User talk:William M. Connolley/Admin 2

Vandal Hamsacharya dan
Dear WP Admin Mr. William M. Connolley,

Dan Kogan, an ordained teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh cult has been creating havoc for the past weeks by relentlessly inserting the name of his guru, his guru's book, quotes from his guru's book, and external link to their website on the following articles Kriya yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Nath, and Adi Nath when the majority of the editors (actually all of them) who are experts on the subject agree that his guru is illegitimate, his inserts does not enrich (add anything substantial) the already existing articles, and only aims to promore the personal interest of their organization.

This person wants to turn WP into a propaganda material for a highly questionable (possibly harmful) pseudo-Hindu cult while pretending to be an impartial concerned Wikipedian who only wants to enrich it. The situation is really bad. He has just been banned but as soon as he gets unbanned he begins to relentlessly vandalize the pages with irrelevant and immaterial cult propaganda once again.

It is futile to try and protect the integrity of an article when someone like this person Hamsacharya dan, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps on reverting them and gets away with it without being taught a lesson.

To see for yourself that Hamsacharya dan is really an ordained teacher of the cult he keeps on inserting to the articles and not just a concerned Wikipedian with no alterior motive, please see the following website [List of Authorized Teachers] and scroll down a bit for Hamsacharya Dan Kogan.

Please help us. Will you help us?

Thanking you in advance,

No To Frauds 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this against Wiki's policies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Khwarizmi&diff=42502059&oldid=42453735 This user(Iranian Patriot) has been sending out extreme anti-Arab hate messages like these, completely un-sourced, fabricated propaganda, and have nothing to do with the subject matter. He just put it to bait in users for a flame war...can something be done about this? MB 20:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll bring this up on WP:AN/I which is the proper place William M. Connolley 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. Please go here, the user is a chronic vandaliser who has been warned many times.Zmmz 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Roadcruft sockpuppets
I unblocked JohnnyBGood to reblock him indefinitely as a sock of Gateman1997. I'm sure SPUI will be pleased ;-) - David Gerard 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha... thanks for that (embarassed). A lesson for me. William M. Connolley 09:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Master Of RSPW
This cut & paste of a forged Usenet post on my user page is an incivil comment  perpetrated by Master Of RSPW intended to besmirch my reputation on Wikipedia in response to an ongoing content dispute. Linden Arden 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why haven't you removed it? William M. Connolley 09:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was an oversight on my part. It has now been removed. Linden Arden 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall post to WP:AN/I to try to sort this mess out, as I haven't a clue whats going on William M. Connolley 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I reported it elsewhere... we'll see William M. Connolley 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant sock-puppets
I bailed out of this one some time ago. I'm inclined to say that the best thing would be to permaban all of them &mdash; they're more trouble than they're worth. The origins of the business on Wikipedia are, to the best of my knowledge, that User:Chadbryant was followed here by one or more people who conducted a campaign of attacks and insults against him at about the level of thirteen-year-olds with learning difficulties. (His responses were little better, but there was no doubt that he was the victim.) Since then, he's probably brought a lot of it on himself, as he combines a paranoid approach to anyone who critcises or disagrees with him with a line in juvenile invective that isn't as bad as that of his erstwhile persecuters, but is still irritating. None of the naems that you mentioned (except Chadbryant and Dick Witham, who was one of the main names in the original attacks) means anything to me, though. Sory that I can't be of any help. I'd not invest too much energy in this, if I were you &mdash; it's unlikely to be resolved, and it's easy to get sucked into the whole sorry mess. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. I was hoping that one side would turn out to be the Good Guys, though I couldn't see much evidence of goodness in it all. I'll ponder your wise advice... William M. Connolley 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

12 minute response time (15:09-15:21) on 3rr notification board
I'm impressed! Very cool. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gives me a target for next time :-) William M. Connolley 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking Anderson12
I've indefinitely blocked Anderson12 per sock evidence, checkuser, and this image, which was also uploaded by Basil Rathbone. I'm bringing this to WP:AN, but I thought you'd want to know since you placed the 1 month block. Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough to me. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance request, if the issue hasn't already been dealt with....
I've got a sock on Freemasonry again. This time it's. He's already tried to add the Anti page back in (first or second edit), has accused me of vandalism for cleaning up externals (in <5 edits), and we've already gotten to "demented Masonic lies"(<10 edits). So, while I've reported things to the appropriate places (which have all moved around for some reason), I would like to have somebody apprised of the situation, because it's going to escalate a bit faster this time, given the  trend. MSJapan 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hasn't quite been dealt with. There's an obfuscated 3RR we're sorting out (there's definite section gaming), I've got a PA from Keystrokes on my talk page here (not a big deal, though he admits he's not a new user), and Keystrokes has made his bias clear here, so if he's not a sock, I'd be very surprised, but the RFCU hasn't been done yet. MSJapan 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And his POV is pretty blatant here. MSJapan 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR William M. Connolley 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Young_Zaphod sockpuppet 68.162.128.9
Looks like Young Zaphod is editing from to get around his block. I should note this is actually an IP address you'd identified and blocked a day as a sock a couple days ago. Ehheh 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for incivility William M. Connolley 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian language
There was no reversal war in the article about Belarusian language, at least not in the conventional sense. It was one lying Russian POV-pusher who knows virtually nothing about Belarusan language (and doesn't speak it), and there were many Wikipedia editors who tried to block and revert his unreasonable additions (most of his "improvements" being Russian imperial POV).

Sincerely yours, a native speaker of Belarusian, the owner of the linguistic Belarusan website http://www.pravapis.org/ site (#1 site on Belarusian language on the Web), a specialist in Belarusian-language localization of software, and a Belarusian language editor from the Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. --rydel 21:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh good, well if it was (and is) one against many, there will be no need for you to get close to 3RR then William M. Connolley 23:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You measure the truth by the number of lemmings? --rydel 11:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to try for some consistency. Do you have just one opponent, or many? William M. Connolley 12:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My point was not about this particular case (if one knowledgeable person says "X is true", and thousands of others say "X is false", you can't decide an argument by counting the votes). As for your question, luckily I don't have any serious opponents. In this case it's basically one person (Kuban Cossack), sometimes "helped" by a second person - Ghirlandajo (a Wikipedian who was under RFC for pushing imperialistic Russian POV and disrupting behaviour ). --rydel 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Belatedly-yes, it looks like Mr. Connolley has done a few clumsy blockings (in my case it was, as I recall, the Franjo Tuđman article. In both cases Mr. Connolley has actually protected vandals. Well, a rational advice would be: don't rush into disputes you don't know much, if anything about. Mir Harven 19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

La, la, you don't want to be blocked, don't cross or skate close to 3RR William M. Connolley 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Block
Hi, you appear to have blocked an AOL I.P. unfortunatly this has also blocked me as AOL uses proxy servers. The message says it was for a 3rrr on Quizzing.co.uk could you please unblock my I.P. Thank You. Death Eater Dan    ( Muahaha ) 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can post here, you're not blocked :-) William M. Connolley 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR/Jw6aa
Hello, as you've invited discussion on User talk:Jw6aa I'm sure you've watching it, but you might as well know that Jw6aa has something to say. Also I'd be interested to know more about your 3RR blocking philosophy (it's probably a good one, and I'm not questioning what you just did), so I'd be interested to see the expansion to User:William_M._Connolley/3RR. Thanks. Petros471 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne
Hi, I was just wondering if Licorne should be editing pages such as Einstein or Hilbert. I was on the David Hilbert page and saw some editing by Licorne that seemed somewhat suspicious. Now, I have no expertise in the matter, so I have no idea whether what he is writing is true or not, but given his past history with the subject, it gained my attention. Perhaps you could take a look? Thanks for your time. Delta 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're around and have a hankering to block someone, see User_talk:Licorne. --Fastfission 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I ended up blocking him for 48 hours, just as a safegap measure for now. Not sure what ought to be done with him in the long term, though, but I think even the RfAr is fairly unnecessary at this point -- he's nothing but a petty anti-Semite, in the end. I wouldn't normally block someone who I had filed an RfAr against but I figured nobody would very much care in this instance. --Fastfission 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I unblocked and reblocked for a week in case someone objects to your block Fastfission. Should've been infinite. Vsmith 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Joke has now blanked/protected Licornes page, so I didn't get to see, but since L is going down on RfAr, this seems pretty sensible. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 08:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the evidence I have presented at the RfAr if you have a strong stomach. It has links into the page history.--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On the basis of that, I think L could be blocked indefinitely. I guess L has seen the writing on the wall at the RFA and is venting spleen while they can William M. Connolley 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by two users
Hi, WMC check this out please, an anon user and user Ahwaz engage in some extremely vulgar language with each other. Please read the entire texts though.Zmmz 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahwaz was obvious enough. The anon was less obvious... could you be more specific? William M. Connolley 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know anything more specific about per se, other than the diffs I provided. But, I do agree that user Ahwaz`s language was much more vulgar than the annon user.Zmmz 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Connolley, Ahwaz is feeling extremely hurt by your action, given that he had had second thoughts about his angry outburst and had already deleted it. The anon had insulted him in Persian, accusing him of being an Iraqi, a Baathist, and telling him that he was just a no-good Arab. Ahwaz is an Arab from the Iranian province of Khuzestan, the one that was devastated by the Iran-Iraq War. Thousands of Iranian Arabs died defending the province from the Iraqis, so Ahwaz was devastated to be called a traitor.

I'm not defending Ahwaz' outburst -- he does have trouble controlling his temper at times -- but it's not quite fair of you to censure HIM for reacting, while ignoring the gross provocation on the part of the anonIP. The fact that the anonIP insulted him in a foreign language isn't a valid reason for ignoring it.

The role of Zmmz in all of this is also troubling. Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately in trying to stamp out "anti-Iranians" on WP. Look at this report by Lukas Pietsch on their activities:. Zmmz is calling for the "anti-Iranians" to be censured or banned for their infractions of Wikipedia rules. So of course he's running off to report to an admin when one of the posse manages to goad one of the targets past endurance. He used you in furtherance of his goals.

Of course Zmmz will probably pop up to tell you that I'm a known "pro-Arab" and "anti-Iranian". Funny that, given that I'm a Zen Buddhist living in Honolulu and I spend a lot of time editing Indian cinema articles but ... praps I've been an undercover Arab from birth, despite my Swedish real name.

In any case, it would make Ahwaz feel much better if you could say a kind word to him. Could you, please? Zora 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second Zora's request with respect to Ahwaz' block. I've tried to advise him and I don't condone his original incivil remarks, and I can also understand you were irritated at his exaggerated reaction, but then again, given the circumstances and given the current state of the blocking policy (which does not list PA as a routine blocking reason AFAIK, and certainly not without prior warning), I do think the block was rather on the strict side. Lukas (T. 12:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it`s very uncalled for these two users above to spam the talkpages of admins anytime someone is blocked for using profanity. I also think it is not appropriate for user Zora to label me, or use such incivil language against me, or bring some political issues into this. WMC did a good job, that is standard prodecure, and no speciall favours should be allowed. For the record, I think [both] those users who engaged in personal attacks should be blocked.Zmmz 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll say a kind word to Ahwaz (have now done so). Sadly its too late to lift the block. I'm not happy with Zmmz's role in this either. But ''it's not quite fair of you to censure HIM for reacting, while ignoring the gross provocation on the part of the anonIP. The fact that the anonIP insulted him in a foreign language isn't a valid reason for ignoring it'' is wrong, and I would have expected you to realise that: I can't possibly block people, or take any action at all, based on words I can't understand William M. Connolley 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WMC, armed with a friend who understands that language, and a dictionary, I don’t mind volunteering to translate the comments by the anon user, so to be fair, he or she can get blocked too. I reported both of them, because since I came to Wiki, I had to endure many incivilities, personal attacks and other, and if there is anything I can do about it, other than stooping to the level of the attacker, I will; and in most cases it means reporting such behaviour. But, I still do not appreciate that these two users [Zora and Lukas] dragged me into this. If you need my help, let me know please.Zmmz 10:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No thank you. This issue is now over. There is, perhaps, scope for a discussion of what to do about possibly offensive material in foreign languages, but the place for discussing that is not here William M. Connolley 10:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking
Let me put it this way. I am familiar with virtually all of the details that went into the intervention of the Wikimedia Foundation office in this case. I undertook to rewrite the article and establish new guidelines for sourcing claims and choosing references on the article. I posted these with the approval of the Wikimedia Foundation office. I haven't been specifically authorized to invoke the office policy, or I'd be looking to have those making these edits blocked for violating it. However, I believe that the office continues to support my actions, and you are certainly welcome to inquire with them directly.

All of the edits I have reverted, in my opinion, violate the guidelines I wrote. The guidelines call for reverting such edits. On an article where proper sourcing is critical, even time-critical, we have a number of editors with little or no concept of how to select and evaluate sources. Under the circumstances I am confident that Ignore all rules is appropriate to invoke with respect to my violations of the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have inquired with the office. I'm not going to do anything until they reply (well actually I'm going to go to bed now, without awaiting their approval :-). I *do* think that there ought to be a section of the talk page - or the office talk page - explaining such things, for the benefit of those driving by William M. Connolley 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom 3RR report
There are additional comments since you last posted to Irishpunktom 3RR CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you shirking your admin duties? CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the only contribs by 208.201.242.19 have been to set up the 3RR against me, and then to rally users, including yourself, to try and have me blocked. I'm not going to be near a PC tomorrow, and Its just past the witching hour here, so if you want tomake life easier for yourself you can go ahead and block me! I won't contest not contend. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards
User:William M. Connolley, I couldn't help but notice that user:Zora has posted some accusatory comments on your talk page, an administrator's talk page, labeling me and many other hard-working wikipedians as a "posse of Iranian nationalist editors". Now, I've been warned by an administrator in the past for simply using the term "Kurdish nationalist" in a non-direct fashion. But the administrators who seem more than happy to sanction the Iranian editors for every little fraction of rules, are not consistent in the application of wiki rules and simply ignore highly inappropriate comments by certain individuals (User:Zora, User:Aucaman, and etc) which are directed at the Iranian editors, case in point is Zora's accusatory comment on this very page or her prejudiced comments on another page calling Iranians scary and saying that "The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk. If they get the bomb too, that's an axis of potential insanity right across central Asia." 

I believe in your neutrality, so please take a closer look at this issue and make the appropriate decision. --ManiF 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please calm down a bit and be a bit less sensitive. If you're going to be so touchy, please lay off the snide comments about admin neutrality. And to everyone else: try to be more civil on my talk page please William M. Connolley 12:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sensitive at all. My comments about neutrality weren't directed at you at all, as I explicitly stated that "I believe in your neutrality". My main concern here is Zora's prejudiced comment about Iranians here In my opinion, that warrants a serious warning as I've been warned for far less offensive stuff. --ManiF 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, back off the warning-hunting, the comparative insults, etc etc. William M. Connolley 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?
"Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary".

This is the translation of a comment User:Aucaman left here

For your information, Cyrus was the founder of then Persia, now Iran.

Do you think he is fit to 'contribute' to Iranian articles when he has a strong anti POV against Persians/Iranians?

Me and others have asked him to comment on this however he repeatedly archieved his talk page! --Kash 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'd like you to answer the question I left on your talk page, before I start answering any of yours William M. Connolley 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Connolley my dear friend, as I believe Zmmz told you, he posted the matter and I signed it as behalf of Iranian editors. --Kash 22:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats a bad idea, as its confusing. But since it has your name on it, perhaps you'd care to go and correct it with your name? William M. Connolley 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Communalism on Wikipedia
Sir, it has come to my attention that a group of people are mobilising on communalist lines against those they regard as "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Persian". See this Wikipedia notice board: I have no problem with people coming together to exchange opinions and on a range of articles and, in a subject as vast as Iran, it could make sense. But this is not what this notice board is about. It explicitly says the notice board is for "Iranians", not a broader range of people with an interest in Iran. See which says "This is solely for awareness of other Iranian Wikipedians to join discussions on controversial topics."

Then there is a section entitled "Users to keep a watch on", which lists those "users who are widely known to systematically, methodically, and deliberately be involved with dismantling, attacking, debasing, and injecting misinformation into Iranian related articles." It accuses them variously of being anti-Iranian and even "terrorising". It lists their ethnicity, as if no Turkic, Azeri or Kurdish editor can be classified as Iranian. On this page, I have been accused of "spreading anti-Persian propaganda" simply for debating the issue of the Arab population of Khuzestan.

I and other editors have been the target of racist abuse and we have been warned - you punished me by blocking me for 24 hours. Yet, it seems that Wikipedia takes no action over this and even allows people to mobilise on communalist lines and target individuals! It goes beyond the necessary requirement to organise people to contribute to Iran-related articles and into a vindictive campaign to force people out of Wikipedia. Is this the "civility" you and others were telling me to abide by?--Ahwaz 11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, calm down a bit. Second, I've posted a question at Administrators' noticeboard about this William M. Connolley 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossing wires on 3RR
Sorry for crossing the streams with you on that Macedonian article. Nandesuka 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've just had a look: they are talking William M. Connolley 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid
I also find that weird. I've reblocked him the 50 hours he's supposed to be blocked for. I'm also thinking of filing an arb request. Thoughts? NSL E (T+C) at 11:02 UTC (2006-03-18)