User talk:Shutterbug

Hello,

In the past, you and I had a reasonably good working relationship, so I ask again in good faith that you strike the comment you made accusing me of attacking Su-Jada. Contrary to it being an attack, it was a perfectly accurate description of an inappropriate edit and an inaccurate edit summary. Striking your accusations would go a long way towards re-establishing good faith in general. --GoodDamon 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did attack Su-Jada and you are consistently nagging me for this and for that. This would be OK if you would currently contribute something to increase the quality of the article but you don't. What happened to you? You take what I write and complain about it, concentrating on how bad I am and so on. This is not a basis for consensus and not even a common effort, so I am actually wondering what happened to you in the past months. Did you get attacked for your neutral position on the issue? Yes, we have been working successfully together and yes I am interested in restoring this condition. It just doesn't work if we allow getting carried away in finger-pointing instead of doing research, adding sources and exchanging ideas on the grounds of Wikipedia policy. Shutterbug (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "dead", only "sleeping". This has been moved to WP:AE. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Have a coffee! Shutterbug (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill leave it here because I do not want to embarrass you: we all as humans are inheritly non neutral. your edits such as this one [1] is one of the reasons Ive decided to vote in the way I did, Your deletion had references to back it up, we could get into a whole theological discussion but that would prove futile I fear. to cut to the chase I think your delusioned, That does not mean your a bad person. My friend If you say Im banning you from Wikipedia because Im voting to Scientology topic ban you, you are on Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. I from now on will abandon the subject of your banning. I hope I have not offended you in any way thank you, That is enough explanation for a whole day --Zaharous (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: I did not delete your paragraph, even though I could have done it, per WP:BRD. Instead I MOVED it on the talk page to sit there until the media news story settled into some encyclopedic occurrence. Point is, Wikipedia is not a news source WP:NOT, so if there is something developing in the media we should wait until it has settled. That's why I moved it. Your argument is nil so I still do not understand why you are attacking me. Shutterbug (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Out of hundreds of edits[2] you picked one I did in April 2007(!) - which was corrected, including my understanding of Wikipedia policy - to explain to me why you are attacking me? Do you want to provoke or something? Shutterbug (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug, recently you were involved in a conflict on Scientology. I am trying to figure out the best approach to come a mutual understanding between all parties involved that will eventually lead to a consensus. I invite you to respond either here or here, so we can start working towards a solution. Thank you. ←Spidern→ 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I hope you enjoyed your Thanks giving time --Zaharous (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. No computers, lots of peace. Would you mind to answer my question? Shutterbug (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most interesting edit. Are you saying that "in real life", Xenu is mentioned in Scientology scripture? Cirt (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some texts mentioning this name (like this one: [3]. But not in "doctrine" (I bet I know what your next comment is). Shutterbug (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "doctrine". But this edit acknowledges "Xenu, the Galactic Ruler mentioned in Scientology scripture" in "real life". I think this is the first admission by the Church of Scientology that Xenu is a part of "Scientology scripture" since Warren McShane testified to that effect in RTC v. FactNet in 1995, though I may be mistaken. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking a question if you "know" the answer already. "Doctrine" vs "Scripture" was my change in the article. That's why I mentioned it. And I am not the Church of Scientology. Somehow this has been ingrained in your mind but that does not make it true. I have a request with the Church to send a rep here so this bullshit can finally stop. What do you think of this idea? Shutterbug (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interesting discussion until you chose to use inappropriate uncivil language such as "bullshit". Cirt (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see why this is a good reason to stop talking. Shutterbug (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this, bearing in mind your reply will have a bearing on not only whether you are blocked, but also for how long? This isn't the first time you have edited disruptively and I know that you are aware that all Scientology-related articles are on ArbCom probation. Please choose your words very, very carefully. --Rodhullandemu 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. I do not exactly know what happened but I would not blank a page intentionally and I have no track of vandalism. Nor would I add to the edit summary that I my edit reinstates the article from a POV edit and then blank the page. Sorry, if another editor would not have been faster I had reverted myself right away. Shutterbug (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that can happen. You will already be aware, however, that your edits are under scrutiny in a number of venues, hence the quick reaction. Please be careful. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am very aware of the scrutiny each of my edits gets. Not necessarily a bad thing. Shutterbug (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there seem to be a lot of rules and regulation here. What would you recommend to read? Proximodiz (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi?! Try this one: WP:FIVE. Shutterbug (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very helpful! Proximodiz (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around? I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not.

Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat ^chi? 18:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, apologies for the late answer. I guess I'll answer on your talk page so you see it. Shutterbug (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I put something there for you. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it. Will try to find the time for it. Shutterbug (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|I am neither on an open proxy nor did I violate any rules on Wikipedia. This block is unwarranted. Shutterbug (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that you're blocked... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work again. I just uploaded a screen shot showing the block [4][5]. But I guess this is moot now. Thanks for coming by that fast! Shutterbug (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages 

As tempting as it would be to quarterback from the Talk pages, firing plays and references, it's probably best to let it all go and take a break. I plan to Wikiphoto-tour—you can critique my efforts. :) AndroidCat (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had not seen that yet. How boring. Now all that's left are those who have no intimate knowledge about the subject. Will check your Wikiphoto-tour for sure (if I find it)! Shutterbug (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Tour de GTA, so far. A lot of it is "drive by shooting" but even a bland photo improves a stub article. I'm still hoping to make a trip this season to duplicate the position/angle of this 1915 photo. The building at the corner is definitely gone, but I'm hoping to catch the shoreline and street angles. AndroidCat (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

There is a discussion on WP:AE regarding the above. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Shutterbug (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was totally inappropriate. Do not upload something like this again, or you will be blocked. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement has been requested against you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shutterbug . -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try: I requested an enforcement against you. Sounds more responsible. But I am not interested in this game anymore. Sorry, Antaeus. Shutterbug (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: 24 hours for editing in violation of your Scientology topic ban. [6] Thatcher 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Shutterbug (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

When ArbCom blanks a case page, it is with the explicit intent of making certain it does not get blindly spidered and isn't accessible other than through the page history. Copying those revisions back to user space defeat that purpose; I've deleted your copy of the Scientology case evidence page.

You can link to the appropriate revision if you feel the need for a handy pointer to the blanked page, but you may not copy the contents of that page elsewhere. — Coren ^(talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AE, specifically, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shutterbug. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the above, and the related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug, I've blocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to violations of this with socking, please again see WP:AE. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now at WP:AN. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I hereby inform you, that per a consensus of the community, reached at the Administrators' Noticeboard, you are banned from editing Wikipedia under any account or IP address. Pursuant to the banning policy, your access to this talk page has been revoked. Should you desire to lodge an appeal against this access, please contact the Arbitration Committee via e-mail. Courcelles 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]