User talk:124.191.88.235

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, CPE-124-191-88-235.vic.bigpond.net.au, is registered to Bigpond, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Contents

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin, you will be blocked from editing. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 55 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock| }} below. Jmlk17 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I appeal this block. I did not "vandalise" the discussion, I merely attempted to restore the text which had been relegated to a "subpage", which it appears to me was deliberately hidden away to hamper the case put forward to preserve the O'Loughlin article. The text I attempted to restore directly addressed the misleading remarks made in the introduction, and thus were highly pertinent. The Formatting software of Wikipedia is not very user friendly and the changes came out quite unpredictably. As for the substance of my grievance with Eleland: he continues to persist with false quotes at the head of the page attributing it to me when it was written by admin editor Dave Fluri. If this is the best argument he can put forward then I suggest that he be blocked for manipulating the text of someone with whom he disagrees."

Decline reason: "I'm afraid that accusations of bias and thinly veiled antisemitism like you have proffered (including here as arguments for unblocking) do not show that you have the intent of mending your ways. If I were you, I would take the opportunity to read talk pages, policies and other AfD debates so that you can become familiar with Wikipedia's way of working— this may allow you to see the proper way to behave in a collaborative environment. — Coren (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

All article deletion discussions are held on subpages - it wasn't "relegated" to a subpage - they are all that way. Inasmuch as your "vandalism" appears inadvertent and appears to stem from your unfamiliarity with the editing interface, I'm willing to consider unblocking you or reducing your block to a straight 31 hours, but it needs to be with the understanding that you will be more civil and not make accusations of bad faith against other editors. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they have a bias - chances are, most of the people involved in this discussion have never even heard of the guy. If you will promise to not bite your fellow editors, I will reduce your block. --B (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think a block reduction is necessary. This user's disruptive editing included slinging personal attacks at various editors with whom she disagrees; while new users may well make mistakes in their understanding of formatting and protocol, a user who is name-calling when she finds herself in a disagreement has a fundamental problem that will make her very disruptive to Wikipedia, and needs to take the time to observe discussions in action and learn more about how to work together with others before she'll be able to edit without disrupting the work of the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is the place to continue this dialogue? (1) My posts began extremely cordially. However, within a short time Eleland had the article on Ed O'Loughlin marked for deletion. There was never a satisfactory answer for why a properly referenced article should be treated in this way. Not only that but Eleland made untrue assertions to facilitate his case for the article to be deleted. A survey of Eleland's edits in other articles revealed that in a series of TWENTY sequential edits all were anti-Israel. Clearly, Eleland has some sort of point of view he is pursuing. I am sure that he has served Wikipedia in the past in the most exemplary manner, but on this issue Eleland seems bent on a mission! How would you feel if instead of participating in a collegiate atmosphere of an encyclopaedia you are confronted with an editor with a partisan agenda? I doubt you would be happy. (2) Above, I have FisherQueen and ~B each has made a different determination. Who decides? Isn't all this a bit arbitrary? (3) The Formatting at Wikipedia is (I am sorry to say) rather poor, confusing, unpredictable. I am sorry that I am being forced out even for 30 hours largely because of it. (4) I have contributed to other articles (on entirely different topics) under different IPs, but I prefer to maintain my confidentiality for the purposes of the O'Loughlin article. (5) I am not even sure whether Eleland is an administrator. He is not listed in the list of Administrators. I certainly want to make a complaint about him. Wikipedia holds with the "in good faith" principle. There is NO evidence of such from Eleland! Personally I think that he is bringing the Wikipedia into disrepute.


Frankly Coren there is something wrong with Wikipedia. The formatting is only the beginning. You have not addressed Eleland's record of anti-Israel posts. You should have gone off to determine if there were substance to the accusation rather than attack me with unfounded accusations. I have systematically studied Eleland's posts. You have reflexively changed the accusation to Anti-Semitism. Excuse me! Can't you read! And where is your "in good faith". Moreover, the lecturing supercilious tone I hear from you is disgraceful. Is there anybody there that can conduct a civil conversation? You have not even confirmed whether Eleland is indeed an Admin editor. You are straight out rude! Good day to you.

I contest the block a second time, but on the condition that the whole matter is looked into by a SENIOR person who comes to it with an OPEN mind. I want all my complaints about the behaviour of Eleland to be examined with the seriousness they deserve not with the off-hand arrogance I have thus far experienced (a slightly hypocritical stance than the "in good faith" principle apparently espoused by Wikipedia).

You aren't going to find anyone willing to unblock you if you engage in personal attacks. More likely, your block will be extended. --B (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can extend my block however long you wish as long as the issue is looked at by someone SENIOR with an OPEN mind.

3 independent administrators have reviewed this block. I am the 4th. I find it entirely appropriate. Before accusing people of hypocrisy, ask yourself whether it is not arrogant to assume none of these users are senior or open-minded. If you abuse your rights here you will lose the ability to edit this page. Good day, ~ Riana ⁂ 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a senior, open-minded person would go to the source material and look at the accusations and consider the truth of the situation. That takes a bit of time and thought =- instead of giving petulant threats in two seconds. Rather childish - like all this Wiki hierarchy stuff. Do you get off on that sort of stuff. Get me somebody of intellect and who is genuinely fair please.

You seem to confuse "open minded" with "agrees with me". At any rate, you have been warned that further personal attacks would result in protection of this page, and it will now be for the remainder of your block. — Coren (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing of the kind

I sought a considered determination, not a defensive, opinionated and punitive reflexive response from this immature cult of wikipedia "geeks". The "processes" of Wikipedia seem to me so much rubbish. So it's good luck to you all.


[edit] Blocked

Due to personal attacks, Trolling on the ANI page and threats, I've reblocked this IP for seven days. Dreadstar † 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avraham

Why have you blocked me?


I merely deleted the question mark on Eleland's Hezbollah flag.


This is incredible!


I want to hear from Avraham not a series of Wiki geeks.

Please read the notice. Only anonymous editing is blocked; registered accounts may still edit. Further, User page vandalism, such as this and uncivil canvassing against another user such as this and this is inappropriate, even if you do not agree with the editor. For example, I have many disagreements with eleland on a wide range of issues, but that is no excuse for disregarding the respect that wikipedia contributors need to have for one another. Please take the time to review our core policies on civility and good faith to help you become more of an asset to the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you Avi for your response.


So, while you have come down on me enforcing the Wiki rules, this is fine.

Perhaps you can explain how it was fine for Eleland to have engineered the deletion of the "Ed O'Loughlin" article which I co-wrote, because it did not meet with his opinion?

I use the word "engineered" to indicate the following: (1) False assertions were made about the validity of references (eg stating wrongly and deliberately that they were from unreliable sources) (2) False statements were made misquoting me when it was repeatedly pointed out the quotes were from a Wikipedia admin editor, Fluri (3) The consensus for deleting the article was bogus - supporters of its retention were falsely labelled as "sockpuppets" or "single purpose" contributors. (4) An individual with a known partisan track record was able to cut a swathe through posts made in the article and commentary of those he disagreed with, but any attempts to defend it were "naughty" wiki transgressions.

Why was this fellow whom I am not allowed to even name without becoming a pariah (for crying out it's not even his real name but a pseudonym based on some Moose or antelope from the African steppes) apparently not subject to the same rules as I?

The question must still be answered - If a public figure is subject of valid criticism in respected newspapers, scholarly works, and the like with much independent corroborating evidence, (but little or no contrary evidence), why must this be removed from the Wikipedia biography?


I understand the principle of "two wrongs don't make a right", but where were you when the greater wrong in my view was being perpetrated?

Now, please give me some insight on how these iniquitous inner workings of Wikipedia enhance the publication.


Respectfully,

124.191.88.235 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I have been waiting for a response from Avi. It seems Avraham is quick to gag me, but considerably slower to look at the substantive issues that I have raised.

Oh well, as long as one can go to bed at night dreaming of little wiki stars of appreciation from those wiki nameless editors that lie and manipulate within the arbitrary code (or is it a sect that is followed to which one must pay homage), whilst stabbing a friend in the back.

Nice job Avrohom! I know! ...Incivility, personal attacks... ban me for life!

Perhaps I wont win any prizes for diplomacy but brother believe me it's 100% true. Look, I'm sure that you have done a wonderful job going through the proper channels in dealing with the antelope, but in my case I feel that Wiki has badly let down the rules of decency and scholarly argument. If this is the way of Wiki, well, ultimately "the project " will flounder - even given its success to date. This small perturbation will be amplified. Cheers!124.191.88.235 (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Sorry about the delay, my apologies. The block has nothing to do with content disputes; I have no idea of the issue(s) that you are discussing with Eleland, nor should I. The block was levied for vandalizing a user page in a distinctly POV manner as well as canvassing, which contained personal attacks as was done here and here. Secondly, as you seem to have registered a username, it is completely moot in your case, is it not? If you have content disputes with any editor, please use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and please remember to continue editing with the core policies of assuming good faith and the need for civility formost in your mind. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. I am aware that this is an "empty" block and that all one needs to do (anyway) is hide the IP address. That's not the point. I have little faith in the complaints mechanism you directed me to. My previous attempts to access it during the discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Ed O'Loughlin" article were were undermined by the "antelope" and his friends. The decision to delete the article was taken in an entirely arbitrary and fake "consensus" vote. Now, all traces of the article and its discussion have been wiped. Believe me I started on a very civil basis, but of course I am angry at the summary treatment by the "antelope" for having organised this "purge". I am sorry if I broke some of the Wiki rules as a result, but the sort of behaviour of the "antelope" and the system which allows this sort of clique to manipulate Wikipedia needs some sort of response. What would you suggest?124.191.88.235 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you follow Crotalus's advice here and re-create a neutral article. Personal opinions notwithstanding, we have to follow the rules, which protect articles about people from all political viewpoints. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. In any authoritative reference the contents must be backed up with well-researched sources. I could re-write the article, but how do I put it onto Wikipedia. Note that previously I satisfied Fluri, whom I believed to be an Admin editor, (who seems to have disappeared) but how can I be sure of satisfying Crotalus? I believe that there is a place for an Ed O'Loughlin article because of the controversy he has aroused in Australia. It is true to say that the Australian Jewish community is extremely disturbed by his reportage. However, silence from the wider community does not signify approval. The reason for the concern with O'Loughlin is NOT his opinion per se (Jews are not unaccustomed to pluralism), it is his use of news reportage as a means of advocating his opinion (as it happens on the Arab Israeli conflict). I believe that the O'Loughlin case is a seminal case. It is wrong for Wikipedia to quash an article on O'Loughlin on the grounds that the article is not balanced. I am sure that there are other Wiki articles on living persons who have achieved attention through their controversial activities. I see no reason why a journalist coming to prominence for "advocacy journalism" (documented from many sources) should not merit a biography in Wikipedia. He would be just as notable whatever side he supported.

Thanks for your further suggestions. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)