User talk:Passionless

Archives Harassment by Admins February 2010 — February 2011

New SPAs?

Any idea who these two users might be?

• Negat nazri kasturi
• Sirwal

Nightw 08:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they are both related to the person attacking me as of late, I emailed oversight before I went to bed but looks like they did not ban the two yet. Passionless -Talk 19:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I was wondering if Sirwal could be banned outright as being obviously related to Negat nazri kasturi and the numerous other accounts of a banned user who have attacked this talk page this week, or do I still have to go through SPI/AE. Also Negat did leave some insulting edit summaries, I emailed oversight over 12 hours ago, but no response, so hopefully you can take care of that too? Thanks, Passionless -Talk 20:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want an oversighter to do—all they can do is permanently remove edits from visibility. It sounds like you want a checkuser, but if the socking is blatant or the account is being purely disruptive, you can report to WP:AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

An oversighter could remove the insulting edit summaries...I highly doubt they will be interested at AIV as he is only disruptive puppet of a banned user, not a vandal. Passionless -Talk 20:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need oversight to remove edit summaries, I can do that if you give me the diffs here or by email (assuming they meet the criteria). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I've deleted the offending revision and edit summaries. I'm not really able to look into the socking issue right now. I'd suggest taking it to ANI, AIV or an individual admin you trust who's familiar with the background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing multiple accounts that are obviously the same user: Msmsmstruth, Ouou9529, Anakites, Arakiel, Suresh4569, Wizgame54312, Negat nazri kasturi. Whether Sirwal fits in, I don't know. Is it worth reopening that sockcase? Nightw 09:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN: 2011 Wisconsin budget protests

-- tariqabjotu 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Signing

Do you mind to sign your last comment on GH? This would make the discussion more readable and easier to follow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

w/e, I forget every 1 in a thousand posts. Passionless -Talk 09:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Happens to everyone. 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the topography image, I'd appreciate your patience, while the discussion is ongoing. I've contacted the image contributer and their input would be very welcome on article talk page. See their map gallery for more samples. There are strong feelings on all sides and their perspective would be helpful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is a neutrality of the map review. Your input is welcome there. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Passionless, It looks like you have interest in helping newcomers to Wikipedia, and I saw that some of your contributions fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, so I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. This Initiative has a big focus on helping new people, so I think you should check it out. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

About labelling people

A wildcat in the wildlife park

About your argument that authors should be labeled as "Arab" or "Jew" to warn of bias, I think other editors have the right to know your bias. My personal page is rather explicit on this but yours is not. Passionless, what is your race and religion? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One, my arguement made it clear that I thought labels were appropriate only when relevant to the opinions being given by the people/organizations, and two I do not lead a public life, you have no right to ask anything about me. Passionless -Talk 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching this page, after discussing other issues with Passionless above. Emmanuel, I'm warning you, since you are out of line completely and you should apologize. You are free to disclose any privacy information about you. Wikipedia is totally anonymous, see WP:OUTING for instance. Right of editors for privacy is guarded carefully by the community. You should also review WP:HA and try to be civil to other editors. Otherwise you will be banned by the community. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that AgadaUrbanit, and thanks for the pet jaguar too, Passionless -Talk 21:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the felis's cousin  ;) If you're not comfortable, I will remove the decorating addition and your talk page from my watchlist. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, that was a baited hook to help you realize how ugly racism is. You did not bite, good for you. Now, show the same respect to others that you demand for yourself. As for Agada, if you feel like commenting further, go there. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Phhhh...No. This account is not a public person, but public people are, so they do not have the option of controlling what people say about them, short of libel/defemation that is. But don't worry once I become leader of the universe, you can talk about my ethnicity and religion. Passionless -Talk 04:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Adding such POV as you added here. Besides being POV, it is false. No Afghans were killed in Iraq. If you continue editing like this, I believe topic ban would be justified.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He, oops, I did mean to write Iraqis of course, don't know why I wrote Afghanis, anyways you can take your POV claims and kick em to the curb along with your original POV pushing which I notice you did not restore all of, good. Passionless -Talk

Aren't you under 1RR per week?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is for I-P conflicts only, Passionless -Talk 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Hi I've been attacked by an admin again...what do you claim I did wrong now? Passionless -Talk 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems you're just not getting the message, so I've blocked you for 48 hours. You can, of course, appeal using {{unblock|reason}}. Hopefully you'll use this time to take a read of policies, in particular, I'd recommend WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK and WP:EW. Remember the old adage that goes something like "if I can tell from your writing where your sympathies lie, you're not writing neutrally". Please try to keep your nose clean when you return. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So what fucking rule did I break now?

Perhaps you might humour me and take a minute to read the documents I linked above? That should clear things up for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, master, I do not have to do what you say, just like you have no right to block people who have not broken any rules. Passionless -Talk 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take Eraserhead's advice and let editors work together to improve articles rather than just blocking the one who your pet does nto agree with. All my edits have been explained, and break no rules. Passionless -Talk 20:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at this objectively. What would your reaction, assuming you're a perfectly neutral editor with no strong opinion on the subject, be to an edit like this one? Can you honestly say that's neutral? Can you honestly say that the purpose of that article is to discuss American propaganda, casualties of the Iraq War or the legality/morality of the continued presence of foreign troops in the country? If you can understand where you've gone wrong (and that's not to say that you intended to), then maybe we can talk about unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My first edit was not so good, I can get playful and I did change the OR POV from pro-american to slightly not so pro-american, I guess it was a slight POINT, and of course the afghan part was only a slip of the mind. I still think that "killed by insurgents" makes it sound as if the Iraqis are murderers and the american soldiers have never killed anyone, so I changed it to that they were killed while fighting(a war) against the Iraqis. The last part, "bombs of Iraqi insurgents" is also OR, never stated in the article who's bombs they were so I generalized it to bombs in the War in Iraq. Passionless -Talk 21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. The source does mention car bombs, and mortar attacks, but no fighting with "rebels". Besides most attacks occurring in Iraq now have absolutely nothing to do with Americans, except of course, when they become victims of such attacks. Sadly, and I would never understand why, Iraqis kill Iraqis in Mosques, schools, markets and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrase. Instead of copy word for word, editors paraphrase to keep it simple and legal. And rebels is just another NPOV word for insurgents. Your ideas on what is going on in Iraq today is quite irrelavent to what was going on back in 03/04 when this story took place. Passionless -Talk 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong again. Please take a look at this article Iraq War. How many times it mentions the word "insurgents" and the word "insurgency" for that matter? I'll let you to count. This article even has a section about insurgency. And how many times it mentions the word "rebels"? Zero. There is even the whole article on Iraqi insurgency.

The events described in the article about adoption started in September of 2003 that is Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present, the time of insurgency. Here's the List of suicide bombings in Iraq in 2003, and there were other attacks as well.

I'm trying here to help you to understand, where you get it wrong, in order that you will not repeat the same mistakes, when you come back. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tell me I'm wrong again without explaining what I've done wrong, thank you sooo much, I can't wait for the next time you prod me again. Passionless -Talk 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you do not understand what you did wrong after you edited the article about adoption of paralyzed Iraqi boy, inserting this: "American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed.", and then added section, in which you somehow connected the adoption of a disabled child to "sexual exploitation and servitude.", I am afraid that your user name "Passionless" should be changed to "Hopeless". With this I'm stopping bothering you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just had to get in that last insult eh? I find the more people resist my lastest edits is positively correlated to how much effort I put into the article, so I will be heavily involved in that article for quite awhile. Passionless -Talk 01:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Passionless (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I never broke any rules, pretty simple

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{helpme}} The article Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen is about to go on DYK, my attempts to add neutrality and bring up sourced criticism have been deleted and I have been blocked by an admin to stop me from improving the article. Can people please improve the article, thanks. An editor even just whitewashed saying 'sexual abuse' never appears in the source, even though it does three times. Passionless -Talk 21:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using the help me template in this manner. It is not for asking for help in a content dispute or requesting unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Passionless (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I never broke any policies, Mitchell thinks I was adding POV material because he saw my edits were all in one direction, but he does not seem to realize I was adding NPOV and removing OR from a highly POV article. I added sourced criticism to a propagandist article and removed OR blaming Iraqis for all violence during the american war on iraq. I reverted a few reverts, but I did not break 3RR, and all my reverts could have been made as one if I was less lazy. I may have made a slight WP:POINT with my first edit, but that is not a policy.

Decline reason:

IYour talk below about " the cabal really enjoys harassing me these last two weeks, might have to take action if it continues" and "you admins leave me no choice and are trying to force my hand" does not give me a good feeling at all about unblocking you. In fact, it sounds rather threatening.  Sandstein  18:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Again, Passionless? You are becoming something of a regular blockee. It might perhaps be time to reflect on whether your general approach to editing is a helpful one. AGK [•] 22:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, seems like the cabal really enjoys harassing me these last two weeks, might have to take action if it continues. Passionless -Talk 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what kind of "action" are you referring to? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say probably go cry to Jimbo that admins keep blocking me even though I have never broken any policies, but Busygoods does raise a good idea, lol. Passionless -Talk 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, looks like you admins leave me no choice and are trying to force my hand. Passionless -Talk 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because vague threats are a perfect way to convince other editors and admins that you're going to edit within policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Part of this problem seems to be coming from treating in various conflicts experienced Wikipedians the same way as random trolls or vandals are treated. For instance, it is recommended not to talk too much to/about a troll as this "feeds" them. Differently, refusal to talk with contributors that have been initially fair may turn a Wikipedia friend into a Wikipedia enemy, especially when socially sensitive (for instance, religious, national independence, political or similar) topics are involved."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Passionless (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, as it never was necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia as the block never had merit, and the offending admin should be punished for making such a reprehensible block

Decline reason:

Demanding punishment for someone else will not get your block lifted early. I would suggest reading WP:NOTTHEM and trying again. TNXMan 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CI1 fossils

While I appreciate the warning, I would encourage you in the future to simply try editing the article, rather than giving me a veiled warning. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a warning, only a comment, and I know I could have done it myself, but I was too busy fixing your entry into the current events portal :P. Passionless -Talk 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen

The purpose of tags like that is to draw attention to issues with an article. If your aim is genuinely the improvement of the article, may I suggest you try to discuss the matter on the talk page? If you're just trying to make a point, I would suggest you find another way of making it or you'll end up facing your fourth block in a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss the changes required as well, I just now added a comment to the WP:RSN on the INEAS source, and will continue to improve this article. Mbz1 seems like she just wants to undue all my edits and call me a vandal. Passionless -Talk 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well since the main contributors are aware that you feel there's an issue, there's not much point to the tags. The best thing to do is to state your case on the talk page or at RSN and gather some outside input. If the consensus is that you're barking up the wrong tree, you might just have to accept that, but if the consensus is something along the lines of "actually, hang on a minute, Passionless might just have a point here", then you can work collaboratively to improve the article. That way, everybody wins and hopefully nobody feels like they're banging their head against a brick wall. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags are for the readers as much as for the editors, than again the majority of editors are IPs who came as readers. Passionless -Talk 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags are to be justified by a constructive comments on the talk page. Please focus on the content of the articles, do avoid commenting on the editors. Such [1] comments definitely are not welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags represent the ongoing WP:RSN#INEAS and the removal of the entire criticism section. Passionless -Talk 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How comes? Tags were added when no www.ineas.org reference was there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought re-adding the INEAS part while it is still up at RSN would have been seen as battlefielding or being uncooperative or something by certain people and I would be re-blocked as if I was a troll, so I have to wait till the RSN is done. Do you think the criticism part can be re-added with the tags to show there is criticism but it is disputed? Passionless -Talk 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism

Hi Passionless. My view is that blowing up buildings disqualifies an organization from being taken seriously, whether it claims to oppose antisemitism or the war in Vietnam. If you'd like to poll other editors, post a message on the template's Talk page or at WT:JUDAISM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think policy on the matter is more important than polling, and the audience of a poll related to antisemitism is likely to be full of emotionally invested people rather than neutral people with arguements based on policy. Not sure what to do. Passionless -Talk 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Move

Serious, don't do this again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur too, and in a figure of speech: please don't bite off more than you can chew. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the complaint, I made it actionable, why do you feel you have the right to undo my edits? Passionless -Talk 07:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was on my way to do the same, but NH beat me to it. Best to just let it go. Consensus was that it was a good block, and battling with everyone who disagreed with you wasn't very productive. It's best to just let that one slide. Good luck in the future! Dayewalker (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Passionless. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.