Talk:Midnight Syndicate/Archive 4

Cleaning up and restating purpose
This discussion has become really long. I started a new chapter just for ease. Prior to re-editing this article today, I will quote other editors from the past who made comments as to my editing previously... Then all that excellent editing and citing got trashed and the band's promoter started blasting away with adverts and links between the band's other pals in business. A bit later some facts were altered, first subtly, then more obviously. And I think it is very obvious that this current line up wants nothing posted about past band member, Vargo. It's one thing to downplay Vargo's roles, but it's a whole other thing to actually change the facts to credit someone else with his work, which is what's been happening.
 * "I guess all we can do is present as many sides of the story as we can find reputable sources for. Friday 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)"
 * "History is history, fact is fact, this revisionist version of it is not truthful. Where'd all the history go?  1998 to 2005 and nothing in between?  Maybe if that's the case, it should be deleted as per the minimum band-listing requirements. Pan"
 * "Excellent editing GZ. Pan 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)"

Reasons for editing: To present the actual history of this band... the truth, not the promotional propaganda that has been residing here since sockpuppets have decided to begin discrediting a former member because he started another band and is now "competition" as SkinnyMcGee says. Anyway, all of my edits have been cited. Again, given the fact that current band members seem to be involved in some sort of revisionist history, any sources used should be weighed against older source material (pre-2001 preferrably) and it should be taken into consideration who the speaker is. Is it the band providing the info and are all members present during the interview? Did a magazine simply reprint a band's press release or did the writer actually do a bit of research? Can what the band tells us now be verified or is it contradiced by an earlier source, such as interviews conducted prior to the band's breakup (pre-2000) info from cd booklets, photos, letters, or even the 1998 radio interview that SkinnyMcGee keeps wanting to remove. It should be noted that the previously mentioned forum on Amazon.com shows that we should beware of any revisionist history. No, it may not be a good resource for article reference, but it does show that something fishy is going on and that I am not the only one to see it.

I might also add that I was banned for a day for getting frustrated and reverting from SkinnyMcGee's reverts of my edits. We both got banned actually. And while all that happened I noticed that he was trying to make it seem as if me and Oroboros are one. Well, I haven't been able to edit until now, and I see Oroboros] has, so maybe that will prove that we aren't the same. I think [[User:Skinny_McGee|SkinnyMcGee does protest too much! Each time he is called on a point or asked to verify something, he changes the subject or throws accusations.

Now, I intend to replace all of the verifiable info, all the credits past and present, and leave out the dispute section (sorry Oroboros, but you kinda knew that was more than Skinny could take). BUT, if SkinnyMcGee cannot abide by that, then I say leave the dispute in. It is history and it certainly is verifiable (just read this talk page for all the proof you need.) Whew! GuardianZ 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. First, quoting comments on a edit war I wasn't even involved in doesn't really seem fair.  Second, I'm sure you and Oroboros 1 are the same because you both have posted under the same IP address 68.9.37.233 (Oroboros 1 on this talk page on November 18 at 23:47 and November 19 at 01:26 and GuardianZ editing the article on November 10 /11 (edits as GuardianZ on the 10th at 05:21 and then as the IP address on the 11th at 08:15 stating “my references re-added)).  You can 'talk' to each other as much as you want, but it won't change that fact.  Third, you claim to only be adding verifiable data, but then write that Douglas built his distribution network in 2001 (conveniently after Vargo and Midnight Syndicate parted ways).  I already explained early on this page that you were quoting the article out of order to make your own point.  Fourth, you are the only people who have ever accused Ed Douglas of anything, so this whole thing is very transparent to me.  I have not hidden the name of Vargo - I have given him credit for what he did as listed in the CD booklet.  There is no spin to my version - it's about as 'just the facts' as you can get.  Finally, I would also invite people to read this talk page to see how you lie to suit your own needs and switch the topic when someone calls you on it (for an example, please see edits to this page on November 19th). - Skinny McGee 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can request a checkuser to be done, an administrator checks to see if they are editing from the same IP, and if they are they would both be indefinitely banned for suckpuppetry. I'll file a report and see what comes up.  Dionyseus 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinny, you reverted and you never even noticed that I removed the link to that Legion site but still you rv my edits. Dionyseus while you are reporting me, go ahead and report Skinny and all of his supected sockpuppets (there's a lot). I see that you are also under investigation for being unfair and biased. It appears you certainly have trouble being neutral here. I suspect that you and Skinny know one another and are assisting each other in this. My edits are valid and will stand. I was editing here long before you Skinny (unless you would like to fess up to your earlier names). GuardianZ 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm under investigation? Where?  As for this article it is clear that both you and Oroboros_1 (probably both the same person) have been trying to push a Joseph Vargo promo.  As for Skinny I don't know him, I just agree with his view that you and Oroboros_1 have some kind of grudge against the Midnight Syndicate band and are pushing a Vargo promo.   Dionyseus 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oroboros_1 indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry
It has been confirmed that User:Oroboros_1 and User:GuardianZ are the same person, and Oroboros_1 has been indefinitely blocked. GuardianZ has been blocked for 3 days for sockpuppetry. Dionyseus 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets of Skinny McGee
Suspected_sock_puppets/Skinny_McGee Just thought you should know that an investigation has been requested into SkinnyMcGee as well as a dozen or more IPs, all of which point to Chardon, Ohio. Peacekpr 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Results It has been confirmed that Skinny_McGee and Defender99 are the same, and that Skinny McGee has multiple sleeper socks as well. Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee. Peacekpr 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And a look at Defender99's edit history shows that the user only made one edit. User:Skinny_McGee explains who Defender99 is in the talkpage:  Dionyseus 21:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am asking an admin to request another check on myself to clear my name, and I also see that Oroboros 1 had a different IP while I have only ever had one. Consiquently, I was actually blocked for 8 days. It said 3 but I couldn't log in for 8, so I am guessing something got screwed up. I also see that Skinny has not one but 3 other accounts. Nice! Well, I look forward to seeing more of you. By the way, that 8 days gave me plenty of time to do research. GuardianZ 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias, Undue Weight & Sensationalism
This is something I posted on my own talk page. I thought it would provide some helpful guidelines for this article so I'm putting it here. The passages are quoted from Wiki policy on NPOV: Bias, Undue Weight, and Sensationalism. I think the editors need to take this into consideration: I think Oroboros tried and went overboard, but GuardianZ did present a fairly-weighted article. Problem was that McGee felt compelled to shift that weight unto Edward Douglas by inserting more claims (mostly unverified) which in appearance lessened the credentials of Joseph Vargo. Again, you are stuck on the promotional thing, but the article is not supposed to be a band promotion. It is supposed to be a factual article about a band; that includes ALL members. I think McGee has introduced a lot of sensationalism into the content, and that GuardianZ and Oroboros were trying to counter that with some of their own. I think the editors need to reduce the sensationism and stick to facts that will not be in dispute. I also intend to write up a list of facts from the material provided by all the parties. Maybe I'll quote parts of the current and past articles to show what I think is sensationalistic and what is factual and verifiable. Maybe then we can make peace. Peacekpr 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.
 * Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.
 * We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
 * Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
 * Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
 * First of all it has already been proven that Oroboros_1 is GuardianZ's sockpuppet. .  As for the "facts" you speak of, I don't think interviews conducted by Midnight Syndicate's main rivals can count as facts.  Dionyseus 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana have been determined to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please see the AfD page for Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Vargo.  Dionyseus 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The notability of Vargo in this article is not in question. It was determined by several discussions that he is notable, and was voted to keep with changes. However, it appears his business partner was the one to request a removal of the article Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Vargo after it was attacked, much like this article has been by McGee and previous editors. (That discussion was also blanked by Jimbo Wales, so you might be in violation of that decree by retrieving it from archives). Again, I think you are just biased against him for the previously stated reasons in this section. It is not a notability issue (he has certainly published more than two Midnight Syndicate albums) but a neutrality issue we are dealing with here. I will await the sockpuppet investigation, however, to see what it turns up in regard to my suspicions about McGee and the other suspected aliases. If that turns up positive, then you may have to re-evaluate your arguement. You've only strengthened the arguement that you are biased by making this into a notability issue when it is not. Peacekpr 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * False, in the AfD it was determined that Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and only then was the discussion on that AfD blanked due to a request. The discussion you linked to is the talk page of User:Blooferlady who has admitted to be Christine Filipak, Joseph Vargo's partner, webmaster, and business manager.   Despite your claim to the contrary, there's nothing in her discussion page in which it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  Dionyseus 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All that discussion indicates is that the copyvio was placed and that Blooferlady had approved the use of text. I don't understand what that old discussion has to do with the Midnight Syndicate article? Obviously, she was just defending a copyright, or in that case defending the right she gave for use of the material. McGee has supposedly been "granted" use of materials by Midnight Syndicate whom he claims to have emailed. Do we copyvio that as well? I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are grasping at straws. She also didn't know about WP:NOR and she certainly wasn't trying to hide her identity. She may have violated the No Original Research policy, but she wasn't acting as a sockpuppet either. You really have not addressed the arguement as to the WP:NPOV issue. I think that the content provided for this article by McGee is sensational and unverifiable. At least GZ provided verifiable info, albeit not something the band wants to promote. THAT is the issue. As I stated previously, the article needs to be de-sensationalised and verified, fairly weighted and unbiased. I think any other editor would agree. Peacekpr 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that you continue to state falsehoods. You earlier accused me of making a false report of sockpuppet, I have proven your claim to be false.   .  You then made the claim that I quickly rushed to report Oroboros_1's IP after GuardianZ was blocked, this is of course obviously false as the only reason they were both blocked was due to the report of sockpuppetry I posted an hour before the blocks.  Now you claim that in User:Blooferlady's talkpage it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable, yet again you make a completely baseless and false claim and then try to get out of it by asking what it has to do with the Midnight Syndicate article.  Dionyseus 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I never acused you of purposely making a false report, only mistakenly making the report, then failing to report the other party which seems the more obvious choice, at least to me. It is also possible that User:khoikhoi made a mistake or an error in judgement because he received only half of the information. I also noticed today that McGee, (after having voted NOT to archive this discussion when it was suggested to do so) just lately did go and archive part of this discussion showing all of the unsigned IPs that he is suspected of being, and he did it in such a way as to hide any link back, calling the archive "inactive" to the current discussion. He copied rather than moved the page, and now it is too large to edit to place a link back. I am going to have to go through the history and try to correct it mannually with contents that can be referenced if need be. I consider that very deceptive editing on his part. Peacekpr 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry you don't approve of my archiving skills - I just followed the instructions. I didn't want to archive anything, but as the page was ridiculously long I didn't think I had a choice.  I left the whole discussion of the different versions and the request for comment.  I did link to the archive at the top of the page, so anyone can go and look at it.  If I "hid a link back" as you indicate, I'll fix it if I'm able, but I don't know what you're talking about.  As I said before, I just followed the instructions.  I called it inactive because that's what I was told to do (and it was inactive - we weren't discussing those sections anymore).  Nothing deceptive about it. - Skinny McGee 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to archive, but I agree with SkinnyMcGee that User:Peacekpr is taking things out of context here. If SkinnyMcgee was really trying to hide the previous discussions, he would not have included a link at the top of the page to the archive.  Dionyseus 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have no bearing on whether or not SkinnyMcGee is a sockpuppet/puppeteer. I think the both of you are now showing that you are acting together in congress which lead to the edit war. You are attempting to draw attention away from the real issues... This investigation, also NPOV (bias, undue weight, sensationalism and abuse of Wiki to self-promote). I am still awaiting an investigation and I have no agenda here but to uncover what's been going on. I have made no edits to the material, and I (unike you two) have not reverted discussions, references and material in order to hide information. SkinnyMcGee's first edit only appeared after the unsigned edits and after other names were being used. Dionyseus, you have been here editing since last year and all of your edits seem to evoke fierce debates. Many require mediation and arbitration, but you seem to always be involved in something that requires an admin to step in. I personally think you enjoy causing strife. AGAIN, like I said to you before, I will patiently await an investigation before I draw any further conclusions, but those are my suspicions. I am fairly confident that those suspicions will pan out. Also, I am NOT required to tell you who I am, and you are wrong to demand it. Peacekpr 04:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that despite Peacekpr's claim that I enjoy causing strife, I've only been involved in two unofficial mediation cases in attempt to resolve content disputes, and in the arbitration case I was cleared of all charges and the filer, User:Danielpi, was blocked for a week by the arbitrators for discourtesy and personal attacks.   Dionyseus 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)