User talk:58.162.2.122

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Archive

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -Quiddity 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who says it's an inappropriate link? Just hero-worshippers of Harris! 58.162.2.122 08:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I've blocked you for 24 hours for editing your article in violation of the arbitration. JoshuaZ 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, you are being very suspicious. Shouldn't an admin be enforcing wiki rules such as "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Wikipedia:No original research. Or are rules to be ignored when it used against people or positions you don't like? 58.162.2.122 12:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your own page says: "Arguments about truth or falsity of cited claims should not go on talk pages because they are by defintion OR and in any case rarely convince anyone of anything." So revert according to your own professed philosophy instead of misusing your powers.58.162.2.122 12:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." I was obeying a direct rule, you were applying a suspicion. 58.162.2.122 12:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned and previously blocked for violating the Agapetos Angel RFAR ruling, so I can save my breath. You've been blocked again. FeloniousMonk 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Sarfati(2) per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with ARBCOM as it is not an article (and NB no vote was made). This goes beyond the pale of overstepping authority.

A Reminders that we have a no personal attacks policy, and a civility policy and that as I've explained to you before in any event I'm not an atheist. On an unrelated note, have you ever played cylindrical chess? JoshuaZ 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. Who I am is none of your business. If you talk like an atheist, attack anti-atheists, defend notorious atheists, what else can someone conclude? And you need to stop inserting your own uncivil personal attacks in pages of your ideological opponents ("supports torture", please!).58.162.2.122 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one, he could be an agnostic, sometimes characterized as weak atheism, but whatever. Or, he could be a very liberal Jew, which these days is hard to differentiate politcally from a socialist atheist. Or, maybe he is a born-again believer and he likes to screw with people's heads. *shrug* But I guess it's fair for you to assume he's an atheist since he thinks its fair to assume you are Sarfati simply because you argue like Sarfati, support Sarfati's alleged wife, and believe in the things Sarfati does. *shrug*
Anyway there's talk of (others) having you blocked, probably for WP:NPA of course, so I highly recommend you stay very civil so we can make progress in our discussion. Otherwise, I might have to go back to work. That would be a pity. --Otheus 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see [1]. --Otheus 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved admin blocking opposition

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "===Evidence===

Admin FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was admonished in the WebEx and Min_Zhu arbcom case "not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." This is evidence of recent involvement in a content dispute, where FM reinserted a WP:BLP—WP:OR—WP:ATT violation (edit summary rv guettarda was correct) without participation in talk. (Furthermore, he continued this behaviour against another editor in an unrelated issue, which Wales said was not warranted and worthy of a bigger discussion). He is also blocking outside the scope of the arbcom decision, even if one incorrectly asserts that I am party to it, including blocking (17 February 2007) for contributing to (not voting!) a deletion discussion; this was not an article, and participation is not disallowed. FM then removed evidence that showed he was acting inappropriately. He also made a previous block on 20 July 2006, incorrectly citing the arbcom decision of 'associated articles', while first providing no evidence, then false evidence (diff he provided was not to Ken Ham), to justify his accusation and inappropriate block. (Note that KillerChihuahua removed evidence from that page, claiming that it was posted by a banned user, while no one in that decision was banned from Wikipedia; therefore, the removal was inappropriate.) 58.162.2.122 06:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

decline=If that is so, it may be grounds for sanctions against the blocking admin, but not for unblocking you. You have neither provided a reason why you should be unblocked, nor have you contested the blocking rationale itself. — Sandstein 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to: "If that is so, it may be grounds for sanctions against the blocking admin, but not for unblocking you. You have neither provided a reason why you should be unblocked, nor have you contested the blocking rationale itself. — Sandstein 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"
The reason and contest of the block is obviously that the blocking admin acted inappropriately by placing a block against someone on the 'other side' of a content dispute (and removing evidence by deleting a post that was not his own) in the first place.
You don't ask a homeowner whose television has been stolen to justify why his house has so many windows. 58.162.2.122 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)"This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.


[edit] Evidence

Admin FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was admonished in the WebEx and Min_Zhu arbcom case "not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." This is evidence of recent involvement in a content dispute, where FM reinserted a WP:BLP—WP:OR—WP:ATT violation (edit summary rv guettarda was correct) without participation in talk. (Furthermore, he continued this behaviour against another editor in an unrelated issue, which Wales said was not warranted and worthy of a bigger discussion). He is also blocking outside the scope of the arbcom decision, even if one incorrectly asserts that I am party to it, including blocking (17 February 2007) for contributing to (not voting!) a deletion discussion; this was not an article, and participation is not disallowed. FM then removed evidence that showed he was acting inappropriately. He also made a previous block on 20 July 2006, incorrectly citing the arbcom decision of 'associated articles', while first providing no evidence, then false evidence (diff he provided was not to Ken Ham), to justify his accusation and inappropriate block. (Note that KillerChihuahua removed evidence from that page, claiming that it was posted by a banned user, while no one in that decision was banned from Wikipedia; therefore, the removal was inappropriate.) 58.162.2.122 06:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason and contest of the block is obviously that the blocking admin acted inappropriately by placing a block against someone on the 'other side' of a content dispute (and removing evidence by deleting a post that was not his own) in the first place.
You don't ask a homeowner whose television has been stolen to justify why his house has so many windows. 58.162.2.122 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../5/8/2E/User_talk%7E58.162.2.122.html"