User talk:SCZenz/Archive7

Stanfordandson
Don't worry, I look at plenty of unblock requests and tend only to unblock without discussion collateral damage type requests. His block looks fine to me. --pgk( talk ) 11:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image:331133210_l.jpg
Thanks for the heads up. I restored the nsd tag. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Daloonik
Please do not violate the "no personal attack" rule by looking at all my reverted edits, deciding that they're vandalism, and threatening me with a wikipedia block. Daloonik 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, please see my latest message to Daloonik on his talk page. I propose another short block after his latest reversions, to give him time to carefully consider his future options. Thanks, Crum375 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Neary
PaPa 23:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your prompt help. I was confused about disambiguation!!

Administrator abuse
Please be aware that I am currently preparing a request for arbitration case concerning your recent administrator abuse. It should be up within an hour. Stanfor d andson 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if you think someone is trolling, you should show more care not to abuse your powers. You had a content issue with him. His addition was not nonsense by any stretch of the imagination, even if you do not feel it was reasonable to add it. Of course, you will be backed up by the usual crowd of rouge admins but you should be aware that ordinary users feel that admins who are willing to block people on tenuous grounds ride roughshod not only over other users but over the Wikipedia ethos.

Basically, you ought to show patience. If someone is yanking your chain by adding material that you think is nonsense, try not to respond by doing the wrong thing (which this was, regardless that you can find others who agree with your action). Patience and a lack of action are by far the best means to win against trolls, unless you have a particular love of drama. Happy editing. Grace Note 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked carefully at his edits. I don't disagree with your assessment of him and I'm not trying to be ultracritical of you. I made the same assessment about five minutes after he turned up. Check out his talkpage. I'm simply noting that you have to take care not to be embroiled in a ton of bullshit by doing the wrong thing, particularly not over something that can, rightly or wrongly, be characterised as a content issue. I wouldn't have bothered making any comment to you if I didn't feel you were a sound guy who would heed a bit of well-meant advice. I think you were absolutely right when you suggested that he's seeking to entangle someone in something like this. I'm suggesting that you shouldn't indulge him. He'll get himself hardbanned sooner or later; well, basically, as soon as someone has the balls to do it. 203.206.96.136 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone has the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia, you're wasting your time blocking them for "vandalism" or posting "nonsense", particularly when they have vandalised nothing and posted nothing that could fairly be described as "nonsense". You simply allow yourself to be outmanoeuvred by a troll and get yourself embroiled in a long battle. Even if you're sure to win it, it's a waste of your time and effort. I wrote this about it: "A dual problem is that too many behaviour cases are decided arbitrarily and that too many are not! It's usually plain to see who's being a fuckhead. We don't need to subject some of our number to a mindnumbing three-month-long parade of bullshit to work it out." Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying you called it wrongly. The problem is, of course, if you block the guy indefinitely, he'll be back with a new username. You can't win. You can only lose if you spend hours and hours dealing with it. If I were an admin, I'd have already blocked him indefinitely and let someone else worry about him when he resurfaces. Grace Note 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for sorting out my user page. Oliver.Shepherd 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka essay
He put it up for CSD and I deleted it under U1 and closed the MfD. Yet he's added the essay in question to his user page:  Is there proof that it is as inflammatory as the IP suggests? I'm going to ask User:Crzrussian for an opinion as I think he is knowledgeable of Hebrew -- Samir  धर्म 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

 * Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I notice you're in nuclear physics? Any chance I can persuade you to find me a reasonable "common sense"-compatible explanation of Hawking radiation sometime? I've asked on the talkpage and still don't get it. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots
Hello, I noticed that you were responsible for blocking the robot User:Bot-maru, and thought you might be able to help with a more recent situation with its user, User:Marudubshinki. He has been running bots through his regular user account, and recieves frequent complaints about its errors. His response to these complaints is in general quite callous, and he continues to make automated edits with this user account.

My first complaint can be seen at User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 49 under "Your - the the + the bot". Current complaints can be seen at User talk:Marudubshinki under: "Please stop fixing my double redirect", "Removing whitespace ...", "Robot removing selflinks", "Bot removing self-links is causing grief", "External link bot".

Is there anything you can do about this, as an admin? - Rainwarrior 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Black hole electron
My User page has been updated, you may have some interest in this. DonJStevens 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-deletion of article
About your decision to not delete Toronto Police tortured Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, Iranian Senior Fighte Pilot, can you please check the delete log for article created by the author User:Nourhaghighi? I think you will find that he has created many similar articles that have been speedy deleted. He's been doing this for quite awhile now. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The article has been deleted. -- Gogo Dodo 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I understand your position.  The situation was rather frustrating and I did use the wrong speedy delete reason.  I probably should have used  as that article's contents seemed familiar as I vaguely remember reading it before.  But the editor was using multiple long article names, so I couldn't remember where I had seen it before. -- Gogo Dodo 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
Thanks for mentioning that to me. I replied on my talk page, and have just posted some detailed diffing for a user of Crossmr's choice in the relevant section of AN/I. -Splash - tk 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Really?????????????????????????????
Thanks for telling me that! I had no idea! Thanks for helping! Tchadienne 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this your way of telling me that your request on ANI is spurious? Why are you asking for administrative intervention if you know it's not our job? -- SCZenz 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do know who that is, don't you, SC? (I know, comment on the contributor and not the content. Or vice versa :-)) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't, but I do now. Very interesting indeed. Thanks! -- SCZenz 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant handling
Some thoughts, since you ask. Most of this centers around the idea that large-scale coordinated vandalism attempts won't be a passing fad, and Wikipedia should have a way to cope that's "scripted" (e.g. 100 admins aren't running around "inventing" solutions). These are just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts, but the biggie is this: we responded by flailing, and I think many people who didn't know about Wikipedia, and would have become contributors, now have a bad taste in their mouths from reading the flames and disputes over what to do (and in some cases from being blocked indef. for a stupid, but relatively harmless bit of vandalism which many first-time contributors are guilty of). -Harmil 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No one should be blocked indef. after a single (or no) warning.
 * 2) We need a tag that can be placed on the article page that says, in effect, "such and so source has initiated a large-scale vandalism effort which involves content on this page, see the appropriate policy for more information. Vandalism will be removed."
 * 3) The affected pages should be protected during the primary period of vandalism, but should be unlocked ASAP.
 * 4) An article (on meta?) should be created to track the issue
 * 5) All comments on the talk page relating to the situation should be moved to the talk page for the incident's article so that the main namespace article talk-pages can be used to discuss improving the article without distraction.
 * 6) The tag for the article page should be somewhat generic (perhaps in a special div), so that down-stream sites know that a certain types of tags should be removed, as they relate only to Wikipedia-specific issues.
 * I've taken the liberty of numbering your points so I can respond to each. My general point is that existing policy, procedure, and custom already allow us to handle the situation.  These procedures partially worked (completely so, after a day or two of intense bedlam), and in some cases the problems are due to existing policies not being handled.
 * Obvious sleeper and vandalism-only accounts, I think, can be blocked without warning. Some of the users you list on your page fit that description; others do not, and I would not have indef blocked them.  It was, in fact, a violation of policy to block some of those accounts, and the appropriate response is to talk to the blocking admin about it.
 * These tags exist for the talk page. A comment can also be written into the article page.  But there is broad consensus that non-encyclopedaic content on article pages should be absolutely minimized as much as possible; putting up an ad for the Colbert Report or Slashdot when they cause us grief seems unnecessary to me.
 * That is precisely what happened. The protections have been downgraded, and it is my intention to start unprotecting the less-visible cases soon.
 * I think this is best done on WP:AN or similar pages, so all admins can be aware of the discussion. A separate page could be created if it were useful, I suppose; the best place for it would be WP space, not meta.
 * This is implemented on a case-by-case basis, and can be done by anyone. It became necessary on Talk:Elephant, so I did it; in other cases, it does not seem necessary.
 * We handle large-scale vandalism all the time; we don't need special instructions just because it's coordinated. All that being said, I did miss the initial flurry of activity on this issue; I'm sure it was worse than when I got to it, but I think following existing policy is still sufficient. -- SCZenz 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WAnted to respond last night, but was at a weekly game. Let me just consolidate my answer, since I fear the point-by-point thing will miss the core ideas, and focus overly on the details of a (potentially flawed) single suggested solution.


 * Over the course of three nights, dozens of admins did their own thing, many working at cross-purposes, to resolve this issue. I'm proposing that that confusion begs for some sort of review and codification. Moving Elephant to Elephant/development, and thus blanking the history on Elephant; blocking users with no warning; and many other actions (some quite reasonable, some not) should all be taken into account, and the NEXT time, there shouldn't be quite the same amount of flailing.


 * Now, I know large-scale vandalism happens. The last time I *recall* was the last wave of GNAA vandalism surronding the old VfD process. In both that case and this one, I think that a talk-page tag is vastly insufficient, but even then the tags used today don't tell admins what steps would be most effective (even just as a guideline), they don't propose any mechanism for preserving the sanity of the talk page, they don't give people any sense of what the scope of the vandalism is (it would have been nice for non-admins like me who were reverting vandalism to know what pages to put on our watchlists), etc. All of this really begs for a special ARTICLE-page template (because you want users who will never see the talk page to understand that the admins are on it) with three links: one to the policy; one to the article page that describes the activity; and one to the talk page where admins and normal users can freely discuss the activity (which is not appropriate for any normal article's talk page). How all of that happens, and what the details are, I'm not going to be fussy about, but until that happens, large-scale vandalism will continue to disrupt pages like Elephant, IMHO. -Harmil 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving the Elephant article was exceedingly irregular. It is kind of hard to make a policy that predicts admins doing unusual things in tense situations without discussing them first.
 * I suppose if the page is protected, we could include some mention of the issue being due to a high-traffic site and how this is (roughly) dealt with in a special version of /. In fact, I suspect something like this may exist already.
 * One problem with new templates and new policies is getting the word out. I suspect that somewhere there is already good advice on dealing with this situation, but not everyone had read it.  (My actions, for example, were mostly based on the custom I had seen and on common senes.)  It is not clear to me that adding more good advice elsewhere would improve things&mdash;yes, you can add info to the template, but you still need someone to show up who knows the template exists.
 * That being said, I have no problem with enhancing the availability of existing policy and sensible advice on dealing with these episodes; if your major issue is a lack of coordinated response, I suspect that will likely address things. -- SCZenz 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll work on writing up an advice page on handling these things; I think most of your issues can be handled by referencing the right parts of exiting policy, and it's just a matter of putting it together. I'll let you know when I've got it started. -- SCZenz 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Making it a special version of the sprotect/vprotect templates makes a lot of sense. Clearly the first n people to respond are going to be oblivious to the location of the fire escapes (if I can muddy my metaphors), but if there's a clear plan (maybe not even a strict policy, then the people who come in with level heads will all have roughly the same game plan to point to. Your advice page is a great idea. Let me know if I can help.


 * PS: My user page was vandalized, so I hope you didn't assume that that was my comment about Colbert's joke being "very funny". -Harmil 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete useful, appropriate templates without discussion
The template you deleted was perfectly acceptable, as per 'Jimmy' and his recent repeated use of the deletion reason 'human dignity'. Also, you messed up an official policy page as well as the Village Pump, where the template was being discussed, with your wanton and reckless action. Please be more careful in the future. Red Baboons 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to discuss this, or just continue vandalizing Wikipedia? Red Baboons  23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN/I. -- SCZenz 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
Thanks for mentioning that to me. I replied on my talk page, and have just posted some detailed diffing for a user of Crossmr's choice in the relevant section of AN/I. -Splash - tk 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Really?????????????????????????????
Thanks for telling me that! I had no idea! Thanks for helping! Tchadienne 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this your way of telling me that your request on ANI is spurious? Why are you asking for administrative intervention if you know it's not our job? -- SCZenz 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do know who that is, don't you, SC? (I know, comment on the contributor and not the content. Or vice versa :-)) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't, but I do now. Very interesting indeed. Thanks! -- SCZenz 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant handling
Some thoughts, since you ask. Most of this centers around the idea that large-scale coordinated vandalism attempts won't be a passing fad, and Wikipedia should have a way to cope that's "scripted" (e.g. 100 admins aren't running around "inventing" solutions). These are just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts, but the biggie is this: we responded by flailing, and I think many people who didn't know about Wikipedia, and would have become contributors, now have a bad taste in their mouths from reading the flames and disputes over what to do (and in some cases from being blocked indef. for a stupid, but relatively harmless bit of vandalism which many first-time contributors are guilty of). -Harmil 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No one should be blocked indef. after a single (or no) warning.
 * 2) We need a tag that can be placed on the article page that says, in effect, "such and so source has initiated a large-scale vandalism effort which involves content on this page, see the appropriate policy for more information. Vandalism will be removed."
 * 3) The affected pages should be protected during the primary period of vandalism, but should be unlocked ASAP.
 * 4) An article (on meta?) should be created to track the issue
 * 5) All comments on the talk page relating to the situation should be moved to the talk page for the incident's article so that the main namespace article talk-pages can be used to discuss improving the article without distraction.
 * 6) The tag for the article page should be somewhat generic (perhaps in a special div), so that down-stream sites know that a certain types of tags should be removed, as they relate only to Wikipedia-specific issues.
 * I've taken the liberty of numbering your points so I can respond to each. My general point is that existing policy, procedure, and custom already allow us to handle the situation.  These procedures partially worked (completely so, after a day or two of intense bedlam), and in some cases the problems are due to existing policies not being handled.
 * Obvious sleeper and vandalism-only accounts, I think, can be blocked without warning. Some of the users you list on your page fit that description; others do not, and I would not have indef blocked them.  It was, in fact, a violation of policy to block some of those accounts, and the appropriate response is to talk to the blocking admin about it.
 * These tags exist for the talk page. A comment can also be written into the article page.  But there is broad consensus that non-encyclopedaic content on article pages should be absolutely minimized as much as possible; putting up an ad for the Colbert Report or Slashdot when they cause us grief seems unnecessary to me.
 * That is precisely what happened. The protections have been downgraded, and it is my intention to start unprotecting the less-visible cases soon.
 * I think this is best done on WP:AN or similar pages, so all admins can be aware of the discussion. A separate page could be created if it were useful, I suppose; the best place for it would be WP space, not meta.
 * This is implemented on a case-by-case basis, and can be done by anyone. It became necessary on Talk:Elephant, so I did it; in other cases, it does not seem necessary.
 * We handle large-scale vandalism all the time; we don't need special instructions just because it's coordinated. All that being said, I did miss the initial flurry of activity on this issue; I'm sure it was worse than when I got to it, but I think following existing policy is still sufficient. -- SCZenz 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WAnted to respond last night, but was at a weekly game. Let me just consolidate my answer, since I fear the point-by-point thing will miss the core ideas, and focus overly on the details of a (potentially flawed) single suggested solution.


 * Over the course of three nights, dozens of admins did their own thing, many working at cross-purposes, to resolve this issue. I'm proposing that that confusion begs for some sort of review and codification. Moving Elephant to Elephant/development, and thus blanking the history on Elephant; blocking users with no warning; and many other actions (some quite reasonable, some not) should all be taken into account, and the NEXT time, there shouldn't be quite the same amount of flailing.


 * Now, I know large-scale vandalism happens. The last time I *recall* was the last wave of GNAA vandalism surronding the old VfD process. In both that case and this one, I think that a talk-page tag is vastly insufficient, but even then the tags used today don't tell admins what steps would be most effective (even just as a guideline), they don't propose any mechanism for preserving the sanity of the talk page, they don't give people any sense of what the scope of the vandalism is (it would have been nice for non-admins like me who were reverting vandalism to know what pages to put on our watchlists), etc. All of this really begs for a special ARTICLE-page template (because you want users who will never see the talk page to understand that the admins are on it) with three links: one to the policy; one to the article page that describes the activity; and one to the talk page where admins and normal users can freely discuss the activity (which is not appropriate for any normal article's talk page). How all of that happens, and what the details are, I'm not going to be fussy about, but until that happens, large-scale vandalism will continue to disrupt pages like Elephant, IMHO. -Harmil 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving the Elephant article was exceedingly irregular. It is kind of hard to make a policy that predicts admins doing unusual things in tense situations without discussing them first.
 * I suppose if the page is protected, we could include some mention of the issue being due to a high-traffic site and how this is (roughly) dealt with in a special version of /. In fact, I suspect something like this may exist already.
 * One problem with new templates and new policies is getting the word out. I suspect that somewhere there is already good advice on dealing with this situation, but not everyone had read it.  (My actions, for example, were mostly based on the custom I had seen and on common senes.)  It is not clear to me that adding more good advice elsewhere would improve things&mdash;yes, you can add info to the template, but you still need someone to show up who knows the template exists.
 * That being said, I have no problem with enhancing the availability of existing policy and sensible advice on dealing with these episodes; if your major issue is a lack of coordinated response, I suspect that will likely address things. -- SCZenz 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll work on writing up an advice page on handling these things; I think most of your issues can be handled by referencing the right parts of exiting policy, and it's just a matter of putting it together. I'll let you know when I've got it started. -- SCZenz 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Making it a special version of the sprotect/vprotect templates makes a lot of sense. Clearly the first n people to respond are going to be oblivious to the location of the fire escapes (if I can muddy my metaphors), but if there's a clear plan (maybe not even a strict policy, then the people who come in with level heads will all have roughly the same game plan to point to. Your advice page is a great idea. Let me know if I can help.


 * PS: My user page was vandalized, so I hope you didn't assume that that was my comment about Colbert's joke being "very funny". -Harmil 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete useful, appropriate templates without discussion
The template you deleted was perfectly acceptable, as per 'Jimmy' and his recent repeated use of the deletion reason 'human dignity'. Also, you messed up an official policy page as well as the Village Pump, where the template was being discussed, with your wanton and reckless action. Please be more careful in the future. Red Baboons 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to discuss this, or just continue vandalizing Wikipedia? Red Baboons  23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN/I. -- SCZenz 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA


Clarification
I noticed that in this edit you say that, among others, "... repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism". Is this current policy? Crum375 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I'm not sure. It's what, which I must confess I didn't reread before using, says.  But we all know that sometimes try to modify policy by modifying templates.  Personally, I think that very blatant and repeated NPOV violations, without discussion, are vandalism; but I'll look into what policy actually says on this when I get the chance. -- SCZenz 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Crum375 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See this in case you missed it. Crum375 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hmm, he was back three days late this month, so much for setting my calendar by it. Thanks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page patrol
I noticed your work on the various accounts that have seen fit to leave their.. feedback, let's call it, on my talk page. Thanks. --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

REAL LIFE THREAT ?
'''Zenz, you don't make zenze ! By the way, I don't know you, have never known you, and don't care anything about you or your work. Your another Wiki-meddler. I've been successful at flushing them out of the woodpile like cockroaches baited with a strong, tantalizing pesticide. Where did you get the idea that anyone was in jeopardy of bodily harm in your reasoning to ban me ? That's an absurd and foul accusation and I've never threatened or been threatened by anyone here, with the exception of banishment because the predjudicial editing tasks of the cronies suffering from compulsive editing disorders have been challenged and they refuse to accept any verification or validity in the matter of the Memphis Musician David Saks in the Memphis Talk forum. Users Jersyko, Dozenist, Vary and Scribner are malicious editors that tag team in the like manner and substance of cronyism. They should have their privileges rescinded like the others that are characteristically swot in nature, especially to newcomers. Has the Stanford Linear Accelerator permeated your mind with a potentially lethal dosage of ionizing radiation ? Seems as though it's spreading diffusely. You bully the newbie like the others. Maybe you should live in Cuba ? I thought Marxism fell in the twentieth century. You live and thrive on animadversion because it makes you feel like your somebody important when in reality your just a crooked cop with a badge, or better yet, dosimeter badge. Your unimportant with your Wiki-copping pseudo-authority and less notable by these dull and officious methods of censure; another nerd on a power trip. Most colleges and universities won't subscribe to this forum because of it's derisory and malicious nature. It amuses me. Might I suggest you join 'Wikipediatric' for children ? Or better yet, steal my idea and start it. I've lost my temper, so please forgive my personal activity that releases and expresses emotion. This is not my customary or usual style of vaporing, but it's beginning to suit me fine. You won't hear from me again. Be careful around the accelerator. A friend of mine died working on the one at Stanford. That's the only real life threat I can think of that you can relate to at the moment. I've corrected some of the typo in this minor edit, so apply your reversionary examination skills and privileges to examine the original content. Believe this: I'm angry !''' No further comments. I've been nice to you this time. I like the penalty box and know how to fight.66.239.212.68 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) aka user Reneec..


 * SCZenz, I saw your post at User talk:Reneec and wanted to encourage you to not remove the indefinite block placed on Reneec. Your comment indicated that you have not looked into the backstory involving Reneec.  Since your block was simply for a legal threat, that is certainly understandable.  I would encourage you, however, to take a look at this: Talk:Memphis, Tennessee and the following subsections.  Nearly all of the anonymous comments in those subsections were made by Reneec, as confirmed by a checkuser request and admitted by Reneec.  Notice that essentially every comment made includes a personal attack (some of them have been removed), or, at the very least, incivility, much like the comment posted above (on your talk page).  I am unaware of any personal attacks made on Reneec; Reneec seems to think that merely questioning whether musician David Saks has reached encyclopedic status is insulting him or Reneec.  You can confirm my comments with User:Vary, User:Saxifrage, User:Dozenist, or User:Scribner if you like.  Finally, I ask that, even if you would prefer not to look into the repetitive personal attacks and incivility (and I wouldn't blame you there), please keep the block in place for the reason it was implemented.  Regardless of whether Reneec meant to merely question whether I was an attorney or had a more insidious motive, the statement was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and was read to be a threat by all the other editors at the talk page I've discussed it with (I'm actually a bar candidate, which was clearly stated on my userpage, among other things, before I deleted all potentially identifying information and had Vary delete my userpage history after Reneec's threat).  Contacting the bar association with questions about my identity as a licensed attorney could, regardless of the nature of the inquiry, cause problems for me, especially since I'm a bar candidate (the standards for bar admission are extremely high).  Thanks for your time. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reneec is using a sockpuppet (User:Boodro) to avoid your block, fyi. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User Jersyko is not telling the truth about user Boodro. A whois verifies the location in Texas. Reneec's whois is in Tennessee. This user, Jersyko, is on a campaign to censure and prevent any evidence supporting the inclusion of Mr.Saks in the article. Jersyko's compulsive editing and deletion of many attempts to validate the notablility of the musicians work demonstrates this fact beyond reasonable doubt. His, in addition to user Vary, Scribner and Dozenist, is a malicious campaign to censure any demonstration of support. Perhaps Jersyko 'should' be concerned about the bar as the University of Memphis has already been identified as his school. Jersyko has contacted the Memphis City Council and the Mayors office regarding the Official Songs of Memphis as noted on the Memphis discussion page. Why shouldn't users Boodro, Reneec or anyone else bother to contact the University of Memphis law school if they're interested in confirming the identity of the editor Jersyko in order to satisfy the claims that this malicious user, Jersyko, is a candidate for the bar exam, since his disparaging remarks are attempting to slur this notable musician? They have that right to conduct a civil inquiry. I see no threat here, other than user Jersyko's paranoia. Users Jersyko and Scribner's repeated calls to the Memphis City Council and Mayor's office have been labeled derisory, incongruous and inviting ridicule by council officials. I wouldn't hire user Jersyko to argue a parking violation. You should remove the block on user Reneec. She'll comply with your request, Mr. Zenz. Please don't be offended by this, as this is just a personal point of privilege, but the name Jersyko is also an acronym for the old expression "Jersey Sicko". I've seen it used in other forums and even on the old Commodore-type bulletin boards in the late eighties and early nineties. User Jersyko's comments have been nothing more than an attempt to charge falsely, bully, and with malicious intent, attack the good name and reputation of this musician and other users because of their effort to support the inclusion of the Official Songs of Memphis in the Memphis, Tennessee article. 65.4.213.68 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * User: Jersyko


 * Jersyko is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement, as Vary, and a sense of invulnerability and untouchability in Wikipedia.
 * Jersyko has a deep-seated contempt of other users, especially new users, in contrast to his or her professed compassion for Wikipedia.
 * Jersyko is a control freak, as user Vary, and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start editing knowledgeably about a topic they oppose - but aggressively maintain the right to edit (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose if it becomes a personal issue against the new user.
 * Jersyko and user Vary despise anyone, especially a new user, who enables another to see through their deception or mask of sanity, such as new user Boodro has done. Jersyko has falsely accused this user of Sockpuppetry.
 * Jersyko displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence.
 * Jersyko shows a lack of joined-up thinking with textual conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water.
 * Jersyko flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you can't get through to him.
 * Jersyko is, perhaps, a loner with few friends and needs a forum like this to bully others as an anon. Reneec made that option more attractive to him as he's removed anything that might clue the new user to his identity. See SCZenz page Official Songs of Memphis Tennessee.
 * Jersyko is beguiling and is always plausible and convincing when peers, cronies, superiors or others are present allowing him to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy.
 * Jersyko is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine text and lots of form - but no substance.
 * Jersyko will attempt to outmanoeuvre new users in verbal textual interaction, especially at times of conflict, giving him the opportunity to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call him to account on a matter.
 * Jersyko is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all.
 * Jersyko appears to gain gratification from denying new users what they are entitled to upon verifiable entry.
 * Jersyko often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray himself as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person in his user talk, in contrast to his behaviour and treatment of new users; Jersyko sees nothing wrong with his behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how he likes to be seen and how he is seen by new users.
 * Jersko is mean-spirited to new users, officious, and often unbelievably petty.
 * Jersyko often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him, as Reneec had attempted to demonstrate with an isolated fact separated from the whole in the song matter.
 * Jersyko has imposed a false reality considering new users Reneec and Boodro made up of distortion and fabrication.
 * Jersyko is embittered when challenged, seething with resentment, irritated by others' failure to fulfill his superior sense of entitlement, and fuelled by anger resulting from rejection. Jersyko displays an obsessive, compulsive and self-gratifying urge to displace his uncontrolled textual aggression onto new users whilst exhibiting an apparent lack of insight into his behavior, the issues at hand, and its effect. Is it possible that jealousy and envy motivate Jersyko to identify a competent and popular individual David Saks, and a verifiable issue Official Songs of Memphis, which is then controlled and subjugated through projection of Jersyko's own inadequacy and incompetence in this forum ?
 * Jersyko distorts, twists, concocts and fabricates criticisms and allegations, and abuses the disciplinary procedures - again, for control and subjugation, not for performance enhancement, and uses gossip and back-stabbing to spread rumours that undermine, discredit and isolate the truth.
 * Jersyko wraps himself in a flag of Wiki-cronyism and usurps others' objectives, thereby nurturing compliance, reverence, deference, endorsement and obeisance; however, such veneration and allegiance is divisive, being a corruption for personal power which exhibits itself through the establishment of a clique, coterie, cabal, faction, or gang of bullies that intimidate new users with verifiable and conclusive objectives. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is considered by many to be an assembly of plagiarists that steal other people's work - and the credit for it as well.
 * Jersyko tends to regurgitate what others (especially superiors) say.
 * Jersyko, as Vary, is adept at appropriating rules, regulations, procedures and Wiki-law to manipulate, control and punish new users regardless of relevance, logic, facts, consequences or verifiable matter when it threatens his need to control, manipulate and punish as it develops into an obsession with the hallmarks of an addiction.
 * *Jersyko exploits new users allowing him to excel at talentless mediocrity and favours, protects and promotes non-threatening sycophants whilst marginalizing and hindering the advancement of those who challenge him.
 * I've examined user Jersyko, carefully, and warn newcomers. This individual is insecure and sees others as a threat; the threat seems to comprise a fear of exposure, and borders on paranoia; the individual has a paranoid personality and is a lurker. 66.239.212.10 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maru
SCZenz,

I have prepared an RfAr statement at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr, and advised Maru of my intention to bring it before the Arbitration Committee. If you have any comments about my statement, I'd be happy to hear them.

I feel it is proper that you be listed as an involved party, as you have been involved with the dispute over Maru's bot for a long time now. I won't insist on your inclusion, but Maru might.

If you want to prepare a statement, feel free to do so at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/RfAr; just be sure to restrict your editing to your own section. I have also set up an evidence page at User:Snottygobble/Drafts/Evidence, that you should feel free to edit. Snottygobble 01:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on gravitation
That section was about Intelligent Falling from the beginning; the anon was alluding to creation/evolution debates from the first words he wrote. You took the time to say rational things to someone who was trolling; that does not make the section useful. If you want to keep it, fine&mdash;but try not to feed trolls in the future. -- SCZenz 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it was NOT about Intelligent Falling from the beginning. God didn't enter in until the 3rd comment, which is when the IP address changes to Mr. Onion. I had no way of knowing this was the same guy, and still don't. You're making an assumption. For all I know the discussion was started by somebody who really doesn't understand the point of science, and was then hijacked. In any case, I've removed it all, since you're probably right. However, I reserve note that you're not OBVIOUSLY right. S  B Harris 23:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

George Washington
You have to admit... that was danmed funny :D

Fair enough! No more Washington foolery.

T. Casey Brennan
Thanks for helping create the page about me!

I wrote Vampirella in the 70s...I'm now a singer/lyricist in a band called FRANKENHEAD; a video of my song LET THEM RISE was on the Halloween episode of a local punk rock show, Crazy Mark TV. You should be able to get it directly with this URL (takes forever to load; be patient):

http://www.marktv.net/FRANKENHEAD.mov

Kitaro's Sideshow, podcast in Israel (which ALSO takes forever to load) just played my songs on shows #36 and #37, at...

http://sideshow.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=37990

http://sideshow.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=34595

The song & refs to me are on toward the end on both shows.

This is my band's page (my 2 songs are SOCIAL WORKER BLUES and LET THEM RISE:

http://norecordlabel.com/newbandpage.php?b_id=3479

Celebrity Homeless List w/my name, plus fan pages about me...

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/homeless.html

This is a comic book oriented fan page with the trenchcoat photo:

http://www.darkelfdesigns.homestead.com/mkultra02.html

This is my column at Popimage:

http://www.popimage.com/industrial/conjurella092204.html

This is a Canadian JFK page with the trenchcoat photo cropped:

http://www.angelfire.com/me/carcano

This is from The Konformist magazine; scroll down to get the trenchcoat photo cropped & with caption: "sexiest JFK MK-ULTRA assassin alive":

http://www.konformist.com/mkkafe/tcasey/tcasey.htm

This is from a professor at the University of Rhode Island; no photo:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Conspiracy_theories/Brennan--Conjurella/Brennan.html

Satanic Reds T. Casey Brennan fan page...satire of Hare Krishnas; has trenchcoat photo wreathed in flowers:

http://www.geocities.com/tcb_sr

Anathema Research's original T. Casey Brennan archive reposted with new material by the Mind Control Forums, but no photo:

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/tc/tcasey.html

This is the NEW TCB fan page, with Clinton document, but no photo:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~mthorn/0brennan.htm

Best,

T. Casey Brennan

Recent Blocking
HI SCZenz,

You recently blocked ArsenalYoda for impersonating another user, yet you may consider unblocking him. I'd just like to point out a message I believe left this user on this talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_and_British_English_differences

It's the talk page of the differences between American & British English differences. I'm the one who originally called for the removal of Boothman who actually did not write the offensive statement (which I have since removed). Anyway, I'd just like to point this out in case you weren't aware of it and urge you not to unblock this user. Thank you. odinlast99 PS: No need to reply as I rarely check my Talk page.