Also, there's a pretty interesting read at AN/I. Forgot to link that, silly me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking into things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to evidence supporting the allegation of block evasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me. 70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on RunedChozo, as it references the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same sorts of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and insults coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks like block evasion and serious attacks, to me? JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard. Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's submitting a checkuser request. -Luna

On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: And if he's not? To whom does he owe an apology? -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: This has all the appearances of a new(er) editor getting piled on by people who have axes to grind and are already on Wikipedia, you mean I'm sure. I did a quick count. When they said "five blocks", first they double-counted William who had undone his own after accidentally applying an infinite block (I applaud him for having the good sense to catch his own mistake, too). Then after looking at the blocks, I found the following: #1 - block by Aecis, related to a good-faith page move related to commentary left on WP:ANI about a page needing to be moved. #2 - First 3RR, not uncommon for new users. Block by William for "infinite". #2.5 - William resets this to a proper 24 hours; Shouldn't really even count this as a "new" block since it's William fixing his own mistake. #3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise - friend of Itaqallah and at his request - blocks RunedChozo for a massive 72 hours. 3RR not even violated. #4 - William blocks for 3RR: 72 hours yet again. RunedChozo contests, claiming he didn't actually break the line, and is yelled at for "gaming the system." If we have 3RR, fine, but now they're just hounding this user, not to mention slapping on out-of-process ridiculously long blocks compared to what policy states. And then the rest on the block list currently, a massive amount of resets and extensions by Tariqabjotu, which will undoubtedly be counted as numbers 6, 7,8, etc... next time they want to use this as a bludgeon against this user. So not only was it not what FayssalF/Svest claimed it to be, the blocks weren't unreasonable or even something I'd consider evidence of a problem user as such. William I normally have respect for, but he's participated in a piling-on and harassment of a user at this point, sad to say. That those he is opposite to aren't being blocked more, after viewing page histories, is solely due to the fact that there's a guild of people who are taking turns. It appears RunedChozo's accusation of meatpuppetry and organized edit warring on the part of the Muslim Guild editors is valid. But that's my take. You can go with the "admins can do no wrong" philosophy if you want; I think this user was being deliberately hounded, I think they were deliberately mischaracterizing the situation make him look worse than he is, and I think that's wrong. The fact that it's Future Perfect - the one who slapped on a 72 hour block when 3rr wasn't even violated - once again who showed up, at Itaqallah's request, to lock down the page and yell at RunedChozo smacks of an admin using his powers to do favors for his buddies. I'm not so sure the description of him as a "tool" is terribly out of line at that point. Parker

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedCho…; the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild. -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- George Herbert wrote:

On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu(a)gmail.com> wrote: If this sort of evidence is not posted in the ANI discussion, user talk page, or in the block message, it's a little hard for other admins to figure out that there are other evasion claims outstanding... Note that the time-of-day of edits by ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 ) are completely outside hours of the day when RunedChozo has typically edited before, and predate his being blocked by a day. A reasonable suspicion could be made based on targets and content, but you might want to checkuser this first and extend a block for evasion later... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu(a)gmail.com> wrote: The IP edited in two sessions; one 6 hrs after Runed's block, one about 20 hrs before. It makes sense if he might have thought he was about to get blocked, to start using an IP. But it did predate the block. I entirely understand about forgetting to add it with the late-night editing, but it did confuse me... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor on an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin sides with the Muslim editor. Parker

On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: I see. So if a Christian editor and an unspecified editor are duking it out on the Creation article, whatever admin decides to step in can't be Christian because of potential COI, especially if he happened to agree with the Christian editor? OK, so if the other editor is an atheist, then I suppose an atheist admin would be blocked from acting for the same reason. But since Muslims and Jews are "of the Book", as Guy said, and since both believe in a Creation myth, they couldn't step in either so I guess we would need to search for a Hindu or Buddhist or Shintoist, yes? At what point does the lunacy end? Or, could it be that Peter Parker or Parker Peters or whatever simply has a visceral hatred for and innate suspicion of Muslims? --

On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ditto for possible appearances of bias.