User talk:Shutterbug/Archive/Archive-Oct2007

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As you may know, there was a proposal made that you be banned from editing Wikipedia for 30 days as a result of allegedly problematic editing, which had been accepted at one point by a majority of the arbitrators. (I am not an arbitrator myself, so I didn't vote, or investigate whether the allegations had merit or not.) As the case dragged on longer and longer, I made the point on the talkpage that the remedy proposal had become stale, in that banning you for October based on edits you did in May would not be appropriate. Enough arbitrators agreed with me that the proposed ban wound up not being adopted, but I thought you ought to know that it was being considered. I assume you know all this, but just wanted to make sure. I hope that in the future your editing will conform with all our policies so that no further issues will arise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the note. No, I was no aware of the outcome of the discussion. Thanks for pointing out the 30-day ban irregularity. I'll try to stick to the rules as much as possible but would wish that those are enforced on everybody, also those whose only contribution to WP is provoking others. Shutterbug 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody has been warned thoroughly, and we're watching others. Please hold yourself to the highest standards. If you are provoked, keep your cool. You can see how I handled such a situation myself. Look at WP:ANI#Ongoing Harassment by Matt57. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"We", who's that? Jehochman, as long as individuals like F451 or like.liberation are not remotely touched by Admins it is really hard to believe any assurances or that "article probation" is more than a tag on the talk page. Shutterbug 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching a variety of people, as have other people involved in the case. If you see problems, file a nice calm report, or ask me for help. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"vandalism"

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't identify my good faith and constructive edits as vandalism. I know you disagree with me (although as of yet I'm not quite sure why) but it is not helpful to call my edits vandalism - it implies I myself am a vandal, something that could be considered a personal attack. --Krsont 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is an attack on the integrity of WP (you might want to read up on it), a more diplomatic form of saying that someone is messing around with WP. Which is what you are doing, violating basic, basic Wikipedia policy. Shutterbug 04:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is an deliberate attack on the integrity of WP. You might believe my edits harm the project, but I most certainly do not, and find the implication offensive. --Krsont 05:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. But what of your attack is not deliberate? Shutterbug 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made no attack. I have made what I consider to be constructive additions, and I have done so deliberately. It is your own opinion that these additions constitute attacks. If this allegation were true, I assure you, such an "attack" would be entirely a non-deliberate accident on my part, because I, as I have said, am under the impression that my edits are constructive. Unless of course, you really are claiming my edits are wilfully an attack on the integrity of the project, in which case you are making a personal attack by claiming I am a vandal. --Krsont 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if it's true. If false, then Shutterbug will apologize. Please supply diffs and I will give you my opinion, if you want it. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits were identified as vandalism in the following edit summaries: [1], [2], [3], [4] --Krsont 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now what? Shutterbug 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is easy. Shutterbug, when using Twinkle, don't hit the red link. If you revert, use the blue rollback link. That provides an edit summary that doesn't use the V word. The edits definitely weren't vandalism. To avoid violating the article probation, please don't do any more reverts like these. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Vandalism involves massive blanking, or inserting rude words like "POOP" in the middle of a sentence. Is that clear? I suggest you apologize. For content disputes, head to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For this, I recommend a simple process like mediation or WP:3O to begin. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, vandalism might sound too strong, but he is trying to do changes with no grounding in Wikipedia policy, confuses readers who rely on WP integrity and on top of all is know-best about it. It's not AGF either, isn't it. Shutterbug 05:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then step back and let him do it. If he does something wrong, you can always ask an administrator for help and say, "I don't want to edit war, so can you help me." That usually gets an excellent response! Next time you can go to the administrator below who just blocked the both of you. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there, Shutterbug

Oh, gosh Shutterbug I'm sorry. I created an adoption page for one of my adoptees in your userspace (your names looked similar, but wow, that was stupid). I've marked it with {{db-author}} and blanked the page, so an admin should come along and delete it soon. Again, I'm so sorry, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the problem here. So you mixed me up with "Shmooshkums", ok. Shutterbug 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD on article

If anyone is interested the article Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. If you have time and are inclined, please read the article and vote.S. M. Sullivan 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Block for breach of article probation

I have blocked both you and Krsont for 24 hours for disruptive reverting on Template:ScientologySeries under the article probation rules. Each of you has three reverts in a short space of time, has previously been involved in revert warring, and should know better. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you can fill me in what the "breach of the article probation rules" exactly is. The article probation page does not list rules nor anything to breach. Feels extremely arbitrary. Please fill me in, Sam Blacketer. Shutterbug 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Sam is watching, but the relevant "code" is "Editors of such articles should be ESPECIALLY mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, etc. and interaction policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT." I strongly advise you to join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and never revert more than once. This will keep you out of trouble in many situations. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the code exist in writing somewhere? Shutterbug 01:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article probation - Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found your quote but what is the difference between an article not under "article probation" and an article which is under article probation? Shutterbug 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I like wikipediatrix android cats edits to my intro

The fact that Scientology argues that most of the controversy is past hystory is enoght and consise for the intro. Sorry but I have to side with him. Please stay out of trouble. Bravehartbear 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I get what you say, but please repeat, you come across a bit garbled right now. Shutterbug 04:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that you should soften up. Use ARC. I'm reaching a compromise with Android cat. Your mind set should be about educating not arguing or fighting. You are doing ARC breaks and that doesn't help. Don't use harsh words. It seems to me that you are very young or vey new to Scientology. Try to emulate JustAnother endless patience. Bravehartbear 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tracking. Patience is not exactly one of my characteristics. And I am not convinced that some guys put in known falsehoods just "by accident" or that they "accidentally" behave like paid PR agents. Well, maybe I'll check out the harmonious editing club once more. Shutterbug 06:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you are suposed to be a Scientologist, act like it. That means taking full responsability for others too. Bravehartbear 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Shutterbug formerly User:COFS heads up

Your recent edits to L. Ron Hubbard appear to be exactly what the arbcom was threating a 30 block for. Though I still think that 30 days would be excessive, I did post a notice about your recent NPOV errors. Anynobody 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Predictable reaction. Shutterbug 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you should apologise to android cat for your temper. Bravehartbear 06:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I see the "harsh words" point. Shutterbug 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This genuinely made me laugh out loud, I have no desire to scratch your eyes out... I wouldn't have expected you to have such a desire, but thanks for the reassurance that you don't even though nobody mentioned eye trauma ;) or even better |) Anynobody 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to entertain you. Shutterbug 07:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Shutterbug reported by User:Anynobody (Result: )

I really wish another editor was also active at this time in order to report this, since I don't want you to think I'm targeting you. However your past blocks for WP:3RR mistakes should have made you back off from reverting new sourced content you don't happen to agree with, which means you could have avoided this by not reverting. Anynobody 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are targeting me. I see that you are exclusively add negative content to Scientology articles and that makes your agenda obvious. Shutterbug 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been banned from editing scientology-related articles

You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation. Please see my post here. Note that a ban is not a block: I have not blocked you, or done anything else technical. It's your own responsibility to respect the ban and refrain from editing those pages. If you should edit them, the ban will be enforced with blocks. I'm not sure yet if the specific talkpage ban is going to stick, but unless and until it's revoked by an arbitrator, please respect it. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

How do I find out about the last bit? Shutterbug 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm this is awkward, I'm sorry Bishonen hasn't replied to you. If it makes you feel better, she didn't respond on my page when I asked a reasonable question like yours following an announcement. Unless you want to pursue your question further with Bishonen just keep the enforcement board on your watchlist as long as the case is listed. Assuming it gets archived with nothing else being said then there are two options, 1) You could request an arbitrator revoke it on the enforcement board or 2) assume someone will let you know like they did when the case ended. Anynobody 04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick point about POV and me

This is a perfect example of citing a source I know to be wrong, which just so happens to be Time magazine:V-22 Osprey:A Flying Shame. This article is more or less bullshit, but because Time is a WP:RS I cited it in the V-22 Osprey article. Putting aside personal feelings makes the article neutral as Wikipedia defines it, sources without commentary by us. Anynobody 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know I am opposed to citing bullshit, even if uttered by "an authority" (the equivalent of "RS" in real life). So we will meet again then. Shutterbug 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

come out and play

Don't know if you saw that, but I feel your checkuser request is being sabotaged (aka ignored). Misou 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Shutterbug 18:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: 3 days. Bishonen banned you from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days beginning 2 October. You evaded the ban by editing from Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet account confirmed by Checkuser. So you are blocked for 3 days, and your ban on editing Scientology-related articles is extended to 30 days from today. You may make comments and suggestions on the talk pages, and use the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as RFC and Third Opinion, should you have any disagreements with other editors. Thatcher131 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking and modification of the probation

Both Maksoshack and Misou have asked to be unblocked, as apparently there was an earlier acceptance of a claim that they were different people, although editing from a shared IP address. The problem with editing from a shared IP address (see checkuser) is that it is impossible for us to tell if multiple accounts with similar interests are really separate people or not. When one account edits disruptively, another account could be a different person who behaves more reasonably, or it could be a calculated good cop/bad cop strategy by one person, or two people coordinating their efforts, both of which are not allowed. Likewise, if one editor is blocked or banned, it is impossible to tell whether the other accounts are being used to circumvent the block or ban, either by one person using multiple accounts (sock puppets), or through multiple people coordinating their edits (sometimes called meat-puppetry). The alternative to blocking all but one account is to apply the same remedies, blocks and bans to all the accounts, which is consistent with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. If one account edits disruptively and is banned or blocked, the same ban or block will apply to all the accounts. It appears that CSI LA (talk · contribs) and Grrrilla (talk · contribs) are inactive for the time being, so this notice applies to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs) and Makoshack (talk · contribs). All for one and one for all. If one of you is blocked or banned for any reason, that block or ban will be applied to all of you. For the time being, Shutterbug is banned from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days from October 2, so that topic ban applies to Makoshack and Misou as well. You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments. I will withdraw the 30-day extension of the topic ban, since you were not previously notified that bans applied to one apply to all. I hope this works out, and you should also be on notice that if there are repeated violations someone will eventually decide to stop accepting the shared account explanation. Good luck. Thatcher131 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Please feel free to contribute positive assessments of Hubbard's personality by public Scientologists, Freezoners, and non-Scientologists to the draft section at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox. As I read Thatcher131's statement, "You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments.", you are welcome to do so though if you have any doubts you might want to clarify first. --Justanother 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)