User talk:Deathmolor

Please follow up with me if you have any questions as to the changes i have made in Wiki. My purpose is only to be factual and accurate at all times.

Conflict of Interest/Advertising/Contentiousness
I completely agree with your assessment of Objective3000.

Any external gambling website to which links are provided, other than to his qfit, blackincolor, blackjack-scam, and others, is deleted by him. His goal on WP is to provide a billboard for his highly priced CV software. Look, in particular, at "Card counting". Of the first 9 references, 5 are to his various cites. Of the first 16, I think 9 are to his various cites. They all prominently display CV software. Indeed, his profile refers ONLY to his CV software.

I’m new, but these external links should be replaced by links to primary sources. His websites simply regurgitate the work of others. I’m happy to help provide the primary sources as alternative references in this regard.

He should be barred from WP as SEVERE conflict of interest/marketing motivated. And his contentiousness and meanness should not be tolerated. He's not a scholar, but a businessman and he uses WP as low cost advertising. PhilippeMaurice (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit is an unprovoked attack and a gross violation of [WP:CIV], as well as being flatly incorrect. Many links to my sites were added by someone else, which is natural as they are the largest and oldest sites on the subject. I have also deleted refs to my sites that I did not think useful and added links to competing sites. You are also repeating this same post randomly elsewhere. It appears that you are a sock-puppet of Mk5384. I know you are upset that you were not allowed to add your name to WP, despite numerous attempts. Please do not take this out on other editors.Objective3000 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I have no idea what Objective is talking about. Clearly I am missing some attempt to smear me, what links are you people referring to? I have posted no links what so ever. Deathmolor (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ok just checked that again. I was worried I had referenced sites like that. I completely agree you should make a better effort to remain impartial. Deathmolor (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilippeMaurice is one of over a dozen sock puppets of Drlesmgolden. They have been blocked.Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiTree
Hi!

As I've been involved in arguments about this article, but do not want to continue, I thought it might help to ask for dispute resolution: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Regards Belle Fast (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe in general, we have always agreed. As for dispute resolution, this is only possible if wikitree site admins confess what accounts they are using to edit their own page. I don't see this happening anytime soon. Deathmolor (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generaliation, other talk pages such as Talk:WikiTree are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how you run your social click you have organized. You tend to use an alphbet soup of rules. I am sure you have a rule for everything to make the outcome to every discussion go your way. I am concerned this is yet another from of oppression that has been noticed with the English wikipedia. Meant to be a chilling effect on contributions by those indigenous people choosing to contribute to English pages. If the discussion continues to be about the known racism in english wiki then I highly recommend just staying out of it. It will come to pass eventually when there are another set of rules, that does not require me to wade into the wiki English bureaucracy. The courts will have to be involved to simplify this process. Deathmolor (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ya i have noticed you are having an internal cross pollination with other talkers of alphabet soup rule language intended (intentional or otherwise) to intimidate participating editors of other cultures. Deathmolor (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It would seem Doug Weller has blocked me for a history. I think that is wildly inappropriate. I would like to see the personal attacks he is referring to. Especially to be blocked in this way. Doug Weller has an extreme and extensive history of turning discussion into reasons for bans and interpreting critical discussion as "attacks". I do not think controversial editors such as him should be allowed to issue perma-bans. My history although goes back a long time is sparse at best with my last series of edits being in 2011. If Doug has an issue she should discuss it instead of banning someone for being critical of english wiki and paradoxical use of the rules. This appears to be an attempt to defend the use of rules in english and its chilling effects by silencing rather then logic and providing his own counter opinion. Deathmolor (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I also found this information:

"In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks. " - quote from the rules used to ban.

The above is very interesting to me. When reading how the rules of banning are applied this ban seems to not fall in line with the rules. It would seem this ban is a punishment for exposing the very nature of the rules themselves by referring to them as paradoxical. This ban seems to further prove the point I was making.

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It would seem a simple search of Doug Weller produces this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Status_quo_stonewalling_tactics
 * It would seem the tactics are used by Doug and friends is well documented. For someone like me, who has very minimal history on Wiki. And I am only discussing this from an indigenous perspective to be able to so quickly find the chilling effect tactics and to identify the paradoxical nature of their application. There is a problem here. This was not even written by me, but the tactics are listed and for public consumption.
 * Tactics
 * - Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing
 * - Edit war lockdown
 * - Manipulating an admin into helping
 * - Unreasonable sourcing demands
 * More:
 * - Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved
 * - Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds
 * - Defending a revert because it's related to an ongoing dispute
 * - Defending a revert because the related text is mentioned in an open case
 * - A !vote of "no change needed", See also: Wikipedia: I just don't like it
 * - Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
 * - Ignoring good faith questions
 * - Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR
 * - Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus
 * - Drive-by long-distance reverts
 * - Imposing a moratorium on proposals for change
 * And the final tactic is if someone catches on too quick about the inequity of entrenched wiki editors there is a ban over minimal information. It would seem the issue Doug had was the use of the word Racism. I believe some academics over react to the use of the word. This is covered in the book, White Fragility and there is reasons why some people overreact. Deathmolor (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note I have received your email. I am not replying to it because I have no intention of giving you my email address. It seems pointless to respond here - a comment at ANI on my block illustrates that: "So Deathmolor's response to being indeffed by Doug Weller for "a long history of personal attack" was a long personal attack rant against Doug Weller!" If my block isn't rational it will and should be overturned. Doug Weller  talk 16:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait is that not a troll. You give a ban for minimal information and an accusation and it is obvious the response will be to put your own behaviour under the same conditions. With your experience you know someone will do that. So it becomes trolling. The response is then used as fuel to justify your original ban. Meanwhile i have to get up to speed on all the paradoxical rules and various ways someone of your experience can execute those rules to their fullest extent. I am hardly equipped to defend myself. I was not ranting but naturally i would perform a search on your behaviour if you are going to be critical of others behaviour. So you think discussing formulaic use of the rules or "gaming the system" is an attack? Deathmolor (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On further consideration this all makes sense, you consider a discussion that challenges the rules along with its execution to be a personal attack. So the original ban was based off a discussion about "gaming the rules" or paradoxical use of rules, or bombarding people with the alphabet soup of rules by administrative editors, and the belief a challenge of that behaviour is a personal attack. Oh it all makes sense, editors of wiki consider the practice of "gaming the rules" to be personal. ok well i didn't know that you people consider this to be personal and consider questioning it to be an attack. I apologize for personally hurting you and other administrative with this information. Deathmolor (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On top of all else, your evident lack of basic English grammar above doesn't give me confidence you will be a productive editor if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

is closed. More tripe. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

is of sufficient merit that I would like to restore talk page access. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk page access restored. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ticket closed as user is responding here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why the repeated requests to subscribe to Arbcom-Audit?
Which, by the way, is defunct so in any case no one could have granted you access. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think that is a very good question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe my scope is very limited when requesting for my edit access. I read through all the rules. I am only supposed to stick to explaining what I would do to reform myself, what do with that access and how I would contribute. There are non-wiki sites and even social media where we could discuss the outside politics of governance in the world of media. I am not hiding nor do I hide my views outside this limited word of editing and contributing. Is there a concern there would be a conflict of interest between edits and my views on governance? I am making assurances I will not conflict. I will stick to editing in unrelated areas. Deathmolor (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s in no way an answer to my question. Why the multiple subscription requests. Doug Weller  talk 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is pertinent to our unblock decision process, so yes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My first request was showing some issues and I thought it was a technical problem, so I was re-requesting to see if the technical issue could be resolved. I took a look at other mailing lists as well. There is nothing more and each attempt had a communication to test which was bounced. All details are there in those bounced communications. I have no visibility on your administrative processes if you are concerned, just learning as I go along. I think the important thing here is my edit's will not attack or conflict in the future. It takes a while to get up to speed and to simmer the language soup down to its core ingredients. Deathmolor (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Deathmolor, you do understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, right? So, the kind of efficient oversight and transparency that you seem to expect is, I think, misguided. All editors and admins work when they choose and how they choose following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is not a top-down organization. Admins exist to address conduct-related problems as they arise and are reported on noticeboards and I'm not sure what "administrative processes" you expect to be present here but that is really not the Wiki way. We are a loosely connected group of volunteers, not an organized bureaucracy. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deathmolor You made 7 requests, the last one about 45 minutes ago, to join the Arbcom Audit list. Ironic that I'm one of the few, maybe the only WP:Functionary to be able to see it. I was made an administrator of that list on one of my two terms on the Arbitration Committee. 7 times seems like a lot more than a test. Again, why were you trying to subscribe to that list? I can't tell if you were trying to subscribe to the current ArbCom list, but that has confidential information private to ArbCom. Doug Weller  talk 09:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request?
? I thought you knew how to use the unblock request template? To request unblocking, please place at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "your reason here" by concisely and clearly describing how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make.

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think think there was a legal threat in It will come to pass eventually when there are another set of rules, that does not require me to wade into the wiki English bureaucracy. The courts will have to be involved to simplify this process. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why the WP:NLT block. If a user prefers external means to resolve conflicts over the processes we have on/in Wikipedia, that's fine. They just cannot edit Wikipedia while doing so. But that's all in the past now, and Deathmolor indicated at UTRS that they wish to constructively participate to building the modern wonder of the world we call Wikipedia. The request at UTRS gave me hope that a suitable unblock request would be forthcoming. Sadly, I still await its creation. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deathmolor And another attempt 7 hours ago. What is your purpose in wanting to subscribe to this list? How are you planning to use it? If you want to come back you need to be open about your intentions. Doug Weller  talk 15:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Grist for the mill? I guess we've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Welp, really moot as no unblock request has been forthcoming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but i have been busy with my own projects in the 7 hours before you posted so this request your referring to was not from me, if I was to guess what is happening is there is an automated service that keeps cycling through a single request over and over again. I am giving some thought also on how I am going to proceed in the unblock request. I wish to allow the process set out to work. Since my scope is also limited, it would seem, I don't think I am allowed to address what is perceived as a legal threat. Having studied business law in a credible university. I know legal threats. I believe what was indicated is the process cannot change without court intervention as there is no other way around wiki processes. There is an inevitability to this, is all I was indicating. I believe and entity to entity threat requires the use of nouns in the English language. Deathmolor (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deathmolor No, the mailing list does  not cycle through requests. You need to answer the question. But it doesn't appear that you are. No one is threatening to take you to court or accusing you of anything that could be taken to court. Your refusal to tell us the purpose of your submission and your claim of a legal threat need consideration. One option for us is to just remove your talk page access and require you to make any further unblock requests by email.  you restored TPA, do you think it's worthwhile continuing to allow it? ?  Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored your talk page access in good faith with the idea that you would be filing a good faith request to have your account restored. I've not seen any of this. There is not an automated service for that email to ArbCom Audit as well. Wikipedia is not going to take you to court over this either, you're blocked from editing, that's all. Countless number of other editors have been blocked from Wikipedia and it hasn't required a court case to resolve. At this point, you've wasted enough of our time, talk page access revoked again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and, in fairness, Deathmalor seems to be speaking about their "legal threat" on this page which I quoted above, not one against them. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the brightest bulb,, but in your convoluted way, you seem to be saying you intend to change Wikipedia from without, via the courts. That's fine, but you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia while you are doing that. I thought you said you would not be doing that. Perhaps I misconstrued. Perhaps I was mislead. Macht nichts. May you find the joy elsewhere that I found in editing Wikipedia. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: AFAIK, UTRS remains available -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PPS User was not blocked for NLT this go-round. Was blocked for personal attacks and harassment. FWIW. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal closed
has been declined. JBW (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

is open. . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

And was closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)