User talk:Zenupassio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sockpuppets shouldn't be used to conduct edit wars, to try to evade Wikipedia:Three revert rule and so forth. -- 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your last edit made the first sentence: The Killian documents' the documents. This doesn't make sense, for that reason alone it needs to be reverted. -- 02:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Come on, let's be serious. All you accomplish is creating a siege mentality and knee-jerk reverting... you declared "victory" last night when you got Ward Churchill protected to a version you disagree with? That's a victory? Especially if it stays frozen that way for weeks? -- Curps 02:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your actions are wrecking User:Tony Marvin's chances of introducing constructive changes into the Ward Churchill article. -- Curps 02:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The "interesting articles" you just happened to notice just happen to be the same articles that the last sockpuppet was editing. Whatever. -- Curps 02:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All you can possibly accomplish is getting articles frozen to versions you disagree with. There's a reason for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view... it's the only way that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit can possibly work. -- Curps 02:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a blog, or an essay. The problem is not necessarily the points you try to make, just the combative and highly opinionated writing style. It's not an encyclopedic writing style. Changes like that have to be reverted even if a person might actually agree with the opinion. If you attack socialism, some socialist will come along and revert you... so why not make the point you're trying to make without venting about socialists and communists and whatever. -- Curps 02:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lots of people might want to dissent about peak oil, but they do so by citing references, not ranting about socialism. It's necessary to try to block disruption because it's an attack on Wikipedia itself. Just like the cops keep trying to arrest crack dealers, no matter how futile it might seem at times. Anyone that tries to sabotage Wikipedia, I have to try to to block and revert, regardless of my own opinions on the articles in question. Nothing personal, but if it's really your goal to try to sabotage Wikipedia, then we'll always be on opposite sides. -- Curps 02:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have no idea what my politics are, and I intend to keep it that way. You're not exactly being honest yourself, are you (won't admit to being a sockpuppet). I block people who vandalize other user's user pages, who try to sabotage Wikipedia, and I revert changes that consist of rants rather than constructive edits. That's all. Nothing personal. Any needed changes to an article can always be put in in a non-inflammatory way that isn't an automatic revert magnet. -- Curps 02:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Show me an example of a left-leaning editor making edits in the style you're making... ranting about vast right-wing conspiracies and venting instead of sticking to the point... and I'll gladly revert that person. -- Curps 02:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any edit that puts someone in a category of "People considered to be evil" is an automatic revert. If someone put Oliver North or Ronald Reagan into that category, I'd automatically revert it. You're not really listening to what I'm saying. If you want a specific revert of a left-wing editor (or any other right-wing editor that isn't one of your sockpuppets), hang on, I'll go digging through the records. -- Curps 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted both right-wing and left-wing editors... but when I need to revert, I just do it and move on. I don't obsess over the person's motivations or their politics. So to give specific examples I'd have to go digging through the records, I don't bother remembering specific examples. You have a siege mentality that automatically sees an enemy in everyone. I've told you the reasons why "people considered to be evil" needs reverting, but you keep insisting I'm a leftist. -- Curps 02:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, going through the records, it seems like the only reverts on political articles that I've needed to revert lately have been you and your many sockpuppets. There simply haven't been left-wing editor making the kind of "venting" edits you do with the kind of persistence you've shown. Of course I've done reverts like one recently on Bob Dole, but that was just silly vandalism ("eats male chickens") rather than politically-motivated. Turning the question around: show me an example of a left-wing editor who makes the kind of edits you make... someone who adds the words "capitalism is evil" to articles, and show me where that person hasn't been blocked or reverted. You won't be able to find an example. -- Curps 03:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not your opinions that are the problem, everyone has them. The key to making changes to articles that won't get reverted is to present things in a non-opinionated way rather than venting. Many leftists are against large corporations, against Microsoft, against SUVs. Show me one single example where a leftist has added the words "Bill Gates is evil", "Ronald Reagan was evil", "Capitalists are evil", "Republicans are bastards" or what not, and it hasn't been reverted. You can't. Once again, it's your style that's problem. You just want to vent... you don't really care about making articles more balanced. You're like one of those grafitti artists that spraypaints a wall just for the hell of it. -- Curps 03:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that the right-wing editors blocked by me (who are all pretty much sockpuppets of the same person) were blocked because of vandalizing other user's pages, or impersonating other users with misleading usernames, or blanking entire pages. Name one that was blocked by me merely for expressing right-wing opinions. That's right, you can't. -- Curps 03:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not the place of an encyclopedia article to make predictions... blogs can do that, essays can do that, but not encyclopedia articles. If the governor of Colorado says, "we're going to get Ward Churchill fired" then we can objectively report that. If he's under investigation, we objectively report that. We don't predict that he'll be fired... we wait until he is fired, and then report it. I don't think you're familiar with academic environments though... getting anybody fired even in open-and-shut cases is incredibly difficult (someone I know worked in a university administration... even people caught embezzling had to be bought off with generous severance packages). If I had to bet, I'd put good money on him lasting more than a year, perhaps indefinitely. -- Curps 03:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
People don't get blocked for writing outrageous pap, they just get reverted. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. They only get blocked if they get into an edit war and break the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, or if they lose their cool and start committing clear-cut vandalism (blanking pages, replacing other user's pages with obscenities, etc).
You're slipping, by the way. First you said "Dozens of right-wingers blocked." then you say, "How can I possibly know who you've blocked?" Well, do you know who I've blocked or don't you... and if you don't know, how could you know unless it was you (your sockpuppets)? And admit most of those sockpuppets did indeed cross the line into vandalism... the cases that didn't were cases where a sockpuppet was used to evade the three-revert rule, which is also covered in the blocking policy. No admin can block a user merely for their opinions... of the "dozens of right-wingers blocked", name one that wasn't justified by the provisions of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- 03:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree the introduction to Ward Churchill needs to be expanded... nobody ever heard of him before the controversy, the introduction needs to talk about the controversy and ongoing investigations. As a rule of thumb, someone who just reads the introduction and stops there should be able to know in a nutshell why the person in question is famous (or notorious), and the current version doesn't do that. Unfortunately, due to the massive disruption at that article, putting in any changes there is a bit of a lost cause at the moment. Which is exactly why that sort of disruption is counterproductive. -- Curps 03:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, any left-winger that added "Election of George W. Bush" to the List of incidents that have been considered great blunders would get automatically reverted. Actually, that entire article is probably contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view anyway. -- Curps 03:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any block by any admin can be reversed by any other admin. Unjustified blocks don't last. Asking the question right back at you: was the Ward Churchill page made better by your intervention? -- Curps 04:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You deny being a sockpuppet, yet you just created a couple just now. As per blocking policy, sockpuppets created for the purpose of breaking the three-revert rule can be blocked indefinitely. And the latest edits to COINTELPRO ("coin telephony") were indeed vandalism, and Zen-master is correct: reverts of vandalism don't count for purposes of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (read it, it's written right there). -- Curps 04:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abusive impersonation of another user (whether mocking imitation of their username like "Slamvorgin", or outright attempts to fool other into thinking that you're that user) is grounds for blocking. That's just the rules. -- Curps 04:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not impersonating anyone. I signed up as zenupassion. Except I forgot the 'n'. Doh. That's how I stumbled on Zen-master you see. I typed in the wrong thing on my contributions and saw all of these crazy things. SO no impersonation. He's the one impersonating an editor. He's actually something else entirely. Zenupassio 04:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You keep calling me corrupt, but if some graffiti artist is spraypainting walls, a cop will try to stop that person. And if the "artist" complains that it's because of the political slogans he was trying to write, the cop will just shrug and go about his job. It's silly to call me "corrupt" when you're being far from honest yourself. Next, you'll be trying to tell me that you really believe "COINTELPRO" stands for "coin telephony professionals" and you can't understand why it was reverted. You keep telling falsehoods and playing children's games (no other word to describe many of those edits). You never answered the question: was the Ward Churchill page made better by your intervention? -- Curps 04:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What edit exactly were you planning to make to my user page, anyway? -- Curps 04:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ugen64's reverts were justified. And let's just say maturity is not necessarily related to age. I assume you're over 14 yourself. -- Curps 04:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you really wanted the title changed, you could post it at Wikipedia:Requested page moves. That was done for Iraqi resistance, and it succeeded in getting the page title changed to the more neutral Iraqi insurgency. That's the way it's done when people wish to accomplish something, rather than vent, knowing they'll be reverted in a minute or two. -- Curps 04:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well I see you got blocked (not by me mind you), I'm guessing for the three-revert rule, so we'd have to continue this conversation on your next sockpuppet's page. But maybe it would be better to call it a night. -- Curps 04:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] COINTELPRO
Please discuss edits on the "discussion page."--Cberlet 02:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no sockpuppets, nor am I one. Nor have I ever met one. I don't want vandals like you editing my Talk page. You are banned. Zenupassio 04:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Boothy443 | comhrĂ 04:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Antandrus 04:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
