User talk:Shponglefan

December 2012

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

You shouldn't be using an alternative acount to edit wikipedia - especially when the message and tone you are espousing is reminicient of an indefinately blocked user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shponglefan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. I registered originally to specifically to comment on the UFC page deletions. I think it's sad you immediately jumped to this conclusion and simply ban people indiscrimately. More proof of the ongoing problems with Wikipedia I suppose.

Decline reason:

I note your comment re googling as stated in your other unblock request, and find it unconvincing. Even if you were to google to obtain wikipedia information, which is certainly possible, that would not give you the obvious background knowledge which you first edits demonstrate.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

if you are nkt a sock, please can you advise how you know about deletionists and composite articles in your first 4 posts. Please advise what previous accounts you have held. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shponglefan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said in my email, I googled it. It's not like this is some big Wikipedia secret; there's a lot written about Wikipedia's problems. I was surprised to learn it's such an issue.

Decline reason:

Per comment below; please only one request open at a time. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BTW, I think that the norm is that you should have one unblock request at a time. Please consider merging these. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shponglefan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Once again, the information of which you speak is not a secret. It's common knowledge to anyone who takes 15 minutes to run a Google search and see the problems Wikipedia has with deletions of articles. That's why I made an account and posted. The fact that it's similar to whoever previously posted clearly shows this is a bigger issue; but rather than deal with the deletions which are ticking people off, you'd rather ban accounts. And I find it incredible that your "system" allows people to arbitrarily ban accounts with no actual evidence whatsoever. I would think that at least you guys would compare IP addresses of the accounts in question; unless there is an extreme coincidence, I'd bet the other account which you are referring to is probably not even from the same country. But maybe that's too much work for you guys? Regardless, the Wikipedia system you guys have is clearly very, very broken if this is how you respond to criticisms of deleted articles.

Decline reason:

Basically what Anthony and Spartaz have said. You appear to be either the same person who has "come to complain" or working on their behalf. At any rate, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Some interesting reading for any admin reviewing this unblock.

We have recently had intensified issues with sockpuppetry and mearpuppetry from MMA fans. This includes off-site canvassing, Spurious DRVs from clearly knowledgeable users who claim to be complete noobs [1], Socking at AFDs using the term deletionist in a derogatory way [2], & confirmed sockpuppetry [3] through both checkuser and duck tests. There was also an epic ANI thread that led to sanctions in the MMA area.

From their edits its clear that this user is either a sock of someome MMA related who has got banned or someone who has come to wikipedia on the back of a canvassing thread that encourages the use of the term deletionist and also attack the concept of omnibus articles. Per policy when you cannot distinguise between two users by behavior you treat them as the same person so - pretty much - its an open and shut case and based on the extreme disruption to the project we should not offer the benefit of any doubt. I'd be very interested in any comments Shponglefan might offer on this commentry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "deletionism" and omnibus articles are not secrets. It's common knowledge and a common complaint of anyone who has been paying attention to and reading up on the problems with UFC articles being deleted. I also think it's ridiculous that you have zero evidence of me being a sockpuppet other than similarity of complaints--which again, should be no surprise given that a lot of people have an issue with the way UFC articles are being handled. And yet somehow that's enough on Wikipedia to ban accounts? That's just insane, but given this is my first taste of wiki-politics, I guess not that surprising. And like I said, I would *think* you'd use IP addresses to at least try to check if an account is a sockpuppet or not. But maybe you didn't think of that.

Regardless, I don't really care that much about my account being unblocked since I primarily registered to complain about the deletion of UFC articles. But I think it's hilarious you've created this conspiracy out of the whole thing. Shponglefan 23:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can be spoofed as can location so running a checkuser isn't a magic bullet. Functionally, if your idea of contribution is to attack other users in a derogatory way, then we don't need your contribution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]