User talk:Marshalbannana

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Katana

Note that the edits you applied to Katana have been rejected (many times) by the other editors of the page. Re-applying these edits will likely cause people to believe that you're associated with the previous editor who tried to force those edits. jesup 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Don’t threaten me[reply]

No threats meant. Just thought I'd warn you, if you're not the same person, that those particular set of edits have been a live-wire issue. jesup 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupetry Sherucji

Please don't create an article page for your sockpuppet report. Go to WP:ANI. NawlinWiki 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptions

You are wasting your time making Sockpuppet reports as it will be determined that I have nothing to do with Top Gun or Sherucji. What is being forgotten here is that these two editors have spelled out a very detailed case for the casulty count and in spite of all of their research and sourcing you just dismiss it and revert it because of a belief that there is no way that the "Guardian" can be wrong. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of their numbers yet you persist with the number 83. Surely you must at least admit it cannot be right. Also, speaking of editors who are very knowledgable of WP policies and procedures after less than a month of editing.... Me thinks the pot is calling the kettle black.--203.10.224.61 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen you liar I am not a sockpuppet and have nothing to do with Sherucji. I have experiance because I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year now. My previous designation was 89.216.229.112 then I loged in and now go by the name Top Gun, sometimes I forget to log in and it says 89.216.229.112 but I have no conection to Sherucji or 203.10.224.61 Come to think of it where is that other user that was more supporting the claim of 83 than you. I think his name was Freepsbane. I actualy think you are Freepsbane. And you are a liar and a vandal. Zou saz we have identical editing style, thats because we are trying to put the truth, and the truth can not be changed what about yours and Freepsbanes style where is he now. The overwhelming evidence that that number is 27 is on the talkpage of First battle of Fallujah and you will see that me and Sherucji have bother, even if it is not our job it is actualy the job of the DoD, and whent through all the veryfied casualtie reports and calculated on hard check veryfied evidence that only 27 Marines were killed in Fallujah you idiot.--Top Gun 24:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--Top Gun 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Fallujah

Please direct all discussion of casualty figures to the article's talk page. I've protected that page for now to stop the revert war. — ERcheck (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing other editors does not equate to a conflict of interest. (In fact, working with other editors is an integral part of the Wikipedia community.) The protection of the page was made to stop the reversion war — as opposed to blocking two editors for 3RR violations; it was to give a cooling off period and direct editors to reach consensus on the talk page. The page is now unprotected. The numbers that were in the protected version are the ones for which was supported by the majority of those on the article's talk page.

Adding up official casualty figures does not constitute original research. The Guardian's numbers are unsourced. It is not uncommon for news sources to report early information and then not update it with information after the fray... and in the midst of warfare, early reports of casualty figures often change.

It appears that you have gone against consensus on the article's talk page — which is the proper place to work out such differences. If you don't agree with the consensus, going against the consensus in your edits is not the way to go. The next step, if you continue to disagree with the consensus, is take the issue through Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes; which is what one of the editors has done.

— ERcheck (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False info, sockpuppetry, 3RR and spurious accusations at Battle of Al Qaim

You've been blocked for 1 week for deliberately adding false information into the Battle of Al Qaim article, as well as using your IP address to break 3RR and accuse others of vandlaism. If this happens again, you'll be indef-blocked. Try to concentrate on improving the encyclopedia, not vandalising it. Thanks. yandman 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial review

User stated in his reason for unblocking: "No evidence was presented against me, I was not given any chance to defend myself. and i have edited only once in the afair. I NEED an impartial user to look into this."

Admin Yandman charges

False info
sockpuppetry
3RR
spurious accusations at Battle of Al Qaim

Users first editting controversy started at Katana. User's first two edits was curiously sophisticated including a <ref></ref> tag, but citing youtube. He was promptly reverted and suspected of sockpuppetry. As a martial artist (and world famous non-projectile weapons practitioner), I can add some incite into this edit. This particular page is a well-regarded and highly protected page. It's talk page demonstrates with tags that it is a WP:GA, former WP:FAC, subject of 4 Wikiprojects, etc. This edit was subtly destructive because of its incorrect use term usage. The non-martial artist might see it as more useful than it is. However, to the experts who contribute to this page his edits were not helpful. I know from experience with Talk:Okinawan kobudo (before I knew how to use ~~~~) that these types of pages can involve a great deal of discourse and should not be made via wanton spurious editting.

This lead to an edit war [1] [2] and eventually a violation of the WP:3RR [3] by his 5th edit. His participation in the talk following his unreported 3RR violation was not terribly constructive. Furthermore, this produced strong evidence in support of a sockpuppetry charge. His edit was reverted with a very clear edit summary. He readded the unwanted text. Again reverted with clear edit summary.

He continued to readd this and received seemingly independent support. Although reverted he continued to readd the info: [4] [5] [6] [7] (from IP 68.219.207.196) [8] (from IP 69.164.245.170) [9] [10] and on and on. His efforts were well summarized in this warning.

These edits alone are strong support for 3RR and sockpuppetry violations in my mind (the mind of an unknowing non-admin I admit). However, this occurred in November.

After tiring of November involvement with this page, in December, he moved on to Iraq War and related articles Battle of Al Qaim, First Battle of Fallujah, Second Battle of Fallujah, Battle of Ramadi (2004), Operation Together Forward, and other related pages.

Apparently, his next administrative level problem came with First Battle of Fallujah. Here his contributions seem well intended, but there is just debate on the topic of WP:RS. This lead to an WP:RFC. It seems his contributions sourced from The Guardian. I have trouble faulting his persistence in the argument that CNN, Washington post, Fox news do not dominate The Guardian and NPR and NBC. The reversion and edit war was extensive with the page becoming stable in opposition to his edits. Oddly, I see no RFC participation for this debate in his user contribution history.

Glancing at his talk page, the only other major problem was Battle of Al Qaim. His December edits ([11] [12]) to this page seem constructive and in fact commendable. They are consistent with his attention to statistical detail concerns in his First Battle of Fallujah debates. His last edit to this page under User:Marshalbannana also seems to be reasonable.

If you check the last edit you refer to above, with the change in statistic with "reference", the reference does not support the number change. The subsequent proliferation of IP edits after this, replacing the identical information, and follow-on vandalism by the group of IPs is disruptive. False edit summaries abound. The information is incorrect and not supported by the citation. — ERcheck (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would say that he tends to prefer more liberal sources for casualty statistics than some other editors, which is in no way a punishable offense. Furthermore, instead of resolving WP:RS battles in a harmonious manner he tends to revert. I think this is possibly a wikipolitics issue. However, there are allegations that he was active in adding false info and making spurious accusations.

With respect to spurious accusations under his own user name he is innocent. In the 21 days, prior to his block he only contributed to 2 talk pages ([13] [14]) and one poorly added WP:ANI post. I have no information on spurious accusation under any IPs. No links are cited in his block log to point out specific accusations and no IP addresses or usernames for sockpuppet spurious accusations are listed. I find him innocent of spurious accusations.

Other charges of recent false info, sockpuppetry, 3RR on a page with one edit from his user name in the last 60 days should identify a current sockpuppet IP or username. As I evaluate Battle_of_Al_Qaim history for these charges I realize that I would have to have information proving that he is a sockpuppet to support these charges. What I see is a coincidental IP 68.219.240.83 (note above he at Katana support came from a 68.219 start IP) and I do not see the link between the various IP problem users and this user from what I see.

My casual opinion (that took 2 hours to research and form an opinion about) is that this user needs to improve his collaborative skills because of his interest in contentious (war related) pages. He seems to prefer liberal statistical summaries of casualties and does not always seem to collaborate in a way that would foster consensus. However, blocking him could border on censorship of liberal views if one contends that liberal casualty counts are false info contributions. Unless a case is presented linking this user to specific IP addresses active at Battle_of_Al_Qaim I would guess this is a coincidental problem and that he is innocent. However, I can not see I.P. range and geography information that admins can see and thus am not qualified to opine further. TonyTheTiger 19:27, 17 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

No evidence was presented against me, I was not given any chance to defend myself. and i have edited only once in the afair. I NEED an impartial user to look into this.

Decline reason:

The 3RR block was completely valid. The IP address that reverted changes added the exact link that you added in this edit. Please contribute constructively once your block expires. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:00, 16 February 2007 (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.

Banned

Following the recent vandalism on various user talk pages, this account is blocked indefinitely. yandman 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for him, he reverted me for no valid reason calling me a vandal.. Accuse me of personal attacks ok, but vandal? Stupid! --125.60.248.139 01:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]