Before I see any more reverts from you, KneeJuan, and Dchall1, I want to see some serious attempts to discuss the content that is being reverted. Please see WP:DISPUTE to understand what I'm talking about. Users may be blocked for edit warring even without technically violating the 3RR, and I am warning all three of you before this gets out of control. Please discuss your edits as opposed to reverting. Thanks, Khoi khoi 06:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, but keep in mind that you should be sticking to the content. I applaud your efforts to take the issue to the talk page, but in order for there to be a healthy discussion, stick to the content and content only. Your talk page headers for example are counter-productive and only make things more personal, which is not what we need right now. Please go back and change them to something that addresses the conetnt, not the other user. Khoi khoi 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you seen this? // Chris ^{(complaints)• (contribs)} 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

When I ad information to a page, how do I ad a reference source link?-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

<ref>put the author, title, page, link, stuff like that in between these two things</ref> -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

BoogaLouie, as a compromise between us, I wouldn't object to using likes of Ganji, Millani, Sadjadpour etc, as long as their opinions are not presented as facts, and their quotes are clearly attributed to the author, like " Akbar Ganji believes that..". Do you agree to this solution? -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Leftist guerrilla groups of Iran is done. I'll get to the rest of them, on Sunday. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

BoogaLouie, you keep placing totally disputed tags on this article but are not saying what it is that you dispute. Would you let us know what that is and/or add what you think is missing. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Booga, get a WP:consensus for your edits on 1953 coup, you're engaged in edit-warring again. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I added a couple of sentences at what, I thought, was the invitiation of another editor. ("So why don't you source it and put it in there?" Skywriter) You had not been involved in the discussion on the talk page.

Now you've deleted them along with my POV tag. How can you accuse me of edit warring? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey man. Long time no see. Anyway, I could use some help watching Anwar al-Awlaki. Guy's got a lot of terror ties, and I'll probably put up the sections from the 9/11 commission report about him, but in the meantime he has a lot of fanboys constantly blanking out the sections on his funny business. If you or anyone else interested in the topic of fundamentalism could just keep an eye out (I don't log in very often now), that would be great. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Help is needed to translate the Iranian province templates into english so they can be used in the main articles!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi BoogaLouie, You have referenced this link several times http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=264350953&oldid=264350720#Cold_War and I have written that it is irrelevant and unnecessary expansion of the article. Let me make clear that I think the following paragraphs are not necessary especially when primary documents are quoted (the Wilber document, the NSA document, along with comments from secretaries of state Dulles and Acheson), which put forward the "commies are a threat and, therefore, this is justification for overthrowing somebody else's elected government" argument. These are the paragrpahs you want to re-insert.

Among the controversies involved in the coup is the importance and/or legitimacy of American and British fears of Communist influence in Iran. In the decades following the October Revolution, Iran's very large northern neighbor, the Soviet Union, had expanded its domain to rule over tens of millions of Muslim in Central Asia, and following World War II over much of Eastern Europe. [23] On June 26, 1950, as the movement for oil nationalization was gathering momentum in Iran, communist North Korea, with Soviet approval, crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea beginning the Korean War. [24] Three years later, just before the coup d'état in Iran, the Soviets crushed an uprising of strikes and protests in East Germany. [25] In Iran itself, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, greatly exceeded the National Front in the sized of its rallies as the crisis became worse.[26] (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)

In the view of American mainstream public and elite opinion, the crisis in Iran was a part of the conflict between Communism and "the Free world," rather than a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism.[27] Consequently, what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite?

the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge. who is to say what most Americans saw? This also ignores the controversy of Joe McCarthy and anti-communism, issues that spoke not to what most Americans saw but as the anti-Red crusade de jour. Whether or not Americans viewed Iran as a nation with unique history is beside the point. Iran was a country with a unqiue history.

According to Sam Falle, a young British diplomat at the time of the coup,

1952 was a very dangerous time. The Cold War was hot in Korea. The Soviet Union had tried to take all Berlin in 1948. Stalin was still alive. On no account could the Western powers risk a Soviet takeover of Iran, which would almost certainly have led to World War III[28] (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran? Skywriter ( talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I note that you have failed to answer the questions posed above. I note also that you seem unwilling to compromise on any issue pertaining to the 1953 coup in Iraq. Skywriter ( talk) 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

your posts are difficult to answer. The original text you are criticizing is mixed together with your assertions and questions, and the citations you complain about (e.g. [26] (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)) are missing.

I'm not sure how to answer some of your questions - what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite? - Yes, and what is truth? and how do we know that the universe exists? Much time could be spent in inquiry into these and many other questions but this is an encyclopedia so we take standard definitions and do our best.

You are very annoyed by mention of the Cold War: (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran?

... But bear in mind the cold war and the American (and Western) fear of an expanding and tyranical Soviet bloc was raised by the author and the book (Kinzer, All the Shah's Men) you thought so crucial to the history of the coup you wanted to mention them in the lede. In fact it was Kinzer who quoted the "young diplomat" and talked about Stalin still being alive.

Come to think of it almost every source you have used the importance of the cold war is raised.

I hope that helps answer some of your questions. Have a nice day. :-) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

You should explain why you deleted this.

Why does obscure reference dominate this proposal?

Why is this obscure 20-year-old resource [1] referred to below as Mohammed Amjad. (( http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/AFD%252f.aspx "Iran: From Royal Dictatorship to Theocracy‎"]. Greenwood Press, 1989. )) being used as the main source for this proposed lead when one the title and subject matter of the book is 1979 and not the 1953 coup and two Several excellent and widely reviewed books have been published much more recently on the 1953 coup in Iran, and three the governments of the US and UK have released information that sheds light on the coup and tends to discount this proposed lead?

This appears to be agenda-pushing at its worst. This kind of agenda pushing is what is keeping this article blocked for lack of consensus.

Skywriter ( talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Did not delete. moved it to the other criticism below -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

76.173.244.75 ( talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)been tracking yr comments on the acid attacks page and i can't believe how keen contributors are to delete or exclude stuff. it's like they're way more motivated to delete than deliver information to the reader. why has this disease taken hold on wikipedia? reply

Great work cleaning up this article. Sections that were previously poorly written are now decently sourced and less biased in tone. I just wanted to let you know that your tireless contributions are not unnoticed. riffic ( talk) 07:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you time to return to 1953 Iranian coup? The RossF18 editor is still waiting for the page to unlock. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you want to move on to dispute resolution in the 1953 coup article -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

There is an outstanding suggestion to edit 1953 coup in Iran one sentence at a time. Three editors favor this solution. We await your response. Thank you. Skywriter ( talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't await my response, look on the article talk page where the response was posted. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Terribly sorry, been busy. I read "All the Shah's Men" weeks ago back at the beginning of July, and since it seems you read it as well... yeah, I don't know what book the others read. If anything it was too frustrating as it made the point we two were making all the more obvious, as were Kurdo's own links. Unfortunately to comment more directly on the thread would require reading through their arguments and links, which at this point I'm less interested in because I felt I was cheated - interesting book as it was, it in no way backed up the tack they were going for. Sigh.

I'll try and stop by and express my general support for your lede this weekend, though, but to do so with a good conscience I figure I"ll have to read another month's worth of commentary. Sigh. SnowFire ( talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi BoogaLouie, you kindly wrote: "I have made edits off and on to the Wahhabi article over the last couple of years and if there is some kind of mediation I would be happy to participate as an interested party."

My apologies for not responding to your generous offer, BoogaLouie. As I say, I'm really "just passing through", but the editors at the article could do with some help, imo, Have added a note to the talk page. Many thanks. Esowteric+ Talk 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps a brief definition of Saadah would be nice. It is mentioned no where else in the article and is pretty scarce in the internet. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

"Saadah" is the plural form of " Sayyid" in Arabic as stated in the article. In non-Arabic languages people use pluralising forms for Sayyid e.g. Sayyid + "s" (plural suffix in english) = Sayyids instead of the Arabic plural form of Saadah. Al-Zaidi ( talk) 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I missed (plural sādah سادة) when I did a "control F" search for Saadah. Would it be accurate to change the section title to Other Titles for Sayyid so the uninitated reader isn't confused? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No because it is not another title it is the same word just pluralised. What you are asking to do is equivalent to saying: "Kings" should be under Other Titles for King, doesn't make sense to do that right :) Al-Zaidi ( talk) 03:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

But this is an english language encyclopedia and most readers will not be familiary with arabic plurals. For example it is common even in scholarly english language books to use the word "ulemas" instead of ulema as the plural, even though that makes no sense as an arabic word. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

In several posts above from yesterday the Skywriter ( talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) wikisignatures were messed up when Skywriter forgot to add a </ref> after a citation. (I'd give him a good scolding but I'm prone to stuff like that too! :-) ) Posts after that did not get the Skywriter ( talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) turned into a signiature. I added the </ref> and have tried to add names of editors to their posts. Hope I haven't missed anything. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the correction. I apologize for screwing up but still don't grasp what I did wrong (though I did eventually give up in frustration when my notes and sigs were not showing up). Is this business about </ref> documented anywhere? Skywriter (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, you seem to understand this and I sure don't. Do you know where there's an explanation so I don't again mess it up? thanks a lot. Skywriter ( talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

see the added </ref> here -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Please lay off the "New York Post" or "RajaNews"-type character assassinations, rumors, and smears on biographies of living people, this is an encyclopedia, not your weblog or editorial column. Please thoroughly read WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, I will not warn you about this issue again, next time I see something like this [2] or this [3] > [4], I will just file a RFC about such unencyclopedic editorializations of these biographies of living persons using questionable sources, and you will be blocked for "persistently posting potentially defamatory information about living persons" in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

What are the "character assassinations, rumors, and smears on biographies of living people." you are accusing me of? Your links involve two different issues.

There is/are no "character assassinations, rumors, and smears" in my edits to Masoumeh Ebtekar and I will contest your revert.

I made an cleaning up a sentence in the Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi article which was deleted on the grounds that the source used was a satrical article. I didn't know the source was satirical and have no problem with the delete. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As Mr. Wales suggests, don't bite.

I think, but I'm not sure, that your account will be flagged with my rebuttals to your re-edits and removals on the "Allegations" section of the page on the CIA arming and funding Osama Bin Laden.

I'm pretty sure you will be flagged to the TALK page to read my reasons for including the TIME Magazine source.

Besides comments in TALK, I must challenge you for edits on Sibel Edmunds. Not that the source of the article was Iran, a better source could be found, and perhaps I will do that. Rather, that she is characterized as a discredited former FBI translator, while her bio on Wikipedia carries the opposite connotation, that some anonymous source tried to discredit her in the press, while an official FBI investigation found she had "valid complaints". Further, while she was accused of leaking sensitive information, her bio says that she took her allegations to the highest official levels in the FBI and DOJ, not to the press or some outside body, at least not until (to my separate understanding and to the best of my recollection) the 20-some gag orders placed on her by Ashcroft were lifted. She also approached two or more United States senators who serve on appropriate committees with her story, in that they could (again, my recollection) be considered "safe" outlets in terms of discussing classified information. I think this paints her "leaks" or "attempted leaks" in an entirely different light.

Further, to my shock and mild horror, the Gibbs article which you generously (not sarcasm) chose to leave standing, included it's own cite of Jane's Intelligence Review, which I posted with a Wikilink and which you removed. I understand if I put too much info regarding Jane's in this article, recognizing a redundancy in me describing what the article on Jane's stated about them. You left Le Monde and other sources for Gibbs' material, but Jane's --- even according to Wikipedia's own articles on the publication and the company --- is seen as a highly qualified source, the DE FACTO source for open source info on military and defense. Cool to remove that description, but why remove the mention of Jane's as Gibbs cite?

The TALK page includes my lengthy rebuttal on removing TIME and a "philosophic" discussion on the practice of citing well-established sources like TIME with only extraneous/related info, to strengthen sources that are less-familiar. Arguably inappropriate for purely FACT based articles, but arguably very appropriate for articles which consist of Allegations and Denials/Rebuttals, especially a topic as murky as the nature and actions of intelligence (spy, covert operations) agencies. It seems laughable (smile!) to me that statements from an agency whose mission is spycraft and deception are generally accepted at face value. We already have "Project Mockingbird" for that. The Mossad has the chutzpah to state "By means of deception ..." in their own motto. I anticipate a remark on the nature of an Encyclopedia, only noting again that the nature of this particular article is a debate on "the truth" about a controversial issue. Historianwbee ( talk) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

At the 1953 Iranian coup page, you are acting as though you are being picked on. You're not. From my corner, you get polite but strong disagreement because, yes, your arguments do appear to be one-sided.

Maybe you need a rest? Skywriter ( talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your concern. Polite? I'm setting "a new low," I'm "cherry picking", I'm "essentially arguing/implying that the rape victim should be blamed for the rape." You're supposed to assume good faith in wikipedia, which by any measure the accusations are not.

I reply to the accusations because I don't want the casual reader to think I don't contest them, not because I'm "wounded" or something by the attack. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, polite. I made none of those accusations. But here, you are sounding wounded, victimized rather than engaging in informed debate. I asked if you believe that Mossy and those who overwhelming elected his slate had an opinion on the motives of foreigners who made personal attacks on Mossy, and were then trying to overthrow his government and seize and divide Iran's oil fields.

Did you get around to answering that?

And yes, you do seem obsessed with labeling Mossy irrational. You do not acknowledge there is more than the Western side to that and other claims some Western official made about Mossy. Finally, you seem to want to force everyone to agree that the coup was the best thing since sliced white, that the West can do and did no wrong in that coup.

You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences, and that makes editing an article with you very difficult indeed.

Cheers. Skywriter ( talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

None of what you say is true. No I'm not obsessed with labeling Mossy irrational, in fact I don't label him that. I do acknowledge there is more than "the Western side" to the coup, and I've never suggested the coup was a positive event, let alone a really good one, let alone would I "want to force everyone to agree that the coup was the best thing since sliced white bread."

Get a grip. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey Booga Louie, I wouldn't get too excited about Skywriter asking if you're ok. He's just repeating something that he was asked during one of his many POV-driven vitriolic diatribes on Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America [ [5]] Impossible to have a sane conversation with this "editor", but I will say this, he's got the right name cuz his head is most definitely in the clouds. 138.162.0.46 ( talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The kind of detailed response/counter-proposal I have in mind, will take hours to write. But due to some real life issues, I only have like 20 minutes for Wikipedia every other day, which I spend doing some minor edits. So be patient, and I'll make my response soon. There is no need to rush anyways, the article is already tagged, and in the meanwhile you can actually go ahead and implement the non-controversial changes from your proposed lead. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Why are you making a false attribution to Washington Post? The post makes no such claims about how Rigi was arrested, they quote a weblog by Jundulahis, that does not mean that the Post is "reporting" Jundulah's claim as a fact. Please be more careful with how you quote and present sources. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You're right I should have been more careful. Your edits however also make untrue claims. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No, they don't. I was translating from the original text of the ambassador's statements in Persian. [6] He says "they may have" and "could not have happened without our help". He uses a very vague tone, and admits that he is simply speculating, and has no confirmation or knowledge of how it was done. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You did not cite the "the original text of the ambassador's statements in Persian", you cited Reuters english language article! Why should english lanugage readers take your word for what "the original Perisan" says? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

First of all, please don't move/copy and paste my comments elsewhere without my permission, this is poor etiquette. Secondly, I didn't realize the Persian source was not cited there as I had it open in another window from another Wiki. Finally, this is all besides the point as the article now quotes the Reuters's text. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Is this a joke? You follow me around wikipedia deleting my edits and acusing me all sorts of bad faith and now you lecture me on etiquette? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Anyway's it is directly relevent to the issue being argued about, and not exactly some personal confidence you are sharing with me. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No, it's not a joke. You're not suppose to copy/paste other people's comments without asking their permission first. Why are you being all defensive? You misquoted a source, and I pointed it out. What's bad-faith about that?

Talking about prior accusations on IRan Coup 1953: I'm setting "a new low," I'm "cherry picking", I'm "essentially arguing/implying that the rape victim should be blamed for the rape."

And I couldn't care less about you the individual, what I care about is the integrity of Wikipedia which was jeopardized by your false representation of a source in one of your edits, which I corrected and notified you about it. As for the accusation that I am "following you around", you know very well that Iran-related pages are my area of interest and expertise, and I have most of these pages on my watch-list and have edited many of them in the past, in many cases before you even touched the page. That's why our path has crossed on some of these Iran-related pages. Otherwise if I was "following you" , then we'd have had to have had some interactions on all those Islam, ME, Syria, and Egypt-related pages that you are very interested in and edit regularly, which we have never had. That should tell you that my interest is not you, but rather the encyclopedic quality of the articles in a certain limited topical area that I care about. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

There are several pages you never edited prior to coming in and deleting my edits. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What I "deleted" was your falsifications of a source. Every Iran-related page is within my area of interest and expertise, and it's absolutely within my rights to correct errors, violations of Wikipedia policy, and related problems on such articles. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

.... But that's not what you're doing. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

While your Booga is a Louie, mine is a late-era woogie. With the week, in which we are likely dealing, it may be shortened by various and alternative definitions of what Fri., Sat., Sun. may mean to our likely varied consensus. Another full week is no kin off ones nose. Although I have hinted at a direction, I will also note that a propitious, uninvited WP:3O has also dropped in out laps, courtesy of Faagel. I tend to think that this may have been recognized, and may have played a part in the current loud absence. Let it ride and see. How much have you considered the suggestion proffered in the headed direction; specifically, how simple is your question? Asking a this-or-that lede question may be too complicated. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Blogs are not considered reliable source, and should not be used on Wikipedia. Newspaper blogs are no exception, as they're not subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, and therefore can not be considered reliable secondary sources. You should also know that Opinion pieces are highly problematic as a source too, and editors are advised not to use them as a secornday source, specially to support a fact or an exceptional claim. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Where is it written that newpaper blogs "should not be used on Wikipedia"? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Blogs have no editorial supervision. You could find the link to the original Al Jazeera report and cite that. That said, the Al-Jaazera claim/report in question , is already covered in the same paragraph. It's the same Report cited by Iranian Diplomacy and New York Times, albeit differently worded. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi.are you iranian? Sprazizi ( talk) 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Mohammad Amin Valian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One event, he is not really all that notable outside of his death sentence. If some link to a famous person or something big comes up, this can be kept.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove the PROD template without fixing the article or at the very least explaining why you are doing so. This article has a notability issue and if it isn't resolved it will likely go to AFD. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have replied on the article's talk page. I wasn't even looking there when I removed it. We can discuss any issues there from now on. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Binksternet ( talk) Binksternet ( talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, there. I just noticed your edits to Islamism, which were reverted. While everyone appreciate your efforts, please bear in mind that content on such high-profile pages reflect literally years of gradual progression based on consensus. For such pages, I encourage you to propose radical changes on the talk pages before editing and then letting consensus integrate your ideas through multiple edits and editors (including you, if you choose!). :)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

My apologies! I'm on the wrong user page. :) My comment was intended for User:95.147.234.97. Feel free to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyersturnbull ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1953 Iranian coup d'état. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm very new to this article, so it's not my place to say this. But I want to thank you for all the work you've done on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Especially in the light of the accusations some editors have made against you, "assuming bad faith" on your part. This was only made obvious to be in the section BoogaLouie's whitewash, to say nothing of the totally inappropriate reference to your real persona. I understand it's tough. I understand how you feel about the latest issue on deleting important language. Trust me, I felt just like you did on when, on The coup and cia records the quoted section was that was deleted made just the opposite claim. wp:agf took alot of effort on my part, but in fact Skywriter did explain the edit. And that's the real point. I think we need to go beyond personalties, and just discuss edits and sources, and fix them quickly and dynamically. I understand your response to an accusation of an "addiction to micromanagement". I understand this is all easy for me to say, since I'm new to all this. I understand you don't need to hear this from me, but you are a good editor. I think we are making a breakthrough on this article. Like I've said before, "trust but verify".-- Work permit ( talk) 01:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Please don't add the stub tag to articles like Iranian presidential election, 2005, as it makes them appear on the list of articles needing stub-sorting. If a section needs more work, add {{expand|section}}. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop reverting edits (edits war) on the Islamism page, bigotry is a factual part of [militant] Islamic "activism". Would you prefer this to be pasted on Islam? I don't think so.

AmAnisa ( talk) 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

for incivility -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I see no complaint. Are you running to administrators again (!) after stomping your feet and not getting your way introducing bigoted and one-sided edits to the 1953 coup in Iran?

Your personal attacks are a bore and your attempts to rewrite history with your ideological bias a travesty. What is this with you and your prejudice against Islam and Iran and the Middle East? Do you not understand the meaning of neutrality? Skywriter ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I have asked Skywriter to cool it. However, I am also very concerned about your overall behavior. I'll list my concerns (including diffs) later, but in the meantime I highly advise you to stop editing tendentiously and passive-aggressively at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Khoi khoi 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This is unbelievable. My "overall behavior" "editing tendentiously and passive-aggressively"????? I've been bending over backwards to play by the wikipedia rules - avoiding edit wars, explaining my problems with crude, unencyclopedic edits on the the talk page. Have you looked at Kurdo's and Skywriter's edits? Do you think perhaps some other editors have been editting not just passive-aggressively, but aggressively??

Who can I go to to protest your attack on me? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Boogalouie, I have asked before and will ask again. Please stop conflating my edits with other editors. You continue to link me with Kurdo in your overly broad complaints about civility under the pretense that content disputes are about behavior. They are not.

Our differences are based in content disputes on the 1953 coup in Iran page. Would you so kindly address the content, and leave the personal attacks behind?

The most recent dispute between you and I concerned a page you drew up essentially recording every single negative thing you could find about Mossadegh without the pretense of fairness. I pointed out on the talk page that was not neutral editing, and combined with your recent comment, was grounds for losing faith in your edits. No one disagreed that what you presented was not neutral. You did not respond on the article talk page discussion of this condemnation of what amounts to POV-pushing. You ignored it completely, and instead filed an "incivility" complaint against me and another editor.

So there are two areas of conflation you might work on.

• 1. Try to stop conflating the contributions of two different editors and taking issue with both, when one has nothing to do with the other; and

• 2. Try to stop conflating content differences with behavioral complaints.

Boogalouie, I really hope you get to the point where you see these differences as distinct and stop mixing them up. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

PS: One part of your incivility complaint addressed a typo. You actually complained about my typing. I am sorry you misconstrued a typo. I am surprised you took it personally. You can misspell my pen name if you like. I will not take it personally. Sometimes people are in a hurry. Typos occur. They are not intentional. Skywriter ( talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know what you are talking about. please provide links to "concerned a page you drew up essentially recording every single negative thing you could find about Mossadegh without the pretense of fairness" "I pointed out on the talk page that was not neutral editing'" "One part of your incivility complaint addressed a typo".

Do you know how to make a link? Perhaps you could study the wikipedia help pages to find out. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Search the talk page at iran 1953 coup for conflat and you will find two recent references addressed to you. Search your own history for the recent incivility complaint you filed, a good example of conflation on two levels. This is the third time in one month the issue of conflation has been raised with you. If you do not understand the term, a dictionary can be very helpful. Skywriter ( talk) 00:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Skywriter you are the one with the complaint. I am not going to go searching to find out what you are talking about, you tell me. As for my incivility complaint, you and Kurdo where both making what I thought were uncivil remarks revolving around the same article (1953 Iran coup), which is why you both were in the same complaint. Both your names are mentioned in the complaint and the links give go to posts with your names. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

From the Talk Page Booga--please STOP CONFLATING my edits with anyone else's. I removed the bolding from the lead sentence and I removed the clumsy wording of what various parties called the coup. And, today, I removed bogus references, which I had mentioned previously are bogus but you saw fit to include in your version. Further, it is factually incorrect to say "Fatemi was the only supporter executed." What is your source for that statement? Skywriter (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good faith/bad faith edits

This was the activity in the last week.

Binksternet and BoogaLouie finally agree that the tourism book and the junior high school U.S. social studies books can finally be removed from the lead paragraphs. This is a long time in coming but we have now reached agreement. These are, finally, good edits. Also a good edit is BoogaLouie asking a question and adding a tag to the long quote I added last weekend. Booga asks what is "Heiss's assessment"? Heiss is the supporting documentation that exists in this article to support three different sections. Please look at the references. While I concur that Heiss should now be referred to in the text for the sake of clarity, I do not see it as a useful edit for Binksternet to have eviscerated the entire section from the POV of the former Iranian oil minister who was present during the coup and in the aftermath. This occurred less than an hour and a half after Bogga's good edit. I would have welcomed Binksternet contacting me to ask me to modify the length of the quote or to provide a summary. Aggressive editing to the extent of disappearing points of view is a bad edit, a destructive edit, an aggressive edit that is lacking in collegiality. It is the sort of editing that chases people away. Binksternet, do you think you could remember to contact me or other editors when, in your considered opinion, you believe it useful and prudent to remove entire viewpoints? Now, in the experience and history of this talk page, Boogalouie answers questions that are asked of Binksternet. I do not conflate these two editors and hope Boogalouie stops also. It would be better if Binksternet answered this question directly. Following my sigline is the history of the most recent week. Skywriter (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

... ummm, this is an example of my "conflating"? It's another assertion.

I have another idea. Instead of posting long assertions that I have conflated you with someone else, if you find a post by me where I have addressed you about something Kurdo wrote, send me a message saying "I didn't say this, Kurdo did." OK?

PS, I reserve the right to "answers questions that are asked of Binksternet" or anyone else if I think it moves the process of editting along.

To quote Binksternet's reply to you:

"Now, in the experience and history of this talk page, Boogalouie answers questions that are asked of Binksternet. [...] It would be better if Binksternet answered this question directly." I think this is a poisonous comment, a bad precedent for working together, and something that should never be put into place as talk page policy. First, we here on the talk page should be discussing ideas, not editors. We should be discussing how to improve the article, not how to place blame or answer guilt. Second, all editors should be able to discuss all questions that are raised here, with no limitations. If a question is directed at one editor, any other editor should be allowed a voice, and the discussion can thus be moved forward even if the targeted editor is offline or busy elsewhere. When the targeted editor returns to participate, I would expect him to supply his answer and any corrections to the ongoing discussion, if needed. But for the most part, we are here to discuss the article, not to ask each other pointed, targeted questions. Let's focus on collegiality, please. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bouthaina Shaaban, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you have any reply? According to the people at Village Pump you can't tag an article and not give actionable reasons as to why you tagged it. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's one example among many. Defections reduce Mosaddeq's ability "to organize crowds in the streets." [44] You have distorted what p. 233 states. Like so many items in this timeline, you have added your spin and twisted words to a non-neutral viewpoint. I am not going to go through this article and fact-check all of your spin. If you want the tags removed, you must work toward transparency and verifiability. What you include must accurately be reflected in the sources that are quoted. Skywriter ( talk) 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If you don't start explaining what is wrong with the article by tomorrow morning I will delete the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please compare the text of the WP:RS to what you have written to observe the differences. Thank you. Skywriter ( talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

"filed a complaint against me for a typo"

Complaint against BoogaLouie (me) by Skywriter:
... He recently filed a complaint against me for a typo, not spelling his pen name correctly. And that attack was to cover up the criticism he was receiving on the 1953 Iran coup talk page for a separate long but non neutral page he had drawn up ostensibly claiming that Mossadegh was a dishonorable figure in Iranian history, ....

One thing that makes dealing with you difficult, Skywriter, is you never show the alleged misdeads you are complaining about. I'm sure if you look on the help page you can learn how to make a link and then editors to click to the source of the problem. This would help enormously.

For example, I had no idea what this complaint above refered to until I remembered being called BoogaLuise, not by you, but by Kurdo. (I know, big deal, but it was part of a pattern that was starting to wear me down.) If you had shown where the "not spelling his pen name correctly" happened, I could have replied and maybe cleared the issue up. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You filed an accusation against me, not another editor, claiming I misspelled your pen name. I have no idea whether there was a typo. It is your claim, not mine. Presumably you have the link. I try not to make spelling errors, but sometimes I do. Why are you mis-using this talk page to argue about this sort of thing? This page is to discuss article content, not personal grievances or typos. The subject is 1953 coup in Iran. Skywriter ( talk) 09:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The post above is a suggestion to use links so when you (or other editors) think another editor has done wrong you can link to the alleged wrong and there won't be any misunderstanding. Yes, I made a complaint against you and kurdo about a bunch of comments ("your cherry picking skills ...trivial character assassinations ... a new low for you Booga ... your addiction to micromanagement ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake.") on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. To the best of my knowledge the "typo" of my wikiname you are refering to ("BoogaLuise") was by Kurdo, not you. Did I miss something? Are you talking about something else? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above material is inappropriate for article talk page. Please do not clutter article talk page with stuff like this. Thank you. Skywriter ( talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It may or may not be appropriate for an article talk page, but it deserves an answer. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Answer is this is another example of your proclivity toward conflation. In your complaint about the typo, you claimed I made the typo. And then time passes and you change who you are accusing, and as it turns out, I am not the person you are accusing of mistyping a word.

As said earlier, Booga, typos are typos. I wouldn't take them personally. This couldn't be your real name so why are you getting worked up about it? And if it is your real name, typos are still typos.

You've spent some time defending your edits saying you are trying to help me learn the internet. Thanks for your help but listen up. I'm pretty good at this internet stuff, as good as some and worse than others. But that's not the point. If you think it OK to give me advice, why am I wrong in suggesting you take a break to get a grip?

On the playground when little kids start publicly attacking other kids --even for stuff the other kids didn't do like typos)-- grownups suggest the kid who is yelling needs a nap. Skywriter ( talk) 23:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Skywriter, WHERE IS this complaint about the typo???? I do not think I made any such complaint, and in all your posts about it you have furnished no evidence it exists. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Islamic terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I have taken the past few days to closely study the complaints against your behavior. I've found your contributions to be combative, ideological, and negatively repetitive on 1953 Iranian coup d'état in addition to several other pages. It is my judgment that your editing has by and large been very disruptive, and you have compromised the credibility and integrity of this project by making false attributions (misusing sources, specifically attributing your own original research to Ervand Abrahamian and falsely representing a quote from Jundallah's blog as a fact reported by the Washington Post), turning Wikipedia into an ideological battleground (" Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil"), and making false allegations/questionable edits on biographies of living persons ( [7], [8]). In addition, you appear to have repeatedly copied large portions of text in support of tendentious arguments at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Given the severity of these violations and your history of blocks and disruptions, I am hereby blocking you for one month. If you evade this block in any shape or form, or continue the same type of behavior upon your return, your block will be extended for a longer period of time. Please take this time to read-up on the relevant policies and guidelines. Khoi khoi 09:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Since Khoikhoi blocked me three times in early 2009 (and I don't contest them) I have attempted to pay closer attention to wikipedia rules - avoiding edit warring even when it meant a more aggressive editor got their way, bringing my complaint to the talk page, and not reply in kind when I starting to get angry about being called names but take my complaints to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. It's true I was accused of lots of things (by two editors Kurdo and Skywriter), but felt safe because they never backed up the accusations never stated how I was violating Wikipedia rules. or answered when I asked them what exactly I had done wrong. So I was amazed when Khoikhoi posted this, and incredulous when I was given a month-long block by him. Needless to say I will be appealing the block. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I urge you to rethink your process here, and start by reading WP:GAB. Honestly, any unblock request that is more than 100 words is likely to remain unactionned. You need to be succinct, do not attack admins or others, etc. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 09:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Have trimmed unblock request. Is this what you meant? or did you mean the Have I been disruptive ....? section too? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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).

Louis P. Boog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Not necessary because I would have/will gladly comply with a demand from an admin to stay away from the disputed article and participate in a formal dispute resolution. (For some time I have hoped for some kind of dispute resolution to sort out the competing claims to establish neutrality in the article. (see below))
2) Block is also not necessary "to prevent damage or disruption" as (I believe) you will if you examine the charges against me I have not damaged or disrupted wikipedia. (see below).

Decline reason:

I've procedurally declined this unblock. It seems that Angusmclellan was in process of reviewing it, but he's not edited Wikipedia since May 3, so there is no point in waiting longer for him to respond. if you would still like admins to consider an unblock, please open a new request. In my opinion, your best option is just to sit out the rest of the block, which will end on May 22. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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.

I am reviewing this unblock request. In view of the sheer volume of material here, and elsewhere, this will not be completed until this time tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Booga, I had thought that you were going to attempt to change your old ways until I learned that you have been evading your block. I am very disappointed -- it is obvious that the account belongs to you. This leads me to believe that there are other socks out there, and that while you were supposed to be reading up on Wikipedia policies you have been circumventing it. I know I previously stated that I would extend your block, but I'm going to reset it with the hopes that you won't evade it again. Please sit it out. Thanks, Khoi khoi 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I have been patiently waiting out the block. I have not evaded or attempted to evade the block, used sockpuckets, etc. I have only posted on my talk page.

"it is obvious that the account belongs to you"

"the account"? What are you talking about? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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).

Louis P. Boog ( 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 because I have not attempted to evade the block by sockpuppetry or any other means

Decline reason:

Block evasion through sockpuppetry? No. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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.

Fastly please explain what you mean! Are you declining the unblock because you think I've tried to evade the block? WHERE??? WHEN??? I can't ask you at your user page as I am blocked. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Background

Most of this current dispute revolves around an article 1953 Iranian coup d'état, which is about the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, in a coup plotted by the CIA. Since about mid 2009 I've been in dispute with editors User:KneeJuan (later called User:Kurdo777) and User:Skywriter, who IMHO were deleting almost anything that might be seen as unflattering about Mosaddeq or exculpatory about his opponents and being rather aggressive about it (a pretty flagrant example here). Also disputing the non-neutrality of the article have been editors Snowfire (since dropped out) and (since August 2010), User:Binksternet, with User:Work permit coming as third opinion this March. Making brief appearances in support of Kurdo and Skywriter's position have been The Four Deuces (for example at the end of this), Wayiran, User:Kamranmirza (a complaint about meat puppet behavior here), and Alborz Fallah.

Have I been disruptive, made false accusations, etc.?

Some of the complaints (one, as far as I can tell) are justified. I will attempt to explain why others are not, going through the reasons for blocking one by one:

• I've found your contributions to be combative, ideological, and negatively repetitive on 1953 Iranian coup d'état

I am not supposed to talk about selective enforcement by the blocking admin so I won't, but I will say I have discussed ways of ending the deadlock: "Should we have a WP:RfC or wait?" "I propose we seek mediation or arbitration of the article" "I propose we seek mediation or arbitration of the article" and expressed interest in arbitration.

As I said above, since Khoikhoi blocked me three times in early 2009, I have attempted to pay closer attention to wikipedia rules - avoiding edit warring even when it meant a more aggressive editor got their way, bringing my complaint to the talk page ( example here), and not reply in kind when I starting to get angry about being called names but take my complaints to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

After being told I was "editing tendentiously and passive-aggressively" on my talk page (which I did not agree with), I tried to concentrate on constructive protest on the 1953 coup talk page, suggesting a Change in the organization of the coup section and explaining why, proposing a subsection on Iranian coup supporters, pointing out a bad factual mistakes and giving a proposed rewrite. If being passive aggressive is protesting on the talk page but not editing, it's true I did not do a lot of editing. I did not want to get into another edit war and blocked.

What I would like is some kind of dispute resolution to strip away all the assertions and verbiage and accusations of cherry-picking, etc. and sort out what reliable sources say about the coup.

If Khoikhoi had posted something saying "you guys aren't getting anywhere, you need to go to the arbitration committee. If you don't I'll have to block you for tendentious editing." I would have gladly stopped editing to wait for the arbitration. (Binksternet had already tried Mediation. We've also had a Third opinion volunteer who's worked pretty hard on the article.

• your editing has by and large been very disruptive

While most of the posts on my talk page are about my disputes with Kurdo and Skywriter, I've made thousands of edits on wikipedia. Here are some of the articles (chosen at random) I've created, significantly added to or cleaned up.

• Ma'alim fi al-Tariq
• Abadan Crisis timeline
• 'Iran After the Elections' Conference
• 2002 Mecca girls' school fire
• Abbas Amir-Entezam
• Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz
• Khidr
• The Satanic Verses controversy
• The Anatomy of Revolution
• Taliban
• Salafist jihadism
• Organizations of the Iranian Revolution
• Mohsen Rouhalamini
• Mohsen Rafighdoost
• Mohammed Kazem Yazdi
• Mohammad Tabibian
• Mohammad Reza Naghdi
• Mohammad Nourizad
• Moharebeh

Yes, others have disputed (some of) my edits, but I think you'll find my field of interest in wikipedia (Islam and recent history and current events in Iran) has a higher level of controversy and dispute than most.

• misusing sources, specifically attributing your own original research to Ervand Abrahamian

The diff link is to a huge with many citations and where the WP:OR is is unclear. (I intended the edit to restore a section in the history of Mosaddeq's administration where he was given emergency powers that gave him the right to declare laws without passing legislation through parliament. He made the most of the power and it's an important issue as it alienated some of his supporters.)

Khoikhoi apparently got the idea that I was "attributing your own original research to Ervand Abrahamian" from this complaint: "Please see the discussion here about BoogaLouie misrepresenting a source, and attributing his own WP:OR to the cited source". If so it is truly a travesty. This dispute started when an editor (Binksternet) was accused by another (Skywriter) here of "... non-NPOV text based on ideology not reliable sources," for this . But part of Skywriter's complaint was just a mistake that I caught and pointed out, asking him to be more careful before accusing people. (The issue was the relatively trivial one of whether Prime Minister Mosaddeq appealed to the public after being dismissed by the Shah in 1952. Skywriter checked an American source (Kinzer) that didn't mention Mosaddeq's appeal, but I did find mention his speech to supporters in another better (Farsi-reading, more scholarly) source -- Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian).) I provided a link for that source. Skywriter maintained I wasn't being clear and that he couldn't find what I quoted. I gave another link. ( Here is an even more specific link to that quote in Iran Between Two Revolutions.) This was backed up by another editor ( don't understand the cross examination. the quote in question is clearly in the link provided. What am I missing?--Work permit (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

This apparently was the "attributing [my] own original research to Ervand Abrahamian"!!!

• falsely representing a quote from Jundallah's blog as a fact reported by the Washington Post

The complaint is valid. I got carried away in my dispute with Kurdo. He was right. I was wrong. I shouldn't have done it and after Kurdo reverted it I let it be.

• turning Wikipedia into an ideological battleground (" Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil")

This was cited as here as an example of how I was/am "an evangelist for cleansing this article for whatever it is that you perceive as good and evil." I am not, and I explained what I meant by "Watch for the need to cleanse ..." here. "The struggle of good and evil" was a comment to a relatively new editor at the article (WorkPermit), who I wanted to warn about what I thought was the source of the dispute, but without making any personal criticisms of Kurdo and Skywriter, i.e. it seemed to me that they seemed to think the article was about "The struggle of good and evil." Ideological purity is what I am trying to get out of the article.

• "making false allegations/questionable edits on biographies of living persons" here.

If you look at the diff you'll see that the false allegations is already in the article (its source looked perfectly reliable). What I thought I was doing was making it more accurate, qualifying or toning the charge down, by changing the text from

"he is reported to have stated that coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs is acceptable against all opponents of the Islamic regime" to

"he is reported to have answered questions on use of coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs by stating that, `getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih` (rule by Islamic clerics) `is permissible under any condition.`"

Another editor found out the story was untrue and deleted the whole thing. Again, I should have done more research to find out it was untrue, but I didn't add it.

See for yourself if you don't find my edits an improvement in the article overall, ( before and after). This editor did.

• and here

This alleged false allegations, etc. concerns a story by a New York Times reporter (Elaine Sciolino) who interviewed the subject of the article Masoumeh Ebtekar, an Iranian politician. Ebtekar changed the name she used in public in the 1990s to avoid being associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis (back then she went by the name Niloufar) and told Sciolino not to talk about it. I trimmed this down for use in a BLP lead, writing, Originally known as Niloufar Ebtekar, she changed her public name sometime after the hostage crisis to Massoumeh. This was deleted and has stayed deleted with little or no explanation in reply by the delete-er (KneeJuan/Kurdo777) despite my explaining the reasoning for it on the talk page and asking him what he was doing. I've been meaning to go back and get some dispute resolution to contest the rvt.

• In addition, you appear to have repeatedly copied large portions of text in support of tendentious arguments at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état.

Not sure what he means as there's no link except to the (huge) talk page.

Thank you for the opportunity to try and clear this up. I understand that I do not have a clean record and most block appeals are turned down, but hope you will find my explanation compelling. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Binksternet ( talk) 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you should post your response here, since you cannot edit there at this time. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement [on arbitration of 1953 coup article] by BoogLouie

Basically agree with Binksternet and RayAYang (although I disagree with Binksternet's description of my "efforts" as "hav[ing] at times over-balanced the non-neutral point of view"!) Have made edits on the article for over a year, and have been active on and off since mid-2009. The arguement has become repetitious but as Binksternet says, it boils down to deletion of anything unflattering about PM Mosaddeq and exculpitory about the CIA or Mosaddeq's enemies on the grounds that such text is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRY, etc., but with little or no attempt made to prove these violations of wikipedia regulations. As for the quality of the article, I think you have only to read the current lead to see it leaves much to be desired.

I understand at least one arbitrator thinks arbicom should decline a hearing but please note the length of time and amount of talk page verbage spent on the article. I think the article is truly deadlocked and cries out for some kind of impartial arbitration of the sources to put things right. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|your reason}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 02:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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).

Louis P. Boog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Not necessary because I did not post the offending, threatening remarks on Khoikhoi's page linked below - nor any other posts in wikipedia since Khoikhoi's blocks outside of those you see on this talk page. What proof do you need that I didn't do it? Can you at least check and see if someone is spoofing Khoikhoi? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Jpgordon stated that your IP was likely affiliated with RevolutionExpert, and after a look through editing styles and common quirks in the way you type, that's quite clearly you. Especially given your history, I'm afraid you've gone too far this time.

---

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.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)}} reply

The edit in question is [9]. See also this AN/I thread Alex Bakharev ( talk) 02:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

That edit was almost certainly User:RevolutionExpert, according to CU. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 23:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Threat by 66.36.231.25, block and appeal

threat by 66.36.231.25.
Jpgordon stated that your IP was likely affiliated with RevolutionExpert, and after a look through editing styles and common quirks in the way you type, that's quite clearly you. Especially given your history, I'm afraid you've gone too far this time.

But it's not "quite clearly" me since I didn't make that threat! My history has not been to use profanity on wikipedia or threaten anyone. Why would I provoke Khoikhoi, knowing it would be the end of anything I do on wikipedia?

Can't you trace the IP address or something to see it didn't come from me? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

What I actually said was that there's a checkuser match between the IP used for that nasty comment and RevolutionExpert. You seem only to edit from one place; a few other people edit from there too, including one admin who's been on Wikipedia since 2003. I don't see any technical relationship between you and the nasty IP. I've made no evaluation of the content of your edits, so I've no opinion regarding that. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you.

Q:Is there anyway to disprove a connection with a post once someone like User:Seraphimblade has declared "that's quite clearly you" based on his analysis of "editing styles and common quirks in the way you type"? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Disproving is pretty much impossible; you can't prove a negative of this sort. However, make another unblock request; someone other than Seramphimblade and the blocking admin will review it. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 18:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

User:RevolutionExpert

For the record: I just got done looking at User:RevolutionExpert's contributions. (RevolutionExpert "is a sock puppet of BoogaLouie and has been blocked indefinitely." It was not my sock puppet. The first I'd heard of it was from this page.)

The edits are all of article's I've edited before, editing in ways I've done, using phrases I've used ‎"(de-POVing)", and sometimes copying text I'd posted on talk pages of other articles). But aside from the fact that Khoikhoi had exclicitly made it clear he would be watching for this (" If you evade this block in any shape or form, ... your block will be extended for a longer period of time"), the edits are not just aggressive, they are stupidly so. The best example is here where criticism of the beloved Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq is added to the Mosaddeq article by RE.
It copies text I posted in wikipedia and when it was originally posted it created an uproar (see comments at the botton) angering my long-time adversaries Kurdo77 and Skywriter. So if I had been User:RevolutionExpert I would have been very aware of what a minefield I was walking into by adding this. I would know Kurdo77 and others would be certain to be watching. (Khoikhoi reverted the edit within minutes). If I had wanted to add this criticism to the article, at the very least I would have started discussion on the talk page with my arguments and then gone through the conflict resolution steps.

So my arguement is user:RE could not have been my sockpuppet as its behavior does not at all match my behavior -- or at the very least my behavior for the last year or so. What it does match is beahvior designed to porrvoke, to get the attention of an admin looking for block evasion. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

2nd Appeal

{{ unblock|block is not necessary because I did not post the offending remarks on Khoikhoi's page linked above - nor any other posts in wikipedia since Khoikhoi's blocks outside of those you see on this talk page.}} -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): In view of jpgordon's comments regarding the link, or rather absence of evidence of one, between you and the IP, I have unblocked you. Belated apologies for the way I handled your last block. Shouldn't be any autoblocks so you should be able to edit again. Request handled by: Angus McLellan (Talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

THANK YOU! This has been kind of a nightmarish situation -- fake sock puppets and one extended block after another. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, if that was the good news, that was all of the good news there will be. I have discussed this at some length with Khoikhoi just now. We looked together at some of your edits and some of RevolutionExpert's edits, and I must now conclude that RevolutionExpert was indeed you. So I was clearly wrong to unblock you. I've reblocked you with the same settings as before.

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Even if you should withdraw the threat, the matter of evading the earlier block has to be resolved. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

reply to overturned unblock

But I didn't make the threat! It would have been idiotic for me to do it! How can I withdraw a threat I didn't make? Are you saying to have the block withdrawn I have to "withdraw the threat", thus implying I made it and incriminating myself?
... OK, how about I say any such threat made against Khoikhoi is wrong and I will have no part in any legal action against Khoikhoi. Will that suffice? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply

the matter of evading the earlier block has to be resolved... We looked together at some of your edits and some of RevolutionExpert's edits, and I must now conclude that RevolutionExpert was indeed you

I put it too you that it is not possible to conclude that one editor is really a sock puppet of another based on comparisons of edits such made by wikistalk. The comparisons are not fingerprint or Iris recognition or DNA matches but articles, phrases, words easily copied by looking up that editor's wikipedia contributions. I have no doubt that at one time the duck test was valid and such comparisons were 100% accurate, but now that they have the power to "prove" an editor is evading a block and thus extend his or her block (and in my case kick me off of wikipedia indefinitely) what is to stop a malicious person from gaming wikistalk? I put it to you that is exactly what has happened with the editor User:RevolutionExpert.
Bare in mind disagreement over edits on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état -- the source of at least three editor blocks this year -- has gotten intense to the point of my being accused of having a "history of falsifying sources, making false attributions" and "knowingly compromising Wikipedia's integrity and credibility", and that the person doing the accusing is not inexperienced in "related accounts".
Is there any way of checking edits by RevolutionExpert not according to "editing styles and common quirks in the way [someone] types," but IP address or something like that? I believe it will vindicate me. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

permanent block

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).

Louis P. Boog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Block is not necessary because I did not make and will not make any legal threats against wikipedia or WP admins, and if you do not believe me, then perhaps you will believe that I hereby denounce any such threats. It is also not necessary as I also hereby promise to edit Wikipedia using one single account and agree to be checkusered as often as whoever thinks it is needed to be sure I'm using only one account. In the past (prior to being blocked by khoikhoi in 2009) I have gotten in editting wars and been reluctant to figure out how to go through WP resolution processes. I resolve not to get into any more editting wars and to use the resolution process in the future.

Decline reason:

Based on evidence provided, at this level and at the technical level, the comment was made by you - or your socks. As such, it is not possible for any admin or checkuser to unblock you. Your sole opportunity is to appeal to WP:ARBCOM via e-mail: instructions are on the ArbCom page linked to. NB: do not use an unblock template again, as no admin will be able to assist at this point ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

---

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.

Hello BoogaLouie. I've not tried to respond to your unblock request, but I do have some ideas:

1. You haven't yet made any statement that would help to clear up the sock charges. At a minimum, you might promise to edit Wikipedia using one single account and agree to be checkusered as often as needed to be sure you're following that.
2. You have a fairly impressive block log. Any passing admin who is tempted to ask for you to be unblocked will want to feel a sense of security that things will be better in the future. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to whether you feel you did anything in the past that you will agree to avoid doing in the future.

Seeing your block log, the passing admin is unlikely to believe you were totally innocent in the past. Give us some reason for optimism going forward, and maybe the next reviewing admin will try to get you unblocked. For example, agree to avoid some of the past trouble spots, or agree to follow a 1RR/day restriction. One of your past block notices was "WP:NOR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLP violations; general combative, ideological editing pattern; previous warnings and blocks." Since I believe User:Khoikhoi is a sensible admin, I imagine there is something behind this. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

reply to reviewing admin

Thank you very much Ed. I have tried to incorporate your suggestions in my appeal. I did talk about changing my ways here at the beginning of the sections about the recent series of blocks, but there is lot of verbage on this page. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I made a statement about sockpuppetry at the end of this AN/I thread (I was unblocked for a couple of days). Which I will quote for anyone who cares to read it:

As the alleged puppeteer I would like to deny with the last breath in my body any connection with User:RevolutionExpert (or with the obscene threat against Khoikhoi, or with any block evasion of any kind since April), my arguement here.

As for sleeper accounts and sockfarms, I confess to using one other edit name quite a bit a few years ago -- User:Leroy65X -- but I think I may have used it in connection with BoogaLouie once (i.e. you will not find any cases of Leroy65x coming to the aid of BoogaLouie or vice versa, on talk page arguments or edit disputes). -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I though Khoikhoi was a sensible admin also but I cannot understand the reasoning of his blocks (my arguement against it here) and would gladly go one some kind of WP "trial" to defend myself against the charges. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, cruising along reasonably well until "I thought Khoikhoi was a sensible admin...". Unfortunate turn of events. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Why? Ed used an appeal to authority (essentially, "I'm not sure what's going on but Khoikhoi is sensible so something must be going on"); if BoogaLouie is telling the truth, it's perfectly reasonable for BoogaLouie to say "I also thought Khoikhoi is sensible, but I'm not sure what's going on." From my side of the fence, it looks like a rather perfect frameup as much as it looks like bad behavior on BL's part. This would all be a lot easier to deal with if BL's record did not include block evasion using IPs in 2009; in the absence of that, I'd have unblocked already. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 13:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Jpgordon and BoogaLouie, will you both take a look at this complaint that Khoikhoi would not review the block of BoogaLouie. Apparently some findings by Jpgordon were being used as evidence that RevolutionExpert really *was* BoogaLouie. (Binksternet made this ANI complaint on 24 June). Jpgordon's analysis of the RevolutionExpert sock situation is presumably contained in the thread above at User talk:BoogaLouie#Threat by 66.36.231.25.2C block and appeal.

Since Khoikhoi is suffering from limited internet access, I suppose we should go ahead and try to resolve the matter even though he may not be able to comment. I will leave a notice for him anyway. Khoikhoi last edited Wikipedia on 29 June. I am also notifying Angusmclellan since he placed the most recent block.

This post on Khoikhoi's talk page, if it is really from BoogaLouie, causes me great concern: [10]. This is the post (about 'suing your ass') that presumably led to the indefinite block by Angusmclellan on 2 July. Jpgordon's position on the matter is presumably contained in the discussion thread above at User talk:BoogaLouie#Threat by 66.36.231.25.2C block and appeal. Essentially he states that the mischief came from the same IP that BoogaLouie uses, but Jpgordon declines to make a behavioral judgment as to whether 66.36.231.25 is the same editor. Correct me if this summary is not right.

Though Jpgordon is not drawing a conclusion about the relation of BoogaLouie to RevolutionExpert or the 66.36 IP, he is confident that BoogaLouie evaded a block back in 2009 using IPs. A link to this prior episode would be helpful.

This is a confusing unblock case. What I've failed to mention so far is that a number of editors have complained bitterly about POV-pushing by BoogaLouie about 1953 Iranian coup d'état. If people decide that BL's sock record is either clear (or forgivable) maybe we should move on to study the POV-pushing issues and consider if editing restrictions are needed. For the rejected Arbcom case about 1953 Iranian coup d'état, see [11]. I looked at all the mentions of BoogaLouie at ANI or AN3 but did not see any obvious bad behavior. The socking by BoogaLouie (real or alleged) seems to be the worst thing so far, and Khoikhoi has been the admin who worked on that the most (though he's not a checkuser himself). EdJohnston ( talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I was recently given a pile of material on this. I'm still trying to make sense of it and I also passed it on to Khoikhoi minus the sender's name &c. Is it compelling evidence? It does at least muddy the waters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no relationship whatsoever, as far as CU is concerned, between BoogaLouie and any other IPs or any other users (with the exception of the other users at the major city library where BoogaLouie appears to edit, and none of those other users are in any way suspicious or problematic.) I don't understand why this keeps getting misinterpreted.

1. [12] I say the nasty edit certainly came from RevolutionExpert.
2. [13] I correct the first incorrect impression, repeating that there is a CU match between the nasty comment and RevolutionExpert, and that there is no CU connection whatsoever between BL and RE.
3. As far as previous block evasion is concerned, all I know is that BL was dinged in Feb 2009 (by Khoikhoi again) for block evasion, and that BL doesn't seem to contest that ancient history.
4. From the nature of the edits, it seems to me that it's just as likely that BL is getting joe-jobbed as it is that he found some obscure proxy (one also abused by organized trolls) and made nasty edits a couple of months ago.
5. If I were BL, I'd volunteer to just step back from the Iranian coup d'état topic for quite a while and work elsewhere, since that seems to be the nexus of the problems.

-- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

BoogaLouie's involvement at the Iranian coup d'état article was to attempt to show other views of Mosaddegh, views of him being something other than perfectly saintly and heroic. I valued his input there at that article; I think he was combative largely because defenders of Mosaddegh were combative, frequently overturning article improvements without looking at them, just because they came from him. My only intersection with BoogaLouie on Wikipedia was at that article—if he is topic-banned, I would sorely miss him. Somebody ought to go in and paint a fuller, more human picture of Mosaddegh, to show him losing some of his supporters, rigging an election, and seizing emergency powers. Binksternet ( talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I will comment on this in more detail soon, but I would first like to point out that based on my experience with BoogaLouie, who has a history of gaming the system at Wikipedia, it was concluded by me in addition to several other admins that BoogaLouie's behavior matches that of the socks and IPs that made the threats, and that there were specific "trademarks" that gave it away (see this). I ask that no admin take any unilateral action in the meantime. Khoi khoi 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Additionally, there is the issue that the BoogaLouie account itself is likely the reincarnation of a banned user, Patchouli ( [14]), which would explain why he is always careful to only edit from public locations or through proxies. Note the hundreds of edits on identical pages - some unrelated topics, some obscure, but a similar POV regardless. Patchouli also used different public IPs and open proxies. In essence, we are not dealing with a newbie who needs another chance to redeem himself. We are dealing with an experienced sockpuppeteer whose footprint and history of disruption under various different accounts (including several confessed socks, which he only revealed after getting caught red-handed), goes back as far as early 2006. Khoi khoi 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In your link to the wikistalk tool, I clicked on four articles to sample the similarities between BoogaLouie and Patchouli: Twelver, Teymur Bakhtiar, Tudeh Party of Iran and Taliban insurgency. In each article, Patchouli made very minor changes, such as changing a percent sign to the word 'percent'. BoogaLouie, too, made minor changes, of a completely different nature, except in Tudeh Party of Iran where he made major changes, and Taliban insurgency where he added new material—again completely different work than Patchouli. If there are salient examples showing the two editors as the same person, please point them out. I did not stumble across any.

If you examine my edits against those of User:Bzuk, another editor active in aviation articles, you find much the same kind of relation: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Binksternet&user2=Bzuk. Bzuk and I both edit a lot, and we edit many of the same articles. Our edits, though, do not share any similarities beyond the usual spelling corrections, style tweaks and grammar fixes. Bzuk is a Canadian author, I am an American sound engineer. I am not convinced by my brief look at the wikistalk link that the person behind Patchouli moved on to become BoogaLouie. Binksternet ( talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I've just scanned a randomly picked handful as well and found nothing to link the two editors. Simply pointing to wikistalk results doesn't really say anything; run it on Khoikhoi and BoogaLouie and the raw results look very much the same. Please provide specific diffs that indicate a similarity in style or content between the two editors. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

BoogaLouie and Patchouli?

I'm not seeing any match between Patchouli's general style of editing and that of BoogaLouie. Patchouli was strongly opposed to the current government of Iran and could hardly make article edits that did not seem snide or partisan. When his case was discussed at ANI in Feb 2007 for a community ban, the whole thing appeared to be Patchouli shooting himself in the foot due to overflow of zeal for his cause. He socked for many months in 2007 with silly names that mocked Islam or the Iranian government. From WP:LOBU we learn:

Patchouli ( talk · contribs · block log), February 20 2007

Banned for repeatedly creating biased and incorrect articles about Iran and Muslims and making biased edits to articles about those topics. Has since used a number of sockpuppets.

Though BoogaLouie has a point of view, he seems way too calm to be Patchouli. The sock case against BoogaLouie does not convince me, and I'd be willing to support an unblock of BL if a deal could be reached on the POV issues. For example, an agreement not to edit anything on Iranian history or politics since 1950. On the issue of thoroughness, no formal sock case was ever opened against BoogaLouie. I suggest that we wait until Khoikhoi has a chance to present all his information or to solicit input from other admins who may know the history. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the entire history here, but I did check over the edits when handling a previous unblock request where BoogaLouie was claiming to be Joe-jobbed. It's hard, but not impossible, to evaluate a claim like that. The fact that RevolutionExpert had similar interests and mannerisms to BoogaLouie suddenly becomes less meaningful, since a Joe jobber would of course try to emulate their intended victim. So you look at little things, like: [15] (BoogaLouie), [16] (RevolutionExpert). In both cases, they put "The Associated Press" in all caps in their reference. That would be a pretty small detail for a Joe jobber to notice and emulate, but is the exact type of thing someone forgets to change while socking. Also note the similarities in source use here: [17] (BoogaLouie), and [18] (RevolutionExpert, on an entirely different article). Again, would be a very thorough Joe job that would find something the editor had said, pick a few sources out of it, and use those in an entirely unrelated location. I find it much more likely that the two accounts are run by the same person with familiarity with those same sources and using the exact same quotes from them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Seraphimblade's points are good; they made me look up this edit by RevolutionExpert where it shows him closing two quotes with a wrong-direction left single quotation mark (this thing: ‘ ), a very unusual practice that BoogaLouie has never done, as far as I can tell. Binksternet ( talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply

Haven't commented recently as I was away from my computer for the weekend. First off I'd like to thank the people spending time on this -- EdJohnson, Binsternet, jpgordon, Seraphinblade -- being blocked indefinately makes you feel a bit like someone who's fallen down a well calling for help to passers by!

Some quick remarks.

• I am NOT a sockpuppet of Patchouli and have no connection to him, and (to repeat myself) no connection to Revolution Expert, and especially none to the threat against Khoikhoi. I am not "always careful to only edit from public locations or through proxies", I use the location I use because it's convenient.

• "... you look at little things, like: [19] (BoogaLouie), [20] (RevolutionExpert). In both cases, they put "The Associated Press" in all caps in their reference. That would be a pretty small detail for a Joe jobber to notice and emulate, but is the exact type of thing someone forgets to change while socking."
  • Would it be that hard? We didn't have to put caps in the reference, they were already there. Both examples are of citations from nyt.com, which for whatever reason spells associated press in caps when giving it as a source -- Example: Iran: Fashion That Moves the Earth By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: April 19, 2010. It is true that copying and pasting quotes from the article and titles, dates, etc. for the citation is one of my (BoogaLouie's) "mannerisms," but I don't think it would be very obscure for anyone spending any time checking my contributions. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Also note the similarities in source use here: subpage (BoogaLouie), and [21] (RevolutionExpert, on an entirely different article). Again, would be a very thorough Joe job that would find something the editor had said, pick a few sources out of it, and use those in an entirely unrelated location.
  • Yes it might take a very thorough Joe job, unless the joe jobber was in the thick of this argument, like the editor who has accused me of having a "history of falsifying sources, making false attributions" and "knowingly compromising Wikipedia's integrity and credibility", (and who is not inexperienced in "related accounts"). That person spent most of his time clashing with me in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article, where M. Mosaddeq is the key figure. BTW, the "source" on the subpage linked above is a copy of a section from an old 1953 Iranian coup d'état talk page where the accusing editor made many posts.

• "We are dealing with an experienced sockpuppeteer whose footprint and history of disruption under various different accounts (including several confessed socks, which he only revealed after getting caught red-handed), goes back as far as early 2006."
  • I am not a sockpuppeteer experienced or otherwise. I have used three accounts over the years at Wikipedia. My original account was Leroy65x but did not involve any sockpuppetry with BoogaLouie (you will find edits by both of the same article but seldom close in time to each other), nor with an account named Elmer Swanson which has only a handful of edits if I'm not mistaken (I haven't got the name exactly right and can't find its page).

• there were specific "trademarks" that gave ... away the match of me and Patcholi their interest in obscure pages from completely different topical areas ... (see this).
  • Do you really see areas that are "obscure" and "completely different" in the match? Issues and personalities in the history and current affairs of Islam and Islamic regimes in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'd be willing "to volunteer to step back" from the Iranian coup d'état topic for an extended period -- though much more reluctant to agree not "to edit anything on Iranian history or politics since 1950" as that is a major area of interest for me -- but what I'd be very interested in is EdJohnson's suggestion "to study the POV-pushing issues and consider if editing restrictions are needed." Can you to tell me if there is any mechanism in wikipedia for some kind of trial of editors charged by a higher up? I'd like the chance to defend myself against this accusation by Khoikhoi:

  " It is my judgment that your editing has by and large been very disruptive, and you have compromised the credibility and integrity of this project by making false attributions (misusing sources, specifically attributing your own original research to Ervand Abrahamian and falsely representing a quote from Jundallah's blog as a fact reported by the Washington Post), turning Wikipedia into an ideological battleground ("Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil"), and making false allegations/questionable edits on biographies of living persons ([7], [8])"

I believe someone taking the time to examine the charges will find they do not hold up. My defense against them is here. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Attempt of conclusion

Khoikhoi asked me to comment on the case as one of the blocking administrators. I was acting on the basis of [ the IP entry in Khoikhoi talk, I am not very familiar with BL and RE editing in general but I have read the discussion above.

There appears to be a consensus that if RE (aka the legal threat IP) is the same person as BL then he or she should be permabanned. There is no consensus whether disruptive editing by BL warrants permaban by itself. Some people think that they does while some think that the good contributions by BL compensate for his occasional disruptions.

Now it appears to me that BL is indeed RE. There are three independent indirect evidences supporting this conclusion:

1. Firstly, the legal threat IP (aka RE according to the checkuser) identified himself as BL. Usually IP identifying themselves as blocked users are indeed them. Rarely there are false flag attacks and opponents of a blocked user identify themselves as him making some nasty edits so to trigger bans. I have never heard that an ally in a POV conflict of a blocked user misidentify himself as the blocked user. Why he would do it? To additionally harm his ally?
2. Secondly, both editors use rare capitalization of "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS". BL explained the coincidence by both editors cutting-n-pasting references from the New York Times (instead of either just referencing NYT or finding the AP source and correctly referencing it) but by itself it is a rare and unusual behavior.
3. Thirdly, according to JPG BL only edits from public locations or via proxies. It is very rare for a resident of a first world country who is an avid Internet user to behave like this - a home internet access does not cost much nowadays. Some radicals (e.g. self-identified Hamas supporters, urban guerrillas, etc.) overuse proxies because they are afraid of government repressions but it is obviously not the case for BL. There might be other reasons but the first hypothesis would be an attempt to circumvent checkuser control.

Each of the evidence is indirect and allows some probability of error. Still three independent evidences seem to me to suggest sockpupeting beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, I support permabanning Alex Bakharev ( talk) 07:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

"according to JPG BL only edits from public locations or via proxies." I said nothing of the sort. Are people just unable to read? I'm starting to get the idea that BL is getting railroaded here. I said that BL edits from exactly one public location, and there is no indication whatsoever, at least available to checkuser, that he's ever edited from anywhere else. I've made this clear repeatedly. BL edits exclusively from a public library in a major metropolitan area in the US. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply to Bakharev

1. Firstly, the legal threat IP (aka RE according to the checkuser) identified himself as BL. Usually IP identifying themselves as blocked users are indeed them. Rarely there are false flag attacks and opponents of a blocked user identify themselves as him making some nasty edits so to trigger bans.
   Do not understand your reasoning at all. Maybe IP identifying themselves as blocked users are usually them, but not if they don't want their block extended which I very much did/do not. The opponent of this blocked user might misidentify themselves as myself because he/she wants to get me permanently banned and knows making obscene and legal threats claiming to be me would do just that.
2. The rare capitalization of "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS". BL explained the coincidence by both editors cutting-n-pasting references from the New York Times (instead of either just referencing NYT or finding the AP source and correctly referencing it) but by itself it is a rare and unusual behavior.
   Does using a newspaper source instead of spending the time to find the AP source and correctly referencing it really constitute rare and unusual behavior?? Anyway, pasting the name of the source is something that would be pretty easy to pick up from checking my contributions. Nyt.com is not an obscure source, I get it from Google alerts and have used it quite a bit as a source for adding factoids to articles .
3. according to JPG BL only edits from public locations or via proxies. It is very rare for a resident of a first world country who is an avid Internet user to behave like this - a home internet access does not cost much nowadays.
   Perhaps I am cheap but my home ISP is a slow dial up. I'm not really an avid internet user. My work computer is at a public location and fast and convenient when I have time off from work. I have not used proxies as Jpgordon testifies to above.

I support permabanning
I will appeal to WP:ARBCOM -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll back you on your appeal. The persistent misinterpretation of my checkuser findings leads me to question the good faith of your accusers. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks jp. It's my one bullet left (if you'll pardon the expression) so I have to do it right and that may take me a while. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I've tried to stay calm and stick to the facts but it is extremely aggravating to be permanently blocked on the basis of "independent indirect evidences" -- like capitalized letters -- that prove to wikipedia authorities that RevolutionExpert is my sockpuppet, when its edits looks to me like a crude imitation of my wikipedia work, with sloppiness and provocativeness seemingly designed to draw the attention of admin Khoikhoi.

Here is a blow-by-blow of RevolutionExpert's edits and why I would not have made them if I had been sockpuppeting instead of patiently waiting for my block to run out. Surely admins can see the discrepancies between these and my edit contributions!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sayyid_Qutb&diff=prev&oldid=363326605
   This edit messes up a sentence adding a comma were it doesn't belong, and another were it breaks a link. I make mistakes in my edits, but I usually correct them fairly soon after. Where have I made an edit this sloppy and useless?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kazem_Seddiqi&diff=363327213&oldid=360612490
   Adds link to Post hoc ergo propter hoc article to "See also" section in article on "boobquake mullah". Why? What is the connection between them? Might apply if somewhere in the article there was something about the error in logic the mullah was making in drawing cause and effect between immodest dress to earthquakes, but there isn't.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=363329340
   Adding boobquake cleric Friday speech incident to article on the history of Islamic Republic of Iran. Inappropriate. Cleric is just one of several Friday Prayer Leaders in Tehran (see List of current Iranian Friday prayers imams), not the Supreme Leader of Iran, and his speech was not some policy statement. It doesn't qualify as important enough for a national history article.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wahhabi&diff=prev&oldid=363329690
   Big rewrite, possibly a revert, includes at least one grammatical mess: "who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations", and eliminates three citations creating three "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named islamicamagazine.com; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" in the reference section. How often have I been this sloppy?
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wahhabi&diff=next&oldid=363329690
   Eliminates five tags without any explanation in the edit summary or talk page. When have I done that?
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Politics_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=363481337
   Changes "Islamic" to "Islamist". Agree with edit. Might have done it (but did not).
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_rights_in_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=363481834
   Needless minor change -- "has been found lacking" changed to "has been found to be lacking."
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Masoumeh_Ebtekar&diff=prev&oldid=363482735
   Changes "Masoumeh Ebtekar ... is an Iranian scientist and politician" to "Masoumeh Ebtekar ... is a former spokeswoman of the students who had occupied the US Embassy in 1979." She is a "scientist and politician." Why shouldn't that be in the first sentence along with "former spokeswoman ..."? In any event, I know from past experience this would start an edit war with Kurdo777. I have been meaning to try to get dispute resolution for this article in my dispute with Kurdo over it.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohammad_Khatami&diff=prev&oldid=363482864
   Replaces "scholar" with "mullah". Mullah is informal, often derogatory term. Would have changed it to Islamic scholar not mullah. When have I called someone a mullah [in wikipedia articles]?
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohammad_Mosaddegh&diff=prev&oldid=363483229
    Adds section on Perception of Mosaddeq to the article on him. Is copied from my proposed rewrite of 1953 coup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie/Iran-1953-coup#Perception_of_Mosaddeq
    Opening sentence (not from the rewrite) is awkward, and the topic of Mosaddeq v. US and UK is very controversial. When have I added something without discussion on the talk page to a controversial article (since my 2009 blocks)?
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohammad_Mosaddegh&diff=prev&oldid=363483523
    Six short paragraphs giving quotations of western officials complaining about Prime Minister Mosaddeq. Is not at all well integrated into the article and does not follow wikipedia editing rules. The citations are not put into footnote links. The names of the officials are in bold. When have I made such crappy edits? It is copied verbatim from a talk page post made by me.
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fazlollah_Zahedi&diff=prev&oldid=363483796
    Adds "former prime minister who replaced the Soviet-leaning Mosaddeq as the prime minister of Iran in 1953." In the long dispute over the 1953 coup and P.M. Mosaddeq on the many 1953 Iranian coup talk pages I've never called Mosaddeq "Soviet leaning" or suggested he was. His critics argument against his regime is that the fight with UK over oil made Iran vulnerable to Soviet influence.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fada%27iyan-e_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=363484148
    Changes "was an Iranian Islamic fundamentalist secret society" to "were an Iranian ... society," which is ungrammatical. It is not that I haven't made grammatical mistakes but the ratio here is very high.

Finally http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Khoikhoi&diff=prev&oldid=369985628
the obscene rant/threat by 66.36.231.25 which includes the helpful identifier "(this is boogalouie)", makes far more sense as an outrageous attention-getting way for a joe-jobber to provoke an extended or permanent block, than as a temper tantrum by me, let alone an attempt by me to intimidate an admin.

1. Khoikhoi made it explicitly clear he would be watching for evasion (" If you evade this block in any shape or form, ... your block will be extended for a longer period of time"), and the threat/rant by 66.36.231.25 demonstrates there has been evasion (if taken at face value) -- it posts from the same place as RevolutionExport ("there is a CU match between the nasty comment and RevolutionExpert" according to jpgordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Complex_history), while claiming to be BoogaLouie. At the same time 66.36.231.25 claims to not know about RevolutionExport ("what sock are you talking about") and insults Khiokhoi ("asshole ... Keep sucking on Ayatollah's cock, you Basiji faggot"). Few posts could be more likely to piss off an admin and make them want to inflict maximum punishment.
2. The threat language does not resemble anything I've posted on wikipedia. I have not used profanity and have never threatened anyone. ("what sock are you talking about?" does sound like me, but the language could have found easily on my talk page.)
3. What grounds would 66.36.231.25 have for suing wikipedia or khoikhoi? how would extending a block violate "my rights" on a privately owned website? and how would I even know who Khoikhoi is (his real name, address, etc) to find him to sue? It doesn't make any sense as a way to force an unblock, but by violating policy it does make sense as way to extend a block. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

One stylistic point: I have never seen BoogaLouie fail to give his own user name the two capital letters that it has. The all lower-case "boogalouie" has not been employed by him to my knowledge. It has been used casually by Skywriter, three times at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état/Archive_10#Violation of WP:NPOV, but more often than not at that article's talk page, Skywriter used the two caps version. Any editor could have written the lower case version. Binksternet ( talk) 04:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi post

That's false, BoogaLouie has made a very similar "it wasn't me" post on my talk page last year ( [22]), using the same lower-cased " boogalouie" as a self-identifier.

Booga, you can not use "would have" or "should have" to prove or disprove something, but just to point out the fallacy of your "analysis" or list of excuses, I feel compelled to make a reply here. In your post, you claim that you "never used the term Mullah," yet you indeed used the word in the very same post when you said, referring to Sadighi the Friday prayer Imam, "the error in logic the mullah was making." You claim a certain edit was "too aggressive" to have been yours, when anyone with a basic knowledge of the topics you edit can see that most of your edits consist of passive-aggressive POV-pushing, attempts to "out" or "expose" various dead or living individuals. This often includes adding a controversial comment or past deed of the subject – for which he or she is not at all notable for – in the lead of their biographical article (i.e. on Ebtekar with your sock). You have also behaved similarly weeks earlier on Hamid Mowlana ( [23]), or by putting undue weight on/cherry-picking random negative comments about the subject, as has also been done on the Mohammad Mosaddegh article. All of this appears to be in order to "expose" the said individual(s) for the "evil" character that they are, and you are actually on the record stating that you are here in a battle between "good and evil." By looking at one of your self-confessed socks ( [24]), a sock that you only revealed after being confronted about it by another user, I found out that you run a soap-boxing website to expose Islam ( [25]), from which you have copy/pasted many "exposes" into Wikipedia articles and talk pages, which further proves that you are not here to contribute to this encyclopedia in a neutral manner, but rather to soap-box and engage in agenda-driven POV-pushing – often on biographies of living people from a certain background. This tenacious behavior alone, independent of your sockpuppetry and threats, should have gotten you banned a long time ago. What is more disturbing is that you do not seem to have learned anything from your numerous previous blocks. Rather, you simply continue to make excuses, dismissing your various violations as "untrue" and blaming others instead of taking any responsibility whatsoever for your behavior. If you truly have the best interest of the Wikipedia project at heart, you would have accepted Ed's proposal for a topic ban, and focus on editing other topical areas in order to prove your good intentions, value and worth as an editor. Khoi khoi 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply to Khoikhoi

Booga, you can not use "would have" or "should have" to prove or disprove something ...
Isn't "would have" or "should have" -- past behavior -- the whole premise of "evidence provided, at this level and at the technical level" that permablocked me?

In your post, you claim that you "never used the term Mullah," yet you indeed used the word in the very same post when you said ...
I should have been more clear. I have never used the term mullah (to the best of my memory) in the encyclopedia of wikipedia (unless quoting someone). I have and will use it on talk pages and in talking/writing informally.

most of your edits consist of passive-aggressive POV-pushing, attempts to "out" or "expose" various dead or living individuals ...
"Most" of my edits??? Strongly dispute this and would like to see Khoikhoi try and prove it. I may do not admire many of the organizations or people (OK, I oppose many of them) whose articles I edit, but I have endeavoured to keep a neutral point of view. If a fact about a subject of an article is notable, from a reliable source, follows WP:BLP rules, etc., it should be in the article whether or not it makes them look bad.

adding a controversial comment or past deed of the subject – for which he or she is not at all notable for ... This often includes adding a controversial comment or past deed of the subject ... Hamid Mowlana ( [26]) ... All of this appears to be in order to "expose" the said individual(s) for the "evil" character that they are
In an article about a professor in the US (Hamid Mowlana) I added the fact that he had warned Ahmadinejad about `a "soft war" against Iran launched by the United States`, quoting an Iranian government source. (here http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=11546 ). Whether or not I applaud Mowlana for warning Amadinejad, how can this fact not be notable? A google search of "Hamid Mowlana Ahmadinejad soft war" yields 13700 hits ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=hamid+Mowlana+ahmadinejad+soft+war&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= ) And what about the people who think what prof. Mowlana is doing is commendable? Should we deny them the fact in the article because it "appears" I want to "expose" Mowlana?

putting undue weight on/cherry-picking random negative comments about the subject, as has also been done on the Mohammad Mosaddegh article.
I did not put in any comments in the Mohammad Mosaddegh article. I would not have put in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohammad_Mosaddegh&diff=prev&oldid=363483523 this edit without (a) proposing it on the talk page, (b) adding some balancing complimentary comments about Mosaddeq by his allies, (c) cleaning it up for integration with the article.

you are actually on the record stating that you are here in a battle between "good and evil."
I've denied this and explained the confusion over it more than once. Such as (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Have_I_been_disruptive.2C_made_false_accusations.2C_etc..3F ) ... which I will copy:

This was cited as here as an example of how I was/am "an evangelist for cleansing this article for whatever it is that you perceive as good and evil." I am not, and I explained what I meant by "Watch for the need to cleanse ..." here. "The struggle of good and evil" was a comment to a relatively new editor at the article (WorkPermit), who I wanted to warn about what I thought was the source of the dispute, but without making any personal criticisms of Kurdo and Skywriter, i.e. it seemed to me that they seemed to think the article was about "The struggle of good and evil." Ideological purity is what I am trying to get out of the article.

By looking at one of your self-confessed socks ( [27]), a sock that you only revealed after being confronted about it by another user ...
Yes, it is true I didn't connect the two accounts until another editor accused me of having a sockpuppet, but was it a sockpuppet? Neither account was used because the other was banned, and (as I said above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Reply ) you will find edits by both ( User:Leroy65X and BoogaLouie) in the same article but seldom close in time to each other.

I found out that you run a soap-boxing website to expose Islam ( [28]) ...
I was involved in that tripod website quoting and criticizing Islamists (I certainly didn't "run it" or agree with everything on it) but it has not been active in many years. One defense of it I will make is that while you could say it was out to expose Islamism, it was not out "to expose Islam."

from which you have copy/pasted many "exposes" into Wikipedia articles and talk pages, which further proves that you are not here to contribute to this encyclopedia in a neutral manner, but rather to soap-box and engage in agenda-driven POV-pushing ...
I have done things on wikipedia which I no longer do, such as get in edit wars and add citations from non-notable websites like http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/. Having said that, unless I am very much mistaken all links posted by me on wikipedia to that web site involve quotations from works by notable sources or the subject of the article. If only those who had no opinions on the subject of an article could edit on wikipedia, how could there be articles on Hitler or Stalin or any number of ... controversial subjects? I had and have opinions on many of the subjects of articles I edit, but that doesn't mean those opinions are in my edits or that the edits are `agenda-driven POV-pushing "exposes"`.

What is more disturbing is that you do not seem to have learned anything from your numerous previous blocks. Rather, you simply continue to make excuses, dismissing your various violations as "untrue" and blaming others instead of taking any responsibility whatsoever for your behavior.
If I was not RevolutionExpert or 66.36.231.25, I am certainly not going to "admit" I was. I submit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#contributions_of_sockpuppet_RevolutionExpert is evidence that I was neither of those editors and that Khoikhoi is in error.

If you truly have the best interest of the Wikipedia project at heart, you would have accepted Ed's proposal for a topic ban, and focus on editing other topical areas in order to prove your good intentions, value and worth as an editor.
If a topic ban is my only option I will take it. I'd much rather have arbicom or some wiki authority go through the accusations against me and make a decision on whether (for example) `most of [my] edits consist of passive-aggressive POV-pushing, attempts to "out" or "expose" various dead or living individuals.` -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The following was emailed to Arbitration Committee today.

to: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
date: Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:42 PM Thurs, Aug 5, 2010
subject: Appeal of permablock of editor BoogaLouie (me)

My extended and permanent block (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#permanent_block ) are for allegedly evading a block via sockpuppet, and when this sock was blocked sending an obscene legal threat to the blocking admin (Khoikhoi). I did not commit either of these acts and have attempted to prove that the sock and rant/threat are far more likely to have been a joe-job here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#contributions_of_sockpuppet_RevolutionExpert .

The original block in 2010 was for "very disruptive" editing and "compromis[ing] the credibility and integrity of this project by making false attributions". I have attempted to demonstrate that this is untrue here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#BoogaLouie.27s_argument_in_support_of_his_unblock_request

I understand that I do not have a clean record in wikipedia, but I did not make and will not make any legal threats against wikipedia or WP admins. I have promised to edit Wikipedia using one single account; agrred to avoid editting wars in favor of the WP resolution processes; agreed to be checkusered as often as whoever thinks it is needed to be sure I'm using only one account; and to refrain from editing articles if and until Khoikhoi's charges against me are examined by other editors and a decision made.

Other editors who may support my appeal are Jpgordon and Binksternet.

Sincerely, BoogaLouie

Thank you Binksternet and Jpgordon for help you have given me. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Confirming that this appeal has been received, and comments invited from Jpgordon and Binksternet (per the text of the appeal) and from Khoikhoi (as the blocking administrator). It is possible that the later stages of this appeal will move onto this talk page, but for now any comments from others who commented above should be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The article December 30, 2009 pro-government rally in Iran has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply

in retrospect it probably does not deserve it's own article. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee ("BASC") has now considered your appeal and has decided that: (i) evidence that has become available since the block was applied casts reasonable doubt on the original finding and (ii) User:BoogaLouie be immediately unblocked without restriction.

Arbitrators supporting: Carcharoth, Coren, FayssalF, Roger Davies, SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee,   Roger ^talk 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow! Thanks to the subcommittee for sticking it out through so much time and expended energy. Binksternet ( talk) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm glad this turned out this way; I'm sorry it took so long. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you BASC. Thank you Binksternet. Thank you Jpgordon. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC) reply