User talk:Enviroknot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RFAr

I am opening a request for arbitration against you due to your persistent use of personal attacks and sockpuppets. Firebug 16:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You should be advised that I have left my comments in the KaintheScion/ElKabong RFAr.
You should also be advised that I have yet to be convinced that these two are actually sockpuppets.
I further object to being named in this RFAr at all, as it is an obvious indication to me that the whole thing has been enacted in bad faith by a group of editors pushing a political agenda. That you did so without so much as sending me a message or an email is very bad form on your part. Enviroknot

[edit] Personal attacks

Personal attacks can be removed altogether; people have been polite so far in merely editing out the unacceptable parts. If you want your comments to remain (and to remain unedited), then keep the lid on your emotions. It's really that simple. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Shenanigans

Firebug and Mel Etitis keep trying to tag your user page with a sockpuppet notice. I have now removed it twice. [edited by Whig for language and WP:NPA

You should know they'll probably continue, [they] will do anything then can to try to attack anyone who doesn't share their POV-pushing ways. ElKabong [edited by Whig for language and WP:NPA

While I do not appreciate your language, I understand now why you are so upset.
To Mel Etitis: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to edit either my User page or my Talk page. Period. Enviroknot
Why exactly is he not allowed to post here? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Because he keeps vandalizing my user page.Enviroknot 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been reported for a 3RR violation at Neofascism and religion and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel this block is unfair, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets and edit wars

I didn't say you were a sockpuppet, I said ElKabong was the same editor as KaintheScion; why would you imagine I was referring to you? As for User:Yuber, yes, he does little but edit-war on Muslim/Arab related topics, but that's not relevant to my comment on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I have reported you for violation of the 3RR.Yuber(talk) 21:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been reported for a 3RR violation at Dhimmi and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel this block is unfair, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

What you wrote on Mel Etitis' talk page was, without shadow of a doubt, a personal attack. As per Wikipedia policy, please do not make them. Cheers, smoddy 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not make assertions such as this. Much as it is easy to rise to such accusations, you will gain far more respect from the Wikipedia community if you protest your innocence while remaining within policy. Mel's behaviour, while perhaps a little inflammatory, is nonetheless within policy. Your personal attack isn't, whatever you may hope. Don't do it: convince the Wikipedia community of your good faith by acting in a suitable manner. smoddy 20:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand your upset. Wikipedia does tend to favour the people who accuse others of sockpuppetry. I can see no evidence for your being anything other than a good faith editor. Don't be downhearted about this, but you should really not rise to it. If the ArbComm are worth their salt, they will find no evidence that you are a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet template should be restricted to those who are clearly sockpuppets, not merely accused. I believe that Mel's actions probably constitute a personal attack, but I suggest that you try not to fight fire with fire. It will make Wikipedians far more amenable to your cause. smoddy 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Thank you for your help.

I suggest you use Jayjg's message to you about Yuber being a revert warmonger in the arbcom page.

Thanks again,

Guy Montag 05:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My comment

Please note that I was not making a comment necessarily directed specifically at you, but to those users who've been revert warring on your page. → Ingoolemo ← talk 02:35, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing user pages

Kindly refrain from vandalizing my user page. It is NOT appreciated.Enviroknot 07:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was doing the opposite; I saw an abusive anonymous user blank your user page, and reverted it. --cesarb 13:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New User

I am sure it's not a sockpuppet, but if he is a bad faith editor, he will be dealt with sooner or later. Keep me updated if possible. Where does he edit?

Regards,

Guy Montag 05:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse I am not a sockpuppet. Its funny to see that how pathetic you have become that you will try to label as many people as possible "sockpuppet". The only "bad faith" editor is enviroknot as he loves vandalizing Islam-related pages. What is this a spy-operation (keep me updated)?--Anonymous editor 02:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist Fucks

As a former Muslim woman I want to thank you for taking the time to stand up to these Islamist Fucks, especially the shits like Yuber and "Anonymous" who keep trying to deny that my friend lost her life in that fire.

Keep up the good work, please. If the devotees of Mohammed (may Piss be upon him) win, we all lose our souls.

Keep talking to yourself enviroknot. There you go again. I think that now it is clearly evident that you are making personal attacks again and now you seem to have a problem with my conversion to Islam too.You have been reported. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fuck off, you Islamist bastard. You mysogynistic fools make me sick.
You anti-Islamic, conservative mysogynistics who know nothing about Islam make me sick. --Anonymous editor 03:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
You Islamist bastards who see women as nothing more than brood mares to be kept at home barefoot and pregnant are the cause of immense suffering. Your adherence to the teachings of that totalitarian racist bastard is the reason there is war and suffering and racism in the world. I hope you rot in hell. You want to know why I am so thankful for men like Enviroknot? Because I can never go home. Because my family, who I thought loved me, will try to KILL me if they ever find me for leaving Islam. Because they tried to have me married off at the age of 12 to a 30 year old lecher. Because the only thing I had to aspire to was being dragged to some backwards shithole Muslim nation and becoming a way for some asswipe with no personal hygeine to get kids and have someone to beat on when he got mad. WELL FUCK YOU, YOU MYSOGYNISTIC BASTARD. LEARN ABOUT THE GODDAMN RELIGION. LEARN THE TRUTH. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Funny, do you have anymore made-up stories that you would like to tell us? I like a good laugh by looking at your stupidity. Your personal attacks are also getting funnier.

(The preceding was an edit by 64.229.203.159, likely "Anonymous editor" evading a block).Enviroknot

[edit] Edit summaries

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and then be careful to describe an edit as RV vandalism only when said 'vandalism' is vandalism as defined by this policy. To do otherwise is extremely misleading. In most cases, I think revert POV or revert bias will serve you well. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 07:04, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppet

[Is completely tired of dealing with this bad-faith persecution.]<--- Enviroknot 00:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask other editors, even if you strongly suspect that Enviroknot of being a sock, to assume good faith and respect the principle that we get to have our userpages the way we want? It is in any case the behaviour of Enviroknot that is deplored, not the user as such. So let's deal with the behaviour, yes? Grace Note 23:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IrishPunkTom, I am no sockpuppet. Go away.Enviroknot 00:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buy a dictionary, since you seem to be having trouble, despite being told repeatedly, that you are grossly misusing the word "vandalism". You're a documented sockpuppet, hip-deep in an RfAr for bad behavior, and policy says marking your sockpuppet status is perfectly valid as a warning to others. Give it up, you're running out of people unfamiliar with the situation whom you can snow. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Avoid calling what other editors are doing on your userpage "vandalism" or calling them "sockpuppets" or "sockpuppet drones", since it only fans the flames. --cesarb 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They have been vandalizing my page constantly like this. The first time they did it, I sent each a warning not to do it again. Mel Etitis' response was nasty email to me followed by his constant hunt for nonexistent "evidence", as well as encouraging his Islamist friends to attack me at every opportunity. This has been beyond ridiculous, and it IS vandalism as well as complete bad faith on their part.Enviroknot 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even then, calling names only makes things worse. It's even possible that some of the editors reverting you might be thinking ill of you just because of these kinds of edit summaries. --cesarb 01:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, please read the definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Ingoolemo talk 05:28, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

"Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism." Maybe you should read it yourself. Grace Note 06:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my "nasty e-mail" asked, very politely, if Enviroknot would be prepared to e-mail me from his normal address. I sent the same e-mail to Elkabong. I explained that, if the addresses were different, I would accept that as partial evidence for their being different people, and would stop insisting on the sock-puppet template. After a couple of days, within two hours of each other Elkabong sent me an abusive e-mail and Enviroknot posted a message saying that he refused to do what I'd asked. If Enviroknot honestly believes my e-mail to have been nasty, I give him permission to post it here in full (as it was a Wikipedia e-mail, I don't have a copy).
As for Grace Note, I've already pointed him in the firection of Wikipedia policy, which explicitly says that the sock-puppet template should be placed on user pages when there is sufficient evidence. Many editors, including arbcom members who have checked IP addresses and editors who are involved with the articles affected, agree that there is sufficient evidence. It is thus not only not vandalism to place the template, it is specifically allowed for in Wikipedia policy.
The insistence by Enviroknot and Grace Note that editors are vandalising is itself a case of bad faith and of personal attack, and it would be helpful if they both stopped. If it turns out that Enviroknot isn't in fact a sock puppet of Elkabong et al. (after all, good evidence and ell-founded suspicions aren't the same as knock-down proof and infallibility), then we can apologise to Enviroknot, and get on with life. In the meantime, all this flailing around, abusing other editors who are acting in good faith, and so on, simply poisons the atmosphere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism." Read the policy. Read the one about not protecting pages you are involved in an editing dispute over while you're at it. If you don't think harassing another user and abusing your admin powers to do so is "poisoning the atmosphere", I haven't the least idea what would be. Grace Note 10:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Quoting one vague definition is unhelpful in the face of the very clear and precise policy to which I've pointed.
  2. I haven't protected his page; read the edit history.
  3. I haven't abused my admin powers; I notice that you give no details...
  4. I've acted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you think otherwise, then instead of going on and on about it here and on my Talk page, report the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and ask there whether I've done any of the things of which you accuse me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope. I'm done with you. The page was protected after your last edit of it, Mel. Maybe a glitch but that's how I found it. Grace Note 05:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that suggests that Enviroknot is a sockpuppet. David Gerard did an IP check, and concluded that "Eniroknot = ElKabong = KaintheScion". Adding a tag indicating this is neither harassment nor vandalism. Ingoolemo talk 20:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

There is absolutely no "evidence" in that diff whatsoever. Just Dave Gerard's say-so. I don't consider that sufficient in the face of the user's vehement denials. It serves no purpose placing the tag other than to harass the user. So much for Wikilove. Grace Note 05:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What part of "David Gerard did an IP check" was unclear to you? If you want to call him a liar, perhaps you should do so directly.
As for giving advice on "wikilove": coming from you, that's funny. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

If Yuber violated 3RR, we'll need the diffs, times, and dates at WP:AN/3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, either you have to look for them or I do, and you're the one who's reporting it, and, I'm assuming, watched the edits as they were made. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting your userpage

I have asked David Gerard how reasonable your explanation is. If he agrees that your alibi is a likely one, I'll unprotect your userpage. Ingoolemo talk 02:25, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

[edit] puppetry accusations

fine, thanks for your statement! I'll try my best to assume faith. You will admit your editing pattern allowed room for concerns, but if the sock checks prove you innocent (no open proxies!), you'll be owed a serious apology, of course. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Disruption

Please stop acting in a disruptive manner [1]. If you don't quit fighting with other editors I will block you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When are you claiming I have done so? It is a number of other editors who have been harassing ME.Enviroknot 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's see:
* You have edited with this user from 25 May.
* In that time you have made over three hundred edits, but just forty-eight edits in article space.
* Even so, by your FIFTH day editing with this username, you were revert warring on Dhimmi
* You've been engaged in edit warring recently on Jihad.
* You're stirring up a rather ugly flame war on the same article and related ones.
* You're engaged in pretty general violations of WP:NPA.
* Nobody harassed you into doing these things, you did them of your own accord.
All I'm asking you to do is to start trying to understand and apply Wikipedia policy. I'm not joking when I say I consider your contributions to date to have been unhelpful. You and one or two others are making Wikipedia an extremely difficult environment to work in, and unnecessarily so. Behave yourself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In your reply to me you said you had only been reverting vandalism, you indicate that you think that other editors are inserting falsehoods in articles and you seem to think that this means you can do what you like. You act as if you haven't done anything wrong, and yet you've been engaged in some of the most toxic behavior I've ever seen on Wikipedia. You ask for specifics, but the arbitration case is full of specifics. I'll give one particularly worrying case: an edit summary "Users were challenged to provide evidence of liberal movements in Talk: none were forthcoming. Feel free to put forth evidence of existence of liberal groups in Islamic nations if you wish." You used this summary to justify inserting the statement: " However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states." This blatantly dishonest reasoning--taking silence on a matter as evidence for an unsupported factual statement--is extremely inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is recommended practice to remove unsupported statements of fact from articles. You are putting it the wrong way round when you say that someone should disprove a statement in order to remove it. The reverse is the case. A statement of fact that is not supported does not belong in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say "PROPER NPOV would require that the assertion that liberal muslims exist in numbers large enough to make a political or social difference, in the Middle East or otherwise, MUST BE SOURCED." You're right. However you must not manufacture your own unsupported statements to counter statements made by other people. Simply ask them to support the thesis that liberal islamic voices are significant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say "Alternatively I could make edits to their statements or remove their claims from the article; however, they would likely accuse me of vandalism."

Well there's a lot of nonsense being talked on both sides. This doesn't excuse you for talking nonsense yourself, nor does it give you the right to blame the putative reaction of others for your own misbehavior. You've also developed a tendency to demand that people assume good faith in their dealings with you, without conceding this privilege to others.

Thousands of Wikipedia editors make good edits on the Wiki and resolve their differences within Wikipedia behavior guidelines. Anarchists have worked alongside fascists on the same article and produced good, neutral work. To achieve that kind of result, trust is vital. You must learn to trust other editors and communicate your concerns about them as you would communicate them to a beloved brother. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

The arbcom has decided on a temporary injunction in your case. You are allowed to edit your talk page and the arbitration pages. If you edit any others, you may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KaintheScion_et_al./Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_injunctions SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

You were supposed to get back to me about the block of the computer lab at the U of H. Your e-mails suddenly dried up. What happened? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
You know exactly what I'm talking about. I honestly don't see the point in any of this for you. We're not stupid, and you know you've been caught (in fact, I've just found another mistake you made), so there's no point in keeping it going. An innocent editor would have abandoned the user name by now and started afresh. You've only got around 300 edits to your name, with about 50 to articles, most of which got reverted, so you wouldn't be losing much if you abandoned the name. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PSP/PlayStation Portable move

Hey, why'd you move PlayStation Portable to PSP (Sony handheld) against consensus? There was nearly total agreement not to move to PSP or any variation thereof, as PlayStation Portable is still in common and official use. Here's a link to the debate. If you want to bring it up again, go for it, but please don't just move it again. A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email.

What is your email address? (Marmot)

[edit] Injunction warning

Hi

I note that you have been editing despite your injunction. Please stop or you will have to be blocked in accordance with the terms of the injunction. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 07:58 (UTC)

I've already warned you about disruptive behavior, Enviroknot. Consider this your final warning. I'm watching you and will block if you continue to misbehave. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration committee decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:29 (UTC)

[edit] About Mel

Is he giving you a hard time? You're not the only victim! Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Mel_Etitis and leave a message if you want to join in fighting evil. Thank you! --Anittas 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case involving Yuber

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:

  • Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
  • Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
  • Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)