User talk:Azmoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Azmoc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  by myself Azmoc 09:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't block tor traffic as soon as you see it. It can be useful for many people. Only block tor if someone is vandalizing through that. Azmoc 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Háček vote

I like your comment there, some English speakers do tend to group words by their English-icity, but not all are so ignorant, and I don't think it compromises the encyclopedia as a whole. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diffusing the situation

In order to try and bring peace and light I have removed the warining in question. Since you have clearly seen it, and it remains in the history I see no reason for you to have to keep it on the page. Somethimes situations on Wikipedia can escalate way too much IMO. The important thing is to move on. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Azmoc, relative to this edit please refrain from such postings and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling seemed rather approriate given your removal of your warning on the edit just prior. All the Anti-barnstar thing'd do would be to inflame an otherwise over story. Why are you hesitant to not reveal your history of editing on Wikipedia? Such tendencies are better known to be associated with folks who have something to hide (say like a record of previous disruptions/blocks). JzG and I just dealt with someone who'd been jumping from sock to sock over a long period of time for these very reasons. (→Netscott) 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan

Well first off I'm probably not the best guy to be asking for an opinion from on this case as I was somewhat involved but I see Socafan as being on a bit of a mission to "dopify" everyone that has tinges of allegations of doping. Since the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy folks who are in the know have been rather quick to side on the error of caution relative to editing and libel here on Wikipedia. User:JzG's actions in this light relative to WP:BLP and this section of WP:3RR were right. All along the way JzG documented what was ocurring on ANI and unfortunately there wasn't much response to calls for outside views. Additionally, he did make attempts to engage User:Socafan on the article's talk page and met with resistance in that Socafan kept reverting to his version with some poorly sourced negative details about doping allegations and "guilt by association" text. Doing that is very wrong particularly in light of policies/guidelines relative to doing that. Also Socafan was deleting text of a counseling type nature that was left on his talk page both by myself and JzG... all of this adding up to a bit of disruption. Optimally another admin would have responded to JzG's calls for an outside view sooner and most of this would likely have been averted. I think the lack of a response is partially due to the fact that WP:BLP and that section of WP:3RR are relatively new concepts and admins don't have a whole lot of experience in those regards and as such are in a bit of a tough spot to respond. Under these circumstances I think JzG did the best he could to prevent what he percieved to be unbalanced and in some cases poorly sourced negative information from entering into the Lance Armstrong article. There were at least 5 others who took a look at the situation and indicated support for what JzG did... that's a bit unusual if an admin is truly in the wrong. I'm not sure if you've noticed but JzG's never been blocked for any offense here on Wikipedia. That's a pretty respectable accomplishment for anyone who's been around for awhile on the project. (→Netscott) 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thersa and JzG are being totally ridiculous. I've had problems with her before, she's a horrible Admin and its easy to see that JzG is as well. If you guys want to bring up an other RfC, I'm right behind you.--Wakefencer 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to get blocked?

Are you trying to get blocked? This is rather illustrative of the trolling thing I linked you to earlier. As well the liberal usage of vulgarities unecessarily is likely covered in not disrupting Wikipedai to make a point. (→Netscott) 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is covered by WP:POINT because you added to that report in a way that was very tangential and was essentially disruptive of the report. The unecessary and lack of contextual usage of vulgarities corresponds to POINT as well. (→Netscott) 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It might have disrupted what I said. Nothing else. So I didn't disrupt anyone else's work. I would understand if I was blocked for violating WP:POINT if I was inserting vulagrities into someone else's contris, but not like that. Anyway, screw that. Bye. Azmoc 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It was disruptive as your addition drew attention away for the valid report that individual made. You were trying to make a "POINT" that vulgarities are allowed. This is true but only inasmuch as context allows for. The context there didn't allow for it. (→Netscott) 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Okok.. if it disrupted SOOO much, well done blocking me. I don't think so though. Azmoc 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've not blocked you. User:Pschemp has... and Pschemp has indicated that an admin making the same post would have been been equally blocked. (→Netscott) 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for giving me time to illustrate the risks Wikipedia may face and how policy could help protect the project. My connection is too slow to follow up your points tonight, but I'll look into them when I get to a faster connection. Stephen B Streater 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Check carefully, after I have reviewed some of the facts, I don't think that I have been 100% right on this one. In fact, I am never 100% right on anything. Azmoc 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like some tips on your block, I might be able to help you. Stephen B Streater 09:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the offer. But it doesn't matter actually. Azmoc 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for inserting vulgar uncivil comments at WP:ANI. And yes, I'd block anyone who wrote what you did, even if they were an admin. pschemp | talk 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rf unblock

Either unblock me or block JzG for using vulgarities in here [1]. My comment on ANI was meant seriously (I mean, that Theresa Knott stated that there is no policy against vulgarities) and the inserted vulgarities couldn't have disrupted wikipedia. You are a little too empfindlich about "disrupting wikipedia", I haven't created a nonsense article because an article I consider nonsense was not deleted, I didn't file in a demonstrative RfArb or something, I just inserted random vulgarities into my comment. That's no disruption. Moreover, I would like to reply to the user who left a note on my talk page. Azmoc 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See .. I think the point is no mocking, no vulgarities, not just admins may be vulgar, admins may mock etc.. You would block me for vulgarity even if I posted the same thing as JzG, but him you will leave alone. Azmoc 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, JzG did not post that what you did to WP:ANI, and I did not personally run across it. Life isn't fair, and wikipedia isn't a democracy. Besides, you had 6 obscenities to his one. That's a totally different ballgame. pschemp | talk 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe if you indicate that what you did was wrong and promise not to continue in that spirit your block'd likely be lifted. (→Netscott) 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's proabably true. pschemp | talk 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks on racism

Your comments at AN/I opened my eyes. Sometimes one can be a racist just by failing to think things through carefully enough. Guettarda 14:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you here?

You still only have made an edit to one Wikipedia article. Just why are you here? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you can't be bothered to answer my question. I guess we know the real reason, don't we? And personal attacks are unbecoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Hi, I've bumped into a few of your comments here and there, and I'm wondering if I might convince you to be more civil to your fellow editors. It's not cool to personally attack other people here -- in order to keep the project working smoothly we need people to be respectful or at least non-insulting to each other. --Improv 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for this threat of vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


what to do if the block doesn't expire automatically? 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) see the time? more than 48 hours after the block already

They do expire automatically, I guess what has happened is that you've logged out and tried to edit as another user or as an IP in which case an autoblock has kicked in, autoblocks expire after 24 hours. --pgk(talk) 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
One WP:AUTOBLOCK from 22:44 UTC yesterday, I've removed it. Please do not user {{helpme}} for unblock requests in future, most people dealing with the helpme system cannot deal with unblocks and so it is just wasting their time. --pgk(talk) 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin started mocking my efforts on WP everywhere I posted something, right after he/she blocked me, which was at 19:12 here: [2], which is 19:52, and here: [3], which is 19.57, constantly mocking my work on wikipedia etc, although at 19.20 he/she was already convinced that Azmoc=Ackoz [4], moreover, I clearly stated that Azmoc=Ackoz (3 months registered, ~700 edits, ~300 in mainspace) also by email to him/her, but I don't know the exact time (I don't want to use that nick for personal reasons anymore). Calling me POV warrior with only 1 edit in mainspace is clearly a manipulation, if not personal attack given that he/she knows what my previous nickname was. This is clearly a personal conflict, plus the admin discredited my vote at the MfD with an accusation that he/she knew was false, and prevented my reaction to those allegiations with the use of a block. I see no reason why an admin should abuse his/her powers in personal conflicts / MfD votes. If an admin blocks me then starts pursuing my posts and mocking them with false accusations, the block is clearly unrightful. Azmoc 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the unblock denial. This is a clearly punitive block. Like this, policies only apply when the admins chose so, then it is called policy enforcement. If they chose not to follow the policies and do what they want with the admin tools, and somebody points out that they shouldnt, its called wikilawyering. I will start a RfC against Zoe as soon as the block is over. Greetings. Azmoc 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


It is only 38 hours. Just wait it out. You can say you have no history of vandalism, but I'm sure the admins are tired of you. You have recieved many blocks in the past. I suggest you change your atitude. GofG ||| Contribs 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I have received 1 block in the past. How does that qualify as "many blocks"? Again this is an exammple of admin arrogance and ignorance - sorry, no offence intended, but thats why I am tired of the admins. I suggest you check the block log before you post something defacing on my talkpage. Azmoc 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
According to WP blocking policy, blocks are preventive, not punitive. You may accuse me of wikilawyering (as admins always do when they don't follow the policies), but this is true, I haven't vandalized, and I state I didn't mean that post as a threat that I will. There is actually no reason for the block. Azmoc 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Zoe please check your e-mail. Azmoc 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Azmoc, herein lies a lesson for you. If only you hadn't been uncivil to half the admin corps already, you might be able to find someone who would be sympathetic to your plight. You had a point in your post on my talk page, and I was going to apologize for misinterpreting the situation. Until, that is, I read down to the part where you chose to use hateful anti-gay slurs on the talk page of a gay admin. At that point, I stopped reading and started deleting. Honestly, it seems like you want to keep pressing buttons, and if you keep pressing buttons long enough, people are going to keep blocking you. At some point, someone will get ticked off enough to block you indefinitely and nobody will lift a finger to lift it. Using phrases like "admin arrogance and ignorance" is exactly what I'm talking about. On one hand, you're requesting that admins review your block, and on the other hand saying they're arrogant and ignorant. Do you really think that's going to convince anyone to unblock you? FCYTravis 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I said he was arrogant and ignorant because he said I was blocked many times. Seen that? I was blocked once. Accusing me of being blocked many times and using it as a justification for not unblocking is clearly both ignorant (as the statement is made without checking the facts) and arrogant (as I cannot reply to this accusation). Using an example of what you call "anti-gay" slurs on your talkpage was only to illustrate the point that what I did before was not a personal attack. I chose exactly this example because of you, it illustrated my point better providing a striking difference between what would be a PA and what was just a POINT violation. I also stated that I didn't intend no offense and why I used this example. And the third thing: Even when dealing with normal issues, POV/content disputes etc, admins are only sparsely civil towards the other editors. I see no reason to be civil towards them. Azmoc 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's like this: if you stop trolling, people will likely leave you alone. If you don't, they won't. Why are you so intent on picking a fight you can't possibly win? Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is like this: This time it was ZOE who started the argument - check above, it was him/her who came to my talkpage questioning "why are you here", although he/she presumably knew that I am Ackoz. I responded on his/her talkpage and the dialogue between us lead to me being blocked and him/her following my posts and mocking me. That's why I don't want to contribute to the articles anymore - you spend a lot of time and then someone just blocks you because he doesn't like you. Admins frequently issue punitive blocks, and that goes against the policy. The non-punitive policy has a reason, a block makes the user angry, if someone gets too heated in the debate, you should just ignore him, not block him. Azmoc 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I dispute your analysis. Blocking is both normal and reasonable when an editor becomes heated: it enforces a cooling-off period. Blaming others does not help, it takes two to make an argument - you seem to be in an argument with just about everybody you come across, which indicates to me that the problem is with you. You are, it seems, an argument waiting to happen. Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, if I post a however-dumb proposal at the village pump, saying that it would be better if admins were more forced to be civil etc., and some Zoe comes and leaves a comment like "Yaya, blbablabla... Yawn", it makes me kinda heated. A block might be justified if the cooling-period is needed, but me and zoe were not in a strong dispute, and moreover, you can't really expect me to cool off if I se that Zoe pursued my posts and added "don't listen to him, he only has 1 edit and has already been blocked (by me)" to them, knowing that I am Ackoz with more than 1 edit. That approach will only make me more angry, and I think you could see why if you wanted to.
That was for your arguments towards me, now back for the blocking policy: If editors, who actually write articles (like I used to do) are sent to a cooling-off period, they might become offended. That's why the policy clearly states that the blocks should be rather preventive than punitive. I know that the common practice is to "punish" editors with blocks, and the "disruption" or personal attacks policies are also commonly misused. The NPA clearly states, that a person should only be blocked for making PA in extreme cases, and such behavior is better handled with ignoring, walking away etc. Can you see the reason (don't mock or offend anyone here even by blocks) or not? All I am saying that the common practice of blocking for "disruption" or "personal attacks" is not in accordance with WP policies. Azmoc 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
JzG you probably know English less than me. Your Decline reason: "Several admins have now been along and denied the request." - wikt:several, according to wiktionary is "Of persons or objects, more than two, but not very many." There were two admins reviewing the block, so I could see the use of word several as manipulation. However, I assume good faith, and ask you either to change your decline reason to Two admins have been ... or to ask another admin to review the block. Thank you. Azmoc 11:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is fair to assume that my English is better than yours. Not all the admins who looked here bothered to make comment; you have annoyed more than just three of us (Travis, Jeffrey and me) - plus Zoe of course. I strongly suggest you adopt a less disputatious approach. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Zoe

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Zoe blocked me and the block was rather punitive, not preventive. He/she has previously posted questions regarding my activity on wikipedia at my talk. I replied (to Zoe) by e-mail, stating that Azmoc was a sock puppet of Ackoz, but I didn't want to use Ackoz (which has ~700 edits, of that ~300 in mainspace in like 3 months) again, as it is too associated with me in my real life. Still, the questioning of the legitimity of my existence on wikipedia continued. The username Ackoz is not blocked, so I see no reason for not creating another nickname (I am not Azmoc to evade a block), as well as I see no reason for my efforts being mocked all the time by someone who is rude and justifies it like "I deal with rude people all the time". Surely being an admin on wikipedia OR having 2000+ edits doesn't make you a more valuable person. Wikipedia might be a good project, but it doesn't save the world nor it ever will. Azmoc 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

[edit] Powers misused

  • Protection (log):
  1. {list page or pages protected}
  • Deletion (log):
  1. {list page or pages deleted}
  • Blocking (log):
  1. {list user or users blocked}

Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)=Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. {explain violation of protection policy here}
  1. {explain violation of deletion policy here}
  1. {explain violation of blocking policy here}

Violated the spirit of the blocking policy by issuing a punitive block, further used other reasons and mocking my work on WP on users' talk pages: [5], which is 19.57, although in 19.20 he/she was already convinced that Azmoc=Ackoz [6], for sure he/she should have restrained from such edits on users' pages. I don't know when (at what time) he/she received/read the email, where I clearly stated that Azmoc=Ackoz, but I suspect he/she knew while making the personal attack "POV warrior". I see this as a purely personal matter. Azmoc 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Sorry I can't, I sent an e-mail through wikipedia, can somebody get it? Azmoc 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

[edit] New Message

Image:Rose.png Dear Wikipedian,
you have acheived a considerable number of edits on wikipedia. This can mean, that you devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free encyclopedia. I would like to remind you, however, that Wikipedia is not the best thing that happened to mankind since 2000, it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local municipality, that would allow you to volunteer your time and efforts to help the diseased, disabled, or otherwise handicapped people. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a computer in their entire life, and don't know what internet or wikipedia is. Such organisations target hunger, diseases, or the lack of proper education in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you donate your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most.
Image:Rose.png Dear new Wikipedian,
I have come here to welcome you to wikipedia. Behind the walls of the articles, there is a vibrant community of editors, which you just entered. This can mean, that you are ready to devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free encyclopedia, or you might be here only to improve a few articles of your expertise. The work on the wikipedia and the interaction with the community are rewarding. I would like to remind you, however, that Wikipedia is not the best thing that happened to mankind since 2000, it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local municipality, that would allow you to volunteer your time and efforts to help the diseased, disabled, or otherwise handicapped people. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a computer in their entire life, and don't know what internet or wikipedia is. Such organisations target hunger, diseases, or the lack of proper education in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you donate your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most.

What is the official time? 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Please stop spamming your charity message. It's a good message and all, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to go around soliciting volunteer work. --Cyde↔Weys 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Request reason: "Please unblock me. This is not spaming. I am not soliciting volunteer work, but in fact, wikipedia is. This is my personal message to all users that have large numbers of edits, I just want to remind them that there are also better things to do. I will not continue posting this message, because it can really look that I am soliciting for voluneer work, but I will change the message (tommorrow) to include also other things a person might do instead of volunteering his time and efforts to wikipedia, then I will only sparsely place it on talkpages. Is that ok?"
Wikilawyering. Now stop it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your intentions

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you have any intention on furthering that aim? -- JamesTeterenko 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truce?

I don't want to be in a war with anybody. Can we call a truce? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have an idea...

Write an essay entitled Wikipedia:When to quit and include your message in there. However, spamming your message, however well intentioned, is contrary to your goals. Good luck, ---J.S (t|c) 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is fair. If you want to block me indef, or a longer time, bring me to arbcom. I promise I will not be posting any messages like this until the case is closed. It should not be possible that a person get blocked by a consensus of the admin community.

Quote:

<-- over here again; I support this too, especially because his last User talk edit reveals him to be a sockpuppet of another neighborhood troll who invoked his m:Right to vanish. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Neigborhood troll? As Ackoz, I think I created a lot of articles and got blocked for minor disruption after 3 months of registration. You really call me a troll?? Incredible. Azmoc 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Oh yes, the admins obviously break the rules here. According to the rules, they shouldn't indefblock me for something like that. But once someone else than admin mentions "the rules", it's called wikilawyering. Quite nice. Azmoc 06:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked

Blanked .. there are policies and rules and there is admin consensus about everything. The latter is what matters + talking about policies is a crime called "wikilawyering". Azmoc 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Wikilawyering is where you trawl through the policies to find loopholes to pretend you are allowed to engage in disruption. You aren't. In the end the no. 1 rule on Wikipedia is "use common sense", and if it hides under bridges and eats passing billy-goats gruff, the chances are it's probably a troll. You have a past history of productive edits up to your block as Ackoz. Why not return to that pattern of editing? Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it's unrewarding. Admins just block too much for too little things. And now I am indefblocked, wherever I would edit, I could become a part of a content dispute, which would lead to another "sockpuppet evading a block" block. So how can I get back to that? I would like to though. Azmoc 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked once, briefly, as Ackoz. At which point you changed account, and since then you have done pretty much nothing to benefit the project. Can you really not see that? Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see that. But the thing I am repeating over and over is that I don't think that I should have been blocked (the first time). I really did feel offended. That's why I think the admins should interpret the policies (in the sense block only as prevention or in extreme cases) more strictly and don't just block as they don't like something. Azmoc 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you admitted you are being detrimental to the project. Do you mean your first, original block as Ackoz? Because, and I say this with all seriousness, RELAX! It's no great shame to be blocked, the block is long expired, forget about it. But as you're now here to disrupt things to prove your WP:POINT, I don't see how we can unblock you. I suggest you wait a week and renew your request if you can think of something beneficial to do for the project. Mangojuicetalk 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/z/m/User_talk%7EAzmoc_22cb.html"