User talk:SkepticAnonymous

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Uri Geller, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathonius (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want.

RE: Edits to List of people from Missouri

While I appreciate you fixing the linking error between Tom Egan the baseball player and Thomas Egan the gangster, I must ask that you please not use the list as a forum to express a political opinion or use improper humor as happend with your subsequent move of Rush Limbaugh to the Criminals subcategory. While indeed he is a convicted felon, he is best-known for his work as a broadcaster and political commentator. Thanks again for the Egan fix. Sector001 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hey, SkepticAnonymous, I came across your comment on Forward (generic name of socialist publications) while looking at the Recent Changes page. I'm not sure how serious you were about speedy deletion, but purely for future reference: you can request a page be speedily deleted my marking it with {{db-(rationale)}}, where you replace (rationale) with the letter and number of the relevant speedy deletion criterion. So, if I wanted to mark a page to be deleted as a copyright infringement (which is criterion G12), I would put {{db-g12}} in a new line at the top of the page. Some criteria, like A7 (non-notable), have subheaders; you could write {{db-person}} or {{db-corp}} instead of {{db-a7}} to flag articles about non-notable people and corporations, respectively. (In case you were wondering, because it bothered me for a long time, "db" here stands for "delete because").

Anyhoo, the Forward article doesn't really meet any of the CSD criteria, which are generally pretty strictly-interpreted. You did the right thing by PRODding it. Thanks! And go ahead and ignore this if I'm tellng you stuff you already know :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA violation

This comment is completely unacceptable in real life, and a policy violation on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia's "No personal attacks" policy. If you're open to advice, I recommend you apologize and remove or edit your remark. Thank you for your time and consideration. Tomer ^talk 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I fix a page where someone didn't sign their comment? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can add {{subst:unsigned|user name or IP}} to the end of their comment, filling it in with their username or IP. For other unsigned templates, see here. :) ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Forward. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Syrthiss (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are WP:SPA sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to User:Syrthiss to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Additionally: the IP VANDALISM on the page is continuing unabated: [1]. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: My [2] request for page protection was finally answered. You can see that all I was doing was reverting vandalism by WP:SPA sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets. Again, it was NEVER my intention to disrupt Wikipedia. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic, a few things: first, your unblock request as it is written is not likely to be accepted; you talk about what other people are doing, but you don't acknowledge that you yourself were in the wrong. I appreciate that you may not have known the rules about edit-warring, but you do have to acknowledge that what you were doing is wrong, and that you'll refrain from doing it again.

Second, these edits you're reverting, at least from what I've seen, are not vandalism. Vandalism is a charged word around here, and you need to be careful about the way you use it. Those edits could easily be made in good faith, and so they're not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st - I did not know about any rule regarding number of reverts in a day, but I won't do it again if that is what you are asking for.

2nd - I fully disagree with your assessment of the situation; this vandalism - and it is that - is a result of a group of people trying to politically charge wikipedia and deliberately break WP:NPOV. This is a full attack by IP-based sockpuppets who began creating fake, single-purpose accounts, and that is what I was reverting. Next time, I will not be so fast on reverting but I WILL be much quicker in reporting the vandal behavior via the channels I have now learned about. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing is not the same as vandalism. It's not acceptable for Wikipedia, but that does not make it vandalism. The distinction is important. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive re-addition of unsourced content via sockpuppets isn't vandalism? I find that very hard to swallow. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is not. As I said, it's not acceptable, but it's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? stuff like this isn't vandalism? If not then what is? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That specific instance is, yes. The stuff that Prozacstan and Babydoc were doing, just adding the link to the article, was not. Syrthiss (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That might be. These certainly are not, and yet you label them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET. I WOULD LOVE TO ADD THIS TO MY CHECKUSER REQUEST BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE OF ABUSE BY EDGAR181. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK EVEN MORE SOCKPUPPET! SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rd - I also must object to the timing of this block, which seems deliberately designed to keep me from responding directly to comments and questions. I was halfway through editing a comment to Syrthiss asking for direction and advice, and now cannot speak regarding this; I note that the admin who blocked me ALSO removed half the content of my request on that page which I find very suspicious. I am trying to assume good faith but being unable to respond makes that quite difficult and feels very much like deliberate harassment. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also must note that the admin who blocked me, Edgar181, has not even had the common decency to respond here on my talk page. So, I'm still waiting. As far as I can tell, his block was designed merely to harass me for filing a report on the vandalism in the first place, which I find very laughable since I was dealing with a nasty infestation of IP and SPA-based vandalism. If I've learned ONE thing from this, it's that bothering to report anything or keep Wikipedia clean of vandalism isn't worth the effort since all that'll happen is I'll get some rude person like him attacking me. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hello! I noticed you reported some accounts on WP:AIV. Please see Wikipedia:CheckUser if you want to file a checkuser report. Arcandam (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arcandam - THANKS BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE YOUR BUDDY BLOCKED ME APPARENTLY TO SHOW ME IT IS WORTHLESS TO BOTHER REPORTING VANDALISM. Plus, I had ALREADY FILED a sockpuppet report on this kind of IP and SPA garbage, which your buddy cheerfully ignored just as he can't even have the common decency to respond to me here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse.
Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Wikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

Ok so - currently blocked, admin won't even TALK or come here, no way to signal, no way to discuss and respond to questions, and of course no way to add information to an ongoing checkuser request thanks to this ill-timed and harassive-by-nature block that I can only assume is Edgar181's way of telling me "go away and stop reporting things peon." SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET. I WOULD LOVE TO ADD THIS TO MY CHECKUSER REQUEST BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE OF ABUSE BY EDGAR181. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC) HEY LOOK EVEN MORE SOCKPUPPET! SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to give you some advice? Arcandam (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you want. I've learned my "lesson" from this, don't even bother trying to keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism, all you'll get is some rude person coming in to attack you merely for reporting sockpuppetry and IP vandalism. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add TreyAU21 to the SPI. However, Edgar181 was clearly in the right and shouting admin abuse will likely cause you to remain blocked and have your ability to edit this page taken away for the remainder of the block. 3RR is a bright-line offense - you do not need to be warned prior to blocking, tho you IMO certainly should be. For you - because of the timing between when I warned you for 3RR, and the block by Edgar181, all it will take for me to advise for your unblock is for you to recognize and state that (1) you will not edit-war again and (2) understand that vandalism is not the same as biased edits. Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am too lazy to read what happened but I can give some general advice. In general it is a good idea when blocked calm down and to be polite (please don't use capslock). If the reason for the block is editwarring and you mention in your unblockrequest that you've read WP:3RR & WP:EW and that you understand what you did wrong and promise to stop editwarring it is likely that the block will be lifted. Arcandam (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Flying off the handle like this will only get your talk-page access revoked and/or blocked indefinitely. The appropriate way to respond to a block is to look at what you did wrong, learn from it, apologize, and move forward. You have instead decided to make unfounded accusations of attacks and abuse and generally just carried on maintaining a "me-vs-the-world" attitude. That way madness lies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that I will not edit war again if you bothered to even read above. Your description of "vandalism" is clearly lacking but I will abide by it. I still consider the behavior by Edgar181 abusive, rude, and designed only to harass me for having the temerity to report - it is clear that just like Writ Keeper, he is TOO LAZY TO READ and just decided to take a "screw it, beat them all up for waking me up" approach more suitable to someone I would call a BULLY. I am NOT likely to forget now that this is how you admins behave toward us peons. How much more or who else's ass do I have to kiss? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK you won't have to kiss anyone's rear end, just file an unblockrequest. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks first and be polite. Arcandam (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already FILED an unblock request. Instead of an actual response, I have people harassing me over it. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUST TO BE CLEAR: Blocks Should Not Be Punitive. Edgar181's was not only abusive but CLEARLY designed to be punitive towards me for reporting the vandalism and IP/SPA sockpuppetry that is CLEARLY going on. That is how I see it and at this point being attacked by others just shows it to me even more. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH. Arcandam (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar's block was intended to prevent you from continuing the edit war. Wasn't punitive. And, hey, it worked. Who here is attacking you? I'm trying to help you. If you don't want to listen, that's cool, I guess, but don't think I'm attacking you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. By the time he blocked me, I was already asking for advice and help regarding the situation. Less than a few seconds went between Syrthiss "warning" me and Edgar181 making an abusive, punitive jerk of himself. Meanwhile, I was in the middle of writing on 3 pages, all edits of which were lost due to this punitive, unnecessary BULLYING BULLSHIT. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK YET ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET! I WOULD LOVE TO REPORT IT BUT I CAN'T THANKS TO EDGAR181 BEING A BULLY! SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you asked for help, but you also didn't stop edit warring after asking; you continued to do it without waiting for a response. It needed to stop, so it was stopped. This is what happens when people edit war. Had you stopped edit-warring when you asked for help, then you probably wouldn't have been blocked. I'm sorry that you perceive it as bullying, but that's not what's going on here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing Edgar181. Calm down a bit. If you want me to I can take a look at his edits after you've been unblocked. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it is fairer to a blocked user for an uninvolved administrator to handle an unblock request rather than the administrator that applied the block. That's why I hadn't immediately responded. I became involved in this when handling a report at WP:AIV. SkepticAnonymous reported two users for their edits at Forward. It was my judgement that the edits to that article were the result of an ongoing content dispute rather than vandalism. Because of the edit warring at that article, I blocked User:Prozacstan and SkepticAnonymous for 24 hours each. The other editor reported, User:BabyDoc23, was not vandalizing or edit warring so I did not take any action against that editor. I think my actions were reasonable and well within the standard administrative practice in this type of situation. The claims that my actions were "designed merely to harass", etc. are clearly unfounded. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkepticAnonymous is probably new here, and not aware of the standard administrative practice. Arcandam (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we're not dealing with sockpuppets here; rather, I imagine there's a chat board or forum somewhere promoting this change. Currently the page is semi-protected. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words Edgar181 - you were too lazy to talk to me to inform me of your analysis. You were too lazy to look at my attempts to deal with the situation otherwise, including filing a sockpuppet report. You were too lazy to do so much as say "hey, I understand you believe you are undoing vandalism but I see it as a content dispute instead." You were too lazy to, in other words, behave with some common decency and instead decided to just start right in being a bully going after someone who was dealing with an incredibly large amount of misbehavior by a horde of IP and SPA sockpuppets or meatpuppets making bad edits that violated NPOV and in some cases BLP policy. I don't think your actions were remotely reasonable and I still say your behavior is bullying, you couldn't even have the common decency to talk to me or even have the common decency to let me see Syrthiss's warning before you went after me. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET. NOT THAT I CAN REPORT IT OR ANYTHING. APPARENTLY I HAVEN'T KISSED ENOUGH ASS TO THE BULLIES YET. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to add the further sockpuppets to the SOCKPUPPET INVESTIGATION PAGE BUUUTT thanks to the bullying by Edgar181 I can't do that. And this is a "not punitive" block designed to keep me from "disrupting wikipedia"? BULLSHIT. THIS BLOCK IS PUNITIVE BULLYING NOTHING MORE. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty clear by now that you're not going to listen to anything we say. Guess I'm done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. You're the worthless bully grabbing someone's arm and playing the "stop hitting yourself" routine. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY LOOK ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS AT ME. This ought to get put on the sockpuppet investigation page. Not that any of you bullies care, you're more invested in punishing me for daring to speak up and report vandalism, sockpuppetry, and WP:BLP violations. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]