Supergreenred

Long time anon user finally registered.

State terrorism and the United States

Re State terrorism and the United States. Please *don't* re-insert the deleted material, this is liable to get viewed as tendentious editing - this page is too close to page protection as it is. This article is in desperate need of trimming and re-focussing. Re-adding material that should be in sub-articles is not helping William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this on the article talk page. I have stated by objections there and aritrary mass deletions without time for discussion or consensus is worng. Also, you have abused your admin powers by editing the article to your preferences after you had locked it. If you disagree we can take this to ANI?Supergreenred (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't at the moment because as I warned you, I've blocked you for tendentious editing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clear admin abuse. You locked the article, then made edits to change the content, and now you block an opponent that you are involved in a content dispute with. Your "tendentious" editing is what you have done, not me. This block is baseless and trumped up. A clear case of abuse. I will appeal this, and have your conduct here reviewed, unless you recind this unjust block that is aimed soely at giving you a content advantage.Supergreenred (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes he wanted, homself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abuse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. He is edit warring and blocking those who oppose him. Shame.

Decline reason:

Despite your claims, you were blocked by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) on 2008-04-13 but the page, State terrorism and the United States, was protected by Rlevse (talk · contribs), prior to and then about half an hour after, you were blocked. Given that, I can find no basis in your claims and I'll warn you that any further personal attacks may result in this page being protected. You are free to restate your case once more, in a civil manner and once you are sure about your facts. — Yamla (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

How do I get a list of admins to e-mail?Supergreenred (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't. However, you are free to contact a member of WP:ARBCOM (a single member, no spamming your complaint to everyone you can find) by contacting them via email if you feel it is necessary. --Yamla (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts with diffs

Admin William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) puts a full protection on page:[1][2]

Then, after he protects the page, he starts making his changes to it, by blanking sections. There is no chance given for participation on talk page about what he wanted to do before he did it. No discussion. Its just his unilateral use of admin powers. See:[3]

He continues to make massive changes he wants after he protected the page. See:[4] And, again, he continues, making his mass deletions after he protected the page:[5]

This is using his admin powers to gain an advantage in a content dispute. He then unprotects the page and editors restore most of what he has removed without consensus. Then, another admin Rlevse (talk · contribs), comes in and protects the page again for a short period:[6]

But as soon as it gets unprotected,William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) comes in again and does a super mass deletion of this article. See this:[7]

I then complain about this on the talk page, and explain my reason for reverting him. See:[8]

The result is William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) uses his admin powers to block me. Right after blocking me, he then reverts back to his version, having rendered his content opponent silent. See:[9]

Its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. That is not allowed. Since he became involved in content dispute, he should have abstained from using any admin powers on this article to gain an advantage. Blocking the editor he is in a content dispute with so he can continue to edit war by blocking those he is edit warring with is a clear cut case of admin abuse. Just like when he protected the article and then started editing it.

Lastly, despite other editors reverting also, he singled me out for a block, after I challenged his abuse of admin powers, and calling for discussion on to occur before the massive deletions. My original description stands as valid, and if you disagree with me that this is a clear cut case of admin abuse, then I request and these facts be raised on ANI, or a Rfc on this admins actions.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes he wanted, himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abuse and reverted the masssive changes he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article as I described above with diffs. As a party to the content dispute, (and he is edit warring) he should not be using his admin powers to block those who oppose him, esp. when I have not even violated 3RR.

Decline reason:

There was discussion taking place - simply because disagree with the consensus made does not mean you can go against it. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

{{unblock|Please review the facts. There was no consensus to blank most of the article. I restored the material along with the other editors and wanted to discuss the matter. Consensus means not making big changes first before we have discussion. That is what I and others wanted. I was not editing against consensus. Please, someone, look at all the facts and address my issue about admin blocking me while he is in the dispute. That is a violation of policy. This block should not be upheld.}}

Thank you! I'm glad to see that WP still has good admins. I will raise this on ANI as you suggest.Supergreenred (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad move

After you get unblocked, to resume edit warring and do four reverts in 24 hours, 9 minutes.[10] That's called gaming the system. I have blocked your account for 48 hours. When you return, do not resume edit warring. Three reverts is not an entitlement. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now confirmed that this account is a sock puppet. See the user page for details. The block has been extended to indefinite. Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just come back from my vacation and was hoping to edit only to find out I've been indef blocked as a confirmed sock puppet?! WTF?!! I ain't no sock puppet. Let me see the details, please! There has to be some technical explanation for a false postive. Either that or someone is lying. There is no way that I'm a sock puppet unless some other account edited on a public computer that I've logged on to. As I explained before, I used to edit all the time as an IP user from different places. I finally create an account and now I konw why I was better off as an IP user!Supergreenred (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman states that "Checkuser evidence is inconclusive" regarding you and the other account at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Since Rafaelsfingers was unblocked with the agreement that he would only use one account, either you're telling the truth or he needs to be re-blocked. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note with Jehochman about your request. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This account is a single purpose edit warring account, quite possibly a sock puppet or associate recruited to help in the edit warring due to the geographic proximity. Nonetheless, there is some doubt, so I would agree to an unblock with the understanding that if tag team edit warring resumes, the account may be re-blocked for WP:MEAT. Solve editorial disagreement through dispute resolution, not by reverting. Jehochman ^Talk 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.Supergreenred (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a Request for Arbitration involving your account. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Giovanni33.Ultramarine (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it even possible for an editor to edit in peace here, anymore? Everytime I take a break, I come back to see more time wasting *&%%$# innane wiki-drama. Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track. Maybe we need to borrow that legal principle double jeopardy: editors can not be tried multiple times for the same alleged offense (same sock puppetry charges). At least until there are new FACTS. From what I read there is nothing new. Why can't I be just left alone to prove myself? Don't you have better things to do, like write articles? This is not worth the trouble. I might as well go back to just using my dyanmic IP address. At least I had some peace then.Supergreenred (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving your account is open and is located at here.Ultramarine (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related

HI SGR, I don't know for sure if you're a sock or not, and as long as you make non-contentious edits, don't really care. But at this point and time, I have to ask you not to edit Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (as you did here), or any related articles (to be construed broadly). As part of the conditions of your unblock, you were asked not to tag team edit war, but your actions today have done just that. I'm not blocking yet, but don't be surprised if someone else does. Any further instances of anything even approaching WP:MEAT, will result in a block. R. Baley (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (edited comment at 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Blocked indefinitely

I'm reblocking Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on the following:

1. First unblock was not on the merits but due to a technicality link.
2. RFCU (link) and SSP (link) and the circumstances surrounding Allegations of state terrorism by the United States make it highly likely that this is a sock, and not a primary account.
3. Following the first unblock, this account immediately resumed edit warring that same day (link 1 link 2). This furthers my suspicion that this is a throwaway account.
4. Based on the SSP and RFCU mentioned above, the account's indefinite ban was lifted with the proviso that "This unblock is on condition that you do not resume edit warring, gaming the system, or tag team edit warring." This 3rd chance was given despite the acount holder's insinuation that the blocking admin was being unfair (link for both admin quote and insinuation)
5. Since May 5 this account laid low and made zero edits except show back up on May 26 in order to futher an edit war in a meatpuppet like manner --specifically violating the conditions of the unblock. When considered with the above material, my opinion is that this account should no longer be able to edit here, and I have blocked the account indifinitely. Appeals may be made in the usual manner. R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)