User talk:GreenEcho

Please leave a message.

RE:Concerning the Druze page

Hello GreenEcho, Thank you for your message on my talk page. Of course as an administrator I cannot revert to a preferred version of the article, and as the dispute is not over, I cannot unprotect the page. I do ask you to try and work this dispute out on the talk page. A fully protected article goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, and it makes the article stagnant. So the quicker the resolution comes, the better for everyone. Good luck! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Progressive Socialist Party

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Progressive Socialist Party appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. ← George ^[talk] 18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You should also review Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people before adding unsourced commentary on Walid Jumblatt, a living person. ← George ^[talk] 18:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to 2008 conflict in Lebanon‎

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2008 conflict in Lebanon‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ← George ^[talk] 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Come discuss out disputes

I'd like to invite you to come to the two relevant talk pages and discuss our disputes, or I'm going to have to move to have you blocked from editting. ← George ^[talk] 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you viewed my invitation as a threat; it is not. However, I will have few options left if you continue to revert without attempting to resolve our dispute by discussing the issue. Also, consider reading this policy page as well. ← George ^[talk] 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Saad Hariri

Hiram111 and GreenEcho, please explain the reasons for your edits on the article talk page, and stop reverting the article until consensus is reached. I can't know which of your edits is better if you don't explain your reasons on the talk page. Thanks. I'm also posting a message to Hiram111. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request

In response to User talk:Hersfold#Request

You probably would have been better off contacting someone else - as the banner at top of my talk page clearly states, I'm not around very often. We also get a lot of reports at the Incidents board, as you probably noticed, and occasionally one gets overlooked. He has been spoken to by administrators about his recent edits - see User talk:Hiram111. If the situation continues, feel free to contact another, more active administrator, or post another report on ANI. Sorry for the delays you've been having. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Walid Jumblatt

Please join the discussion on the Walid Jumblatt article talk page concerning the statement you continue to insert in the article, which other editors have found to violate Wikipedia's policy on living persons. ← George ^[talk] 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, GreenEcho. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ← George ^[talk] 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You've violated WP:3RR on 2008 conflict in Lebanon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 conflict in Lebanon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ← George ^[talk] 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reports

Regarding your report of User:137.71.23.54; first of all, the user hadn't been warned since June. Second, the user deleted some text, which is not the same as simple vandalism. Though the text did contain some citations, it also contained some questionable language that may be in violation of our npov policy. I've warned the user to use edit summaries and propose major changes to the talk page first, but please don't report content conflicts as vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rafik Hariri

Hi, thanks for pointing that out, I'm sure I did though. Oh well, I have now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing Talk Page Comments

GreenEcho, regardless of your choler, you must not remove things from the Talk page of an article. I know we have butted heads (and continue to) on the page Druze, but this is different. You really must not do that, it is vandalism. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The RFC template

While I agree that your intent was not vandalism, it is still unacceptable to refactor others' talk comments (including templates). In essence, it appears that you are using the text of the template to push your own view in the matter. When the RFC discussion has been opened, you will have an opportunity to present your case. But that should be the format, and not the template itself. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2008_conflict_in_Lebanon#Third_Opinion

The editors at Talk:2008 conflict in Lebanon#Third Opinion are rapidly reaching a consensus. If you have anything to add, please do so now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hakim

GreenEcho, you continue to make aggravating reverts... aggravating because you revert things other than your intended reverts. You need to be careful when you edit. Don't just hit "Revert", examine the edit that was made first. I clearly noted in my edit summary what I had done and you just removed grammar corrections, link updates and other information.

Is there no way to come to some kind of agreement on Druze and/or Hakim whereby we cite both sources? I'm trying to be reasonable. We both have citations and you simply refuse to respond or discuss. Let's keep our disagreement outside of the introductions so that the pages don't get locked from editing.

In fact, I tried to do this with Hakim, leaving your edit about the allegations that the Druze deified Hakim inside of the text while adding that other scholars disagree. This is called consensus: without it, they are going to lock the pages again. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

Your edits are being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. You are welcome to give your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR at Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

concerning the twelver Shiite page

Hey GreenEcho, actually i'm not using sockets but simply using different browsers,and I forgot to logout from another old account, anyway its too bad that this will not get me blocked, since if i used the Hiram111 account we would have got to the same result, and the third account is not me,though its not an important issue.

I didn't request the protection of the page to personally target you, but simply because you removed cited edits anyway, I only requested for the page to be protected for a definite time which is a week , hoping that during this week we can discuss the references I used and maybe I can provide my other references concerning the issue, I hope we can have a constructive civil debate on the twelvers page and get to consensus t.c « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How nice. The way you become all civil and polite when you're on the verge of getting blocked. GreenEcho (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL« Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

How exactly am I abusing multiple accounts?

Decline reason:

Per FayssalF below. You've already been extended what seems to me to be quite a bit of latitude to have multiple accounts for multiple areas. Along with that latitude can some restrictions: namely, you have to stick to those accounts. It is okay for people to create new accounts for a "fresh start" within reason, but this account was created deceptively: note, for instance, your first edit with this account, clearly designed to avoid suspicion that you are a returning user. You did something similar with User:Enforcing Neutrality. Even if we accept that it was legitimate to create these accounts, it was much less legitimate to create two of them, and the fact that you edits overlapped with these last two accounts (even if not on any specific pages) makes things even worse, and on top of that these "fresh starts" were awfully close together - just a bit over two weeks apart.

Based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn, you are allowed to have two active accounts: one for Islam/Lebanon/Pakistan topics / regional, religious, political subjects in that area, and one main account for non-controversial topics (Fayassal cited "music, sports, popular articles and AfDs"). I have no idea about the third account but if that one's blocked and you think it shouldn't be, you need to make an unblock request there or take it up with Fayassal, because the details aren't public. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Fayassal's concerned, the previous use of sockpuppets is important enough that you should not be creating new accounts to avoid scrutiny. If you want a "fresh start", the best that is reasonable for you to do is to use the User:NAccount account and request a name change at WP:CHU. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 25 July 2008 (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.

You already have 3 different accounts for 3 different areas as stated 7 weeks ago. Obviously, you are using GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) for the same areas. WP:SOCK is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I don't have three accounts for three different areas. The account you left me with is NAccount, which you don't seem to understand that I DON'T want to use. I wanted a fresh start with GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality which have never edited the same articles. So, no, WP:SOCK is not clear. I am legitimately using two alternative accounts and I find it very unfortunate that you are allowed to abuse your privileges this way to prevent me from editing articles sensitive to your religious beliefs. GreenEcho (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A month or so ago you were caught abusing multiple accounts (refer to my first link above). Among the 12 accounts recorded, you were left with 3; one for each area (oldest ones were preserved except for one because edits overlapped with one of the 2 and therefore your NAccount was preserved instead). You cannot cherry pick your sock accounts. You were left with three so use them. Abandoning them and creating new ones can be interpreted as avoiding scrutiny and that would not be a cool idea. By the way, this is not an "abuse," you still got the 3 accounts unblocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't caught using multiple accounts abusively. I was caught having many accounts, but none were used abusively as violation of WP:SOCK, because none were used for the same article. You didn't leave three accounts unblocked, you blocked all the accounts except NAccount which I made clear I didn't want. I decided to get a fresh start with two accounts, which you falsely labeled abusive. Now that you realized your mistake, you're coming up with other false arguments to keep me from editing articles sensitive to your religious beliefs, particularly the one I'm editing with User:Enforcing Neutrality. Having two alternative accounts is legitimate, I should be allowed to edit without being harassed by you all the time. GreenEcho (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"sensetive religious beliefs"... Come one! I don't care about what you and others are editing. I am not interested in that unless you got some diffs to support what you are claiming. And if I tell you that I don't care about religion and all releigious issues, would you believe me or change your allegations to something like "sensetive political beliefs"? By the way, you are both on the wrong and your and the other parties socks were blocked.

Yesterday you had 3 accounts available. Today you have 3 accounts available. I merely blocked your newly created ones. Where's the abuse? Nothing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is disturbing that a user like GreenEcho who participates frequently on hotly-contested articles continues to operate so many accounts. For purposes of 3RR enforcement and other issues, knowing the track record of the participants in a dispute is important. By using so many accounts, this editor obscures his own past. This could even be a way of concealing past blocks from the administrator reviewing a dispute, though I don't know if that has been the case here. I support User:FayssalF's actions. GreenEcho should be glad FayssalF is on the case, because some other admins would have shut down the alternate accounts completely. (This is from my own reading of past SSP cases). EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't have three accounts left. FayssalF left me NAccount, which, for the thousandth time, I don't want. I didn't spend all these hours doing research, especially with Enforcing Neutrality, to have it just fade away. Me mentioning "fresh start" is an overstatement. I didn't do anything wrong in the first place. I just had too many accounts, but none of these accounts were used abusively in the same article to be considered sockpuppets. Block all my accounts and allow me to edit with GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality peacefully.

Decline reason:

I am marking this block reviewed, since FayssalF has commuted it from indef to 13 days. If you want to contest the shortened block, then file a new unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (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.

Was FayssalF allowed to perform a Checkuser without a request being filed and without me causing any disturbance? The policy says: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any Wikimedia project.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." FayssalF broke policy when he performed a checkuser on me, and when he subsequently blocked two legitimate alternative accounts. GreenEcho (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some responses.

1. FayassalF's use of the checkuser tool is very justifiable, given the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn before his use of the tool.
2. Having a couple of legitimate alternate accounts to separate areas of contribution is one thing, but having as many as you did is going way too far, especially since the areas of contribution are closely related in many cases.
3. Furthermore, it may be reasonable to conclude you were using a "good hand / bad hand" pattern, since some of your accounts, including User:NAccount, were engaging in incivil, potentially POV-pushing behavior while other accounts behaved properly.
4. Finally, what is it you don't like about NAccount now? If it's the name, it can be changed via WP:CHU. If it's the contribution history, or the behavior it's been linked to, I find that understandable, but it would also be avoiding scrutiny to deny the link. If you were to make a "fresh start" you would have to at the very least admit up front that you are the same user as NAccount. Yes, this means it wouldn't be a truly fresh start. But you're going to have to accept it if you want to edit here without breaking the rules. Mangojuice^talk 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NAccount was never my main account, I used mainly in one argument and I don't want to use it again. I don't understand why FayssalF insists on NAccount. I could have wrote to him using any other account, maybe he would have kept it instead of NAccount. And I never denied that I am NAccount. I just a "fresh start" and continue editing using GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality. GreenEcho (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help with all of your concerns, but you can ask that the accounts offered to you be renamed. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested just that when blocking yesterday. This is the situation:

• Klaksonn (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely on August 07 by BrownHairedGirl.
• A SSP/Klaksonn was filed on June 08 by MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs). The case was handled with the professionally mannered administrative help of Elonka. There was no technical way to get the Klaksonn data (since he's been indef blocked) to compare it with the suspected IPs and NAccount (talk · contribs). For that reason, Klaksonn then became an irrelevant issue especially after the CU discovered a sock farm behind all the suspected IPs. We can never be sure if Klaksonn is still around though that doesn't mean that the community would never forgive him. Anyway, it is very essential to note here that the sockpuppetry in that case was much more sophisticated than any usual sockpuppetry -- the sockpuppeter wanted us to believe that there were 2 set of IPs editing from different locations (thousands of miles apart - 2 continents) when in fact a proxy was bening used. There were 12 different accounts (more than a third were created on May 08). Mangojuice has a point; areas are closely related. So we left 3 accounts for 3 different areas (music, Lebanese and Iranian bios including BLPs and one of Islam-related articles). It should ne noted here that one of the socks had created a hoax biography concerning an inexistant Turkish member of parliament called Abdullah Uglu Buglu. Elonka did a great job in spotting that. We spent some time looking everywhere starting from the Turkish wiki. No result. I then took the opportunity to make this unrelated edit of mine (out of topic). When confronted with my question in regards to the reason of his attitude he said sorry and apologized and said that he was just [wanting to test the system.] That was really a very bad idea from someone pretending to be a good editor. We didn't make a fuss out of that (he apologized) and thought leaving him with 3 accounts would help stop the sockpuppetry while giving a straight sign of good faith and a chance to reform. That has been our flexible way of handling the case. We also assumed good faith and totally dissmissed the possibility of a group of users handling these accounts between them in a lab or somewhere including someone playing with BLPs such as here. That is another bad idea and I believe that the way he handles BLPs should change -- not in terms of vandalism since that happened once or twice but in terms of all of our terms of the BLP reinforced policy. We also discarded the possibility that persistent requests for keeping some accounts and not others may have something to do with a group accounts. We discarded all that because we don't assume. We just don't assume. The point here is that NAccount may not have been left but the other good accounts he's still requesting to keep (Carticus (talk · contribs) and Nasrulana (talk · contribs)) were discarded because they used to be socks of others. Simple as that. NAccount was created to defend his case and it was therefore taken as a "fresh starter" account. The rest were sockpuppets and it doesn't matter if the master is Klaksonn or Y since we couldn't get to that conclusion. Because of all these points, NAccount has been the most appopriate one to be kept.
• The holder of these accounts have contacted me a couple of times here and offline. Our discussions have all the time been calm and civil. All what he asked for is to leave 2 other accounts unblocked and discard NAccount. As explained above, we left the accounts that were created in good faith. Simple as that. We are not here to bother you. We are here to help everyone have a happy editing.
• Since that time, I haven't followed any details. I forgot about the case as I am dealing with plenty of others due to the nature of the task I am volunteering for as an arb. It was until yesterday that I came to know that NAccount account was abondoned. This means that we wouldn't have had this case if GreenEcho acted in an accepted manner by avoiding constant edit warring. Same for Hiram111 of course. It was yesterday when I spotted that ANI thread where one user GreenEcho (talk · contribs) files a report re the behaviour of another user Hiram111 (talk · contribs). I had never heard about these 2 users before but the content of it gave me a hint. GreenEcho accuses Hiram111 of disruptive editing and the Druze article. Never knew any editor name editing there until yesterday. Hiram111 was denying that but it was clear that his reply wasn't convincing at all. And I should note here that, at a given moment, I had problems to identify the multiple accounts as to which belong to which since they edit from the same city -- though with different set of IPs. However, in some instances, they were found sharing the same user agent. In some other instances the difference can only be found in the IP and the version of some data of the user agent. And I keep assuming that these are not a "group of users" or a case of a good hand/bad hand scenario. It took time for me to arrange all that data to come to my conclusions. I hope I am correct.
• Conclusion -- My stance is... GreenEcho or whatever have been asking for a fresh start. We have always supported that view in Wikipedia. That is part of our system of beliefs. Forgiveness it is also part of that. We appreciate everyone's contribution without caring about their politics, beliefs, gender, age... You name it. We just don't want to see our chocolate article be disputed because someone believes dark ones are much healthier AND (i insist) nutritive than others while someone else believes otherwise. When they persist and start using socks to prove further their points they become really disruptive. Then it becomes alarming when one or both come back bringing, this time, the same old "chocolate" under new identities and when caught they insist in convincing you that all they wanted is a fresh start pretending they are in total rights to do so. They just forget that the main point here is not just the socking but the attitude. Then, suddenly, the argument of a fresh start stops here; it becomes irrelevant. Now, whatever is the case and with all what has been said, If you understand very well this conclusion and Mangojuice's point 4. then I'll support any idea, which you'd deem positive, from the admins --who came here volunteering for your simple case-- and see if you can really start fresh as it means to be... and all parts of this long comment apply to Hiram111 and any other wikipedian confronted to such a situation as well; be them red, blue, capitan, sailor or you name it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances are not quite the same but I believe this is something that might be relevant to this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had multiple accounts- many- but unlike Hiram111, who has used two sockpuppet accounts to get himself out of trouble in one article, I have never used my many accounts abusively. It's funny, I could have done so on many occasions, but now I'm being penalized for things I didn't do, because, unfortunately, FayssalF seems to miss the difference between alternative accounts, which I thought I could operate many as long as they weren't used abusively, and abusive sockpuppet accounts, which Hiram111 deceptively used. By operating many accounts, I didn't do anything wrong, and asking for a fresh start would be an overstatement. I just want to use these two accounts, GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality, because I have put much time and effort doing research for articles, two of which are currently undergoing mediation, to have it go away. I still believe FayssalF is through great lengths to block my accounts, as he did by actually referring to a ban, to prevent me from editing articles sensitive to his religious beliefs. GreenEcho (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I've been following the historical changes of the WP:SOCK policy since 2005 - starting from this particular edit when it was still a semi-policy. I am dealing with it on a daily basis. By the way, and FYI, "Abusing multiple accounts" is the standard and unique "Reason" available for admins when using the block tool against sockpuppetry. There is a reason for that which can be found at the policy talk page archives. That being said, you should note that I haven't missed paying attention to what happened to an account named Kloksmann (talk · contribs) (does it ring like Klaksonn?) who was still editing until June 5th (a day or 2 after the Klaksonn case closed) and still asking to be unblocked using the same arguments and wasting plenty of respected admins' and Thatcher the checkuser's time at User talk:Kloksmann.
2. "I have spent much time and effort doing research for articles" was the same argument you used weeks ago. It is not a valid one. The efforts can still be found on the history pages of all your accounts. Everything is documented and you'll not make efforts to get your efforts back.
3. My reference to the ban was -- and still is -- to show you that we are not here to "prevent" you. We've already addressed the "assumptions" point before. Also, we've already addressed the "religious beliefs" point before. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho, if you continue to object to the generous offer of User:FayssalF, we should consider the other option of an indefinite block of all your accounts. That idea did cross my mind when I was looking over the contribution history of User:GreenEcho as part of my investigation for the 3RR block (noted higher up on your Talk page). It is possible to contribute to a highly-contentious article like Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in a good way, and I found your own edits to be very uncooperative. (You even over-wrote other editors' grammar improvements and removed Talk page comments). The contribution history of GreenEcho, standing alone, is nothing to boast about. It is quite paradoxical that you want to hang on to the contribution record of GreenEcho when it is so unlikely to impress other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, unless you haven't noticed, I don't care for your incivility and your impoliteness. You stand behind your computer screen using a tone that I'm sure you wouldn't think of using when addressing anyone in real life. This is why I'm ignoring you. FayssalF blocking my multiple accounts, which he labels abusive because he misunderstands the difference between alternative accounts and sockpuppets, and leaving me with one which I don't want is anything but generous. Now that I'm discussing issues in an article, FayssalF blocked NAccount for two weeks, stating as a reason "abusing multiple accounts". How exactly am I "abusing" multiple accounts? GreenEcho (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Your reply to EdJohnston above is unacceptable. You stand behind your computer screen using a tone that I'm sure you wouldn't think of using when addressing anyone in real life. It is not a good sign from someone seeking a clean start. If you are going to act this way when unblocked then Wikipedia would have no interest whatsoever in having you here. You keep on topic.
2. GreenEcho (talk · contribs) and Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) edited the same area; Muhammad al-Mahdi‎ and Fatimah (EN) and Shi'a Islam, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, Twelver Shi`ism, Qarmatians (GE). You also used a couple of different IPs during the period between the closure of the Klaksonn case and the creation of your GE and EN accounts. All that is unacceptable. Since nobody knew about the relationship between these accounts you could easily one day use them in the same articles. You were limited to 3 accounts (music, Lebanese, Iranian, Pakistani or whatever articles and Islam-related articles). You are still free to create 1000+ accounts as long as the areas are unrelated.
3. For us administrators, NAccount (talk · contribs) is the official master account. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn. If you are not happy with it (1), rename it. If you are not happy with it (2), don't abandon it and go create other 2 new ones unless you inform the admins who handeled the Klaksonn case. It was blocked for 2 weeks per the SOCK#BLOCK part of the policy. GE and EN were blocked indefinitely per the same part of the policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for any inconvenience and time wasted on this issue. I don't think I have done anything wrong having multiple accounts that have not been used abusively, but I apologize if I have. I just want to operate GreenEcho and Enforcing Neutrality, because, again, I have spent much time and effort doing research for articles currently in mediation. GreenEcho (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Apology accepted.
2. (copied and pasted from above) GreenEcho (talk · contribs) and Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) edited the same area; Muhammad al-Mahdi‎ and Fatimah (EN) and Shi'a Islam, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, Twelver Shi`ism, Qarmatians (GE). This is unacceptable. Since nobody knew about the relationship between these accounts you could easily one day use them in the same articles. You were limited to 3 accounts (music, Lebanese, Iranian, Pakistani articles and Islam-related articles). You are still free to create 1000+ accounts as long as the areas are unrelated.

But I didn't, even though I could have easily done so and had the oppurtunity to do so many times. I refrained not because of policy, but because I have too much pride to use deceit to prove a point. GreenEcho (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An advice... Use arguments only when you are sure they would not turn against you. Does that mean that you've just had this sudden honourable principle? You'd have not used deceit to prove a point if you got too much pride weeks ago as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An advice, have some self respect. Weeks ago, when and how exactly did I use deceit to prove a point? When, ever, did I use two accounts on one article to prove a point? Again, have some self respect and be polite when addressing me as I have done addressing you. GreenEcho (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Since user:Enforcing Neutrality is engaged in a mediation process (an encouraging thing) then I'd not see any problem in unblocking it so it would be your main account for religion-related articles. NAccount will be blocked indefinitely. GreenEcho can resume editing after 13 days (the time NAccount would been unblocked). And, of course, I'd not recommend you to use IPs anymore unless it is a mistake logging in or in cases that has nothing to do with circumventing policy. Do you agree? If you do then great. We can move forward. If you don't, I'll be obliged to ask you a last question and I'd not accept anything as an answer apart from a plain "Yes" or "No". This question came to my mind after you gave me a hint in one of your yesterday's comments above. Since you apologized and still keen to go on mediating I prefered to not ask it eventhough I believe it would have saved us too much time if it had came to my mind before. Consider it another chance. I say it again, consider it a last chance. And please, stop arguing when you are at fault. That would help a lot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. But I would very much prefer if you unblocked GreenEcho now because one user took advantage of my absence to precipitate the unprotection of an article on which there is clearly no consensus. GreenEcho (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now? No, after 13 days.

No. Nobody took advantage of your absence. Indeed, this argument is invalid. We don't wait for people to be unblocked or unblock them because a page would be unprotected/protected. You are still believing that everything you request for is ligitimate and common sense. Requesting a "protection" (asking for an "indefinite full protection" indeed!) before requesting a "UNprotection" within 5 minutes? This is insane. Whatever suits you. So no, you cannot keep requesting as you wish.

I am just wondering, as many other admins and editors, how come no single article you have edited so far never reached a consensus point. Why?! So we'll see now how your mediation process (with the Enforcing Neutrality account) would go. I'd much prefer you cool down and change your attitude. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF, me agreeing with your proposal, assuming good faith, and disregarding the fact that you broke policy when you unblocked my legitimate alternative accounts while calling them abusive does not mean you are allowed to be impolite and incivil and assume that by agreeing with you, you are right. Actually, I want GreenEcho to be unblocked now. I have not broken policy when I operated two accounts because, unlike Hiram111 whom you blocked for merely a week, I did not use my accounts abusively as stated on WP:SOCK. I politely asked for GreenEcho to be unblocked now, even though you had no right to block GE in the first place, so I expect you to reply with the same politeness and civility. GreenEcho (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry in case I lost my temper with you (I've never lost it since I joined Wikipedia) but my point is still valid. And again, you cannot cherry pick scenarios and ask people to be polite when you argue agressively with an admin as you did above with EdJohnston. As I said above, I am still having a question and insisting non-stop may not work on your favour. Don't insist please because you may risk an indef block in case you'd be faced with that question. Apart from that, you are lucky that you are still editing since anyone would have blocked you indef without looking behind him (referring to the relationship between your present account GreenEcho, Kloksmann (talk · contribs) and Klaksonn (talk · contribs)). Keep it cool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I have already expressed my approval of your proposal. But you have yet to unblock the accounts. GreenEcho (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unblocking 1 account (Enforcing Neutrality), not two. GreenEcho will be unblocked after 13 days. NAccount will be blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Remember... Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) is for religion-related articles and GreenEcho (talk · contribs) is for everything apart religion and music. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But what if I indicate on the GreenEcho userpage that it is an alternate account of EN? GreenEcho (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please remove the autoblock. GreenEcho (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef

You've just been blocked indefinitely. He are the details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)