Doctor11

Blocked as a sock?
No! Planned from the start! - ever since I began my investigation into proceedings here on Wikipedia, one name recurred "MONGO". Strange I thought how all users who challenged him are given immediate Check-user's - but look on RFCU - no request to be seen! Discretionary check-users on EVERY user who challenges MONGO? Is that a policy now? My suspicions aroused, I created Asucena - a so called "Hamas representative", knowing the Jayjg situation it was obvious that it wouldn't take long to get myself indefinitely blocked. Anyway, background over. I then created "Doctor11", an exemplary editor without a single piece of vandalism, a little left wing perhaps, but no vandalism. As Doctor11, I spotted MONGO's removal of EVERY comment against his point of view about 9/11 and his constant blanking of editors on his talk page. I therefore challenged MONGO again. Once, twice, three times my comments were removed! I consulted AuburnPilot for help, who gave his full support. Then cam Raymond Arritt - oh Raymond just look at your contributions. He continually supports MONGO - out of the blue! How did he know about our dispute... one word "cabal"... or "clique" (that's two words). Undeterred, I brought MONGO before ArbCom. Where I suggested that MONGO contacted Raymond Arritt for help. Raymond denied this by saying "find a single shred of evidence"... methinks he does protest too much! Then, out of the calm blue, Bishonen appeared and conducted a checkuser. View the policy... is challenging an editor called MONGO legitimate grounds for a checkuser... NO! No RfCU, no past history of vandalism, no reason to suspect sockpuppetry. In fact I completely ensured it to make this watertight. Asucena's edits were concentrated on Israel. Doctor11's were on varied content areas and never confrontational. In actual fact, Doctor11 monitored recent changes to revert vandalism. So... why the checkuser? That is the question each and every one of you must consider. Why Raymond Arritts intervention. Why Bishonen's checkuser. user:RuleBrittania had the same treatment when he challenged MONGO. A discretionary RfCU without justification. The fact is that MONGO holds such influence that this comment will remain for only minutes but please, wikipedians. think about who is really running this place. --Doctor11 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to your wikistalking. Peoiple have my talkpage and the arbitration pages watchlisted and I never once contacted anyone. A checkuser was run without my knowledge since you were an obvious sockpuppet, having few edits, claiming to not know how to do things, yet fully knowing how to correctly wikilink, use edit summaries and file a bogus arbitration complaint. No one with any experience here was fooled by your actions and I don't have to put up with your harassment.--MONGO 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone heard of email. a groundbreaking technology?

As I said, my talkpage and arbitration pages are on lots of peoples watchlists. I have over 50 usertalkpages watchlisted myself. Had you just gotten busy writing an encyclopedia, instead of looking for ways to provoke me and be an internet troll, you wouldn't be blocked. I guess we'll just wait for your next incarnation and see if you harass me or others again. Have a nice day.--MONGO 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling in the cabal now...? See MONGO has emailed bishonen. Or Bishonen was watching my page to save time. They're trying to make it look like a lot of editors agree with MONGO

I don't think you understand how it works. There is no need to email. There is no cabal. I watchlist arbcom page. MONGO is a prolific contributor and a valued member of the community. Criticism of MONGO's actions have a very high hurdle to clear because he is such a valued member. He has broad support in this case and your Wikistalking and ban evasion is not helping your case. --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. He didn't have broad support until he pulled some strings. Asked bishonen to run that checkuser, the question's never been answered by the way... where is the RfCU? --Doctor11 14:00, 29 June 2007 (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).

Doctor11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm eager to be unblocked. I admit that Asucena did operate from this computer but I on the other hand am a reformed and good editor. As can easily be seen. I saw some messages about MONGO's "ruling clique" on the ArbCom page so decided to "google" it. It seems that this has happened before when a user challenges MONGO. It is easy to see that I have never vandalised a page, harassed a user, failed to AGF, made a personal attack or even a POV edit. The only warning I have ever received has been from AuburnPilot who apologised for his error. I am in utter disbelief that my disagreement with MONGO is enough to warrant this block. I hope to continue my contributions very soon. (Could AuburnPilot be the one to review the case?)--Doctor11 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At the very least, clear meatpuppet of Asucena. — Yamla 16:24, 24 June 2007 (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've done enough already to make me look like a complete fool. The sad thing is that what happened was unacceptable, but because you are a sock/meatpuppet of a banned editor, it doesn't matter. The bullshit will continued, and some editors will have yet another reason to justify their behavior. I for one, am done. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and time after time it bites me in the ass. I support this block and will under no circumstances reverse it. Well done everyone. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know I am a sock puppet?

Welcome!

Hello, Doctor11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Regarding earlier warnings

It seems I was mistaken. Please accept my apologies. George W. Bush is hammer with constant vandalism, including redirect vandals. I assumed this was the case here. Thanks for tagging the below article (The meal) and I have deleted it. - auburnpilot talk 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The meal

In response to your question on my talk page, see WP:CSD. The appropriate template to place on the page would be {{db-nonsense}}. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me.--Mbc³⁶² 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Your userpage is in violation of WP:USER. Your userpage is supposed to be used to track your process and other work on Wikipedia and it is clear by your statements that your intent is to use the space to oppose the war and send sympathy for the people of Iraq. Although that is a noble cause, it's not what it is supposed to be used for, please don't readd it. Thank you! — Moe 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyrokkin

Why did you mark Hyrokkin as "patent non-sense"? Wasn't the comment embedded beside the redirect explanation enough? I'm curious. Urhixidur 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...never mind, the redirect was pointing incorrectly anyway. Urhixidur 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush Intro

How are you? The reason I reworded the intro in the first place is because it seemed blatently POV in favor of Bush, failing to mention any of the debate regarding his presidency. However, I feel that inserting things like "never possessed" in bold text is just POV in the opposite direction. It's obvious from your user page that you are anti-war. I understand where you're coming from, but I also think that the political pages are filled with POV bias and in a supposed encyclopedic environment it needs to be toned down. I'm not saying it doens't belong in the article, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the introduction. You can elaborate (and elaboration has been made) in both the critcism sections and the Iraq subsection itself. But I think the introduction, as the most impressionable and often read part of the article, needs to be as concise and unbiased as possible while presenting all sides. I think the current version does that. If you disagree, let's talk about it, and I'm sure we can work something out. SpiderMMB 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop it

MONGO has made it extremely clear that you are unwelcome on his talkpage. Stop posting there now, please. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

No problem, I was simply following ArbCom procedure which states that I should inform him that a case is active. --Doctor11 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO arbitration request

As an Arbitration Committee Clerk I can advise you that since you have posted the diff that you notified MONGO of your request, and he has clearly seen it, that is sufficient. There is no need for to worry about whether or not it remains visible on his page. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Doctor11 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack page

Post attacks on this page one more time and I protect it. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of File:London anti bush demo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:London anti bush demo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kelly ^hi! 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)