User talk:Shponglefan

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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, Socking at AFDs using the term deletionist in a derogatory way , & confirmed sockpuppetry 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)

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)
 * 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)