User talk:ADM

Sandbox

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Deletion request by user:Avraham

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of ADM

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not mean to offend, I thought it was every Wikipedian's job to get involved in controversial topics

Decline reason:

No. You previously had a "last chance". Your behavior does not inspire confidence in the good that another would do. - Philippe 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was blocked again by user:SarekOfVulcan. I would like to discuss with him any new terms of a truce, if there can be any. ADM (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Truce? If you see editing Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLE, then I don't think this discussion will get very far. Besides, your previous unblock was clearly stated to be a last chance, so "oops, I forgot" doesn't inspire confidence. (Sorry I didn't post a block notice myself, my connection went wonky.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant it as an agreement, not a treaty. Everything should be based on agreements, not blank prohibitions. I don't know how it was determined that it was my last chance, that seems to have a somewhat arbitrary judgement. Do you know of an effective way to oppose arbitrary decisions ? ADM (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the subject at hand, it is in the news right now, so I was just reading on a given topic which can no longer be concealed. See for instance in The Daily Telegraph. [1][2] ADM (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not decline the unblock request, but language such as "truce" indicates that user maintains their perception that it is their job to "battle" to get their information on wikipedia, and accepts this as a setback in an ongoing "skirmish". That is not how wikipedia works. Editing the encyclopedia is a privilege conditional on abiding by its policies, and there is a history here of non-abidance. -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really reflect that, it merely reflects my view about legal positivism, the legal doctrine advocated by Hans Kelsen that laws and policies are merely conventions between human beings. This also happens to be the position adopted by Wikipedia, since it freely allows its editors to adopt most of its policies. ADM (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ADM. Even if you had forgotten your pledge, and even if you created that article in good faith, your openly anti-Jewish attack on people on the AfD discussion strongly suggests that you are too biased to edit articles related to Jewish topics in an NPOV manner - I don't think you should be editing any Jewish topics, never mind contentious ones. And if you can't discuss things without resorting to personal abuse, I really don't think you should be here at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recognize any right not to edit Jewish topics. I think it is illegimate for instance, to forbid men from writing about feminist topics even though they are irredeemably of another gender. The same thing could perhaps be said about black topics or white topics. As long as there is a demonstration of good faith, and even in a serious state of error, there shouldn't be any reasonable limits to well-sourced editing. Not following this principle, I feel, could lead to some serious discriminations that would most likely cripple the Wikipedia project. For instance, I don't mind the fact that several Jewish editors may have openly disagreed with me, but I was shocked that they disagreed with me exclusively because of their real-life personal identity and not because of other concerns on a more rational, encyclopedic level. ADM (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is great example of the strategy you showed in the AfD discussion - arguing against what other people aren't saying. I did not say you should be banned from editing Jewish articles because you are not Jewish, I said you should be banned because of your openly anti-Jewish attack on others. You have repeatedly made openly aggressive and abusive anti-Jewish comments. Of course men can edit articles related to feminism, provided they show good faith, but I'd expect an editor who repeatedly showed an aggressive and abusive anti-feminist attitude to be banned from doing so. You exhibited exceptionally bad faith in the recent AfD discussion, and are continuing to do so now by insisting that those who disagreed with you were doing so "exclusively because of their real-life personal identity" - every commentator I saw who opined that your article should be deleted gave what seemed to me to be rational reasons why they did not think it was of encyclopedic quality. If you want to stand any chance of having your block listed, I really think you need to be showing some contrition for your abusive behaviour yesterday, rather than repeating your allegations here -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't show contrition because the allegations are false, and because my accusers are displaying bad faith. It was in no sense my article ; I totally repudiate any perceived connection to it because I was just performing a WP:FORK. Not all forks are bad, and I was genuinely under the impression that this was not original research, and that it would be accepted as a matter of historical fact. ADM (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The above statement by ADM, when read after reading the multiple and detailed attempts to try and explain the core wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis on the AfD page, indicate to me that the user still does not, or refuses to, understand our core policies and instead resorts to the fallacious arguments of ad hominem to try and prove his/her point. I think an unblock is unwarranted as the user continues to demonstrate a fundamental inconsistency with wikipedia policy and guideline. -- Avi (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how you claim that they're your policies. Are you a member of the apocryphal Wiki-cabal ? Only then would it be morally consistent to claim that our policies actually belong to someone, that they're the property of a few select persons. ADM (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The policies that each of us agree to abide by in return for receiving the privilege to edit the project. -- Avi (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)