User talk:Mehmeda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Mehmeda/Nov-Jan2006

Contents

[edit] Chernikhov

Where was the article written from? I did not see the references, that is why I took RJE word for it. The Russian Jewish Encyclopedia keeps a record of all artists who were known to be Jewish around that time, and in fact, there is a Chernikhov listed but he was not the architect so it made sense that that could have been an error. Search engines online bring up mirrors when name and religious affliation is brought up. Are you certain this is not an error? Mehmeda 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are right to question this. I wrote the article while I was in St.Petersburg and I cannot now bring to hand the reference(s) I need/ seem to remember. In the circumstances you would be quite correct to edit the article as you did and I apologise. I suggest you restore your edit and I will leave it until such time as I come up with anything incontrovertible. --Smerus 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of French Jews

I am bewildered by your re-deletion of André Spire, who was not only undoubtedly Jewish but a Zionist activist. There is conflicting evidence on the other two, but I am confident that the balance of the evidence is that their mothers were Jewish. Please can you discuss on the list's talk page.--Newport 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. I do appreciate the massive job you have done on this list. I'd say that if anyone lives for most of their lives in France, they can be classified as French.--Newport 01:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== test2a warning ==

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Newport 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I hope we're friends now!--Newport 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Newport has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Unblock request

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: "Ludicrous. Absolutely no explanation, reasoning, or evidence given for indefinite block. Only thing even added regarding ban was a tag that writes "This user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Antidote as confirmed by the user's edits, and has been blocked indefinitely." Confirmed by the user's edits? Special:Contributions/Antidote are on completely different topics and articles than Special:Contributions/Mehmeda. This is obviously retaliation at a content dispute found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 4 where blocking admin refuses to co-operate and behaves questionably. I'm requesting an immediate unblock based on lack of any evidence, no reason given, and improper and suspicious alacrity"

Decline reason: "Procedural close pending block review; see below. — Sandstein 22:21, 31 March 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.

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 11:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, his interests and style are very similar to Antidote and to other users proven by CheckUser to be sockpuppets of Antidote, such as LaGrange. He, like Antidote and LaGrange, has specialised in lists of Jews and questions of whether people are Jewish, so it is completely incorrect to say that his edits are on compltely different topics and articles. The recent incident was his attempt to remove Columbus and Cervantes from the List of Iberian Jews, something to which LaGrange devoted considerable time. There was no content dispute with me on the conflict of interest. On the contrary, I offered to mediate or arrange mediation; he refused mediation. Secondly, there is the highly suspicious circumstance that as I noted, Mehmeda claims to be an ambassador of the French and German Wikipedias but there is no such editor on either Wikipedia.--Runcorn 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For easy reference:
This makes the sock allegation appear somewhat credible, but not beyond reasonable doubt. I'll leave the determination to another admin more familiar with Antidote. Mehmeda, would you please comment on the ambassador issue? Sandstein 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn, you can't just indefinitely ban someone on a whim. If specializing in lists of Jews and questions on whether people are Jewish is reason to ban someone then you have about 26 other people on wikipedia to ban as sockpuppets of eachother. To be fair, many of your contributions focus on lists of Jews and questions on whether people are Jewish too. That's a reasonable argument for someone else to say we're sockpuppets? Give me a break.

If other people devoted considerable time to making sure minority views and fringe theories are presented neutrally as in the issue of Cervantes and Columbus, then that clearly tells you there is a problem. Get a third opinion and see if the other user agrees with me. If they do, they should hope they don't get banned as my sockpuppet by you. You also forgot to "ban as sockpuppets" all the anons and one-time users who have been removing Cervantes and Columbus from List of Sephardic Jews. Since according to your opinion, everybody who opposes this is a sockpuppet. However, apparently, not everyone who supports it is a sockpuppet. The arguments for support are way more similar and overlapping than the many arguments presented for opposing in the talk page history.

No, anyone can look at the contributions of Antidote and see the edits share literally almost no foreseeable relation, and even if they did, that is certainly not justified in indefinitely banning a user without any prior notice or hard evidence. Searching through the contributions, Antidote didn't even focus on a list of Jews since February 2006 and stopped editing in August 2006. The other user you mention did edit List of Iberian Jews on the Cervantes and Columbus issue, but other than that most of the edits seem to be centered on mathematicians with the occasional Jewish list thrown it. Again, not at all a convincing argument.

No, you were a participant in the content dispute. You reverted and added to the problematic edits. This automatically makes you a participant. I refused only YOUR mediation because you have already expressed a position on the topic. Mediators should be users who were not participants in the dispute content as you were. This promises neutrality and a fresh look. Frankly, it is suspicious you offered in the first place given you were indirectly invovled in returning the edits that violate policy, and I highly highly doubt you would give my opinion an NPOV if you already had your mindset on how you wanted the issue to turn out. I didn't refuse any mediation on the other hand. You can see that I tried to prevent the issue from going to mediation through consensus-seeking at TALK:List of Iberian Jews where I have been ignored by you as you already deemed the issue "case closed" without any consensus. Don't stretch the truth. So much for that

"great respect for Mehmeda" you spoke of on the COI.

As for the comments of my usernames on the French wikipedia...this can be explained by Occam's Razor. I don't have the same English wiki name..."duh". Lots of people don't. In fact, given I've edited wikipedia only sporadically until just around November, I have had several usernames on foreign wikipedias. Originally editing under IPs as most newcommens do, in 2004 I registered my very first short-lived User:Memfa on French, then a break from editing there, and I returned with User:Maurege. There are others with smaller edit counts. Point is, this is completely irrelevant, and unless you're researching my life story (major in foreign languages, hence editing helps me) this information is useless and proves or disproves nothing.

So to conclude, this is a completely evidence-less speculative ban with curious reasonings behind it. If there are reasons that hold water then the topic can be opened again, but you can't hold me banned just because of your whim. Remember WP:AGF. All my edits have been fair and constructive. I try to avoid edit warring and have never vandalized an article. There's no "imminent threat" here and so I hope I can be unbanned soon. Thank you for reviewing, Sandstein. Mehmeda 05:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, "specializing in lists of Jews and questions on whether people are Jewish" is not reason to ban someone, and is not why I blocked you. I am not blocking every such editor, only those I have reason to believe from their style and manner are sockpuppets. In assessing Antidote's contributions, obviously I include all of his confirmed sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/...And_Beyond! including LaGrange. Thus Antidote did not stop editing in August 2006, just carried on using other names. I do respect your contributions, but I am obliged to uphold the rules.
You arrived as Mehmeda purporting to be an ambassador, an official representative, of the French and German Wikis. Ambassadors do not usually arrive with changed names. Wikipedia editors do not usually keep making a few edits and then changing their user names. Would Sandstein be prepared to start an account on the French Wikipedia and contact these other users? What of the German Wikipedia? I do admire your versatility in languages and note that you now seem to write perfect idiomatic English, which you did not when you first started. - Runcorn 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are obliged to uphold the rules on proven facts, not on your suspicions or whims. In French the word "ambassador" is equally used informally to mean an unofficial representative, which is clearly the way I was using it given I'm not an intra-wiki admin. Only those would count as true "official ambassadors" and you very well know that. If you think wikipedia editors don't change their usernames then you obviously don't know wikipedia. There are more "old usernames" of people that can even be counted, especially ones that started editing when wikipedia first started. Unlike most forums, you don't get the opportunity to get your password emailed to you if you don't specify one. This is exactly why so many people ended up having to change usernames after long hiatuses, as I have done. Don't act like you don't know this. Besides, this is totally irrelevant to your accusation and when and where I edited on the foreign wikipedias has nothing to do with your evidence-less ban. What, Antidote knew French too? If you want to get to the point and present your evidence then do so, but don't nitpick statements I've made just so you can evade proving your whims. "I do admire your versatility in languages and note that you now seem to write perfect idiomatic English, which you did not when you first started." So, let me clear that up, are you suggesting I'm FAKING knowing another language? And exactly for what reason? English is my first language so of course I write in "idiomatic English." My first talk page edit used the greeting "Howdy" [1] which somehow isn't "idiomatic English" enough for you --- pretty much disproving your "which you did not when you first started" claim -- whatever that was trying to prove. Sandstein apparently has other things to work on now, and unless you unban me for these discussions I can't get another admin for review without emailing them, which I suppose I'm going to have to do. Obviously I'm angry, as anyone would be. In case you don't realize, you're not following the wikipedia ban policy:

The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources:

  • The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself.
  • The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy following a request for arbitration.
  • The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user. In the past it has done so using two mechanisms: Probation and Mentorship.
  • Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban users, though it has not exercised this authority on the English Wikipedia.

The above doesnt include "Runcorn's guesses count for a permaban" in my case; for that matter, it doesn't say "Runcorn has the ability to permaban" at all, which may even apply to the ban of Antidote in the first place, which the block log there reveals YOU conducted. Any explanation for that? Mehmeda 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here. I agree with Runcorn that there are some indications for sockpuppetry, but without personal knowledge of Antidote's editing style I can't agree that there is sufficient evidence to block (not: ban) this user. I think this needs more admin input. Runcorn, the best way to proceed may be to submit this block to review on WP:AN or WP:CN. I'll do it if nothing happens in a day or so. Sandstein 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein - yes, please do it. If I do it, Mehmeda may accuse me of making biased comments.--Runcorn 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll submit a WP:RFCU first, then ask for AN input if that turns out to be negative. In the meantime, I'm closing the unblock request without prejudice, pending further review. Sandstein 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if I could at least get temporarily unblocked for these proceedings. Mehmeda 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I made this account only so I can comment here and on the WP:AN etc. Obviously it won't be used for anything else. Mehmeda2 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block confirmed

Based on evidence made available to me privately, I confirm Runcorn's block for sockpuppetry. The alternate account is now also blocked. Sandstein 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your e-mail, I decline to elaborate, so as not to give blocked users ideas on how to evade their block. Any further communications from you will be ignored. Sandstein 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KleeSP.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KleeSP.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo 09:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block undone

Hello. I have undone the block applied to you by Runcorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Runcorn was recently desysopped and blocked after it was discovered he had used numerous sockpuppets abusively. It appears likely that your block was unfounded and the evidence supplied by Runcorn to link you with the vandal Antidote falsified; presumably you were blocked for getting into conflict with one of Runcorn's socks. On behalf of the Wikipedia community, I apologise for the inconvenience. Welcome back. Sandstein 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Zworykinkinescope.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zworykinkinescope.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I changed it to fair use. If you really feel it is in the public domain, feel free to apply the proper PD tag. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)