I feel that my block by Blnguyen is extremely unfair and based on hearsays outside of Wikipedia. I would like to contest the block.
On 6/13/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
I feel that my block by Blnguyen is extremely unfair and based on hearsays outside of Wikipedia. I would like to contest the block.
I am concerned about revert warring, for example you were revert warring on Talk:The Epoch Times. Do you think revert warring on talk page the best way to edit cooperatively?
Theresa
The following was mailed to me directly by User:TJive when I asked Blnguyen to post details of the block to WP:AN ---- Hi, I noticed your comment on the matter of PatCheng. This is an aggressive and hostile user who has been "wikistalking" me for months to revert my contributions and post ugly, racist insults (not only to me but others). A short description of the matter can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TJive/Wikistalking
More detailed information is archived here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TJive/Fenriswolf
And the matter was taken up on ANI, and has since been archived. He waited until it died down to start contesting his block:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Several administrators agreed with his block, and he has since repeatedly been caught using more sockpuppets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
TJive
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The following was mailed to me directly by User:TJive when I asked Blnguyen to post details of the block to WP:AN
Hi, I noticed your comment on the matter of PatCheng. This is an aggressive and hostile user who has been "wikistalking" me for months to revert my contributions and post ugly, racist insults (not only to me but others). A short description of the matter can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TJive/Wikistalking
More detailed information is archived here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TJive/Fenriswolf
And the matter was taken up on ANI, and has since been archived. He waited until it died down to start contesting his block:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Several administrators agreed with his block, and he has since repeatedly been caught using more sockpuppets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
TJive
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
TJive's created a sockpuppet account, [[User:YINever|YINever]], on May 30th. He immediatly tracked down and changed several articles on my watchlist, which we previously fought over, the most bitter over my removal of a personal attack on the Epoch Times talk page. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=5593...].
From his insistence to restore the the "web spy" comment, to the userbox on
his user page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:YINever&diff=prev&old...], portrayed me not as a legitimate Wikipedia editor, but somehow a "web spy employed by the Chinese government".
From my perspective, TJive's edits breaches the NPOV policy, not to mention
his reluctence to use the talk page to solve disputes. I am not the only editor having problems with TJive, as he and Blnguyen claimed. TJive used his sockpuppet YINever as well as his many IPs [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Gun_Ri&diff=57318265&a...] to engage in an edit-war, which he claims as "defending his right to edit", portraying me as a "wikistalker". I have not edited as anyone else besides PatCheng, yet I was the one blocked based on YINever's hearsay. TJive has a previous history of edit wars with over users Ruy Lopez [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TJive/Ruy_Lopez] and Comandante.
Here are some of the disputed content:
* "Castro regime" instead of "Cuban government": [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Franqui&diff=prev&o...], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ladies_in_White&diff=prev&... ] * Brief description content removed: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Profits_of_Extermination&d...], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_fighter&diff=prev&... ] * Deletion of sections; incident "alleged" despite evidence, responce only following user inquiry: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varela_Project&diff=prev&o...], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri&diff=prev&oldid=...], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&di... ] * Subject of article being a "Nazi", without corrosponding evidence: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Bernard_Shaw&diff=prev&... ] * Subject "committed suicide", not "murdered", despite my attempts to include both: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eduardo_Chib%C3%A1s&diff=prev&... ] * Reinsertion of removed personal attacks: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=5728... ] * Article vandalism: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_Mafia&diff=prev&oldid=... ] * Tiananmen Square protests as "bloody supression": [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Yonglin&diff=prev&old... ]
I take full responsibilty for the comments I have made talk pages, and I regret them. Such are said in anger and in no way reflect my character. However I feel these are misused by Blnguyen to used to present me as some sort of vandal and POV pusher. According to him:
''He has complained to me that he has a balanced view and wants democracy but in the diff regarding inciting hatred, he says that the only wrong thing that Mao ever did was not kill Jung Chang.''
I don't see anything done to users celebrating al-Zarqawi's death [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#DING_DONG], which someone could also argue "incite hatred against Muslims". Such statements left by me in talk pages does not, and should not reflect my editing of Wikipedia articles themselves. In at least three cases I have apologised [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatCheng#Good_afternoon], removed my comments [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mao_Zedong&diff=next&...]. In other cases I was not made aware of my insults, or assumed that the have already been deleted by other users per the "soapbox" rule. Had I been made aware of the comments I made I would have no problem removing them or apologising to the persons affected.
I have already been blocked 24 hours previously for such personal attacks. I should not have been punished twice, as the current dispute is about whether Fenriswolf is my sockpuppet. As no links how been proven that I somehow process "100s of IPs", Blnguyen merely used my history of personal attacks as an excuse to block me indefinitely.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:00:02 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
[snip some stuff]
Care to defend this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FWBOarticle&diff=pre...
Guy (JzG)
Go and check mine and his talk pages. I apologised to him and he accepted it.
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:00:02 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
[snip some stuff]
Care to defend this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FWBOarticle&diff=pre...
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:22:12 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Go and check mine and his talk pages. I apologised to him and he accepted it.
Shouldn't have said it in the first place. Some insults are beyond the pale.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:22:12 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Go and check mine and his talk pages. I apologised to him and he accepted it.
Shouldn't have said it in the first place. Some insults are beyond the pale.
Well he can't very well unsay it now can he? He said something he shouldn't have an apologised for it. What would you want him to do now?
Theresa
That's why I apologised. I have said such in anger over the Nanjing Massacre article, not because I meant it.
On 6/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:22:12 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Go and check mine and his talk pages. I apologised to him and he accepted it.
Shouldn't have said it in the first place. Some insults are beyond the pale.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the sock.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:58:49 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the sock.
Enough said. Community patience for such activities being limited to approximately none at all.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the sock.
What a shame. I was actually close to assuming good faith and undoing the block. Oh well.
Theresa
On 6/15/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the sock.
What a shame. I was actually close to assuming good faith and undoing the block. Oh well.
Tease.
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the sockpuppets as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage the edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he asked me to take it to mediation.
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the sock.
What a shame. I was actually close to assuming good faith and undoing the block. Oh well.
Tease. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Richard Fan stated for the record:
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the sockpuppets as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage the edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he asked me to take it to mediation.
I like it! That will make a great page name: [[I Merely Created the Sockpuppets as a Last Minute Attempt to Get Their Attention and Other Deleted Nonsense]]
- -- Sean Barrett | Fair? Fair's a place you win goldfish, son. sean@epoptic.com |
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other admins but they never bothered responding.
There are plenty of admins on this mailing list, and we were responding.
Theresa
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:41:08 +1000, "Richard Fan" richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
I merely created the sockpuppets as a last minute attempt to get their attention
You already had it, which was why creating an abusive sock account was very foolish. I bit like shouting "hey everybody, look at me!" before setting out to break the rules.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the sockpuppets as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage the edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he asked me to take it to mediation.
So far you've admitted making personal attacks, uncivil remarks, and using sock puppets. All those activities are taken pretty seriously at Wikipedia, and at the very least, we would expect a sincere apology and a genuine undertaking not to do it again. Demonstration that you understand why these things are bad, perhaps by having read the relevant policies, would be a good thing too.
"Yes, I did that bad thing, but I was justified" is not helping your cause.
Steve
I never used the sockpuppets to engage in vandalism, but to contact Sasquatch, who offered to talk to me and yet failed to respond. TJive himself used the sockpuppets from Virginia to engage in edit wars on the 2008 Olympics article, and yet Blnguyen unblocked him for whatever reason. It's rediculous that I got banned for personal attacks several months ago, and which I apologised for, yet article vandals, POV pushers, and trolls such as TJive never got any punishment.
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the
sockpuppets
as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage
the
edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he asked me to take it to mediation.
So far you've admitted making personal attacks, uncivil remarks, and using sock puppets. All those activities are taken pretty seriously at Wikipedia, and at the very least, we would expect a sincere apology and a genuine undertaking not to do it again. Demonstration that you understand why these things are bad, perhaps by having read the relevant policies, would be a good thing too.
"Yes, I did that bad thing, but I was justified" is not helping your cause.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
I never used the sockpuppets to engage in vandalism, but to contact Sasquatch, who offered to talk to me and yet failed to respond. TJive
Ok, well no one here would accept that as a legitimate use of sockpuppeting. The only legitimate uses involve users who are not already banned (unlike yourself). Generally speaking, blocked users can still edit their talk page, so you can communicate that way - or by email.
himself used the sockpuppets from Virginia to engage in edit wars on the
The excuse that someone else did something...
2008 Olympics article, and yet Blnguyen unblocked him for whatever reason.
...or that someone else got unblocked for something, cuts no mustard here whatsoever. Don't even bother.
It's rediculous that I got banned for personal attacks several months ago,
No, that's quite standard.
and which I apologised for, yet article vandals, POV pushers, and trolls such as TJive never got any punishment.
No, that's the luck of the dice. By all means, bring such things to other people's attention, but don't expect to get special treatment because of it.
Hope this helps!
Steve
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
I never used the sockpuppets to engage in vandalism, but to contact Sasquatch, who offered to talk to me and yet failed to respond. TJive
Ok, well no one here would accept that as a legitimate use of
sockpuppeting. The only legitimate uses involve users who are not already banned (unlike yourself). Generally speaking, blocked users can still edit their talk page, so you can communicate that way - or by email.
Did you actually bother to read WP:Sock puppetry? Nowhere is blocked users mentioned, nor is using it to get the attention of an admin. It does however mention use sockpuppets to engage in edits wars is clearly a violation of the rule, which does include TJive.
himself used the sockpuppets from Virginia to engage in edit wars on the
The excuse that someone else did something...
2008 Olympics article, and yet Blnguyen unblocked him for whatever
reason.
...or that someone else got unblocked for something, cuts no mustard
here whatsoever. Don't even bother.
No, it showed a severe double standard in Blnguyen's policies towards users with the same political opinion versus the ones who doesn't. Does this admin even follow WP policies regarding blocking?
It's rediculous that I got banned for personal attacks several months
ago,
No, that's quite standard.
I've been blocked 24 hours for this already, thus I cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
and which I apologised for, yet article vandals, POV pushers, and trolls such as TJive never got any punishment.
No, that's the luck of the dice. By all means, bring such things to
other people's attention, but don't expect to get special treatment because of it.
Why? Admins such as Blnguyen and Tony Sidaway refuse even to talk to me, and openly sided with TJive, that somehow this vandal's "evidence" is all that needed to block me. Kunguadam already unblocked me, and Blnguyen simply reblocked me to engage a wheel war.
Hope this helps!
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/17/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually bother to read WP:Sock puppetry? Nowhere is blocked users mentioned, nor is using it to get the attention of an admin. It does however
Well, apart from this sentence: "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban."
That difficult-to-find paragraph was under "Circumventing policy" which was under "Prohibited uses of sock puppets". Section 1.3 if you still can't find it.
mention use sockpuppets to engage in edits wars is clearly a violation of the rule, which does include TJive.
Let's not worry about TJive ok? Trying to get someone else banned is unlikely to help your case.
No, it showed a severe double standard in Blnguyen's policies towards users with the same political opinion versus the ones who doesn't. Does this admin even follow WP policies regarding blocking?
Double standards are actually ok. Admins get in trouble when they block for the wrong reason, but failing to block at all is not a problem - another admin could always do that.
I've been blocked 24 hours for this already, thus I cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
For exactly the same instance of the same offence? I'd agree that you *shouldn't* be punished twice for the same offence, but there's nothing that says you *can't*. It's all up to admin discretion.
Why? Admins such as Blnguyen and Tony Sidaway refuse even to talk to me, and openly sided with TJive, that somehow this vandal's "evidence" is all that needed to block me. Kunguadam already unblocked me, and Blnguyen simply reblocked me to engage a wheel war.
If they refuse to talk to you, it's probably because they've formed a reasonable opinion that you're not worth your time. Wonder how that happened. Well, there are still some more avenues, but most of them involve admitting you were wrong, accepting that the admins were right, and promising to do better in the future. Or, there's always myspace.com.
Steve
Who should I apologise to, if they've "formed a reasonable opinion that you're not worth your time"? If you want me to apologise to those I attacked, I already did.
On 6/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually bother to read WP:Sock puppetry? Nowhere is blocked
users
mentioned, nor is using it to get the attention of an admin. It does
however
Well, apart from this sentence: "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban."
That difficult-to-find paragraph was under "Circumventing policy" which was under "Prohibited uses of sock puppets". Section 1.3 if you still can't find it.
mention use sockpuppets to engage in edits wars is clearly a violation
of
the rule, which does include TJive.
Let's not worry about TJive ok? Trying to get someone else banned is unlikely to help your case.
No, it showed a severe double standard in Blnguyen's policies towards users with the same political opinion versus the ones who doesn't.
Does this
admin even follow WP policies regarding blocking?
Double standards are actually ok. Admins get in trouble when they block for the wrong reason, but failing to block at all is not a problem - another admin could always do that.
I've been blocked 24 hours for this already, thus I cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
For exactly the same instance of the same offence? I'd agree that you *shouldn't* be punished twice for the same offence, but there's nothing that says you *can't*. It's all up to admin discretion.
Why? Admins such as Blnguyen and Tony Sidaway refuse even to talk to
me,
and openly sided with TJive, that somehow this vandal's "evidence" is
all
that needed to block me. Kunguadam already unblocked me, and Blnguyen
simply
reblocked me to engage a wheel war.
If they refuse to talk to you, it's probably because they've formed a reasonable opinion that you're not worth your time. Wonder how that happened. Well, there are still some more avenues, but most of them involve admitting you were wrong, accepting that the admins were right, and promising to do better in the future. Or, there's always myspace.com.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Richard Fan richardfanx@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually bother to read WP:Sock puppetry? Nowhere is blocked
users
mentioned, nor is using it to get the attention of an admin. It does
however
Well, apart from this sentence: "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban."
That difficult-to-find paragraph was under "Circumventing policy" which was under "Prohibited uses of sock puppets". Section 1.3 if you still can't find it.
My ban was not even legitimate in the first place.
mention use sockpuppets to engage in edits wars is clearly a violation
of
the rule, which does include TJive.
Let's not worry about TJive ok? Trying to get someone else banned is unlikely to help your case.
He's the one who caused my ban, and is gloating over it.
No, it showed a severe double standard in Blnguyen's policies towards users with the same political opinion versus the ones who doesn't.
Does this
admin even follow WP policies regarding blocking?
Double standards are actually ok. Admins get in trouble when they block for the wrong reason, but failing to block at all is not a problem - another admin could always do that.
Banning users based on political opinions should not exist in the first place.
I've been blocked 24 hours for this already, thus I cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
For exactly the same instance of the same offence? I'd agree that you *shouldn't* be punished twice for the same offence, but there's nothing that says you *can't*. It's all up to admin discretion.
Where exactly in WP guidelines state this?
Why? Admins such as Blnguyen and Tony Sidaway refuse even to talk to
me,
and openly sided with TJive, that somehow this vandal's "evidence" is
all
that needed to block me. Kunguadam already unblocked me, and Blnguyen
simply
reblocked me to engage a wheel war.
If they refuse to talk to you, it's probably because they've formed a reasonable opinion that you're not worth your time. Wonder how that happened. Well, there are still some more avenues, but most of them involve admitting you were wrong, accepting that the admins were right, and promising to do better in the future. Or, there's always myspace.com.
Or trying to hide their faces.