User talk:Seeker of the Torch

Welcome
Hello, Seeker of the Torch, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana    (bananaphone  13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Fingerpoke
I'm sorry I'd rather not get involved. WP:PW is a big mark club as you will find out. Refer to my AMDs... I've disproved the theory that this angle was as damaging to WCW as they think it is based on ratings (they went up for a few weeks after the angle occurred) and some remarks Kevin Nash has made. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Endlessdan (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. It is very stupid to have an entire article dedicated to this one moment in pro wrestling. It should be a few sentences, at most, on the main WCW article.--Endlessdan (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also if this article is ever rightfully "put on the chopping block", please let me know and I will support your nomination. --Endlessdan (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Help required
I have attempted(incorrectly it turned out) to nominate the article Fingerpoke of Doom as an AFD, but clearly cocked up when trying to nominate it. Any help with listing it as such would be very helpful. (It has been nominated before, but survived narrowly despite lack of RS). Thank you. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a link to the difference between these revisions? I do not seem to understand, maybe ask on IRC - TBloemink (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you add "subst:" to the template? Like ? - TBloemink (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have it now. Could you please check and see if it is alright? Thank you Seeker of the Torch (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a deletion notification on the page now - TBloemink (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So is everything alright now? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this entire section as it is just someone I am discussing an AFD with making unfounded attacks against me. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone has decided that I am "blocked" as a "sockpuppet" of someone just because another editor "GaryColemanFan" has been hostile to me. Now some editor called "McJeff" had made rude and offensive comments about me.

This is all because I nominated an article for deletion and these two people took exception to it. Apparently another person who also voted for "Delete" has been blocked as well, as have other people! Is this the way Wikipedia operates? Someone makes edits or nominations that you don't like, so you block them? If anyone should be blocked it's these two, with their needlessly personal insults, and ludicrous accusations. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through these people's edit histories. This "McJeff" only appears to accuse people of things. He laos seems to know more about these blocked editors then anyone else. I had never heard of these people or this repeated vandalism before now, so am indifferent. The cheif issue here is that two people who voted for "Delete" through their own powers of reason and following wikipedia policy have now withdrawn their votes....simply because I have been falsely accused of something. In addition this "mcJeff" has added a smug self-satisfied piece on the afd that is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am disgusted that this sort of thing has been allowed to occur. In addition why have I and one other editor been blocked, whereas endlessdan and peridot remain free to edit, although both received unnecessary personal insults from this cabal. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have checked up this character's baseless accusations and seen that he has linked to the IP address(which by the way IS SHARED BY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE) So ANYONE in the same IP range is blocked because ONE person may have done something that everyone else knows nothing about? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were CheckUser confirmed to be a sockpuppet. --Bsadowski1 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

as apparently were various other people who are NOT me. So either one or more of those people is this vandal, and I have been caught in the crossfire, sharing an IP range with the vandal, or possibly, none of these people is this vandal, and we may or may not all share the IP range. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser requested
Apparently I was checkuser confirmed, whatever that means.

If this is so... could someone please run checkuser on

User:McJeff

User:GaryColemanFan

User:ECW500

it is the last of these that I have been "confirmed" as being. If indeed I have been confirmed as being this "ECW500" then there can be nothing to be lost by simply reconfirming that I am him/her no? If however(as I guarantee will be shown) I am NOT this "ECW500" then things will be shown in a whole new light. As far as the other two people are concerned, the "McJeff" seems to be an expert on sockpuppetry and block evasion, whereas "GaryColemanFan" is most likely just a needlessly offensie editor. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More fun....

 and yet this other person(who most importantly voted delete on an AFD I created, and whose vote has now been removed) remains blocked ....

This has NOTHING to do with sockpuppets and vandalism and EVERYTHING to do with nominating/voting to delete the horrendous Fingerpoke of Doom article, that a meanspirited, vindictive, abusive cabal deem noteworthy. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the AFD:



Note that two respectable editors who voted "Delete" have now struck their votes, whereas the vote of the above-mentioned person also blocked as a "sockpuppet" was struck by "McjEff" who then voted "Keep". So now this remains. Clearly this is all this is about.

I attempted to make peace with the other editor but

Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He also left this in the edit line



So am I ridiculously inexperienced(he may be true there actually) or a serial vandal? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Mcjeff is a past blockee



and how about this



apologies to GaryColemanFan, then who is just abrupt. the real vandal is clearly User:McJeff! Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, looks like ONE person out there is listening(though I can't contact him directly!) User:Stephen_G._Brown. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your attacks on other editors and other side issues, your request for help is a request for checkuser on three accounts. Two of these are clearly included for malicious purposes, in a sort of revenge. There is no question of a checkuser being carried out in these circumstances. The other one, as far as I can make out, you seem to be asking to be checked in the hope of establishing your innocence of a charge of sockpuppetry. Such a request would not be accepted by a checkuser, as tehy routinely refuse to use Checkuser in attempts to show innocence, so there is no point in letting it stay here.

Having responded to your request for checkuser, I will also add the following comments. The nature of this account as a sockpuppet seems to be well-established, but it really doesn't matter anyway, since the account has sufficient history of disruptive editing to justify the block in any case. Furthermore, you have been abusing access to this page to post attacks and other unconstructive material. If you continue to do so you will be likely to lose talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation
Well, forget the two disruptive editors then. It was never for malicious purposes. The only malice here is by these two people towards me. I requested a checkuser on the User:ECW500, because, having been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of this person I thought it would be a good idea if someone ran a checkuser ON User:ECW500. Obviously this person IS a vandal, who has been blocked for vandalism. But the idea is that when someone DOES run a checkuser on User:ECW500 it will become immediately obvious that I am NOT User:ECW500! If I WAS this person, then please explain to me precisely why i would request help and a checkuser if all it would do is confirm my being a sockpuppet of him/her? That would be self-destructive wouldn't it? Apparently, User:Stephen_G._Brown has undone more edits by the User:McJeff as vandalism. And guess what they are? McJeff going around tagging/labelling people as "sockpuppets of ECW500". ALL it would require is one person running a checkuser on User:ECW500 and my innocence would be established. Again, if I actually WAS this person, what would I possibly have to gain by asking for this checkuser? Forget the other two people, just the User:ECW500 who I am apparently blocked for being a suspected sockpuppet of? Or is it Wikipedia policy that "accusation equals guilt"? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, I apologise if it has been viewed as an "attack", but I thought that showing that these people have disruptive edit histories, have been offensive in their edit histories etc could establish some sort of background. I had never heard of either of these people before I posted a message on User:GaryColemanFan's discussion page informing him that i was nominating an article he had contributed to for deletion. That's it. How am I the disruptive or malicious one? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's already been explained to you that requests for CheckUser to show innocence of sockpuppetry are rarely granted. Furthermore, even if no CheckUser has been run on ECW500, it has been run on you and determined that your account and six others are the same person, so that won't change.  If you continue to post requests here, your talk page access may be removed, so please stop.  If you really must, please read CheckUser, and see Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500/Archive to see what user ran the CheckUser in your investigation.  --Mysdaao talk 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More fun
I've been lurking here and there's a development. Apparently, MORE people have now been confirmed as "sockpuppets" of User:ECW500!!!

Why is this noteworthy you ask?

Because I(and 6 other users) were confirmed three days ago! Now, if all these accounts were indeed also ECW500, surely everyone would have been "confirmed" simultaneously?!!! Apparently, the latest "confirmed" sock made the same cardinal sin that I did, voting against the Fingerpoke of Doom article. Once again User:McJeff pounced, and the account was "confirmed" and blocked indefinitely! Just to hammer home the point, I was "confirmed" for a second time. What is noteworthy, is that in each case, McJeff makes his suspicions known, and the same administrator then immediately confirms and blocks. Doesn't anyone get a chance to respond?

As for the article itself, well let 'em have it. If anyone is really naive to believe that a single incident brought down a company, that's up to them. The decline of WCW clearly had nothing to do with the disastrous AOL-Time Warner merger. it clearly had nothing to do with the decline of the US economy at the end of the 20th century. It clearly had nothing to do with the shifts in popular culture and entertainment at the time that extended to tv shows, music group,s movie franchises. It clearly had nothing to do with the takeover of TNT and TBS by corporate types who knew nothing about the wrestling, yet had the power, and used it, to radically restructure the WCW programming. It clearly had nothing to do with the fact that people who were attending college and were WCW fans in 1996, would then be part of the workforce, and possibly married in 2000. It certainly had nothing to do with Vince Russo's putting the WCW World Heavyweight Championship on David Arquette in 2000, a full 15 months after the "Fingerpoke of Doom".

Nah, WCW disappeared because Hulk Hogan used a "fingerpoke" on Kevin Nash. Again, a simple check of Webster's, OED or any other dictionary reveals that there is no such word in the English language as "fingerpoke". Anyone with anything more than a second grade understanding of the English language could tell you that. I've been accused of being "malicious", so I'll play along....the reason these "Fingerpoke" people think that that was a pivotal moment is because they clearly have no knowledge of how businesses work, of having a job, of fashion sense, or of the English langauge.Seeker of the Torch (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a simple explanation, but explaining loopholes to sockpuppeteers isn't really in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I do want to offer my sincere thanks for the fashion sense comment, though. It brought a big smile to my face. "Anyone who disagrees with me probably dresses poorly." GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)