On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: 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=559…]5010411]. his user page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:YINever&diff=prev&ol…]5876303], portrayed me not as a legitimate Wikipedia editor, but somehow a "web spy employed by the Chinese government". 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&…] 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&…]7099570], [ 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&…]7099584], [ 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&…]7099522], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri&diff=prev&oldid…]7286458], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&d… ] * 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=572… ] * 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&ol… ] 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&…]0179221]. 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.

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(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: 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

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 6/15/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: What a shame. I was actually close to assuming good faith and undoing the block. Oh well. Theresa

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/16/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are plenty of admins on this mailing list, and we were responding. Theresa

On 6/16/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 6/16/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. The excuse that someone else did something... ...or that someone else got unblocked for something, cuts no mustard here whatsoever. Don't even bother. No, that's quite standard. 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 6/17/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. Let's not worry about TJive ok? Trying to get someone else banned is unlikely to help your case. 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. 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. 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

On 6/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: He's the one who caused my ban, and is gloating over it. Banning users based on political opinions should not exist in the first place. Where exactly in WP guidelines state this? Or trying to hide their faces.