is a very different situation from say someone just creating a document and publishing it themselves on-line. These files are available in physical form from the Employment Relations Court in New Zealand on request by anyone in the public or press today and have been released on the web through the links provided under the rules of Open Justice for your convenience. Further:

the case that suspended the project as discussed in the Project Status section has already terminated, it is not on-going.

The on-going case was discussed in the Vandalism section not the Project Status section and Kelapstick explicitly advised the Vandalism section be moved to the talk page. The cases have different case numbers and are on different subjects.

Finally, it is not actually important if the case that suspended the project was won or not, is on-going or not or whether it is even valid. The section discusses why the project was suspended, not the case merits or outcome. It is a fact the project was suspended by Dr Spacey because of the case for the reasons detailed on the OpenPAT site. You have a right to read the case files and evidence and say if you would have suspended the project or not if you were in his position. But that is an opinion. The facts are that the project was suspended and it was suspended for the reasons presented on the status page. You may not like the reasons, but you were not the project lead and what you would have done and why is not what was done and why.

If the section could have been read as claiming anything other than the fact that the project had been suspended and the reason why Dr Spacey had suspended the project (verified through the OpenPAT site), then a rewording should have been requested. The appropriate response was not to repeatedly try to delete the section starting with anonymous users in Waikato New Zealand and ending with Wikipedia administrators and then electing to suspend the account that added the Project Status information and stated reasons which people were unhappy with. It is not for Wikipedia Admins to only publish why someone suspended a project if the reasons make their friends look good and not otherwise. This inappropriateness is exactly why the incident is discussed on Simon Spacey's blog.

So with all that, the only real reason for the account suspension just after updating the Talk page seems to be:

highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog

which I submit is very inappropriate use of administrator power inline with the discussion on Simon Spacey's blog making the blog discussion there even more valid and appropriate to add to the talk page.

PS: given the above explanation that the first case is finished (there being a new case as discussed here), the fact that the case documents are published/available from the court and the general information describing, I expect, why the other admins had no issue with the Project Status section you seem to be so disturbed by (assuming you're going to not admit it's the blog), then you might want to stop going around all the other Wikipedia pages deleting items written by this account that had been accepted by other admins. It makes you look as if you are on a revenge mission and trying to censor information provided by others on Wikipedia.

User:Npcomp ~~

Decline reason:

No one cares about your blog. Declined per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 28 November 2015 (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.

Reason for Not Unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

NOTE THIS SECTION IS BEING UPDATED, PLEASE READ AFTER THIS NOTE HAS BEEN REMOVED

But don't wait, I'm quite busy on other things, so it may take some time before I get back to this npcomp (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie didn't unblock because:

"No one cares about your blog."

which shows in the admin's opinion that no admins care about a blog that talks about Social Media admins supporting cyberbullying.

But you missed the point. The reason for not unblocking was examined in detail here.

If you say the blog link was not the reason (as predicted), then you are saying it was because invalid things were posted. The rest of the submission here discusses that point. In particular the reason must relate to the Project Status section and:

Project Status is a relevant section for any project
placing in there that the project is suspended is relevant and
placing notes explaining why, quoting from someone explaining why they suspended the project or at least a link to that information is relevant

On the last point, I note Nick-D refused to even add a link to the project status discussion when asked.

If you were unhappy with the section, I note you may have asked for a rewording, but I note again that the quote used in the Wikipedia Project Status section was:

released by the OpenPAT project under the CC BY-SA license as they say themselves

so it could be re-quoted word-for-word on Wikipedia as I did. So Nick-D's original claim of "blatant copyright infringement" was totally incorrect.

So if the suspension followed supposed inappropriate edits to the OpenPAT talk page, then you should be prepared to address the appropriateness of those edits noting that I was prepared and proposed a rewording if required. More details, including noting the case had finished and the case documents were court submissions are provided in the original section here.

As I expect you will now talk about edits elsewhere on Wikipedia, I note:

the crab mentality paper is a free release of the peer reviewed IEEE paper here
both were written by a lecturer when he was lecturing at Waikato University
and Simon Spacey has noted the paper was inspired by a (now completed) court case

See here to confirm the above. Also:

Admins in other areas did not have a problem with the information which had been there for months in various forms

meaning deleting those because they were "inappropriate" for those sections seems very inappropriate and like trying to censor the internet of anti-cyberbullying research and materials.

npcomp (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We are not attempting to censor the internet of anti-cyberbullying research and materials, we are however trying to ensure that secondary sources are used. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2015 (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.

You should be prepared to have your unblock request declined again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that preparation advice. It would be helpful if you could look at whether the block was actually valid or not as discussed above (e.g. there was no copyright issue, the info was relevant here and other admins accepted the other info elsewhere) and perhaps provided some more detailed advice. npcomp (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, not removing the "Project Status" section on my part was not an endorsement of its inclusion. While I can only speak for myself, I think Kelapstick would agree. I will not review this unblock request, but even if we agree that the inclusion of the section was not a copyright violation (and as far as I can tell, it's not), there are other issues here. Your history presents you as a single-purpose account focused on advocacy. Please, please, please read those two pages and reconsider the focus of your unblock request. — Earwig ^talk 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Earwig. Your advice is helpful. npcomp (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that the pop-up statement had a CC BY-SA note at the end: the website states that it is copyright, so my mistake. But I didn't institute the block for copyright violations, and this account's edit warring to include that statement and similar material in the article despite other editors pointing out that it's totally inappropriate content was a part of the broader pattern of conduct for which the block was imposed. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]