User talk:LoserNo1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there - it does mean that it was published in several sources, yes. The Daily Gleaner is the only one I can find online, though, with confirmation of when and where it was printed: http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/liveit/article/190560 Hope that helps. Bcdm (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Protected deleted article 2 Happy First Day of Spring! 3 Unblock request 3.1 Third unblock request 4 Please help 5 Fourth Unblock Request

Protected deleted article

I posted this answer to your help desk question, but to make sure you see it...

You’ll need to file an unprotection request at WP:RFPP.

Hope this helps! —Travis^talk 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, but perhaps I could have made my question a little clearer. I already tried filing an unprotection request at WP:RFPP but this was immediately declined and I was accused of trolling, presumably because there have been previous attempts to recreate the former, unsourced article. As unprotection requests were ineffective, and a deletion review would refer to the previous, unsourced article that was deleted, is there a procedure whereby I can present my newly written, sourced article for creation?. Please could you reply on the Help desk. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your article is very well done. I'm not sure that I can improve it! Here's another source but it may not be worth adding, as I think maybe it's just a student newspaper: [1] Also, you might possibly want to consider removing the "student voice" source, as I think it's also just a student newspaper. I'm not sure whether including them will help or not. (Or maybe mention the two student newspapers in a separate list, instead of separating print and online sources.) I think usually student newspapers are not counted as "reliable sources"; though for something like this, I suppose they help establish notability. I don't think you need to separate the print and online sources. Online sources are pretty common in Wikipedia, I think. I believe CTV is a very established source, though I'm a little confused; I thought it was a TV station and here it's presenting a print article. I believe the Canadian Press usually sends ready-made articles to many newspapers and the various newspapers publish them if they feel like it, usually word-for-word the same. If you know of other newspapers that printed the same article, it might help to list them -- not really as separate references, more like "this article was also published in..." and just list the newspapers. It would help establish notability, I think. Again, good luck! (Oops -- I just lost the game! :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add a suggestion to list the student newspapers with the comics, but I see you've already moved student voice there! --Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't think of these points earlier. The article looks fine to me. However, if you would like to shift the tone of the article as requested at DRV, here are some suggestions.

• Not capitalizing "The Game". The CP articles use lowercase. Manual of style (MOS) says "Wikipedia follows a conservative usage style for capitalization (unnecessary capitalization is avoided)." The word "badminton" is not capitalized on the badminton page. On the other hand, I think the majority of the reliable sources do capitalize "The Game". I thought the MOS said somewhere that things should be capitalized only if they're capitalized almost always in the sources. I can't find that now. It may have been changed. (I didn't re-read the whole page.) I would say that "The Game" is not almost always capitalized. Given this information, I think a case could be made either for capitalizing it or not. In any case, removing the capitals would, I think, help remove what some perceive as a "look how neat this is" tone.
• Changing "numerous countries" to "many countries".
• Changing "to not think about" to "to avoid thinking about"
• Changing "which must then be announced" to "which, according to the rules of the game, must then be announced."
• Changing "The game does not end –" to "The game continues, and"
• Changing "The origins of The Game remain a mystery" to "The origins of The Game are unknown."

Personally, I think most of the above changes would simply remove "sparkle" from the article and would not make it any more encyclopedic, but they may appease those asking for a change in tone.

You could also try to find anti-Game quotes in the sources and insert them. I read through the CP article and I think somewhere in the article, something like this could be inserted:

• 'The game has been called "pointless."' or 'The game has been called "pointless." and "trouble."' based on the CP article.

Note that the CP article has provided these negative quotes to provide a balancing point of view, as newspaper articles usually do. Wikipedia needs to do the same. Providing such a balance would make the article more professional and encyclopedic, IMO (regardless of my personal feelings about the various POV's.) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made all the changes you suggest except changing the capitalization as it is capitalized in two of the three sources. Thanks for all your help. LoserNo1 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the title of the page up for DRV is capitalized so I think it might be best to leave this for now and people can suggest moving it to "The game (game)" if the article is restored. LoserNo1 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that you were able to use some of my suggestions. Ironically, I find this sentence one of the most delightful in the whole article: "The Game has been called "pointless" and has been known to infuriate some people." I LOL about it! --Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia for quite a few days. Nevertheless, I want to sincerely congratulate you with the Deletion review result and the long-awaited article. It's a shame I wasn't around at the critical time. I see that at least some bits of my work are kept, and that the title is improved. Also, I agree with Coppertwig above: “and has been known to infuriate some people” is definitely the best part. Great job! — Adhemar (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say I had made a comment on someone's talk page earlier today, not their userpage. LoserNo1 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the the accounts edits are all related to "The Game", and the user's awareness of User:LosingTheGame2's edits (which had immediately been striken from the The Game's talk page) indicated to me a high likelihood of sockpuppetry. I'd be happy to file a Check user if another admin requests it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only made one edit in the last month (yes, it was related to The Game, as have all my edits on Wikipedia). I was made aware of LosingTheGame2's comment because I saw you had been editing his page in your contributions. Which I was looking at because I believe you are behaving in a non-neutral way regarding The Game article, so obviously his username stood out. I am quite frankly amazed that you would block me immediately based on what I hardly agree to be a "high likelihood of sockpuppetry". Did you even look at my history? Or even read my comment? Both clearly show I have been actively involved in the recently undeleted article, I was the one who put it forward for DRV. This is facist madness that I did not expect to find on Wikipedia, especially regarding such a trivial subject. LoserNo1 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Are you sure you want to go straight to the insults with 'fascist?' It will vastly decrease the chances of an unblock, where polite conversation vastly increases the chances. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I made single edit, to someone's talk page, and was immediately blocked indefinitely. This was based on what one Admin somehow saw as a "high likelihood of sockpuppetry". It appears he didn't even read my comment or any of my previous contributions to Wikipedia. What's your definition of facist? I don't understand why I haven't been unblocked already, I hadn't even contemplated there was a chance of not being unblocked! LoserNo1 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for my fascist remark, and my last comment too. I am just in shock at being accused of "Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy" when I have done none of these things. Personally I am inclined to believe that I was blocked because my comment was questioning the behaviour of the Admin who blocked me. I have not broken any rules and I don't really see how anyone could have come to the conclusion that I have. LoserNo1 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment I made on User_talk:LosingTheGame2. LoserNo1 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

==The Game== I am the person who put The Game article up for its most recent (successful) DRV. I too have concerns that OhNoitsJamie's behaviour is contrary to WP:NPOV and that he is being unfair towards people trying to constructively edit the article. I noticed his edits to your userpage, however, with further investigation I could not find any sign of the comment you made in the article's discussion page history or your contributions. Nor can I find any sign of OhNoitsJamie deleting it, in the discussion page history or in his contributions. Could you post it here or on my userpage? As you say, no one has provided any reference to policy that discounts your site as an external link. I too feel that it is appropriate. The posts above say your comments are not welcome because you are responsible for vandalism and have abused multiple accounts. I have done neither so I will bring up both points (external link and non-neutral admin behaviour) on the discussion page, but I'd like to read your comment first. LoserNo1 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Threats like "Please unblock me or..." can be treated as a personal attack and most likley will not help solve anything. Note that is completely up to you to decide what to say, this is just a little reminder. Regards, I am sooooo cool! 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick summary for those interested; LoserNo1, a single-purpose account, created an article about a barely-notable subject (and subsequent vandalism magnet), then went on to suspiciously defend a similarly-named user who admits to hosting losethegame.com, a site which promotes vandalism of Wikipedia via a Firefox plugin. LoseNo1 had been inactive for a month. LoseTheGame's comments on The Game article were deleted within seconds of being posted. I find it hard to believe that this user just happened to be quietly monitoring my actions because I'd edited The Game article before (I did not attempt to have it deleted this time around, just removed vandalism and "ha you just lost" images and other crap from it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the The Game (mind game) article as it is a subject that has interested me for some time and is one which, after much debate, I felt was adequately covered in multiple, reliable sources. This view had a large number of supporters, many of whom were administrators, in the DRV. Since the DRV, as the article's creator I have actively been watching the changes being made to it as well as people's comments on the discussion page. I haven't felt any need to post or make any changes myself since the recreation (largely because many users have been vigilantly reverting vandalism and unsourced statements). I have also been watching with some interest the discussion regarding a controversial external link (one that in my opinion should be included in the interests of neutrality, but that is for a separate discussion).

I recently became interested in OhNoitsJamie's actions because of what stood out to me to be breaches of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, as well as overly harsh treatment of one or two users genuinely trying to improve the article. One example of something that caught my eye was a user being immediately flagged as a vandal after he uploaded an image of the type of note specifically referred to in the article and sources.

While looking at OhNoitsJamie's contributions, I noticed that he had been making comments on the talk page of LosingTheGame2, a username which stood out (for obvious reasons). The comments on LosingTheGame2's talk page were regarding some comment made by LosingTheGame2 for which he was indefinitely blocked. I tried to investigate further but I could find no sign of the comment being discussed on any relevant talk page history or either user's contributions.

Intrigued, I wrote on LosingTheGame2's talk page asking him what this comment was, and also mentioned that I agreed with the views he expresses on his talk page regarding OhNoitsJamie's apparent bias and about the external link. All I did was ask if he could put a copy of the original comment he had made on my talk page.

For this, OhNoItsJamie immediately banned me from Wikipedia indefinitely on the premise of "abusing multiple accounts". You can understand how, to me, this looked like an inappropriate and abusive reaction to me saying I disagreed with OhNoItsJamie's actions. I made an unblock request stating that I hadn't "abused multiple accounts" and didn't really understand what rule I'd broken to get blocked. My unblock request was then denied, not with an explanation of how I had abused multiple accounts, but instead for an entirely new reason, that I was a "Single purpose account" had made "no useful contributions to the encyclopedia" and that "we are not here to play a game". LoserNo1 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your AGF comments about my warning the user that uploaded a "you just lost the game" image; if you examine that user's history, you'll see that they've already been warned for vandalism multiple times. AGF only goes so far. You didn't see LosingTheGame's comments because they were deleted from the history (immediately). People who promote vandalism of Wikipedia don't get to edit Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A alternative summary for those interested:

OhNoitsJamie indefinitely blocks me for a single comment (see above) that I made on someone's talk page after more than a month of not editing Wikipedia. Indefinite blocking is an action which according to WP:Blocking policy should only be applied when "there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". He has explained what caused him to behave in such a hasty manner, actions which didn't in any way assume good faith, and I have in turn provided an explanation of the reason behind my comment and why I had been monitoring his contributions.

My unblock request is then denied with a reason entirely different to the one I was blocked for. This time it is because I am a "Single purpose account", have made "no useful contributions to the encyclopedia" and that "we are not here to play a game". WP:SPA says:

"While a new user who immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area may be an illegitimate sock puppet, the editor might instead be someone who has seen something of interest and wishes to contribute. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment. New users acting in good-faith often will begin to edit topics in which they have an interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines."

So this further treatment is also a breach of WP:AGF as well as directly contrary to WP:SPA's guidelines. Being (descriptively) a single-purpose account is certainly no reason for being blocked indefinitely.

According to WP:SPA "The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards". Let me remind you that I re-wrote, from scratch, a deleted article that was on Wikipedia's perennial requests page. I brought it to DRV where it received a large majority support, the deletion was overturned and the article reinstated. This outcome required that the new article conform to the letter of Wikipedia policy, since perennial requests are under far greater scrutiny. Surely this is evidence enough that my contributions to Wikipedia are well "aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards". There is no way that the DRV would have had the outcome it did if they were not.

The above also clearly undermines the second reason my block was denied, that I have made "no useful contributions to the encyclopedia", a comment that I find exceptionally rude.

And so, I find myself banned from Wikipedia forever for the one remaining reason given, which is "we are not here to play a game". Can I be forgiven for believing that the real reason I was blocked in the first place, and the reason I have not yet been unblocked, is because my single comment questioned an administrator's behaviour?

After all these unsupported accusations, being told my contributions are useless, and OhNoitsJamie repeatedly referring to the subject of an article I worked very hard on as "crap", I am warned about not being polite.

Regarding future responses to this post. Rather than picking up on some fairly trivial part of my comment that is irrelevant to my blocking/unblocking and arguing against that and nothing else, please provide direct reference to any policy that supports both why I was originally blocked, and why I remain blocked. If you can't, then please have the courage and integrity to admit that these administrator actions were hasty and wrong, and in so doing, unblock me. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Third unblock request

Please help

I will try to summarise what has happened so far to give you an idea of how I am feeling.

1. I observe OhNoitsJamie behaving in what I believe to be a non-neutral way on the talk pages of an article I created (The Game (mind game)).
2. I look at his contributions and notice edits to the talk page of a user called LosingTheGame2.
3. I read the discussion between OhNoitsJamie and LosingTheGame2, which are about OhNoitsJamie's biased actions.
4. I post a message on LosingTheGame2's talk page saying that OhNoitsJamie's behaviour concerns me.
5. OhNoitsJamie immediately blocks me, indefinitely, claiming that I have been abusing multiple accounts.
6. I request to be unblocked, explaining the situation.
7. My request is denied on the basis that I am a single purpose account and that I have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia.
8. Again, I request to be unblocked, explaining that although I am descriptively a single-purpose account, I am a user who has made contributions to a subject which interests me, rather than someone with a non-neutral agenda (the difference is clearly described on WP:SPA). The fact that my article, the subject of which was one of Wikipedia's Perennial Requests, succeeded in a DRV, clearly proves my neutrality and the usefulness of my contributions.
9. Again, my request is denied, ignoring the guidelines on WP:SPA and again claiming that I should remain blocked for descriptively being a single-purpose account, but also accusing me of being a meatpuppet for LosingThegame2 by posting a message to him on his own talk page on his behalf. (?!)
10. I request to be unblocked for a third time (pending).

Please, someone sensible, what should I do? I am an innocent editor with clear evidence of neutral editing activity. Now I am being treated as if I am guilty of some horrific offense which no one will explain to me, and I am facing what looks like a lifetime ban from Wikipedia. I cannot believe what is happening.

PLEASE, WHAT HAVE I DONE WRONG AND WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT? LoserNo1 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Unblock Request

• Not declining the unblock request, but...
  • There is pretty much no doubt per CU that LoserNo1=LosingTheGame=LosingTheGame2
  • The behaviour fits in perfectly
  • I think in saying "deliberately deceptive manner", I was referring to this edit to the sockpuppet's talk page
• Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that CheckUser has confirmed the link between LoserNo! and LosingTheGame, an admin may want to check out one of LosingTheGame's deleted edits, in which he admits to owning a site the promotes vandalism of Wikipedia via a Firefox plugin. (I'm not going to link to it hear, but do a Google search for "MakeWikiLose.exe". OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, firstly I would genuinely like to thank you for your response. So far it's been hard getting anyone to address my queries.

• Would I be correct in saying that CU is a way for you to see each user's IP? One thing that just crossed my mind is this. If the LosingTheGame vandal is British then there is a very high likelihood that he, like me, uses British Telecom as his ISP. I am fairly sure this is the reason why most British people have very similar IP addresses (86.something I believe).

• What do you mean regarding "the behavior"?

• Regarding my editing being in a "deliberately deceptive manner", that edit is only deceptive if I am a sockpuppet. Which I am not.

Thanks again for your quick and relevant response. LoserNo1 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A read through of LosingTheGame2's talk page confirms my suspicions. He uses "behaviour" with a "u" so he is indeed probably British. My ISP is BT which is the most popular ISP in the UK so I really think this could be the root of this whole misunderstanding.

Jamie, I am not a sockpuppet, and as such I am convinced that CU cannot be foolproof. Could my point about BT explain it? Unless CU explicitly shows that I and LosingTheGame2 have logged in from exactly the same IP (which I can 100% guarantee it won't because I am not him) then all it shows is that we have the same ISP. In the UK this really doesn't mean much since there are not a huge number of popular broadband service providers over here and of those, British Telecom is the oldest and most widely used. LoserNo1 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I've been reviewing this situation for the last half-hour or so. Want to make sure I have this correct:

• You just happen to share an IP and possibly browser (and, it would be a stable IP probably or else Sam wouldn't seem so sure) with someone known to make sockpuppet accounts on a similar name
• You happen to be interested in the same thing ( The Game (mind game) or whatever)
• You somehow found this user, right away, however they have only ever edited their talkpage (Evidence)

Those are an awful lot of coincidences for us to buy. Honestly, I don't believe you, when you say you have nothing to do with the user in question. I am almost certain that you are the same person in control of those other accounts as well.

I am going to leave this request open, for another administrator to review as well, however, to make sure this issue gets the appropriate amount of attention. I would recommend that if this last request is declined, that this talkpage be protected, and further communication be directed to the arbitration committee or unblock-en-l instead. SQL^{Query me!} 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much accurate -- though (as I mentioned to you in IRC) the IP is not static. The CU evidence is nevertheless very strong. I won't say more because I don't want to reveal too much about methods.

LosingTheGame2 also made this now-deleted edit, for what it's worth.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi SQL, and thanks for your comments. I'd like to point out that you haven't quite got the above points correct. I will address your points in reverse order.

I explained in my first unblock request how I came across this user. I was watching The Game (mind game) article and its talk page, because I created it. OhNoItsJamie's edits to the discussion page caught my attention and led me to look at his contributions. In doing so, I saw his posts to Losingthegame2's talk page, a name which stood out to me for obvious reasons. So, I went there and read his talk page, and because I couldn't find the post they were talking about, I left a message there for him. After that I was blocked.

Secondly, about me happening to be interested in The Game (mind game) article. This isn't really such a coincidence after all, when you consider how I found this guy's talk page, and that the whole reason I went to his talk page was because his name stood out to me.

Now with regards to sharing an IP and browser - I use Firefox as my browser, as I am sure do many, many other wikipedia users, so me sharing a browser with someone is not really evidence of sockpuppetry. As for the IP, I would understand if the edits came from the same IP, but I guarantee that this can't be the case if you look into it. I invite you to do so if it will help. As I say, I use the UK's most popular ISP (BT Internet) so if this is just based on the first part of the IP address, all it means is that Losingthegame2 uses BT too, as do about half of UK households, the majority of UK internet users.

So you can see that in fact, none of the above points are meaningful coincidences - the only coincidence would be if my IP address (the whole thing, not just part of it) matched that of losingthegame2 - and I am certain that CU can't have shown this because, well, it can't be. Again, I invite any admin to look into this. Thank you again for taking the time to check through the matter yourself and comment and for not closing the unblock request prematurely. It is genuinely appreciated. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)