User talk:Sarastro777

Welcome!

Double Standard

The obvious double standard towards certain articles by administrators here is astounding. Although my views may not be politically correct I have never edited an article in such a biased way. Wikipedia is not a "people's encyclopedia." Anything that disagrees with the view of a certain portion of administrators is deleted and banned. I appreciate your comments, I may just sign-up again. Volksgeist 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I did see earlier that even administrators would blank your userpage which is rather appalling behavior and I did know about that software which I found somewhat sad. It's pretty sad (with reading this discussion on this userpage) that you were being charged with 3RR when someone repeatedly deleted your userpage (something that I was under the impression was against the rules here). It seems every time you change an Israeli article that attempts to display both sides of the story a person will delete it as biased, etc and their userpage usually explains it all, as in the case of El_Cid's. There are often very similar project links, etc as well. Volksgeist 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did administrators keep deleting your userpage? How is that even allowed here? Volksgeist 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not allowed, but they don't follow their own rules. Basically even if there were a specific attack against an individual, which they claimed... it would not justify deleting my entire page. I filed a complaint and they basically just ignored it for a week and then archived it. My version of the page: [[1]] Sarastro777 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

FYI, you broke WP:3RR and may be reported. While I am here, I must say that I find your behavior childish. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See comments below. You must have a hard time warping logic to justify your actions if you have to come here and call me childish to make yourself feel better for censoring an article and having me banned by your Israeli buddies. Sarastro777 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This 3rr violation was reported at [2] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored (a limited number of times) valid material that was being deleted repeatedly and systematically by an Administrator Hummus Sapiens and another user Pecha. I consider this vandalism, have said so in the discussion, registered a warning tag on Pechas page, which he removed. Blank-spacing or removing legitimate content which diminishes the quality of the article is clearly within this definition. It was obvious this was deliberate as no attempt was made to discuss with me how to improve the pieces in question, nor did they attempt to improve them. Only "reverted" which is completely against policy... and called me ignorant, suggested I needed an education, and accussed me of personal attack.

Please remove this block or tell me (without calling me ignorant or childish) how it is in anyway justified in light of this behavior. Sarastro777 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just claim anything you disagree with is vandalism and use it as reason to edit war, this was clearly a content dispute. Unblock denied. --pgk^(talk) 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I can see why it is okay for Administrators listing 50 different things in their profiles having to do with Israel/Judaism to actively censor and ban information (out of an anti-Semite section) about the media fabricating a story making the President of Iran out to be an anti-Semite. It's also not suspicious the Admin that banned me shares the same interests, with his ban timestamped before the complaint was even filed. I'm sure none of these people have any animus against the mortal enemy of their self-proclaimed country/topics of interest whatsoever. Very reasonable take indeed :-) Sarastro777 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Archeology

The stele is an archiological artifact. The date of the Bible is irrelevant to using th eterm archeological. However, it brings fewer connotations of the Bible being older or younger, and it stands in starker contrast to tradition than historical. What, praytell, do you not like about that word? -- Avi 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is called "history." The first item in historical record is the stele. It also happens to be archaeological evidence BUT your term presupposes that the historical record is wrong and the term "Israel" was in usage earlier, but no evidence (archaeological) has been produced. We need to go with the verifiable historical fact, while properly noting the unsubstantiated (historically) beliefs of "tradition."

Why praytell do you not like the word "historical" in the "history" section? Sarastro777 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the evidence is archeological. I agree it comes from my belief, shared among others, that the Bible predates the stele, but we don't have any hard archeological evidence. The Bible itself is an example of historical evidence that is not substantiated by archeological evidence. I concur that hard archeological facts to back up other evidence is prefereable. But using the term historical, to me, implies that the Bible is NOT historical, and that is not a cut-and-dried issue.

Using the term archeological gets around the entire issue--we have a piece of stone we can date back to 1211 BCE; hard, conclusive evidence, no ifs-ands-or-buts, which does not imply that there is no "evidence" prior -- just no irrefutable evidence. It's not simple either way, I grant. -- Avi 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the earliest mention of the word dates to 1211 BCE then that is the earliest historical record. I don't see what you are adding with archaeological? Archaeology is one method through which history dates.. by mentioning that alone there is an ambiguous implication for other dating techniques. The fact remains that this stele is the earliest record through any verifiable approach/discipline/technique. Sarastro777 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of contention is whether or not the stelle is the earliest mention or not. As can be seen from Dating the Bible, there are scholars who believe that the Bible predates the stelle, and if so, it is an earlier mention of the word. By masoretic calculations, the Bible was revealed at Sinai in the year 1312 BCE, about a 100 years before the stelle. Of course, the events are a few hundred years older than that, but we'd have to be phenominally lucky to find anything dating back that far. So, disregarding any masoretic dating, the earliest mention of the word, according to, and I quote from said article, “Textual criticism places all of them within the 1st millennium BC, while traditionalist schools assign the Pentateuch a 15th century BC date,” could predate the stele. The stele is the earliest archeological mention of the term. That is the gist of my argument. And I apologize for the horrific run-on sentence. -- Avi 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of contention is that you are citing unverifiable evidence as showing earlier existence. Historical implies that through all verifiable means the stele is the earliest mention. Your suggestion 'archaeological' implies that only through archaeology is that the earliest mention, leaving possibility for other techniques such as literary which does not in fact exist. This is not appropriate since no other verifiable evidence exists. The date of the bible is not verifiable. There are theories, and that is an entirely unrelated discussion I don't want to be involved in :-) Sarastro777 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add earlier unproven dates, such as that of the "bible" or pentateuch or whatever would be covered under the "traditionally..3000 years" statement. Sarastro777 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a side point, 1211 BCE was over 3000 years ago. So the "However" may not be the best word choice. If by tradition we are going from when G-d Promised Abraham that the land of Israel will be his, that's around 3800–4000 years ago 8-) . -- Avi 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not going by God though, we're going by historically verifiable. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. These other ideas are/should be covered in articles on the religion. The "however" is just a rhetorical device to indicate the part that follows contradicts the part before. It's not a swipe at the number that follows.  :-) Sarastro777 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that, and you know I know that 8-) However, it's not a contradiction if the stele indicates that the people of Israel were in the land of Israel 3000 years ago. The issue is the tradition, or the unverifiable G-dly promise :). I'd suggest you reword your sentence to make that clearer, or perhaps I'll be bold and do it myself :). -- Avi 06:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

I have created a stub article here and would appreciate your contributions. [[3]] As I'm a pretty new Wiki editor I need some assistance in puting together a good article that we can eventually link to the country page.--Oiboy77 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to review WP policies

Please review WP:NPA and WP:TALK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html [[4]] Let me know what you think.

Sarastro777 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not leave misleading edit summaries

I specifically stated that the reversion of the Azmi Bishara case was on purpose because it was just as skewed as everything else you add to that article, and yet you labeled your reversion as minor with the edit summary: "fixed inadvertent rv by Silverburg of unrelated Knesset member arrested for speech crimes. Discussion for Vanunu". Please review WP policy once again as you obviously understood the actual nature of your reversion, please revert yourself and add a less misleading edit summary. I do not want to have to launch a complaint over something so small, but what you did was clearly improper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Discussion Board of the Article. You complained about Vanunu but reverted an entirely different edit as well. I was under the impression this was accidental. Sarastro777 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't break the 3RR anymore than you did yesterday. Your buddy Oiboy77 already tried reporting me but it was thrown out because there was a system upgrade going on at the time that caused a back up which in turn resulted in a bunch oh the same edits registering at the same time. I find it strange that you would even try to claim that was a violation since you experienced the same effect that I did. Nevertheless I did not realize that was only a day ago and if I did I would not be editing the article again so soon and will not again for another 24 hours. Also, your emotional claim that I "ruined hours worth of sourced editing" doesn't really effect me since you used sources to prove a novel thesis that was inappropriately pov. I really cannot believe that you had assumed that I mistakenly deleted the Bishara passage since I had actually referred to it in the previous edit summary (which you seemed to have read).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Oiboy, not everybody that you have a disagreement with is colluding with each other. To my knowledge there is not a foreign government coordinating "hundreds of thousands of non-jewish activists" to add sympathetic statements like the Israeli gov't is currently doing with Jewish activists. [[5]]

There wasn't a thesis, just some relevant points lifted and sourced from human rights articles. You deleted that. Do you know what a thesis is? Sarastro777 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were using it to prove the implied thesis that Israel does not care about civil rights of its citizens. Do you what a point of view is? How about a conspiracy theory? Do you know what that is? The supposed to "coordinating hundreds of thousands of non-jewish activists to add sympathetic statements" is so far from the truth it is funny. The software was created by a Jewish group with no ties to the Israeli government, the only thing that even hardcore anti-Israeli folks have tried to note was that a few trainee diplomats have downloaded the software.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to say "implied" because I have never written that. It's all in your mind and I can't be held accountable for whatever is in there. A theory is something without facts. On the contrary, what you call a conspiracy theory is documented in major media outlets.

Amir Gissin, Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is urging people everywhere to contribute to the war effort in this way. "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference" he said. "So, please spread the word to all Israel's supporters." [[6]]

Does that sound like a "few trainee diplomats"? Is Amir Gissin part of my grand anti-semitic delusion because I hate Israel and have an "implied thesis" to show it hates all human beings? Did you ever consider that an extremist Pro-Israel POV might make someone see even an objective piece as vehemently biased? Sarastro777 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Its all in my head, of course, its not as if you are using a number of inappropriate accusations to paint a picture of Israel that isn't directly supported by any single source you are using.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel and the UN

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg up to his usual behaviour at Israel and the UN - inserting POV. Check it out. 86.27.62.142 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Admins

Funny, you once said this: [7] -- Avi 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, your constant personal attacks by claiming every non-anti-Israel editor is a harbinger of some vast internet conspiracy is both insulting and reminicent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or do you believe in that as well? -- Avi 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm you need to read the edit history. I've never made any such claim, I am sure there are many that wish I had so they could easily discard what is a credible story. If any of us had direct evidence of specific people working on the command of the Foreign Ministry on here, we would be talking to the media not blabbing on discussion pages. At this point it is something to be aware of, and a possible explanation for very unusual behavior by other editors on Middle East pages. i.e. deleting objective information, warning people on rules they haven't violated, seemingly coordinated activity, pushing uncited information to 'justify' Israel at all costs and despite all guidelines. Another explanation could be there are just simply many Zionists pushing their ideology at all costs. However, pretending like Operation Megaphone is just a "conspiracy theory", or some purely anti-jew fantasy, or ignoring the fact the propaganda operation is real just plays into the hands of those who DO engage in conspiracy theories. e.g. "See they aren't even supposed to acknowledge it!" type of stuff. Sarastro777 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Protocols, I have only a superficial knowledge of them. I have no idea who made them or where they come from :-) Not sure that I care... that was a long time ago. Sarastro777 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage is not a place to keep material that is blatantly divisive and contains personal attacks. I have removed the offending material. Metamagician3000 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't decide what goes on my userpage. Don't vandalize it again. Sarastro777 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see below. Thanks -- Avi 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage ownership or lack thereof

FYI, Sarastro, may I direct you to WP:OWN and specifically Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. While I agree with you that silly edits to a userpage are uncalled for and are bad form, userpages are subject to many of the same rules as articles, and attack material may be deleted. Thanks. -- Avi 17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The same article says the pages are given wide lattitude and should not be edited by others. Likewise I will not tolerate people censoring data relevant to Wikipedia because they have extremist points of view. It is especially inappropriate on my own userpage. There is no attack material. Leave it alone. Thanks Sarastro777 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that in the eyes of a couple of other admins, your text is attacking. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:User page#Removal as well. Seriously, Sarastro, if a number of people start complaining, especially those whith whom you have had little interaction, you may wish to reconsider your text. Wikipedia is not a blog, even the userpages. Just a word to the wise. -- Avi 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the material will be seen as a generalized attack on Jewish and Israeli editors. I can't see how it contributes to our goal of writing an encyclopedia. I'd appreciate it if you would remove it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I know you are cognizant of WP:3RR, but it would be fair to warn you that between your userid and your IP (when you forget to log in) you are really close to it on your user page. A self-revert would help you out here. -- Avi 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, "generalized" means it's not a "personal attack" which is what is forbidden. Any attack is merely your perception. Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV and this page clearly documents a very large government-orchestrated project to thwart that goal. It is important that editors are informed of this operation so we can be vigilant and insure Wikipedia's standards are followed. This merely repeats what is documented in the sources given citation. It's merely coincedental that it happens to be the Israeli Gov't using "Jewish activists" THIS time. You should be thanking me for pointing out possible sources of malintentioned bias that could be introduced to the Wikipedia Project. Sarastro777 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, your credibility drops when you write like that. Anyone who edits not to your liking is a pawn in this vast conspiracy. We should thank you for you vigilance. Sarastro, most people here are somewhat more sophisticated than an eight-year old, and your pose of righteous indignation is getting somewhat tired. JMO, of course. -- Avi 17:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You just lost the argument by calling me an 8yo, that's a personal insult that was made because you have no policy or procedural grounds to stand on. Anyone who vandalizes my userpage against my wishes is violating several major guidelines. You have all been asked to stop. Leave it at that and stop the insults and inventing yet more conspiracy theories I am allegedly engaged in. Thank you. Sarastro777 17:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, I presume you are a native English speaker, your posts indicate such. Please, carefully read my post. I nnever said you were an eight year old. You are being a wee bit defensive. I said that WE, your audience, are more sophisticated than eight-year olds, and your screaming "massive world-wide conspiracy" does not give you any more or less credibility than anyone else. We've "collaborated" on Human Rights, etc., and I think that you are intelligent enough to understand what I posted, so I'll assume good faith and put down your above post to an instinctive defensive reaction without fully reading what I wrote. Regardless, you have quite a bit to offer Wikipedia, if you can edit within the framework of rules, policies, and guidelines, that ALL wikipedians must adhere to. Step back from your emotional defensiveness for a moment, and realize you will do yourself, wikipedia, and all of us much more good if we can all edit within a reasonable framework. Think about it a while. Also, editing your userpage to remove inflammatory remarks is completely allowed by wikipedia policy; please refer to the links I posted above -- Avi 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As per discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, your userpage has been blanked of uncivil statements and should remain that way. Please do not re-add any more attacks. --InShaneee 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you find something uncivil, does not give you a right to censor it, or "blank" as you are calling it. Why have you not followed the procedure for Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution and instead abused an Admin tool intended to prevent vandalism so that your arbitrary POV is forced upon the rest of us, specifically my userpage? Do you really think that is in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia? Uncivil statements are ones like you have made, accusing me of "attack" while doing so yourself and bypassing established procedures to handle content disputes. Sarastro777 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For your own benefit

Sarastro, you are both in danger of violating 3RR, and WP:NPA. Please, step back a moment and think about what is happening here. You have what to add to the project and community, but you are going about it in a way which is divisive. Please be careful.

For the record:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

-- Avi 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you quoting 3RR when that is not an issue with this page? The probelm are extremists censoring opinion on a userpage where it is allowed. Please don't misclassify on the record quotations of other users as personal attacks. If you have a problem with my userpage you need to follow steps to Dispute Resolution. Sarastro777 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I did, and you are ignoring. Secondly, you are in imminent danger of violating WP:3RR on your user page, if you have not already. -- Avi 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Warning

You bypassed Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution by blanking my page and then using an Admin tool to protect it. Blanking is vandalism, especially after you continued your behavior despite being warned. Misuing a protect without discussion or involvement in an article also constitutes an abuse of the tool especially when involved in a content disagreement.

{{blatantvandal}}

Sarastro777 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Please feel free to appeal my decision through whichever channels you see fit. Thanks. El_C 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't need your permission, but so you know... understand that I intend to. Sarastro777 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. It was not intended as premission to, but rather, a restatement of my position. El_C 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Querido Comandante, gracias. Sarastro777 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

WP:AN/I is the Administrator's noticeboard. Your complaint about your user page is more appropriate there. The "Vandalism in Progress" page is more for the guys who write "poopy" on random pages until they're stopped. Bucketsofg✐ 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guy

I'm not interested in addressing your [from my perspective] odd assertions about my "potential conflict of interest", but I felt it necessary to point out to you here, rather than on WP:AN/I, that such statements have no place in civil discourse, and have absolutely nothing to do with either the discussion that preceded [nor followed] my statement, nor do they do anything to address the issue I raised, namely, that WP:AN/I is, despite what you've been told [above] to the contrary, the place to resolve your dispute with other editors. If you are incapable of reaching an amicable understanding with the admin who protected your page, the place to bring it up is WP:AN/I. That said, however, it appears quite clear that every single person who has bothered to take the time to examine the situation, agrees that Inshanee and El_C's actions were appropriate. If you are going to make any headway, shy of coming to an understanding with Inshanee and El_C, WP:AN/I is not the proper venue. Nor is WP:AN/I the place to hash out an agreement with Inshanee and El_C. Take it to some step in dispute resolution. That, and that alone, is all I've addressed. I have not looked at what the content of your userpage used to be, nor, at least at this juncture, do I feel particularly compelled to do so. I started out trying to help you out by pointing out that you're going about this all wrong, and you've decided to pronounce me unfit to speak. At this point I seriously wonder whether it's worth my time to try to help you resolve your dispute... Tomer^talk 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact you are unfamiliar with the assertions on the userpage is why you are accusing me of being uncivil. If you read the assertions you would see they involve two newspaper articles which document the Israeli Foreign Ministry using "hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" to place Pro-Israel propaganda on a variety of Internet venues. Since your userpage lists your involvement with the Judaism project then it should be fairly obvious why despite your own apparent lack of involvement your objectivity could be called into question. Best to leave this to those disinterested so the matter can get a fair hearing. The rest of it is already covered in AN/I article. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Sarastro777 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I accuse you of incivility because you turned my note about the inappropriateness [and futility] of using WP:AN/I as a forum for dispute resolution, into an assertion that anything I might have to say as highly suspect simply on the baseless grounds that I am a member of WikiProject Judaism. No amount of remiswording things is going to change either of those simple facts. [In case you're wondering which 2 simple facts I'm referring to--(a) WP:AN/I is not dispute resolution and (b) saying I can't be trusted because I'm a member of WP:Judaism means I'm highly suspect is a baseless assertion.] As I said previously, I'm not particularly interested in the content of your userpage, nor even in your conduct in your dispute with the protecting admin. My interest thus far has been exclusively in telling you that pursuing this drama on WP:AN/I is an exercise in futility. Nobody there disagrees with the actions that have been taken. You may be assured, however, that your continued assumptions of bad faith on my part will feature prominently in any contribution I make to any future efforts you make in the dispute resolution process. I therefore recommend that you seek to resolve this with the protecting admins, because the path you're presently on is one that can come to no good end. If you can't refrain from personal attacks and denigration of Jews for the simple fact that they're Jews, I won't raise a whimper in your defense...to do so would be, on my part, an effort to promote ignorance on the Project, which is antithetical to the goals thereof. Cheers, Tomer^talk 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, thank you for summarizing your interpretation of everything at great length. If you can't accept a potential conflict of interest you may have, then we have no basis for further discussion. The anti-semitic martyrdom ploy is completely uncalled for. I'm not interested in you calling me a jew-hater and telling me your subjective opinion that nobody agrees with me, or calling me ignorant. Apparently your idea of conquering ignorance is to launch into baseless namecalling. Unless you have something productive to say that is not repetitive, I would suggest you are wasting your time. By your own admission you have carried on this long over material with which you have absolutely no familiarity. The WP:AN/I board specifically states it is the appropriate place for informal complaints about Admin actions. Please also stop repeating yourself incorrectly on that matter. Sarastro777 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

As you are indisputably user:68.6.254.16, I should let you know you are extremely close to a 3RR violation on the article. Just a word to the wise. -- Avi 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you are willing to run the risk of an admin blocking you without warning that is your choice, I guess. By the way, please see my response to vanunu and how I sincerely believe that the AI article is not a support at this time to your statement, on the talk page. Thanks. -- Avi 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Further personal attacks

Regarding edits such as this: This is your only warning. Make any more attacks or harrassing comments against other users and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you are the Gestapo? It's calling a spade a spade. If people don't like being held up for scrutiny they shouldn't act like pinheads. Sarastro777 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was a personal attack, an insidious provocation, or the voice of reason, the Gestapo rhetorical question is out of line and is indicative of a lack of restraint on your part and therefore you are blocked from editing for 24 hours. As for my blanking and protection of your user page, again, so long as it targets specific editors, it counts as an attack page; i.e. needs to be taken to dispute resolution. El_C 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is El_C, it didn't target any specific editors and there weren't any "attacks." So you have now made up the "lack of restraint" rule, which is blockable? It gets richer with each moment. You must have a backlog of people on Wikipedia to block for "lack of restraint." Everybody else understands that edit disagreements lead to more balanced articles. You seem to think a better approach is to harass and ban people.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile: "We expect everyone to be bold: it's okay. Boldness is expected." [[8]] with your new rule where it is okay to ban people for "lack of restraint." Could you expand on this for me, so I understand how to not violate your rule in the future? Thanks

Sarastro777 01:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're quoting them to what end? I did not make out the "lack of restraint rule," I'm enforcing WP:NPA/NOT. Of course, I take exception to your mischaracterizations and view these as an extension of your hitherto abuse. El_C 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The ban says "lack of restraint", not "NPA" What was the personal attack? Is gestapo a forbidden word? Sarastro777 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking another editor if "[they] think [they] are the Gestapo" is not permitted. El_C 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is blocking for your buddy permitted? What about when it is over a conflict you are involved in? You seem to be interpreting a question as being the equivalent of "You are the gestapo!" I think that's probably a stretch at best. Sarastro777 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

S/he is not my buddy and that infalmmatory rhetorical question is outside the realm of civil discourse. El_C 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't rhetorical... and crying inflammatory at everything I say is really uncalled for, and perhaps in and of itself being uncivil. I found this..thought you might enjoy it: Podrán morir las personas, pero jamás sus ideas. I guess that isn't true on here, where you can block ideas. Sarastro777 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't rhetorical? You actually find it possible that he thinks he is the Nazi Secret State Police, an organization which no longer exists? El_C 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You referenced "that rhetorical question", i.e. "Is blocking for your buddy permitted?" Keep up! Dynamic conversation :-) Sarastro777 03:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

S/he is not my buddy and that inflammatory rhetorical question [i.e. "Do you think you are the Gestapo?"] is outside the realm of civil discourse. El_C 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're pushing it here. Please calm down. --InShaneee 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like getting blocked doesn't mean we're in a dispute. The warning stands. --InShaneee 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Second of all, if I do happen to see you flagrantly violating any more policies, I will take action, and that's that. --InShaneee 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned from WP:AN and WP:ANI

Hi, Sarastro777. You are hereby banned from posting on WP:ANI and WP:AN for one month, to run from when your current 24-hour incivility block expires. I proposed this ban here, as a subtopic to your latest ANI thread. It seems to me that you have taken a habit of using ANI as a general sounding-off area, forcing admins to pay attention to your many grievances, no matter how little they have to do with the function of the board. (That function is essentially "reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators.") Doing a quick and possibly not 100% exact breakdown of your latest 200 edits (before you were blocked), I make it 32 edits to articles, 71 edits to ANI, and the remaining 97 edits mainly to talkpages. I'm sorry to have to say this, but you seem to spend more time quarrelling than contributing. My perception of the issues you raise on ANI is that they often don't require any admin intervention. Take your latest complaint about Inshaneee, for instance: what you want from the community is that "Someone needs to have a word with her on how to behave and remain civil." That's no kind of an an admin job. Read the instructions at the top of ANI, where it says emphatically and prominently: "If your notice does not need the attention of people with administrator access, do not post it here." And even where you formally do ask specifically for admin intervention, your complaint tends to be insubstantial and unreasonable to the point that it's extravagantly unlikely that any admin will comply. At least that's my opinion. For admins trying to keep up with replying to and taking action on posts that are actually relevant to the function of the page, you waste time, wear out good will and patience, clutter up the page, and lower the tone of the place. As you can see from the responses to my proposal for a ban, there is plenty of dammed-up impatience on the subject. You will now take a month-long timeout from ANI (and from AN, which is always banned together with ANI, as it's only too easy to move a general complaining habit there instead). Please don't take it personally, you're not the first and are unlikely to be the last. It happens. I hope you will spend that month contributing more to articles instead.

To make sure I'm clear: a page ban does not involve any technical measures, such as blocking. It's your own responsibility to refrain from posting. Note that the ban applies to all posting on ANI and AN, not just to starting threads. You're not to post on those pages for any reason, nor from any account or IP. Please don't violate this ban, you'll only make trouble for yourself if you do, as any admin can then block you at discretion, no warning required. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Response

It's your call. Your analysis of my edits is flawed, as it factors discussion as somehow being unwelcome or unproductive. The discussion is necessary on articles like Israel, "Human Rights in Israel", etc because my edits will be prima facie deleted in entirety by the same editors/admins that gave you feedback on your question about banning me. The "damned up impatience" is more likely Admins waiting for an opportunity to ban an editor with whom they have content disagreements. I'm surprised to see making an effort to work with unreasonable people held as a negative point against me.

The arbitrary history length also ignores the major recent contributions I have made to Human Rights in Israel. The page says ANI is the place for informal complaints about Admin actions, and to use that or RFC but not both. So I used ANI. All my postings have been about specific actions by Admins which seemed blatant violations, with diffs documenting specifically what I felt were violations of policy guidelines and summaries of the appropriate guidelines. Just because nobody CHOOSE to take action does not mean that action was not required by my stated problem. The only other case was an editor calling people "jew hater" which is unacceptable in civil discourse. This was actually condoned as "calling a spade a spade." There are obviously some double standards and hypocrisy.

We all appreciate the effort of volunteers, but frankly the "you are wasting my time" attitude comes off as ivory tower groupthink. I was never given a warning or an advisement that what I perceived as harassment and abuse from Admins was acceptable and not to post about it anymore. I think this measure was undertaken with the feedback of editors with whom I have had Edit disagreements. In the interest of fairness, I should point out people like Jayg, Slimvirgin, Metamagician (blanked my userpage), El_C (blanked my userpage), Pinchas (works with Humus Sapiens) and most of the others are not unbiased sources of feedback. Anyway, your actions have condoned their abuse to continue, and paved the way for blocks for things such as "lack of restraint." It's not even clear what that means, since it is not mentioned anywhere as a real policy.

Obviously when people see this kind of behavior and censorship, which I continue to document... it makes them not believe in Wikipedia. It becomes clear that an established powerbase controls content, engages in harassment, and one will actually be blocked/banned for reporting such abuse. I'm not alone in this viewpoint, but the beautiful thing about the Internet is that if Wikipedia is not going to be an open source for verifiable edits, then there are plenty of other sites that do fulfill that need. I won't be surprised to see this stagnate, at least on controversial articles which will end up hopelessly biased as a matter of defacto policy.

Sarastro777 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A one-month ban is a warning. You're not the first to be banned from ANI, btw--for instance, there's an active administrator who's indefinitely AN/ANI-banned. In my opinion it isn't censorship to page-ban people who bloat ANI with repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted requests, and/or are unfruitfully and unendingly argumentative about big matters and small. It's defence of the useful function of the noticeboard. Please don't dismiss this kind of concern as coming from "ivory tower groupthink", but consider reviewing your own role, and whether you have not indeed been indulging in vexatious litigation. Welcome back in September. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Your presence is requested

As you have been actively involved in editing Israel please check out [Request for arbitration]

3RR on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Four reverts in 25 hours and 10 minutes is gaming the system, and you know that. This is not the first time you have violated 3RR on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please use the time to revisit WP:3RR. Thank you. -- Avi 07:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop trying to out another editor, or you may be blocked. See WP:HARASS, especially here. Thank you, SqueakBox 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have American telly and look forward to being on it tomorrow, SqueakBox 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked your account for harassment. If you wish to appeal, you may post on this page. I suggest you read this and this first. I'm prepared to consider unblocking if you agree to stop posting speculation about or links to speculation about the identity of your fellow editors. ElinorD (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If only quoting rules actually correlated to a real violation of them. This type of behavior is exactly why "Slimvirgin" is now an internationally notorious celebrity. I applaud you for shutting down discussion and free speech regarding serious conflicts of interest. You will go down with the defenders of Essjay as another person that is utterably incapable of understanding the concept of free exchange of ideas, a patsy if you will. The best part about this is it is all logged so people for years to come can look back and remember the hand you played in this mess :-) Sarastro777 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)