User talk:Vivisection~enwiki

This identity has been created initially and in part as a means of protesting the personal attacks continually being restored to a discussion page about and removal of neutral factual (verifiable) information from an article on Roy Dupuis, including his place of birth New Liskeard, Ontario. He himself has confirmed his place of birth in recent published and broadcast interviews (as sourced) without any kind of hesitation. There is absolutely no justification for removing such factual information as the place of birth of a subject from the biographical section of a Wikipedia entry. The information is relevant and stands as a correction to misinformation provided in unofficial fansites and re-distributed wily-nily by fans on them. These fans have no official connection to Roy Dupuis, and they do not represent him in any capacity.

In the past several days, the article on Roy Dupuis was hijacked by a Wikipedia editor who has administrator privileges. Taking sides with the administrator and part-creator of one of many unofficial fansites, and very possibly in coordination with fan, this administrator has removed such important information as his birthplace, titles of works and production history, and permissible related external links from the entry, which have been serving as source references and which follow official Editing policy.

The editor/administrator reveals that she has her own editing agenda and is engaged in a crusade neither authorized nor recommended by Wikipedia. That editing agenda apparently includes removing permissible and relevant external links when there are no Wikipedia entries to link yet. To do so violates official Editing policy. Wikipedia permits and even encourages using external links to official sites and to sources of information when no internal Wikipedia links are possible. Wikipedia discourages linking to fansites. Wikipedia authorizes neutrality in its entries. To engage in removal of useful information and official and other authoritative source links is a form of vandalism.

The administrator in question has engaged in repeatedly promoting and restoring personal attacks throughout discussion of the controversy, after first initiating the controversy, serving to prolong it. Wikipedia's official policy on personal attacks is to remove them. Readers of Wikipedia are those who lose out when an administrator abuses authority in this manner, loses neutrality, and promotes personal attacks and bias. The administrator should engage in moderation, not inciting and inflaming. Such tactics are disgraceful and must be protested. They discourage others from taking time to contribute responsibly to Wikipedia and trusting the credibility of its content. Editing policy; Personal attacks; Wikipedia; Encyclopedia; Credibility


 * You've been blocked for disruption, in creating multiple intentionally misleadingly titled forks of Roy Dupuis. If you have a dispute with some other editor (regardless of whether that other editor happens to be an administrator), please follow the steps in Dispute resolution.  -- Curps 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to the edits to Roy Dupuis, please note What Wikipedia is not, particularly the "not a link repository" section. Articles usually have a relatively small number of carefully chosen links; see comparable articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Curps 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has not removed the personal attacks currently in the talk page of the "Roy Dupuis" entry.  Please remove those personal attacks on two other editors by the unlogged in person posting from two different IP addresses who calls herself "a well-wisher" and identifies herself as "viv."  Clearly, she is purposefully casting aspersions on previous editors, using typically-mean sarcasm and undercuts in deceptively alluding to non-Wikipedia controversies on a fansite in which she is an administrator.  She claims to know and attempts to "out" or disclose a connection between the log-in identity of an editor and an editor's IP address, trying to connect them to behavior (of her own) on a message board of a fansite.  This kind of personal attack and flaming should not be tolerated in Wikipedia (it is stated policy to remove such personal attacks, but no administrator has done that.'


 * I see no even-handedness here. If blocking one editor (logged on or not) block them all, including the administrator, who started this problem in the first place.  There was no attempt to alert any of the editors of the entry that there was a problem before removing hundreds of hours of content.  The external links were all source links, useful for creating Wikipedia entries when people had time to do that.  It is impossible to move the external links to internal without editing ability.


 * The administrator who logs in as "vamp:willow" has removed the defense against the personal attacks in the talk section, but she has not removed the personal attacks occasioning the need for a defense. She did not remove the comments that "well wisher" (!)/"viv"/IP addresses (2) made about the editors ("Remain", "92...").  Another administrator removed the responses, but not the cause of the responses.


 * This whole experience has proved such a waste of time that it is doubtful that I would want to spend any more time trying to "improve" any entry in Wikipedia. If your administrators do not (or cannot) follow the official policies of Wikipedia, what is the point of contributing to it further?


 * The reputation of Wikipedia will suffer as a result of the inconsistencies in the "external links" policy (as stated) and these practices. If Wikipedia does not want to have informational and official sites linked, then don't provide wikis (brackets to use before URLs) for doing that.


 * And if you change stated official policy, then announce it first in an alert clearly on the main page of Wikipedia. Give people some warning!  (No discussion with the editors of the entry happened prior to the removal of huge amounts of informational content from the entry.)  Who knew that Wikipedia was systematically going through entries to remove external links? Not I?


 * If anyone who is reading the entry had any sense at all, he and she would actually click on the links and see that the links are official or to articles that serve as sources. Many are in French (due to the subject being a French-Canadian actor) and for those who read French and English are useful as sources of material for new Wikipedia entries.  This kind of editing work takes time.  (I was in the midst of trying to remove external links and to change whatever possible to internal ones, when you banned my IP address(es)/identities.  Then all those changes got reverted to a less useful entry.  Why remove a filmography from an entry about a film actor? Why remove his place of birth from his biography? Removing information that is both factually true and useful violates the policy in editing policy.  No one is dealing with that issue!


 * This blocking and banning are knee-jerk responses, not dealing with the roots of the problems (mainly contradictions in official policies on Wikipedia and inconsistent and unfair practices).Vivisection 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please fix; the block on both my IP address and this log in identity (see comments from top) was supposed to be for only 24 hours. It needs to be removed. Please also remove the semiblock from the entry on "Roy Dupuis"; there are typographical errors in it introduced by revert by other editors/administrator (see above) and those need to be corrected. I can't correct them, if I can't edit the entry. I will be following all the policies in Wikipedia:Editing policy (as the other editors and administrators need to do too!) and will be only fixing errors and making clarifications w/o external linking to improve the entry (entries) that I create and edit.


 * I have had to use my IP address instead of log in identity to avoid being attacked personally by some malicious trolls in Wikipedia who comment only re: the entry on "Roy Dupuis" or other editors and do not contribute much of anything otherwise (except nasty remarks in editing changes in the entry--check the history); I have contributed to other articles using both my IP address and my log in identities. This identity has been created only as a means of discussing the problems in that entry, to create other entries that I thought might be useful (though they were deleted) and reading and editing (to improve) other already-existing entries.  It was not blocked when I set this page up.


 * There is no intention on my part to "disrupt"; I'm trying to bring attention to contradictions in your stated policies and procedures and lack of even-handedness of some in applying them.


 * [This user name was blocked. Then the IP address was also blocked after the IP address was actually already unblocked.  Please see the messages to "Vivisection" re: that IP address; it was unblocked earlier today and it should remain unblocked. Thank you.]


 * <<17:15, 4 May 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked #155549 (expires 22:32, 4 May 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Vivisection". The reason given for Vivisection's block is: "disruption".) >>


 * You say "There is no intention on my part to "disrupt"; I'm trying to bring attention to contradictions in your stated policies and procedures and lack of even-handedness of some in applying them.". Please see WP:POINT looks like creating articles to "bring attention to..." is just that. --pgk( talk ) 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are quoting my sentence out of context: the context (that I intended when I wrote it) is THIS DISCUSSION PAGE! "There is no intention on my part to "disrupt" [IN THIS DISCUSSION PAGE]; I'm trying to bring attention to contradictions in your stated policies and procedures and lack of even-handedness of some in applying them [IN THIS DISCUSSION PAGE]." [I will check the links you give after I write this response.]

My frustration with the lack of responsiveness (of all these Wikipedia administrators) to the issues that I raise in this talk page (and in the talk page of the entry on "Roy Dupuis" is what I am continuing to protest. Administrators (don't know who precisely) deleted my responses to personal attacks yet left the personal attacks, which stem from a fansite under the "control" of a person who only posts changes to my text in the "Roy Dupuis" entry and does not contribute in any other way to Wikipedia.  She was using her work computer and its IP address was used by her co-workers; she is not a frequent Wikipedia editor. Rather, she is the administrator of a fansite.  She has plenty of room to "control" content there; she cannot, however, "control" the content of the entry in Wikipedia (because any editor can change it).  So she "takes refuge" in the talk page in a surreptitious manner, to cast aspersions through personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors.

I repeat: You and your colleague administrators need to look at what is there and remove the references to non-Wikipedia situations being attached to Wikipedia editors' IP addresses and log in identities. It is not acceptable for the poster calling herself "a well-wisher" (who does not "wish" either me or other Wikipedia editors "well" at all), but is actually using the talk page of the entry on Roy Dupuis as a platform or forum for her fansite agenda. That material is still in the talk page, it is full of distortions and deceptions and sarcasm that she herself had to remove from the fansite. The comments by her left on the talk page attempt to put the so-called "well-wisher" in a positive light and to toot her own horn at the expense of other people. There is no need for the talk page to continue to feature such irrelevant, inhospitable, unkind, and self-serving drivel. Comparing the entry on "Roy Dupuis" to an "infection" etc. is quite sickening from a variety of points of view. The entry was and is simply a means to present information about the subject to people (not necessarily fans, but others as well) who are interested in the subject from a "neutral" point of view.


 * What constitutes "too many" external links needs to be set forth more clearly in External links.  It was not clear to me when compiling, editing, changing, and reverting earlier official and source links that those were not the kinds of links that Wikipedia recommends. I thought they were the kind of links that Wikipedia recommends in that section.  I removed one link to an Amazon.com description of a book.  But the book itself is a legitimate published source that, for some reason (I know not why) "Vamp:Willow" kept removing; the book is the only study of Roy Dupuis' roles in print publication.  I see no cause to remove it.  Because "Vamp:Willow" does not know anything really about the subject of the entry (Roy Dupuis), she may not realize this fact about the book.  Some of that author's work is the source of information about stage roles as well as film roles and it is one of the secondary sources ("references") used in the article, some of which content remains (now without the source given).


 * I would like to fix some of these problems that "Vamp:Willow"'s massive editing deletions introduced into this entry. But I cannot do that if the entry remains "semi-blocked."  I can't even post a  request on the talk page because that is blocked too.  I am not willing to use my log-in identities to work on that page due to the problems of identity abuse and potential identity theft mentioned above.  As long as people like "viv" attempt to connect (falsely) IP addresses with various log-in names, the kind of trouble that could occur is just not worth the risk.  That kind of attempted "disclosure" of personal information seem to me to be violations of Wikipedia policy and the terms of use of internet providers.


 * Over time (perhaps a long period of time, given my own work load), I would like to correct typographical errors and, if possible, coordinate the internal links to Wikipedia entries that already exist in the entry on "Roy Dupuis" and others. No one has responded to e-mail sent two days ago about this matter. The administrator ("Vamp:Willow") who started this controversy did not contact any editors on their talk pages prior to doing it or in the talk page in Roy Dupuis; she removed all the material first and then posted that she did it.  That is not the procedure recommended for possibly controversial editing changes presented in either Editing policy or External links.  She could have posted an alert about the problem on the talk page and asked editors to remove some of the external links that she found problematic.  Instead she removed mostly everything.  There are other ways, using current Wikipedia content, to deal with the situation.  But she acting first (cutting, removing information, removing links) and talked later.  The reasons that she gave did not refer to any official page at Wikipedia about external links; since then, I have read the information on the various Wikipedia pages and find contradictions and inconsistencies about the use of external links.  I was working on the problem when she "semi-protected" the entry.


 * I was in good faith trying to find current Wikipedia entries that could hold the information (while trying to work on finding other entries to use instead of too many external links) using this account identity because the IP address had been blocked. I do use "preview" all the time, but sometimes the editing is very hard to do and it is hard, even in "preview," to see errors.  Or, after one saves an edit, one thinks of a better way to do it and edits more.  These are reasonable things that happen when working on a computer screen.


 * There is no way that I would be willing to upload material from my computer due to the utter disregard of privacy (like the personal attacks referring to IP addresses, log in identities, and (possibly) real names and e-mail addresses, leading to potential identity theft, phishing, spam, and so on.


 * One must use anonymous means sometimes due to the lack of integrity and the unscrupulousness of many Wikipedia and other internet users. It is too bad, but that is why I had to create this particular identity to point out some of these problems on this talk page.  (I had meant--by the way--Anti-Vivisection, but there was no way to put "Anti-" in the log in name after it got registered as "Vivisection."  I am anti-vivisection.  The "vivisection" referred to is what has been happening in the entry that I worked so hard to edit called "Roy Dupuis."  I oppose that kind of ruthless disregard for people's hard work.


 * Although I have spent a lot of time editing the entry on "Roy Dupuis" and related other Wikipedia entries that come up in internal links that I and others provide in it and other entries, I am not an "expert" Wikipedia editor. There are many intricacies to Wikipedia that I discover as I go along.  In the beginning, for example, though I did try, I was unable to use the feature called "Sandbox"; I have not been able to access it.  It may not function properly due to my firewall or other security features online.  I could use help with "Sandbox" and how to use it for experimenting with content prior to editing, previewing, and saving it.

The name blocked is "vivisection"; I would rather that log in identity were "anti-vivisection." The IP address was unblocked, but it got blocked due to the blocking of "vivisection." Unblocking of both the IP address and the log in identity needs to be done asap, please, so that I can work unimpeded. Continually having to explain these issues and problems are a colossal waste of time (especially mine). Please read the full "talk" page currently posted in the entry entitled "Roy Dupuis" to see what I am referring to above. Thank you.Vivisection 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL DENIAL OF SERVICE VANDAL, please cleanup this user's long string of autoblocks--205.188.117.70 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Vivisection. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Vivisection~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)