User:TJive/Fenriswolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User:TJive/Wikistalking for a brief explanation of this page's purpose. It collects and archives material related to a Wikistalker known as "Fenriswolf" and "PatCheng" (and possibly other aliases). The material is not an active or ongoing conversation but a retread of material on Wikipedia which practically constitutes a real-time look at what transpired on various talk and administrative pages.

Note that the section headings refer to dates on which I last checked and here edited to see that the links refer to the same text and sections and that they were not altered. I will no longer change them regularly since there have been minor bot fixes, such as those that occur for inter-Wiki links, but I do check to make sure these are actual fixes. I will only change the dates if the links or substantive content related to this subject was altered and needed to be corrected. --TJive 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] As of 6/7/06

[edit] Harassment by User:PatCheng and his anonymous IPs

It would be a good idea as a preface to this posting to mention that there was a previous incident which involved both myself and this user, who has made a habit of vandalizing and egregiously insulting other users. My first contact with him was when he vandalized my user page. He followed me around various articles I would edit, as you can see if you glance through my edit histories (mostly during September) as well as the following:

He has edited a wide variety of articles (video games, sci-fi, and so forth) but the contentious lies in political-related topics, including the pages of Vietnam War, Fidel Castro, National Endowment for Democracy, Anti-Chinese sentiment, Americofascism, Anti-communism, Cult of personality, The Epoch Times, and so on. I was in some cases involved in prior or ongoing disputes with other editors, who actually attempted to resolve a specific issue rather than simply follow around my contributions and undo them. He would add on reverts to the pile of others in an attempt to compound my problems. It came to the point where I was having to revert a set of a dozen articles once a day or more, simply because of this one user.

Regrettably, Rama decided that I was being "disruptive" in not having properly discussed my issues with this user pertaining to one particular article ("Anti-Chinese sentiment") and blocked me for 24 hours (though the block remained for longer). I posted a defense of my actions (mentioned at the top) on ANI to (largely) deafening silence. While I had accumulated a couple thousand edits by this point, the fetishization of ritual Wikipedian processes made it so that editing with what little time I had was fruitless as any small point of contention (literally including a change of one word) could lead to weeks' worth of involvement which I could not spare. And in the midst of this there are administrators who choose to moderate the worthiness of editors' individual content disputes, further frustrating meaningful involvement by any but the most time-possessive and fiercely determined editors.

I decided to dabble a little bit in Wikipedia again on New Year's Day, moving an article in which the name itself featured in a previous dispute. I made a small number of minor edits in the coming days, including at Peekskill Riots, which was changed in a few hours. On the 10th of January I reverted this change and edited four separate articles: Raúl Rivero, National Endowment for Democracy, Opposition to Fidel Castro, and Alpha 66. Within a period of four minutes, this user made the following (consecutive) edits:

  • 02:58, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
  • 02:58, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Raúl Rivero (NPOV)
  • 02:55, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) National Endowment for Democracy
  • 02:54, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alpha 66 [1]

Another seven minutes later came this move of "No Gun Ri incident" to "No Gun Ri massacre" from "PatCheng". PatCheng's first two edits were complaints to Evilphoenix and Rama about me on November 1. Other than three reverts the account lay dormant until January, where on the first he trolled a talk page pertaining to a talk show. Next was this 3:05 revert move on No Gun Ri.

  • 03:05, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) m No Gun Ri incident (moved No Gun Ri incident to No Gun Ri massacre)
  • 23:10, January 1, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Apprentice 4
  • 23:56, November 2, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Human rights in Cuba
  • 23:55, November 2, 2005 (hist) (diff) Fidel Castro (NPOV)
  • 22:33, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Fidel Castro (TDC, please don't remove sections and blackwash the contents)
  • 02:02, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rama
  • 01:58, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Evilphoenix

I now have to defend my edits on such articles as Lucheng, Islam Karimov, and Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front. In two of these cases I changed only one word. [2] [3]

The "No Gun Ri incident/massacre" title dispute was resolved with other editors and with no input from this user. Although he saw fit to edit this page with his anon IPs once it was merged back into No Gun Ri, when I moved a related article, "Robert Bateman (American)", to "Robert Bateman (historian)" and changed "Robert Bateman" to reflect this, "PatCheng" was the one who decided to edit Robert Bateman-related pages. [4].

These occurrences often give to other editors the impression that a bizarre edit war is being waged over a trivial issue. This was the case with National Endowment for Democracy. User:Macho had this to say in his edit:

this edit war is silly

I responded thusly on his talk page:

Every edit war that this particular anon decided to engage in (practically anything I edit) is silly. I don't make it a habit of attempting to justify myself in detail, routinely, and repeatedly, to a "wikistalker".

The anon chimed in with the following:

You can STFU TJive. I simply chose to clean up your messy pro-American propaganda, and will continue to do so.

This user apparently has appointed himself parole officer and cleanser of my foul edits. I must answer to him in any and every case. This has culminated in constant and systematic reverts you could almost set your watch to, which continue to this day:

  • 02:21, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
  • 02:20, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Islam Karimov (top)
  • 02:19, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (top)
  • 02:18, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Lucheng (top)
  • 01:49, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) No Gun Ri (rv vandalism)
  • 01:48, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
  • 01:46, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front
  • 01:41, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Islam Karimov
  • 01:38, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Lucheng [5] --TJive 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
In a possibly-related matter, I had previously added User:PatCheng to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser #CantStandYa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I think the chance of it being one of that editor's sock is slim, but there was some activity which made me wonder. -Will Beback 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He skulked around until he could avoid the boundaries of 3RR and reverted them once again. [6] [7] [8] Now apparently he plans to game the system every night, since every time I initiate reverts I will be one down. --TJive 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now he has deleted comments of mine on a talk page. --TJive 05:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs), as well as his anon-IP 141.153.74.246 (talk · contribs) are the sockpuppets of TJive (talk · contribs), who claimed that he left Wikipedia for good. Not only he keeps adding right-wing POV into articles, he has put suggestions on his user page [9] and wells as talk pages of certain articles [10], suggestion that I'm apparantly a "Communist web spy employed by the Chinese government". He has restored vandalism deleted by admins, calling it [11] "restoring valuable comment in proper place". User has also vandalised several articles to fit his political agenda, removing references [12] [13] without discussion, adding weasel words into articles to blackwash leftists [14]. --PatCheng 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCU#Not_Clear_-_Nobs01_or_TJive.3F. --Rory096 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what he intends to accomplish here, considering there is no actual policy violation described in this rant.
BTW, I "claimed that [I] left Wikipedia for good"? Mind showing where? --TJive 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. User:YINever apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over The Epoch Times article. RevolverOcelotX 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See the same below. YINever 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. --RevolverOcelotX 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is due for a block for violating 3RR, for which he has been warned and blocked before. He is attempting to put repeated templates on my page to goad me into excerbating a content dispute, and so far has seen two fraudulent vandalism reports shunned. Apparently he thinks if he can just keep reporting to more and more places, maybe someone will be fooled and block me over his templates. [15] [16]
"User:PatCheng" has just been blocked for his own violations, and so far this one remains free. YINever 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"User:PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RRV. Apparently YINever is a new account and most of his edits was in a revert war with User:PatCheng and other editors. He has been amply warned yet he still continues to revert the article. I suspect the IP address reverting The Epoch Times article is his sockpuppet. He keeps deleting his talk page warnings which is vandalism. RevolverOcelotX 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been protected to give you all a cooling off period. Please discuss your edits on the talk pages. Deleting comments from ones' own talk page may be rude but is not considered vandalism. Since your mutual checkuser requests were negative on all counts, I suggest you stop warning each other and try to cooperate on writing the article. Thatcher131 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/9/06

[edit] Any admins here have GameFAQs account

If you are an admin and have a GameFAQs account, please give me an email. I need an investigation to be performed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Sceptre. User:TheCoffee has a GF account too. Will (E@) T 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/9/06

[edit] User proclaiming sockpuppetry

I have been given evidence that a user has proclaimed on an off-site webforum to his sparring partner that he has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp his way to victory in an edit war. A screenshot is available on my talk page. This screenshot was verified to be true by PS2pcGAMER, who is a member and has access to the forum. The user has been involved in edit wars on a variety of pages without any discussion. I think a substantial block is in order. Thoughts?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support simply asking the user in question first, and trying to convince them that they shouldn't do that. If that doesn't work, a block, yes. The user hasn't done anything yet, I think we should give them a chance. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
User:PatCheng has been engaging in extreme edit wars with no attempt at consultation on a variety of pages, in a manner which seems not to be NPOV. He has been battling the other user everywhere for a long time now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
So this is the user this post is about? I'll have to think about this... something's telling me we should just block this user based on the fact that they're threatning to do something, despite the fact that they've already been involved in lots of edit wars. I'll get back to you... there's no rush, right? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the user in question has also launched personal attacks on other users, and was blocked by me yesterday for swearing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
After seeing the screenshot, it looks to me like "your mama"-style trash-talking. I'm not too worried. Just keep an eye on any relevant pages. What makes you think it's PatCheng? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoutwood (talk • contribs)
Well, "Fenriswolf" is later asked whether he contributes as PatCheng and is stalking, and he shows more bravado.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Still, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. Like I said, keep a eye on any relevant pages, maybe talk to the user about the issue, but apart from that I don't think there's too much reason for concern from this particular incident. Snoutwood (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's an admission of stalking then that is serious, as they are always in the same place. PatCheng started editing long after the other guy - he started in March 2005.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, the forum post image is here -- Longhair 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am PatCheng and I proclaim my innocence. In that Gamefaqs topic, YINever claimed that "RevolverOcelotX" and "Fenriswolf" are my alternate accounts. Looking at Fenriswolf's profile at Gamefaqs, he created his account on 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM. I, however, did not create a Gamefaqs account until early 2005. As for RevolverOcelotX being my alt, it has been proven false by CheckUser, but nevertheless YINever keeps insisting these are my alts in that topic. PatCheng is my sole Wikipedia account, which was created to organise the contributions my previous IP-based ones, and not for the purpose of "stalking" TJive. My first edit occured in late 2004 and did not even come across TJive until late early 2006. I revert some of TJive's edits because I find many of them questionable under NPOV policies, such his reference to Cuban government as "Castro regime" [17], and the Tiananmen Square protests as "bloody supression" [18], and that he uses three different accounts to evade 3RR TJive (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs) --PatCheng 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like alot of hearsay. Is there any evidence that "Fenriswolf" contributes as PatCheng? Is there a screenshot where "Fenriswolf" says he is PatCheng and agrees with battling on WP? --RevolverOcelotX 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see this entry from new user User:151.205.8.146 [19] which again refers to PatCheng "wiki-stalking". I'm not interested in the dispute between these two users, but it's spilling out all over the place, bothering a lot of articles and innocent bystanders whose work is getting messed around in the warzone. --Zleitzen 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been reviewing PatCheng's edits and there are a lot of posts which are very innappropriate.

[30], [31], [32]

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 have not extensively looked at his editing of articles, but giving the repeated racist comments that he has made, I doubt whether he is here to write an encyclopedia or to push POV and indulge in ideological head-banging. In the screenshots shown and further evidence verified by other admins who have access to GameFAQs that the screenshot is real, "Fenriswolf" brags that to "TJive"/"YINever" that he doesn't care about WP policy and his block, and has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp to victory. PatCheng has admitted to clashing on the webforum (admitted by both parties) and is the only person fitting the description of being blocked on June 5 relating to a dispute with YINever/TJive and using the GAMEFAQs forum. "Fenriswolf" is then confronted as to whether he is using User:PatCheng to stalk TJive, to which he reacts with pride. Later, a series of posts arose where "Fenriswolf" claimed to have taken control of User:PatCheng and User:RevolverOxelot, who have been team-edit-warring on various Chinese Communist Party related political articles with no discussion from either side whatsoever. "Fenriswolf" then deleted the previous comments. As a block is a preventative measure, I feel that it can be applied to prevent sockpuppeteering. Given the serious infringements performed by PatCheng in the past, I have indefinitely blocked him as a temporary measure pending some kind of final resolution.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that some of the edits were from an IP, which PatCheng later redirected to his user account after registering.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, again, what hard evidence do you have that "Fenriswolf" is indeed PatCheng? That one screenshot you have only shows that the GameFAQs user "Fenriswolf" is bragging.
And Blnguyen your accusation that my account is taken control by this "Fenriswolf" is rediculous. On what grounds do you want to block my account? You can't block my account just because a random user on GameFAQs claims to "have taken control" of my account. And your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of PatCheng have already been false by this CheckUser.
Indeed, I have not been "team-edit-warring" with PatCheng on any articles. I have only edited some articles out of concern for NPOV. In fact, I haven't even "team-reverted" any articles ever since I was blocked for 3RR on Mao: The Unknown Story. The only people that are edit-warring are PatCheng (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), TJive (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs), 151.205.8.146 (talk · contribs), 65.33.167.138 (talk · contribs). In fact check the contribs of those IP addresses, almost all their contributions are reverts against PatCheng's edits. --RevolverOcelotX 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fenriswolf" has been stalking me ever since late last year when he vandalized my user page, claiming I insulted his grandfather at GameFAQs. At first he used anonymous accounts to summarily revert any contribution I made. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] These all trace to Australian providers - a couple of them are from different locations but the main ones use Optus. These include two accounts used to launch personal attacks on contributors, which can be seen if one follows off the talk pages. [45] In the case of the last known IP, its talk page was redirected to User:PatCheng's. [46] "PatCheng" himself started his career here by attempting to cull Wikipedia editors against me, in his very first two edits. [47] [48] He then moved on to three articles I was editing at the time, in order to revert my edits. [49] [50] [51] He would continue to do this unabated until earlier this year, when I took an extended break due to time constraints. The moment I left he reverted my contributions for what he thought would be the last time, and the moment I returned to contribute again he has picked up his disruption right where he left off. As I explained here, he has been stalking me, even leading into successive accounts of mine. The story I gave in that link was verified by PatCheng himself here and here.

There have been a couple instances where Fenriswolf has acknowledged his behavior at Wikipedia but I never thought to record them. So when "PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks and "RevolverOcelotX" was blocked for 3RR violation the other day, I made a topic on GameFAQs mentioning the blocks to see what his response might be. Unsurprisingly, he was unrepentant and gloated that he was flagrantly violating policy:

And do you know that I don't give a **** about looney wikipedia admins? I can obtain hundreds of IP addresses to revert your trash on wikipedia. [52]

I posted his user history and examples of his reverts, and a denial of the comment he alleges that I made, which strangely he took for an admission.

So you're admitting it huh? [53]

By this time he was made aware of the posts concerning him and decided to backpeddle in a way that would throw the whole thing into confusion:

LOL PatCheng was blocked for personal attacks and RevolverOcelotX for 3RR. I really don't care about these two idiots considering that I own neither of these two accounts and merely guessed their passwords. [54]

He would later make a mistake. When some users confronted him for lying, he responded by saying that PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX were "only two" of his accounts, but he deleted that message and posted this in its place before I grabbed a snapshot:

You're not even close to finding my real account or my hundreds of IPs. [55]

The actual forum post can be found here, but only members have access, and messages are regularly purged within a few days regardless of what anybody does. A couple administrators were sent there to verify some of these pictures. I don't believe they saw the deleted message but they did see the rest. "Ashibaka", seen in that last picture is an admin here. This is a flagrant admission of policy violation and disruptive intentions, looking past the braggadocio about "hundreds of IPs". Fenriswolf's half-concocted tale of merely finding the passwords for the accounts is proven false in the case of PatCheng simply by looking at his first contributions. It was not an accident that this account was following me; it started out that way.

As for RevolverOcelotX, he has the same posting habits as PatCheng - they both have been trolling through Asia and China-related articles watering down critical views and words about the Chinese government and communists. They both accuse me of "whitewashing", Fenriswolf's traditional description of my behavior. They discovered a mutual interest in the following articles, which they would revert in tandem.

At this point, "RevolverOcelotX" began to place a great deal of templates on the talk page of my sockpuppet in an attempt to get me blocked for "vandalism" which saw two bad reports deleted. [56] [57] Not only did PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX manage to trump reverts in the four mentioned articles, but RevolverOcelotX himself committed a 3RR violation. When I reported him, he posted a bogus retaliatory report which had to be dismissed as well.

In other words, "RevolverOcelotX" quickly took up "PatCheng"'s hobby of harassing me, immediately prior to, and during, PatCheng's 24-hour block. That may be coincidence, and "Fenriswolf" may well just be blustering to avoid wider blocks, but I seriously doubt it. If "RevolverOcelotX" was lily-white in this manner he would leave well enough alone rather than attempting to present the defense for unblocking a disruptive and hateful user whom he pretends not even to know. He has taken up the cause, not only here on ANI but PatCheng's talk page, as well as the pages of administrators where administrator Blnguyen has merely asked for separate opinions, of unblocking PatCheng and launching into further polemics about my accounts. [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] The difference is, I have not been demonstrated to have violated a single policy but have merely been defending my ability to edit at this site, whatsoever, without a stalker over my back every moment. As other users have noted, this warring is disruptive, is unhealthy, and many pages have been caught in the crossfire over one individual's bizarre personal feud with myself. The block should remain in effect on PatCheng and any subsequent sockpuppets. If "RevolverOcelotX" wishes to maintain any pretense of distinction from this issue then he will refrain from further violating policy and not simply pick up right where "PatCheng" left off. --TJive 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have been using "TJive", "YINever", as well as anonymous IPs while logged out. None of these have violated policy alone or together. --TJive 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
TJive, for the record, I am NOT one of PatCheng's sockpuppets as proven by the CheckUser, and I have no intentions of "harassing" you. I don't know who "Fenriswolf" is but from what you've posted here, it seems clear that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. "Fenriswolf" aka User:PatCheng is clearly lying about "guessing my passwords". The only reason I was edit warring with you the other day was out of concern for NPOV, not because I wanted to help YINever/TJive or PatCheng. But I haven't been edit warring with either of you ever since my block for 3RR.
Now the only reason why I presented the defense for unblocking PatCheng was because there didn't seem to be any hard evidence and his block seemed unfair. But, now that I see that "Fenriswolf"/PatCheng is clearly lying about "merely guessed my password", I don't really care if PatCheng is blocked or not, since I don't even know him or you. And I have not violated any policy ever since my block for 3RR. I know see that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. --RevolverOcelotX 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*[Note this edit, which removes his remark that he "will cease from defending him [PatCheng]". --TJive 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] As of 9/8/07

[edit] Opinion

Hello Longhair. Can I have an opinion at WP:ANI regarding a proclamation of sockpuppetry en masse? Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's under the "What do you suggest I do" heading in my talk. PS2pcGAMER, another admin has forum access and verified the authenticity. Later in the thread there is an admission as to the WP identity of forum user "Fenriswolf". Ambi thinks indef pending review, incidentally.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I talked to Raul about it on email in vague terms, and he said that arbcom takes a "dim view" of such announcements. Later in the thread, "Fenriswolf" is confronted about the editlist of User:PatCheng stalking and editwarring and "Fenriswolf" doesn't deny he is the PatCheng who is battling against the other user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So I shouldn't block? the arbcom would take a very dim view of anyone who made such statements.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Fenriswolf" is the username of the proclaimed sockpuppeteer on GameFAQs. He is later confronted down the thread as to whether he edits as PatCheng and he agrees with battling on WP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the additional extract provided by PS2pcGAMER. "Fenriswolf" seems rather proud when confronted about whether he is PatCheng. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

YINever | Posted 6/5/2006 6:32:41 PM | message detail Oh as for what this is about, Fenriswolf took up stalking me at Wikipedia late last year and has stuck to it up to the minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PatCheng

His contribution history is a complete shadow of mine whenever I am active. It mostly consists of watering down information critical of communists and adding polemics to those which reflect poorly on China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_budget_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=57098949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Bernard_Shaw&diff=prev&oldid=57098277

As for why, I don't really try to guess the pathologies of online stalkers, but he seems to have imagined some comment of mine about his fascist father. Poor guy.

--- Fenriswolf | Posted 6/5/2006 7:58:25 PM | message detail As for why, I don't really try to guess the pathologies of online stalkers, but he seems to have imagined some comment of mine about his fascist father. Poor guy.

So you're admitting it huh?

I am PatCheng and I beg to differ. Looking at Fenriswolf's profile, his account was created in 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM, whereas I did not come across Gamefaqs until early 2005. IIRC, this "fascist" claim derives from a bad flame-war on the War on Terror board, where a China-related topic degenerated into a flame war between TJive and several pro-Chinese users. When merits of China in WWII was bought up, someone said that said that many of them has grandfathers who fought the Japanese, TJive claimed some along the lines "China fought fascism, only to become a fascist country". I naturally take offence at this comment as soon as I have heard it. I don't know about the claims of Fenriswolf, but I only have one computer, and do not the time or resources of "100's of IPs" to evade 3RR.--PatCheng 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Longhair, what are you thinking? Snottygobble also appears unimpressed. "Fenriswolf" now claims to have hacked into User:PatCheng and also RevolverOcelotX, who have been team-reverting many articles. I think that the two accounts are severely compromised to say the least. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, your accusations are false and not true. Your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of PatCheng has been has been proven false by this CheckUser. Check my contributions, I haven't been team-reverting any articles ever since I was blocked for 3RR on Mao: The Unknown Story. --RevolverOcelotX 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I did say have been, didn't I?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
But you make false claims that my account is "severely compromised" without any hard evidence of this. There is no link between my account and PatCheng as shown by the CheckUser. --RevolverOcelotX 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have stuck a block pending further investigation. This is due to a closer examination of the user's history. This user has made serious repeated racist insults at Japanese, called for the death of Jung Chang (I don't think WP is a soapbox for inciting hatred) and has sworn and insulted other users many times - I have posted to WP:ANI. There was more claims on GameFAQs that he isn't PatCheng but only hacked into his account. I think the conduct has gone beyond the stage where "wiki-bail" should be afforrded.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 9/8/07

[edit] User:YINever

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. YINever

Right, considering that you're the sockpuppet of TJive and User:141.153.74.246. I thought you left Wikipedia for good instead of using anon ips to cover your track.--PatCheng 06:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:The Epoch Times. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. YINever

Who are you to give me a warning anyway? FUCK OFF!--PatCheng 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User:YINever, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. YINever 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the revert war, and I'd like to share my view before anyone gets blocked:

  • It seems to me unjustified to remove the content from the talk page,Talk:The Epoch Times. The suggestion raised may be purely malicious or unfounded, and if it's not a mere repetition of what is already there, please simply leave it and argue why it in your opinion is nonsense.
  • YINever and PatCheng seem to both have strong opinions on the wikipedia article undergoing the revert war. YINever is therefore not in a credible neutral position to deal out vandalism warnings, except for his userpage over which he reigns supreme. I advise administrators to disregard the former warnings by YINever.

Jens Nielsen 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Word of Suggestion

You had best moderate your language. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a surprise

When "RevolverOcelotX" has had his quota of reverts for the day, PatCheng comes to the rescue to put him over the top. YINever 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on The Epoch Times. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. YINever 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever sockpuppet. --PatCheng 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Despite frequent requests from other editors not to launch personal attacks on other users, you have continued to do so, including editing their user pages in a negative way, and then swearing at them, leading to a 24hr blcok .When the block expires, please refrain from launching further attacks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am citing the two derogatory edits (WP:NPA)that you made to YINever's page and then the obvious expletive on your user talk page. I can also see that many people have complained at the top of the page also about accusing others of being racist, etc and that you have previously beenn warned many times about abusing other editors. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The person started it and provoked me by refering to me as a communist spy and simply edits articles to fit his views, without prior discussion. Previously the same person insulted my family and called them "fascists" for being Chinese.--PatCheng 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite them and I will look into it.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

YINever is a user from GameFAQs, who has made derogatory comments against me there. He called my grandfather a "fascist" for simply participating in the Korean War, and that somehow I'm a communist spy and stalinist because of my Chinese heritage. Here in Wikipedia the first thing he does is posting a userbox on User:YINever [63], saying "This user does not kowtow to Beijing nor to its sycophants", subtly suggesting that I'm somehow a sycophant of the Beijing government. I find such labelling very offensive to my character and deleted them in anger. Not only this, he restored vandalism from Talk:The Epoch Times, in which a supporter of the paper deleted all of the talk page and replaced it with his accusations that "anyone who criticised Epoch Times is a internet spy" [64] [65]. I and the admin Kungfuadam reverted his vandalism of pages on the two accounts [66][67], yet YINever restored the person's vandalism that has been deleted by an admin, calling it "valuable, helpful comment" [68]. The person has started edit wars on the pages you protected, including The Epoch Times, Ladies in White, Freedom fighter and Varela Project, often deleting large sections while adding his POV into articles, such that Cuban government becoming "regime", political opponents becoming "dissidents", and countering becoming "harassing" [69]. He also started to add warnings to User talk pages of me and RevolverOcelotX, while ignoring ones on his own page. This ended up as a revert war where each party is simply giving each other warnings, the meanings of which are depleted.--PatCheng 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly regarding mutual claims from you and YINever that you met at GameFAQs, clashed over politics and then mutual claims of Wikipedia stalking, a user conduct WP:RFC may be appropriate as it seems that there is a serious matter which needs to be resolved. Secondly, the comment by YINever, in my opinion does not provide justification for aggressively editing another's page, as although I disagree with POV userboxes and express POv on my userpage, I see many people, including admins who have a userbox "opposing George W. Bush", and I can't recall them being deleted or changed by GWB supporters. As to the content, it appears clear that the context of "Beijing" is that he will not be giving ground in edit wars to what he perceives to be CCP members/supporters, which I can't see as a personal attack, as is not about how he feels about Chinese people or culture, nor is he questioning the character and integrity of a communist, but that he strongly disagrees with communist viewpoints and will not allow what he thinks is CCP-pov to stand. The last part, about the editing style is not relevant as it does not pertain how the contributors have been treating one another.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is grounds for stalking, then action may be taken against YINever. Can you show me the forum posts which indicate that there are grudges and stalking?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblock request

{{unblock|Fails to see the grounds of blocking. The problem editor harassed me by posting references that suggest me as "communist spy" and "stooge of the Chinese government". Provoked into an edit war.}}

Sorry you fail to see the grounds, you were warned before the block came into effect but failed to modify your behaviour. WP:3RR is about stopping the disruption of edit warring, you claim to have been provoked into an edit war, so you accept that you were edit warring. Edit warring is unaccepable, if you provoked you are expected to be mature enough to deal with it in a constructive manner. Unblock denied. --pgk(talk) 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was blocked because of personal attacks. I was not edit warring, but reverting radical changes a user made to many politics related pages.--PatCheng 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your unblock request has already been denied. Stop adding that template or this page will be protected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. The person who reviewed though I was edit warring, when in fact I was blocked for personal attacks.--PatCheng 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the block relative to your statement amount being provoked into an edit war, I agreed you were edit warring and thus a [[WP:3RR] block would be reasonable. I didn't review your block relative to personal attacks since that appeared to have already been covered. --pgk(talk) 06:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCU

Well, the CheckUser is there, and until then they are presumed innocent. The only way a person can be banned for socks without a checkuser is if they are self-proclaimed, are going against consensus or they are banned. User:Jason Gastrich got into trouble and was consensus was against him at Louisiana Baptist University, and after that everyone who did the same edit as he did was indefbanned as they were either socks or impersonators having a laugh. Until there is a consensus at all these disputes, suspected sockpuppets will not be banned without RFCU confirmation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Magdoff and espionage

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

It is not a personal attack. Where is the party named? There is an implication that he thinks that pro-CCP editors may have a conflict of interest. I also note that you have made racist attacks on Japanese people in your contribs list, as well as swearing frequently and calling other people brainwashed and idiots.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. What makes you think that I'm pro-CCP, and that I "glorified the government and speared the opposition"? It is used entirely to discredit my views. I have been warned for my previously, and some of them are deleted. To make his point, the user blanked sections on both the article and talk page, and was reverted by the admin Kungfuadam [70], before being restored by YINever. In one of his posts here he clearly referred me, telling me to email him. --PatCheng 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:The Epoch Times
"Beware of Web Spies
The Chinese Communist Government have sent tens of thousands of spies overseas, many of them are known as 'Web Spies', their job is to stay online and pretend to be reviewers and post articles that glorifies the government and smears any government oppositions. If you look at the history of reviews on this newspaper, there seem to be a few guys who are active too regularly. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freereader (talk • contribs).
Yes, anyone who disagrees with anything that the Falun Gong says cannot possibly be anybody else but a government-hired web spy. Brilliant.
This seems very close to a personal attack. Names aren't used, but there's a clear implication. Removing personal attacks is not vandalism.CovenantD 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)"
Blnguyen, To be fair, User:Freereader's comment does seem like a personal attack. He clearly makes an implication that some editors on WP are "Web Spies". Removing personal attacks is not a violation and does not break the 3RR. Even CovenantD says that theres a clear implication of a personal attack in Freereader's comment. Also User:Freereader's comments are inappropriate on the talk page since Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Blnguyen, the fact that you keep referring to editors as "pro-CCP editors" shows your bias in this matter and is contrary to the official policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --RevolverOcelotX 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The comment pro-CCP is clearly in the context of the editwar, relative to the other lot. I never said you were pro-CCP; it clearly refers to the those whom the person writing the comment feels as pro-CCP. The accusation against PatCheng has been removed, so we are reduced to a general comment, where he feels that users on the (relatively) pro-CCP as opposed to those on pro-FLG side may have conflicts of interest. When did I say that you "glorified the government and speared the opposition"? Also, Kungfuadam reverted the blanking, I don't see anything about the comment by Freereader.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen, it is clear that Freereader is referring to PatCheng. Kungfuadam reverted the blanking because Freereader (talk · contribs) and Web spy killer (talk · contribs) are clearly vandalism accounts. Just look at their contributions. See one of Freereader/Web spy killer's post [71] where Freereader/Webspykiller clearly asked PatCheng to email him. The CheckUser here proved that Freereader and Web spy killer are the same user. Blnguyen, it seems you may have a conflict of interest here because you keep accusing and insisting that some editors are "pro-CCP". --RevolverOcelotX 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not, I am referring to the relative spectra of the two sides. I haven't accused either side of pushing POV yet. The part in question has been removed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the comment left by Freereader was clearly inappropriate for the talk page. Although names weren't used, theres a clear implication of a personal attack directed at PatCheng. Removing personal attack and vandalism from a vandalism account (Freereader) does not break the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really do question Blnguyen's judgment, considering he's only been an admin since 29/5. A more experienced admin should deal with this one. --PatCheng 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked you per RevolverOcelotX's comments. Additionally, it is unfair to block a user indefintely when matters are being investigated. If this investigation reaches another forum such as the Administrators' Noticeboard, you have no means of defending yourself. Finally, removal of personal attacks does not constitute 3RR.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

Please stop your pro-Chinese propaganda campaign. This is not what wikipedia stands for, we stand for an NPOV. Free Taiwan.El benderson 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email me

Go to User:Sasquatch and click the "E-mail this user" button. As it stands, the current block is somewhat appropriate but I'm willing to talk. Sasquatch t|c 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review of your unblock request

02:32, 19 June 2006, you placed this request, which I shall review:

{{unblock|Has settled matter with affected users, will not use personal attacks again.}}

One of the affected users, Blnguyen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), whom you have subjected to numerous personal attacks because he blocked you as a last resort to deal with your disruptive behavior, has expressed concern at your request to be unblocked. Clearly you have not settled anything with him. Moreover while blocked you have admittedly and openly continued to engage in sock puppetry to evade your block, and even tried to produce a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. This is unacceptable. Request denied. --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I second the opinion. Absolutely not. Your personal attacks and subsequent actions were egregious -- Samir धर्म 06:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Get this throught your head: I HAVE APOLOGISED FOR MY PERSONAL ATTACKS AND REMOVED THEM, AND BEEN BLOCKED 24 HOURS ALREADY. How is filing a RFC unacceptable and "hostile", when Mr Wales himself told me to settle it via mediation? The sockpuppet rules only applies to sockpuppets used to vandalise articles, and I never used sockpuppets since filing the RFC. Blocking me indefinitely without a chance to defend myself is certainly not "last resort". Could you point out where I have subjected Blnguyen to "personal attacks"? On the contray, he called me a POV-pusher and has admitted to not reviewing my entire contribution, merely forming judgements of it based on my current content dispute with TJive. In fact he has blocked me twice for the same violation, and has engaged in a wheel war with Kungfuadam.--PatCheng 07:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't let that last comment go. I corresponded via email with Adam about the wording of that block, and did not wheel war with him.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam told me that he "doesn't want" to engage in a wheel war with you. It's you that cause TJive to portray me as a "web spy", and I'v been receiving harassing emails gloating over my "ban".--PatCheng 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another appeal

{{unblock|Appealing ban; Taking matter to Mediation}}

No thanks. That's it. I'm protecting this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

This is the apology i received from PatCheng yesterday. I'm posting it here so that people can see why I unblocked.

Today I had long, hard think about my actions on wikipedia, and no longer angry about my ban. I now realised that my actions on wikipedia unnecessarly hurt other users and the editing and quality of articles. Because of my thoughtless comments I have offended many people, and due to my content disputes and reverts with TJive I have deprived him of his right to edit wikipedia article in good faith.

I now see that my actions only damaged my standing in the wikipedia community. I know that I have left many people in bad faith, particularly Blnguyen and TJive, but please give me one and final chance to correct myself. I will promise no longer engage in content disputes or personal attacks, but discuss them with users involved. I will now respect wikipedia guidelines and the actions of administrators.

Please place me in prohibation. I am willing for my editing activities to keep tracked by any administrator user. If caught violating my terms again I will gladly accept my ban and leave for good. I need a chance to prove my intentions as a helpful editor, not as a vandal or edit warrior. I really want to be a part of wikipedia again.

I have previously shown that I'm capable of working together with others in various wikiprojects. I also have a barnstar for my efforts. I will perform any action required for the return of my editing previlages. Please don't take wikipedia away from my life. I don't know what to do without it.

I am going to unblock based on this. Pat - do not let me down! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting this same message to both User talk:PatCheng and User talk:Theresa knott.
"PatCheng" was blocked for a number of reasons, but as far as I am concerned, he can apologize and be forgiven for his contemptible racist attacks and other insults. My interest in this matter is the fact that he has been shadowing me ever since late summer (August) of last year, reverting my edits. He has given no indication, and still does not, that he will discontinue following me. Wikipedia harassment policy says that it is not legitimate to simply follow someone's contributions with the intent to disrupt them or cause them stress. That was clearly his intention, based on his perception of some sleight that I committed against him off of this site. His identity there, "Fenriswolf", claimed a few days ago that he was leaving (Australia) to China, and wouldn't likely be posting anymore. When I found a topic of his at that site mentioning racism on a board, I posted some messages mentioning how hypocritical he was to complain about racism in light of his racist insults here. In response, "Fenriswolf" denied connection to "PatCheng" (the opposite of what he claimed just days before), at the same time that "PatCheng" denied being "Fenriswolf". Incredibly, "PatCheng" has claimed, on the mailing list, that he was cooperating with "Fenriswolf" and that he "agrees" with him that I am a "threat" to Wikipedia.
As well, this person has reappeared on numerous occasions, while still blocked, to do more of the same. This not only accounts for the illegitimate appeals of PatChan and PatriciaC but to five separate Optus and Telstra IPs that have been doing straight reverts of my material to "PatCheng"'s reversions. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] The connection to some of these is revealed by his comments on the mailing list which I document here. The last of them was unblocked by another administrator who thought an indefinite IP block was inappropriate. Once that was done, he posted a message to a User subpage of mine asking me to take his name off - this being the same IP (along with another) that did a straight revert to Chen Yonglin just yesterday. This, quite evidently, is not good faith behavior.
Now that he has been unblocked, if that is to remain so, I should not be expected to be treated as a co-equal with coincidentally massive content disputes. I have not been incivil. I have not been posting attacks on other users. I have not been making racist remarks. I have not been single-handedly disrupting dozens of articles at once. I have not been basing a good deal of my contributions on simply stalking another editor. I am not being sanctioned for any misbehavior. I do not have anything to answer for to PatCheng. Rather, it would be most appropriate should PatCheng be considered to have been sent a restraining order and leave me alone. I do not care one whit about his contributions to non-political and historical articles; even in those he has demonstrated extreme incivility, but when he steps into other arenas, China-related topics in particular, he is set into a rage and barely controls himself. I want nothing to do with him. I am not interested in waging a campaign against his own contributions. But I also want him to understand that he is to stop following me. --TJive 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to press the "Remembe me" button. The cache wasn't cleared, and it showed me.--PatCheng 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is a frank admission that you had been circumventing the block in violation of Wikipedia policy. --TJive 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I have been unblocked already. It was not intentional, but an accident.--PatCheng 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clear circumvention of a block. --TJive 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you're talking about the one on your talk page. It was one of the reasons that got be blocked indefinitely. I promise not to use IP address again from now onwards.--PatCheng 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao: The Unknown Story & reverted comments

Would you like to tell me what the signifiance of removing such old comments from the talk page are? I didn't notice them up until now, but want to establish why you made them and how you feel now.

First off I will say that as you are not living in China, statements about "your country" may appear a little dubious. So unless you are a PRC citizen living overseas, it might be a good idea not to say things like that again.

I know a lot about China because I have a degree in History from a top British university, and spent a lot of time reading journal articles available in the library. Whereas I often have arguments with people of Chinese ethnicity that quit it at school and don't even know basic principles of Historiography (though this comment isn't about you). One's nationality doesn't dictate whether one can comment on something - I hope you realise that now.

I appreciate the fact that you removed those comments. However if the article is to be unlocked, it would help if you reiterated any relevant comments you have over the book or Dr Chang in a constructive manner. It would not be prudent to ask for an unlock if you still feel too emotional on these matters. Cheers, John Smith's 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] The Epoch Times

I don't suspect this war will fade anytime soon considering that we are dealing with an aggressive POV warrior with a long history of wikistalking and policy violations. I will be filing a RFCU with a good explanation when I have the time, but as of right now it might help if you look at this 3RR violation with which this user has gotten away with so far. YINever 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I support your protection and agree with your rationale. I hope you have the time to consider this user's behavior as demonstrated at the 3RR report. Thank you. YINever 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YINever

User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. User:YINever apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over The Epoch Times article. I suspect the other IP address reverting is his sockpuppet. RevolverOcelotX 01:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See? I show up here, and there he is again with a boilerplate. YINever 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen, see here [77] where YINever is removing his talk page warning MANY times even after he was warned about it. Should his removal of warnings on his talk page be reverted or not? Should he be blocked for removing his talk page warning? It seems YINever is a new account with an intent of edit warring without any attempt to reach consensus. RevolverOcelotX 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you were the administrator who blocked User:PatCheng, I would like to draw your attention to the likelihood that "RevolverOcelotX" is his sockpuppet, as I outlined here. Thank you for your time. --TJive 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
TJive, That is not true and a false accusation. User:PatCheng has been edit warring with User:YINever and many other editors over the article The Epoch Times way before I started editing at the article.
However I suspect that User:YINever has many sockpuppets if you look at the history of The Epoch Times article. Also look at User:YINever's contributions. User:YINever, he is a new user and a likely sockpuppet of User:Freereader, User:Web spy killer, and User:65.33.167.138. --RevolverOcelotX 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen, can a user be blocked for deleting valid warnings from his talk page even after being warned not to do so? Reply to this please. Thank you. --RevolverOcelotX 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they can, but the vandalism warnings you issued were about content disputes, so are not valid. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No straight answer

Since this user has a history of exacerbating and retaliating for everything I say anywhere, here is the deal. He knows me from another forum called "GameFAQs" where my primary account is "YINever" and he is known as "Fenriswolf". He is a staunch Maoist and Chinese nationalist who has followed me from arguments on that site pertaining to politics to here, where he shadows every contribution I make. He will likely cite several articles where at best there are content disputes, but in which he does not have any interest in achieving consensus or good content but merely summarily reverts my changes. As for my alleged insults, he will not be able to provide them. The "communist spy" stuff is his inference from my restoring comments he deleted on Talk:The Epoch Times from another user, and I never insulted anyone in his family and this apparently is in reference to a comment he has imagined on GameFAQs, not here. He made this charge the first time he vandalized my user page. [78] Incidentally, this is another demonstration that "PatCheng" has been known by other aliases/IPs, all used for the purpose of stalking me. --TJive 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, what evidence do you have that User:PatCheng is known on "GameFAQs" as "Fenriswolf". It seems from your user page, you have a long time dispute with this user, User:PatCheng and both of you are following each other. TJive, I also find it strange how you claim "my primary account is "YINever"" since theres the user here, User:YINever has been edit warring with User:PatCheng over at The Epoch Times article. Care to explain this? --RevolverOcelotX 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you aren't Fenriswolf, then where did I allegedly insult your grandfather, and why would this be a concern to an anonymous IP, then "PatCheng" who levels the same charge, months later? And why would it further be the concern of a "RevolverOcelotX"?
It is obvious you're using sockpuppets. So am I. "TJive" and "YINever" are the same people, on both sites. Neither of them have been used for policy violation, either in tandem or alone, so they are allowed, but you are using yours to evade 3RR, which you have been having trouble keeping to on your own, as demonstrated in the 3RR report. --TJive 03:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is this "Fenriswolf" you keep mentioning? Why do you keep equating User:PatCheng with this "Fenriswolf"? It is of no concern to me but you keep accusing PatCheng of "insulting your grandfather" by this supposedly "Fenriswolf"?
Since "TJive" and "YINever" are the same people, then why didn't you admitted this earlier? It is obvious the account User:YINever has been used along with other sockpuppets to violate the 3RR. I hope an administrator takes appropriate action on these violations. --RevolverOcelotX 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you see the bizarre situation I am placed in. He "isn't" Fenriswolf, but must persist with the same questioning now that PatCheng is blocked for 24 hours.

It's really strange; I've never had any online stalker before this, and nobody on Wikipedia has bothered to intrude so far. --TJive 04:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, why are you posting on TWO accounts? It is obvious to EVERYBODY that User:YINever is your sockpuppet of User:TJive. Your RFCU on User:PatCheng was in bad faith considering you had MANY sockpuppets of your own. You have MANY violations including sockpuppet, 3RRV, ect.
Can an administrator block the sockpuppet accounts of User:YINever, for 3RRV? --RevolverOcelotX 05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The sockpuppet will not be blocked unless they have been teaming up to edit-war in the same 24hrs to evade a block. If they are engaging in vandalism, they will be blocked anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is evidence of where the suspected sockpuppet of User:YINever has teamed up to evade a block. [79] --RevolverOcelotX 05:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have checkuser evidence that it is his IP?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No he doesn't. No one has responded to either request as of now, and meanwhile, he has gotten away with an explicit violation of his own, without the need for sockpuppets, for something he has already been blocked for! YINever 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do have evidence that at least one of those accounts listed at checkuser is a sockpuppet of User:YINever. He even admitted to this fact. User:YINever said ""TJive" and "YINever" are the same people, on both sites." See here: [80]. Here are some more explicit violation by User:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See, it's like dealing with a robot. Just makes reports, restates his premises, and never provides real evidence for anything. I provided links to four reverts within the same 24 hour period, he posts a retaliatory report where the reverts are not within the same period, and administrators just ignore both. YINever 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. That makes three of his four reports made in the same day that have been dismissed now. On to the RFCU. Hopefully. YINever 06:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you suggest I do?

User:PatCheng is unblocked and is immediately back to summarily reverting all of my contributions (either as TJive or YINever). He has been stalking me like this since last September and has never faced any penalty for it. Look at his contribution list. Within a span of less than half an hour, he reverted everything I edited the other day as well, including existing reverts and work on other articles.

  1. 01:24, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) No Gun Ri
  2. 01:24, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) The Profits of Extermination
  3. 01:23, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Carlos Franqui
  4. 01:23, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Eduardo Chibás
  5. 01:23, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) George Bernard Shaw
  6. 01:22, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Varela Project
  7. 01:22, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Freedom fighter (rv)
  8. 01:22, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ladies in White (rv)
  9. 01:21, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Harry Magdoff and espionage
  10. 01:21, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Military budget of the People's Republic of China (rv)
  11. 01:16, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) George Bernard Shaw
  12. 01:16, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Eduardo Chibás
  13. 01:15, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Carlos Franqui (regime is not NPOV)
  14. 01:14, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) The Profits of Extermination
  15. 01:10, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) No Gun Ri
  16. 01:09, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Varela Project
  17. 01:07, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Chen Yonglin ("bloody repression" = NPOV?)
  18. 01:01, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Chen Yonglin

With respect, you were in error to say that there were mutual claims of stalking. I have not been bothering him; he has openly been following me. Now I fear that under "RevolverOcelotX" he is going to utilize a second account to evade 3RR on every single article. He has complete contempt for the rules of this site, which he has just made plain on that forum from which we met:

From: Fenriswolf | Posted: 6/5/2006 8:35:58 PM | Message Detail | #008 And do you know that I don't give a **** about looney wikipedia admins? I can obtain hundreds of IP addresses to revert your trash on wikipedia. [81]

RFCs are not effective. It will quickly come down to a matter of content disputes because there are half a dozen editors of this site which have clashed with me at political articles. This is a completely separate issue, but no one cares to see it for what it is. Is this sort of harassment not considered disruptive? --TJive 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the following users: TJive (talk · contribs) YINever (talk · contribs) 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs)

These people has undone my reverts within the time-period of my edits. They appear to be sockpuppets of the same intended to evade WP:3RR, and an user-check might be necessary. --PatCheng 01:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I wouldn't hestitate to thwack a user in those circumstances. :) Rebecca 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your question via e-mail. Prodego talk 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:RFCU#User:YINever and WP:RFCU#User:PatCheng. Prodego talk 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
One thing though, remember a screenshot with no confirmation that the screenshot is real, or that that user is the same as your editor, will likely be greeted with skepticism. Prodego talk 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd depend on the circumstances, but I'd be inclined to block the account indefinitely, pending review at WP:ANI. If there were no issues raised there, then I'd just thwack the socks as socks of a banned user. Rebecca 05:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Unfortunately, no, I can't help you. You're right, it's named after a game, NationStates ([82]), but not something that has anything to do with GameFAQs unfortunately. Good luck in clearing the mess though. NSLE (T+C) at 04:35 UTC (2006-06-06)

[edit] Re: GameFAQs

Yep, I am a long-time member of the forum, although I haven't been very active in quite sometime. What can I help you out with? Just as a warning, I can't really commit to anything big until after 00:00 Wednesday as I have a busy day tomorrow (Tuesday). If it is something small, I can try to help sooner than that.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Sure. Allow me a moment to read over properly and I'll be back. Do you have the screenshot? I don't see it anywhere here. -- Longhair 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now seen this [83]. As per Rebecca above, I'd lean towards an indefinite block pending a review. If the user account can be proven to be one and the same author of that forum post then there's nothing to be gained by having that attitude around. -- Longhair 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think if the ArbCom had solid evidence matching one identity to another, you'd get another reply entirely. -- Longhair 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
From where I'm sitting and seeing the situation, I wouldn't land a block yet, but then I'm outside of the problem. If it's advice you're after, I'd give it a little time to see if a course of advice develops at AN/I, giving you the backup of a little more community support. I'll keep an eye on things and assist where I can. - Longhair 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was typing whilst on the phone. You have my 100% attention now (human multitasking still has bugs). I read the ArbCom comment back to front sorry during a distraction. Is Fenriswolf correct? I couldn't find a user with that username. Yes, I also recommened an indefinite block pending the outcome (if any) at AN/I. The editor is probably at a University or a workplace with a largish network, and would more than likely come undone if using IT resources for this purpose. I know they would if they were working for me. -- Longhair 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's clearer now. Thanks for the clarity update. On one hand, I take the threat seriously, and on the other I see it as bragging and talking up a situation to win with words. Perhaps before a block, keep an eye on the user, and the articles concerned. Blocking without hard evidence is something we generally don't like to do. If you can show me hard evidence the two users are the same, I'll block them myself. -- Longhair 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got your evidence. I've unfortunately now got to pop out for appoximately 3 - 4 hours, but upon my return I'll look into it and act accordingly if nobody else has by then. Let's also see how the AN/I thread develops before we ultimately act. -- Longhair 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is rediculous. I indeed have several accounts at Gamefaqs, but most of them I have are newly created ones either closed or banned by Gamefaqs moderators. If you look at the details of this Fenriswolf person:

User Name Fenriswolf User ID 538693 Board User Level 34: Icon Awarded to users with at least 1000 Karma. No posting restrictions. Account Created 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM Last Visit 6/6/2006 2:59:12 PM Public E-Mail Address Ask me IM MSN: Ask me Signature Secret boards: -1, 9, 250, 486, 542, 622, 709, 417148, 8535937, 8675309, 20040401, 123456789, 314159265, 909090909 Quote Wishlist: Neverwinter Nights 2, Dragon Age Karma 1168 Contributor Page Contributor Page

Fenris has been at Gamefaqs for nearly 4 years, whereas I have only stumbled across Gamefaqs in early 2005. I have seen Fenriswolf's posts in the Asia and Japan regional boards, and from the nature of them he seems to be a loyal, unquestioned admirer of the Chinese communist government. Myself however, is an Australian citizen. Although I do not oppose the Chinese government, I support eventual democracy in China, and can at least acknowledges its negative aspects. If I was indeed a mindless follower of the Chinese government, then why didn't I remove entire sections of articles such as Falun Gong and Epoch Times regarding negative aspects of the government? I reverts some of TJive's edits due to his choice of wording, such as his insistance in calling certain governments "regimes", and his tendency to edit without discussion, dismissing me as a stooge of the Chinese government on his user page.. If you look at my edit history, I do not delibrately start any vandalism or edit wars, and has contributed lots to science-fiction and videogame related articles. It's unfair to judge me as a vandal based TJive's hearsay, as I do not have such resources this Fenriswolf person claimed, other than my home computer. What concrete evidence do you have to block me indifinitely, other than TJive's hearsay?--PatCheng 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts today? I'm wary, as other editors are, but lacking solid hard evidence matching the two editors, I'm not 100% convinced a block has been earned. That said, I'm not saying I don't belive you, just that the evidence isn't clear. -- Longhair 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm in support of your block now. I see your block in place, and fully support it on the grounds that a) he's either who you say he is, or b) the account has been comprised. In either event, the account should be indefinetely blocked. Sorry it wasn't a clear case of abuse with an easy answer, but the recent post to AN/I made things a lot clearer. -- Longhair 06:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] Your accusations

"Hello Longhair, what are you thinking? Snottygobble also appears unimpressed. "Fenriswolf" now claims to have hacked into User:PatCheng and also RevolverOcelotX, who have been team-reverting many articles. I think that the two accounts are severely compromised to say the least. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)"

Blnguyen, your accusations are false and not true. Your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of PatCheng has been has been proven false by this CheckUser. Check my contributions, I haven't been team-reverting any articles ever since I was blocked for 3RR on Mao: The Unknown Story. --RevolverOcelotX 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] Are blocked users allowed to just reappear with a sockpuppet and post RfC?

Just wondering, because apparently User:PatCheng, having had several administrators already review the block and have plenty of opportunity to comment, waited for the relevance of the ANI post on this matter die down in order to create more sockpuppets and post Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blnguyen. Quite frankly, everything he claims there can be demonstrated to be a lie, but I'm wondering if this is considered an appropriate move for a blocked user. --TJive 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I believed too. Can you or another administrator take action on this matter, then? So far it has been left up to Blnguyen to clean up, leading to this user's hysteric claims of impropriety. --TJive 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. For what it's worth, I archived the RfC contents, which are basically a short retread of his rant on the mailing list, and can respond point by point on the matter if and when necessary. --TJive 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the sock and deleted the RfC. We're getting a spate of blocked editors openly socking and trying to Wikilawyer. This is never acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As of 6/22/06

[edit] The ongoing return of banned user User:PatCheng

I sent this information to JzG to forward to the mailing list, and he suggested I post it here as well (modified a bit):

PatCheng continues to rant and rave in the mailing list at the same time that he is returning via anon IPs to continue his harassment and disruptive revert warring.

You can see on his first ranting [84], among other things, that he was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page when I briefly visited it around the time of the reports of his death. He mentions my removal [85] of a clear and unambiguous personal attack on other editors, which was curiously put back in its place by an anon [86] (the entire section was later removed) who was busy traversing through several articles I had edited, whether with my name or anonymously. [87]

This obvious sockpuppet was blocked by Blnguyen, and since that time, two more anon IPs have shown up [88] [89], with all three IPs tracing to the same provider in Australia (where PatCheng admits he is from), [90] [91] [92] doing much the same thing, including straight reverts of content [93] and summary reverts which practically constitute vandalism because of the various fixes involved in my edits. [94] Not only is he not interested in discussion and compromise, much less a quality article, but he should not be editing in the first place given that no one has sanctioned his return.

Let's be clear about what the evidence shows. That the anonymous person in question:

  1. Was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page in a narrow frame of time.
  2. Reinstated the deletion of a personal attack (referenced specifically by PatCheng).
  3. Is from Australia.
  4. Is revert warring.
  5. Has been posting harassing information on ANI and talk pages concerning my IP addresses.

PatCheng is the only person who meets all of these qualifications and has reason to do so.

In other words, he has not merely created blatant sockpuppets to extend his campaign for parole, but he is busy continuing the same disruptive practices that helped to get him blocked in the first place, even as he gives token "apologies" for his behavior and pledges to stop revert warring "as a compromise" for his return. He obviously feels he has the license to behave this way unimpeded in any case, but is on the mailing list simply to seek official sanction from administrators to do so with their blessing. I hope everyone can now see his crocodile tears for what they are. --TJive 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiEN-l mailing list