User talk:DrunkTomsk

January 2010

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Paul Baxendale-Walker. Thank you. This needs much better sourcing, particularly for the allegation that he is a "male pornographic actor". Rodhull andemu 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See article Talk page. Rodhull andemu 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Paul Baxendale-Walker, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Talk page, please. Rodhull andemu 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhull andemu 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent breaches of Policy on Biographies. Your source did not support your content, and you were warned to stop. Rodhull andemu 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked even though I added factual edits by someone who seems to want to hide Paul Baxendale Walkers invovlement in the pornographic film industry. I believe the user RodHullandEmu are somehow involved either business wise or though their shared profession of being lawyers. I added reputable sources with were referenced in the article.

Decline reason:

How many reasons do I have to reject this appeal? First, there was the edit warring. Second, it was done to restore a violation of the biographies of living persons policy (The awards site is a reliable source; however we need another one to demonstrate that he uses the pseudonym in question. We can't take your say-so). Third, there is your failure to assume good faith on the part of the blocking admin. -- Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Try this then http://whois.domaintools.com/kellybell.com have a look who owns this domain name and where is is registered to. You may just find it is Paul Baxendale Walker and Bluebird films. Kelly Bell is a porn actress under contract to BlueBird. I will proved well over 100 more references if you would like. --DrunkTomsk (talk) 14

29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't prove that he uses the pseudonym you claim he does. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have added more prove that Paul Baxendale Walker runs Bluebird and is also Paul Chaplin. Funny that when the page first went up Paul liked it that his show name was mentioned and even stated that it was all part of his family name. This is just a joke and censorship by Pauls friends. Also if you check the page history for some reason whenever Bluebird films or Paul Chaplin is mentioned the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu instantly reverts the edits even though they are usually always sourced. There must be well over 10 credible sources that now back up the claim that Paul Baxendale Walker is also the porn actor, director and owner of Blue Bird Paul Chaplin. The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu must have this page on watch as he usually gets rid of the edits at maximum within a few hours. Even more proof Paul Baxendale Walker even states that he is Paul Chaplin himself and the owner of Bluebird. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Baxendale-Walker&diff=225777398&oldid=225777339 Obviously a conflict of interests has occured so he now wants this removed some Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is being denied, as you do not discuss your behavior, but rather the behavior of other editors. Please discuss your block and how you will avoid the issues that led to your block. TN X Man 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My behaviour towards another admin namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu was justified as he continued to try to surpress information which is highly appropriate. The fact that a high profile barrister is involved in hardcore pornography is relevant. The admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu has constantly altered this page in a way to surpress information which is determental towards Paul Baxendale Walker questions the admins integrity. I am now thinking that this block will never be removed as as it appears as though the goal posts will continue to move. I think all now agree that the pornographic history of Paul Baxendale Walker should in included in the article and we should just discuss my block.

Decline reason:

So, you think the only issue here is that your block was inappropriate? And we're just going to ignore the edit warring and accusations of bad faith, and the fact that these are the only things you have done with this account so far? Well, I'm afraid I don't feel your block was at all inappropriate, and that unless and until you can demonstrate that you understand the problem with your approach here you should remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Let's be clear here:

All that I and Paul Baxendale-Walker have in common is that we both practised law, although I practised criminal law between 1974 and 1982 in Liverpool, and he practised civil law from 1994 elsewhere, and we never met; he was struck off, and I wasn't, and I never met him.
What I am protecting here are the policies, and thereby the credibility, of this encyclopedia, principally verifiability, reliable sources and biographies; these are so important that they are not negotiable.
If editors come here purporting to push the truth, and use vague sources and unsupported innuendo to make a point, and fail after well-meant advice to understand our policies, then on balance we can live without the legal liability that might follow.
The goalposts haven't moved; you've ignored them, despite having been pointed in their direction, and you continue to fail to address the real reasons why I blocked you, and in a very bad faith way. I'd strongly advise you familiarise yourself with some of the basics here, and refactor your unblock request to address those, although you've now had three opportunities to do so, noe of which has been successful. That's more than most. Rodhull andemu 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously not protecting Wikipedias credibility when it is obvious that you are surpressing information regarding Paul Baxendales Walkers invovlement in the pornographic world. You dont just share a law background with Paul but also broadcasting with you being involved in music and radio. --DrunkTomsk (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of you; you just aren't getting it, and I have given up bending over backwards to help you. You're on your own. Rodhull andemu 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bending over backwards for me? That was a joke right? You have supressed thr truth about Paul Baxendale Walker many times.

Sersiouly to be on my own and not have your assistance is a great relief. --DrunkTomsk (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I now fully understand why I was blocked. However, I didnt know what to do when factual highly relevant information was being surpressed from a page. To be quite honest with you I still dont know what to do. I have proved, like others who have been blocked for inserting this information on the page, with credible sources. If someone could inform me what to do if this happens again that would be excellent. I have just added a piece at the bottom which includes photographical evidence, multiple verifications sources and further reading to prove that Paul Baxendale Walker is also the pornographic film studio owner, film director and performer Paul Chaplin. I am now greatfull for the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu for blocking me as we can now produce an article that beyond all shadow of a doubt, as some legal types sometimes say in court, about Paul Baxendale Walkers activities and lifestyle --DrunkTomsk (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a first publisher of original research. If this is indeed important, it will inevitably be reported in a reliable source, like a newspaper, and then Wikipedia will quite likely include it.FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm going to leave this request for another admin to review since I've already denied one from you today, but I will reply to the points you are trying to make here. The most important and overriding thing is that even if you are right, you can't engage in edit warring. Combative editing is harmful to Wikipedia, and regardless of the merits of your edits, you should follow the doctrine of being bold, then discussing if you are reverted. Secondly, controversial information about living persons, especially something as inflammatory as the information you are trying to add, needs to be firmly verified by reliable sources, and I have yet to see any source that unambiguously states that this man is involved in porn. You can't connect the dots yourself, that is considered original research and is not an appropriate source, especially for something as controversial as this. Thirdly, you need to assume good faith with your fellow editors and cease with the baseless accusations. If you can agree to discuss this matter and provide proper sources that clearly verify your content, and agree to stop making baseless accusations, you'll find yourself a lot closer to getting unblocked. Note that three other admins besides Rodhull have declined to unblock you. I have no connection, tenuous or otherwise to this man, and have never heard of him before today. I don't care on bit about his reputation or if he really is involved in porn or not, it's not going to affect my life in any way whether he is or not. I, like my fellow admins, am just acting in the interest of Wikipedia, not Mr. Walker. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The domain name is owned by Paul Baxendale Walker representing Blue Bird - http://whois.domaintools.com/kellybell.com
Paul Baxendale Walker film company, MPRO, take their landlords to court saying that they are allowed to produce adult films at the location in Chessington which is also the head office of Bluebird: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/08/31/2901683.htm and again half way down the page http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/2813543/Royal-exchange-Dixon-wasnt-a-nice-little-earner-for-RBS.html
bluebirdfilms.com is owned and operated by Paul Baxendale Walker of Bluebird http://www.sitelogr.com/s/bluebirdfilms.com
Bluebirdproductions.com is registered to Paul Baxendale Walker at his head office of his legal firm http://whois.domaintools.com/bluebirdproductions.com and is controlled by martin@bluebirdfilms.com
Bluebird issues a press release to state that the company is owned by Paul Chaplin a London based financier and playboy Paul Chaplin, born Paul Baxendale Walker, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BLUEBIRD+FILMS+SELECTS+PRIVATE+MEDIA+GROUP+FOR+CONTENT+DISTRIBUTION.-a0210142796
I dont know how much more is required to show that they are the same person. Unless someone has stolen Paul Baxendale Walkers identity. --DrunkTomsk (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absolute proof is here. This picture is from Paul Baxendale Walkers company profile and the picture on the right is of Paul Chaplin at the adult film awards with the Bluebird Girls. http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5360/paulchaplin.gif They look like twin brothers. I can supply more photographic evidence that he performs in the videos but I think that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. --DrunkTomsk (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how else to explain this to you, you are drawing conclusions that are not explicitly stated in your sources. Please show me the source that says, clearly and unambiguously, that Paul Baxendale Walker and Paul Chaplin are the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so photographic evidence, multiple sources, same address the fact that in a previous history of the page Paul Baxendale Walker himself states that it is his stage name is not good enough? This is some type of practical joke right? --DrunkTomsk (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pbwchaplin This is Paul Baxendale Walker wiki user page. This is where he states that he owns Bluebird and uses the name Paul Chaplin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Baxendale-Walker&diff=next&oldid=228360930 --DrunkTomsk (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. I could create an account right now and use that account to claim that I'm Sandra Day O'Connor, but really at night I become Batman. That doesn't make it so. Wikipedia user pages and old versions of articles do not qualify as reliable sources. For all we know, you could have created those pages and made those edits yourself. I'm with Rodhull, I've tried my best to explain this to you, and you won't listen. I give up. If you can't understand that you can't draw your own conclusions and then add them to an encyclopedia article, you shouldn't be editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]