Welcome!

Hello, Mackan79, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Sr13 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring some links that I believe may have been part of the article at one time that demonstrate support for labeling him Anti-Zionist. As not all of these sources are acceptable for wikipedia, until I have more time to analyze the issues directly, I will refrain from reverting its removal for the time being.

• http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1234
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22577-2004May12_2.html
• http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_01_05.htm
• http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/28/1454248
• http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/500
• http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/04/28/news/12783.shtml

Remember, it is not what we think Khalidi is or is not, but if there exist reliable sources that claim he is. Wikipedia cannot have original synthesis, either positive or negative, it can only bring from other places, so if reliable sources call him anti-Israel, then the category is appropriate regardless of your or my personal opinions. Thanks. -- Avi 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease from removing sourced material from the article. This is sourced and relevant. This is not allowed in wikipedia. Amoruso 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, you're in danger of violating 3RR at Zionism. I'm leaving this warning in case you're not familiar with the 3RR policy, which you can review at WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your responses are too long, which is why they aren't being read. You're expressing frustration, but please try to see it from another point of view. I've asked you the same question about five times now, and I still don't have a response that's readable, which is frustrating for me. Please just say in one sentence what is misleading about including the historical material, because I genuinely don't see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be helpful if you would stop reverting. You're the one who wants to make the change, and so you should simply argue your case (succinctly) on the talk page and try to persuade people, rather than making changes even though people are objecting and clearly not understanding your argument. If you make a good case, we may end up agreeing with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think the problem may be that you've misunderstood the sentence. Just as "Land of Israel" doesn't refer to the State of Israel (a previous confusion), "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation-state. It can refer to a people. Jewish nationhood developed and didn't go away. It went through periods of decline, where fewer Jews would subscribe to it, and periods of renewal, where more Jews subscribed to it, but it didn't ever disappear. So your point that the nationhood stopped existing 2000 years ago isn't accurate, and perhaps that's the source of the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all controversial that "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation state. Even the Wikipedia article makes that clear. "Nationhood" means something closer to "ethnicity." Some nations have their own nation state and some don't. I think your misunderstanding of the first sentence does just boil down to your misunderstanding of the words, but these are linked and can be looked up by anyone else who doesn't understand them. This is quite common in Wikipedia and in other encyclopedias. Not every word can be explained. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Nation is not wrong. Have you read it? Look, the words are clear, and that is what nationhood means to the vast majority of people. How can there be a diaspora if there is no nationhood, or are you also going to say there is no diaspora? Anyone who doesn't know what certain words mean can look them up, because we link to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word means the same in America and in every other English-speaking country. You're simply claiming that "no neutral writer" would include that material in the first sentence, but you haven't yet said why not. I can't keep on having a discussion about what a word means, with respect, when it's perfectly clear, and when the Wikipedia article explains it for anyone who doesn't know. That is why we link to words, so that we don't have to explain the meaning of every single word in every single article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, if you didn't know the difference between Land of Israel and State of Israel, or the difference between nationhood and nation-state, then why are you editing in this area? I mean no disrespect by asking this; my point is that this vocabulary crops up frequently in articles about these issues, and if you don't know what the words mean, you're going to come up against these problems time and again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, can I ask that you post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that current NPOV dispute you're in. I haven't investigated the issue you're dealing with fully, but it looks like you've got the "usual suspects" on you as well (I'm involved with an apparently similar series of disputes elsewhere). Good luck in your endeavors. If you need anything, send me a message. .V. 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your dispute as well. The "usual suspects" are definitely key words here as V has stated. Send me a message as well if you need any advice. I might have some info for you. MetsFan76 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One particularly good way to deal with it can be found at User:.V./NPOV. Just follow those steps and you should be good to go. Also, keep an eye out for misdirection. Oftentimes, if you have a legitimate point, one of the first things to be done is for a functionally irrelevant issue to be brought in as essential to the discussion, so make sure you stick to just what's necessary. Good luck m8. .V. 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your email turned on here? Might be easier to discuss certain things without having to name them on here. MetsFan76 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I just tried emailing you and it says that you haven't turned on your email yet. MetsFan76 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan and MetsFan, if you want to contact me to talk about this (maybe we can group email each other on this topic), my email is located on my user page (it's on the right under userboxes.) .V. 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You asked about mediation. It is described at WP:MEDIATION, but in my opinion it is not a good idea at the moment either for Zionism or Folke Bernadotte. If you calmly compare Folke Bernadotte now to what Amoruso would like it to be, you will have to agree that it got better. That's progress so it's better to work on improving and expanding what's there now than to take it back to previous versions that won't stick. Cheers, Zero^talk 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked for 3RR for 24hrs with respect to this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- if you find yourself in an edit war, with anyone, for any reason, just stop and go to the talk page. Nothing is so important that Your Version Must Be In Wikipedia NOW. Step back and talk and most of the irritation and frustration will turn into useful discussion...Also, you need to know that a lot of readers of online stuff are much different from readers of printed stuff -- nature of the medium seems to be that short paragraph writing, almost telegraphic conciseness, is far more effective than longer forms. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan79. The 3RR rule is about the most prescriptive rule we have and if you really did more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period (I didn't try to check) then you broke it. There are very few available defences, such as reverting vandalism (and for this purpose even the rantings of the worst political fanatics don't count as vandalism). Arguing about the motives or behavior of the person you are reverting is a waste of time on the 3RR page; complaints like that should go to another place such as WP:RFC. It is best to just accept it and wait for the expiry of the block. Last time I broke the rule, I just blocked myself to save anyone else the bother. One other thing: my experience from being around here for a few years is that people tend to read the first few sentences of long arguments and not the rest. So usually it is more effective to distill your main points into a few lines than to present a detailed case. On the Bernadotte article: my plan is to expand the part about the Nazi accusations into its own small section with good sources, then (maybe) to move it to later in the article. Then it won't be juxtaposed so jarringly with the account of his rescue mission. Cheers, Zero^talk 03:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

SlimVirgin made the initial request, but she was heavily involved in the incident, commiting her own 3RR violation at the same time. Is it possible to take a second look? Mackan79 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, SV's statement that I was recreating a section isn't true. I moved a section which was already there after asking her, and she didn't object. From her previous explanations, I also had no reason to think it had been moved intentionally, and several reasons to think it wasn't. If she had not been involved in the incident her statements could be taken at face value, but she was very much involved, and in fact the only reason she is not reported right now for her own 3RR violation is because she was succesful in blocking me first while I was in the process of reporting it. Mackan79 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I've decided to cut some slack this once. Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Yamla and I agree that I asked Mackan79 to post the above message. I would like another admin to review the case for unblocking. --Yamla 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make this easy. If you'll stop edit warring (and I do not care who else has been edit warring), I'll unblock you. This means working to reach consensus on the talk page of article in question, rather than battling out on the article page. Agree? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpgordon, thanks for the comment. If you'll change your sentence to "If you'll refrain from edit warring..." then I'll unqualifiedly agree. I just can't agree not to register a similar report against SlimVirgin if I feel like it. If that's consistent with your condition, then thanks very much. Best, Mackan79 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, because you need to stop edit warring; agreeing to "refrain" doesn't mean you admit to having done so, but it's evident you have been. As I've said, in this regard, I don't care who else has been involved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, if you look at my edits, you'll see the /vast/ majority of them are on talk pages. I've actually been ridiculed for how much I've been talking on talk pages. Virtually every time I've edited something, it's been with a very full explanation, and virtually every time I've reedited, it's been explained again, along with a change to please the reverter. This time, SV wikistalked me into the FB article, and reverted me three times without any comment whatsoever. With another user, I reverted her twice, explaining in extensive detail each time. That's truly the closest I came at any point to edit-warring.

So I'll concede, on that edit, that I should have waited. I pledge that next time I will simply wait. I simply can't pretend I've been broadly edit warring, though, when I haven't.Mackan79 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Slim wasn't "wikistalking" you; careful throwing that expression around. Read Wikipedia:Harassment; you'll see it says explicitly that wikistalking does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Most of us do exactly the same thing: if we note that an editor is violating WP policy, or making errors, we look at their contributions to see if they've been doing the same thing in other places. Some editors do incorrectly conflate this with the harassment and disruption that constitutes "stalking". I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can jump in here....Jpgordon...have you told SlimVirgin that he needs to stop edit warring as well? To me, this looks like a veteran editor bullying a relatively new one. MetsFan76 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps. On the other hand, I agree with what she says: Mackan, you've reverted around 23 times on just a couple of articles since December 11, despite having made only 160 edits to articles overall, and around 48 since December 11, so reverting is a very large percentage of what you do on Wikipedia. You might therefore consider toning down your claims about other people.[1] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but doesn't an edit war usually involve more than one person? MetsFan76 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I can say, it's not fine, because that is a complete and utter distortion by SlimVirgin. Have you looked at my differences page? I don't know what she based that on, but the reason I've been going back and forth in some instances is that I've been trying to improve certain POV and blatantly defamatory material on several pages on Wikipedia. I have not done it in an aggressive manner whatsoever. On the Zionism page, I made reverts in several instances, always changing my suggestions, only when after multiple attempts I wasn't able to get anyone to respond on the talk page. This was not revert warring; I had no pretensions I'd overpower anyone. If you look at my talk page, I have 1 person accusing me of removing material -- a known controversial user -- while I have 1 warning for a 3RR from SlimVirgin. Again, simply look at my differences page. I have no idea how she even counted my reverts, but whatever it is, it is a completely meaningless statistic.

Have you really seen my interaction here? To the extent you have, you seem to have agreed that I talk too much. I can't believe if you've observed me that you truly think I'm simply an edit warrior. That is the complete antithesis of what I've been doing. Please look at my differences page if you doubt this. Mackan79 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan.....was that directed at me? MetsFan76 00:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I appreciate your support very much. I don't think you've seen enough of my interaction in any case to know whether it's a true reflection. While I also appreciate the time from Jpgordan, though, I also have to admit that I find this very insulting. I'm restraining myself from saying more. I appreciate your time, Jp, but I am not an unreasonable person, and I would appreciate the effort to see this from my side, which if you did, you would not be quoting SlimVirgin to me to convince me that I've been reverting people too much. Mackan79 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok...well like I said in my email, I definitely support you. I think that SlimVirgin and Humus use bullying-tactics to get their way. It is very unfortunate. Are you unblocked yet b/c this is getting ridiculous? Also, I will make sure some time tonight to read through all your interactions with SlimVirgin. As an outsider, I might be able to see things differently. MetsFan76 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No luck so far. Thanks again, though. Mackan79 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I repeat: I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. Anyway, enough of this. Tone it down in general, OK? Regardless of what other people are doing. Keep a cool head. I've unblocked you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats Mackan! Don't let this silly incident keep you from editing though. SlimVirgin isn't worth it. MetsFan76 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey...I sent you an email. MetsFan76 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom, is it? You emailed me, right? Sorry for the lack of response; I didn't have an anonymous email set up, so I was concerned with giving out my email. Thanks for the comment in any case. Best, Mackan79 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see that you have been getting into it with SlimVirgin. I would suggest not getting into battles with her or anybody since its almost always a no win situation. I would suggest trying to get as many other editors invloved so "consensus" can be reached. Certain articles are always going to have people who have a certain POV even though everybody will claim to be neutral, its just human nature. Many articles are very frustrating because people feel very strongly about their position even though Wikipedia's prime directive, if you will, is that you should NOT have one :) Anyways, don't get into revert wars if possible. This is just one very small editors opinion so feel free to totally disregard it and do what you will/want. Cheers!--Tom 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mackan79, I took the liberty of removing the analysis you wrote on my user page for the following reasons:

1. It is rude to write on someone else's user page. Your argument would have been more appropriate on my talk page and you should have allowed me to make my own decision about what would or would not be appropriate on my own user page.
2. Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.
3. Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ever be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective. --GHcool 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attack on Pco may be malicious, but I maintain the opinion that I have quoted her fairly. Consider the context:

"I think that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea - Mahmood must have learned something. At least now he doesn't say he wants to wipe Israel off the map, he says he knows the Zionist regime will be wiped out. There is a big difference. Yes, let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors. The thing that feeds the fire is exactly the same as what Bush tries to do here - namely, make everyone feel that if they do not support him in whatever he does, we are unpatriotic. Well Olmert wants everyone to feel that if they do not support his policies, then they are not good jews or are not good zionists."[2]

From this paragraph, it is hard to tell what Pco believes. There is no doubt in my mind that she thinks that President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert are as bad or worse than President Ahmedinejad. Naturally, this is an opinion I disagree with, but she is entitled to it. She is also entitled to the opinion "that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea" even though I disagree with it.

Your analogy of deliberately omitting the second clause of a compound sentence does not apply here because the second clause of Pco's compound sentence is "Mahmood must have learned something." Even if I were to include it back into my exposé, the message would not change drastically as it did in your analogy. The only reasonable complaint one could make on behalf of Pco is that I did not include the part where she contradicts herself by writing "let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors." I did this because its a ridiculous statement; when have racists ever "realized their errors" before it was too late? Also, because she tries to have it both ways by calling the Holocaust denial conference "a good idea" and an "error," it leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both sides of the argument.

In short, this quote was of Pco's own making. I simply chose how to report and interpret it and I did so with journalistic integrity. If you are asking for clarity, the request is better asked to Pco, and I would be happy to print her response on my user page if I see fit to do so. Take care. --GHcool 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest with you, Mackan79, I wish I could interpret Pco's statement the way you do. It really would make me feel better about her and about Wikipedia in general. I am being completely sincere about that point. However, Pco's edit history, her history on talk pages, and the actual statement she made that we are currently disputing makes it very difficult for me to come around to your side. If she was using sarcasm like Churchil, she did it unclearly and ineptly. Furthermore, comparing Olmert's Zionism to Ahmedinejad's anti-Semitism is very strange, wouldn't you agree? It doesn't seem very likely to me that she was completely against the Holocaust conference, but her statement is so wild that it is hard to tell. As hard as I try (and I've reread her statement several times), I simply cannot see any evidence for your interpretation that she meant that the Holocaust conference was a good idea because it shows "because it shows Ahmadinejad's true colors." I wish I could see it, but I don't. Even if I did, consider the argument you say Pco is making:

• (1) Someone came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.
• (2) Having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran "shows Ahmadinejad's true colors."
• (3) "Ahmedinejad's true colors" should be publicized and internationally condemned.
• (4) Publication and international condemnation of "Ahmedinejad's true colors" is moral.
• Therefore, (5) the person that came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran is moral.

P.S. Pco actually is a politician, or at least associated with a political organization so she should be able to choose her words more carefully.[3]

I'll tell you what, Mackan79. I intend on keeping the statement as it is in my user page because I think I quoted her fairly and did not misrepresent her opinion any more than she misrepresented it herself. Her argument was wrong, her wording was wrong, and her she doesn't have any respect from me anyway. Naturally, I wish you wouldn't report this as a personal attack, but that is your choice. In elementary school, we used to give the title of "tattle tale" to people who report the alleged abuse of one person on the behalf of third person who has the ability to report the abuse themselves. On the playground (and in adulthood), this practice is socially frowned upon, but not illegal and arguably not immoral. There is very little a kindergartener or a Wikipedian could or should do to stop someone from tattle taling on them. Therefore, to use this shameful tactic is entirely up to you and I will have no choice but to accept whatever decision your own actions. However, for your sake of your own honor, I urge you instead to ask Pco to clarify what she meant or else ask her to report me herself so that your hands are clean. Again, you seem to be pretty moderate and so I have no direct quarrel with you. --GHcool 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then, that your previous statement at 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC) that you would "be happy to tell PCO and have her deal with the situation" no longer stands because you are now concerned that "[s]he may well fear that if this is tied to her personally it could have damaging consequences?" [4] Were you less concerned for her honor less than a day ago, or did you just change your mind because you want me censored as soon as possible? [Personal attack removed by Mackan79 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)] --GHcool 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, do not leave hostile comments on people's user pages. I assumed it was a mistake, but I see from your comment that it was deliberate. It could be interpreted as vandalism in future, so please stick to leaving messages on talk pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I will ask another admin to keep an eye on you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I won't bother you with advice again, but will ask another admin to watch the situation instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll say it, then. Don't edit other people's user pages, unless you're specifically invited to (some people do that; very few, though.) That's what talk pages are for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mackan.....whats the deal with SlimVirgin? Is she going to monitor everything you do now? Anyway, happy holidays!! MetsFan76 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy holidays, m8. :) .V. 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing someone of being a holocaust denier, or supporting holocaust deniers, is excedingly egregious, whether that person is seen as having credibility or not. I will report the statement unless PCO does as defamation as per Wikipedia's don't make legal threats page, which suggests I was correct in leaving a comment. Also, why didn't you respond on my page? It would be nice, if admins are going to post insulting messages on my page, that they post their follow-ups there as well. Mackan79 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with allegations of this kind being included - see Naeim Giladi. Speaking out is not good for your participation. PalestineRemembered 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed ad nauseam on the Talk: page for weeks before you showed up. I don't need to constantly repeat arguments I made there weeks ago. Also, please read the big yellow box at the top of my Talk: page before posting there. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from my wikibreak. I haven't been following that article; it may not be a topic I particularly care about, and I don't know what's new these last two weeks. If you are still having problems reaching some sort of detente, and you think you are right and just outnumbered, you could try an WP:RfC and possibly rake in a few impartial editors. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked. I guess y'all worked it out; I didn't want to seem unresponsive anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have something concrete to post on WP:ANI against Jayjg if you wish to pursue it. Your comments on his talk page was clearly regarding his conduct, and should not have been deleted. But then again, much of his behavior in this dispute has been regrettable, even though I agree with the point he is trying to make. I hate the tactics though.

Here's an example of our position, if a group of 5 mathemiticians formed an organization that now states that 2+2=5, should the article say that "most people" disagree with the conclusion? Granted the view should be presented but is it not misleading to make something obviously false appear plausible? In this case, the situation is much more dire, because very few people understand various religions and how they relate to each other. Because Jesus was a Jew, many people reading the article may believe that a claim of being both religiously Jewish and Christian is possible. With that said, since JfJ does not make this claim, I don't believe the references to Judaism are even necessary in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your case for Mediation from the Mediation Committee has been accepted. Your re-agreement is required at the case page under Request for Mediation; prompt action on your behalf would be appreciated in order to commence the mediation as soon as possible.

If you have any questions about my contributions, personal mediation style or otherwise, please contact me at my talk page, or email me at anthony (dot) cfc (at) gmail (dot) com - all email communication is private unless stated otherwise.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell me whether I filed the request on Anti-Zionism wrong, or was it an inappropriate request? I'm not very familiar with the procedure. Thanks, Mackan79 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you filed the request correctly. I just rejected it; see the rationale I added to the WP:RPP request. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mackan! Forgot to wish you a Happy New Year!! What did you get yourself into here? lol I'm in my own mess right now regarding the use of the swastika in the Hinduism welcoming template. MetsFan76 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right. I was seeing red at the time and misused some words. Moshe just jumped into the discussion and clearly stated that he has nothing to add except that I am being uncivil. He just wanted to defend IZAK. When I responded to his comments, he disappeared. Too much drama in here sometimes!! =) MetsFan76 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I have been watching with some interest the back and forth you've had at Religious antisemitism. With a completely different user, I've had a similar experience ... and am currently hoping other people begin participating in the article or the talk page. Just thought I'd let you know I empathize with this "process." Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update; I ended up filing an AN/I and a checkuser. The checkuser result was declined. The AN/I was basically ignored, accidentally archived by a "bot" and then the bot error noticed by an admin who resurrected the AN/I. The story goes on ... but bottom line is the user with whom I was struggling has now been blocked indefinitely since they are thought to have been the reappearance of another previously indefinitely blocked user. Just thought I'd let you know that the process can work. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for Mediation, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus 2, has been accepted and mediation is now open. You are invited to participate in accordance with the mediator's instructions at the case talk page. For the Mediation Committee, Anthonycfc [T • C]

Were I you, I wouldn't particularily wikistress over religious anti-semitism at this point, though once I finish the article I am currently working on, I'll try to back you up. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, never mind. It seems the problems have already started. -- 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

At some point; unfortunately I'm busy reverting vandalism to anti-Judaism. :sigh: -- Kendrick7^talk 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you require any assistance in dealing with these people I am more than happy to assist. KazakhPol 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made multiple reverts in at Folke Bernadotte recently. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing to revert anyway, I've blocked you for 72 hours. You've already violated 3RR at this same article once before, and it was just unprotected. Please stop. Dmcdevit·t 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, please see my comment on the 3RR page. This is an extreme mistake. Literally, this was my only reversion on that page in 30 hours. I would ask, in any fairness, that you unblock me and allow me to respond fully. On Folke Bernadotte, there have been three editors who have been trying to protect the page against Amoruso's extraordinarily brazen and persistent revert warring. In all seriousness, you have no idea how hard we have been trying to respond to Amoruso's comments and work cooperatively in protecting the page, as policy requires. I appreciate your sentiment that we need to cut out edit warring with all sincerity, but I can't tell you the extent to which we have attempted to follow reversion policy on that page, and how arbitrary this block would be. Best, Mackan79 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack!!! I can't believe you got blocked! Was Slim reverting as well? Email me if you can't respond on here b/c of the block. MetsFan76 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you can message Dmcdevit just to ask him to read this and respond, I'd very much appreciate it. The block was literally for my only edit in 30 hours. Again, I appreciate his sentiment, but I think he did this much too hastily. Thanks, Mackan79 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will message him right now. MetsFan76 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. MetsFan76 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is a avery good reason for reverting right after I warned you, at the same article you've been warring at before it was protected a few days ago. And you have 3 reverts in 30 hours, not one. [5], [6], [7]. How can you possibly say that "I appreciate your sentiment that we need to cut out edit warring" when your responses to disagreeable edits are repeated reverts after warnings and protections? Dmcdevit·t 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the rule is 3 reverts in a 24 hour period except in cases of blatant edit wars. Mackan79 was not the only one taking part in this. I see SlimVirgin guilty of reverts as well but only got a warning. Why are they being treated differently? MetsFan76 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look again [See below, your assesment includes reverts that were not mine], but I just want to say first that I didn't know who you were when you left this message, or that there had been a 3RR report filed, or that this had anything to do with it. I would not have made the edit if I understood the situation. I had just come back from being away for nearly 24 hours. I did receive your message, but I assumed you were a friend of Amoruso, since I had only edited the page twice, I believe, in the last several days. This was a mistake, but I don't think it warrants being blocked. I'll look again at the history and your other points. Thanks for the response.Mackan79 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan....I also asked Dmcdevit why you were blocked but not SlimVirgin as you both were in the edit war. MetsFan76 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Mostly, though, I just want to make clear that I wasn't actually repeatedly reverting in any short amount of time, but making absolutely every effort to work cooperatively with the other editors.Mackan79 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well the anonymous user there you linked to isn't me. I reverted Jan 14 at 1:44AM[8], Jan 14 at 7:06AM [9], and then not again for 34 hours, actually, until Jan 15 at 17:24[10]. So it was actually a total of nearly 40 hours, before which I hadn't edited for a number of days.Mackan79 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who I am; that has no bearing on whether you should have edit warred or not. However, your assumptions there perhaps show why your attitude is wrong. SlimVirgin was treated no differently. I warned five editors. The only one I blocked was the one that reverted again after my warning. I'm concerned that you are treating it as if you are entitled to any number of reverts as long as they are under 4 in 24 hours. That is not correct. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit...while I respect your handling of this, don't you think 72 hours is a little harsh? Any chance of bumping that down to 24 hours considering he is the only one being blocked? I would greatly appreciate it. MetsFan76 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 was blocked for 24HRS for 3RR on this same page which is probably the reason the block is longer. Amoruso 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MetsFan -- one other thing, would you mind letting User:Jd2718 know about the situation? I don't think he realizes I was blocked. Thanks again.Mackan79 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem. But it looks like Amoruso wants to start trouble with me now. MetsFan76 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. Mackan79 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You owe me a barnstar!! LOL MetsFan76 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding :)Mackan79 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Amoruso likes me =( See what happens when I defend you!!! LOL MetsFan76 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, I appreciate your conern, truly, but there has to be some sense of fairness here. I assure you that I do not think I am entitled to make 4 edits in just over 24 hours, or to edit war generally. Here I made 3 reverts in 40 hours, with the one at issue coming 34 hours after the last, and in conjunction with a number of other supporting editors. I also appreciate that I should not make negative assumptions, but I also think you have to understand how hard I've been trying to deal with Amoruso in good faith. This has been extremely difficult, but I have tried again and again and again. I understnad the logic of what you did here, but I have to think you'll see that this isn't the best solution, particularly since unlike those involved at 3RR, I had no idea what was going on. I am very glad that this has all received attention, and I assure you that I will not make any further reverts in this dispute except by seeking oustide mediation, etc. Thanks again for your responses. Mackan79 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I did receive your message, but I assumed you were a friend of Amoruso, since I had only edited the page twice, I believe, in the last several days." - this is a very disturbing comment to me. Amoruso 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other comment: having seen the discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page, SlimVirgin's comment is inaccurate. I did not know about the warning, or about the 3RR report. All I knew was that an unknown user had left a message on my talkpage telling me not to edit war. Not having edited the FB page for 34 hours, I didn't take this seriously, and I subsequently reverted Amoruso's edit for the first time in 34 hours along with another explanation. After seeing the warning on the 3RR page, I was considering reverting myself, but responded on the 3RR page first. I was then immediately blocked, as Jd points out. Mackan79 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you didn't take it seriously. That is not a persuasive argument. You should not have been edit warring whether or not you had been warned, so it doesn't add up. Prohibition of edit warring is simply policy. You are free to email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for another administrator's opinion, but I feel I've explained myself well enough, and that we'll keep going in circles if this goes on. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit...this is ridiculous. 72 hours is uncalled for! MetsFan76 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmc, I reverted today one time, for the first time in 34 hours. I really don't understand how you think this was some sort of flagrant violation. I hadn't edited the page for 33 hours! I have never heard that a person could be blocked in this way. It's completely contrary to everything I've seen on WP. In fact, it's contrary to a discussion on the 3RR page right now saying SlimVirgin was fine to revert 3 times in an hour and a half, because there is no 2RR rule. I'm simply saying: If I had understood that you had drawn a line in the sand, this would be completely fair. But I didn't understand that. It was not clear to me, as it had been made clear to Jd, Amoruso and others. Under the circumstances, I think this makes the block very unfair.

Regarding your page, I was blocked once for 3RR, the only time I've ever been blocked, and the block was lifted. The block was an extremely complex situation involving another user who entered the page to quarrel with me. It was the first time I had ever been blocked, and it was lifted. As to the page protection, that was put in after anonymous users showed up some weeks ago. It wasn't to stop an edit war. Will you please give me another chance here? I think you've made your point very clearly, and I accept it, and I embrace it. This has already taken a lot of my time, I'd really appreciate not having to go through a huge additional amount of effort to deal with this.Mackan79 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me for butting in. You were unblocked not because of any "extremely complex situation" rationale; I unblocked you on the condition "If you'll stop edit warring (and I do not care who else has been edit warring), I'll unblock you," and only because I happened to be feeling particularly charitable. As I said in the unblock notice, "I've decided to cut some slack this once." No reason to hope you should get that charity again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon....that 3RR that you were referring to regarding Mackan79 also included other people which you failed to warn and/or block as well. It doesn't matter if you were in a charitable mood; its about being an admin and looking at both sides of the story which you are failing to do again. MetsFan76 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear again, SlimVirgin has decided to make me her nemesis since I first arrived on WP[11]. I don't know if Jd knows this. I would hope whether I'm blocked wouldn't rely on her assesment. Mackan79 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jp, did you look at the situation? I reverted twice in 34 hours and 3 times in 40 hours. I never reverted twice in a row, but did it along with several other editors. I have read that this is exactly what people are supposed to do! Now I'm being blocked for 72 hours? I really have no idea why I'm being singled out like this, except that Dmc issued this warning. But how is that fair when only some people knew what it was? Seriously, even if you think I acted inappropriately here, was it something that called for me being blocked, for 72 hours? I honestly had no idea I was acting inappropriately, reverting someone after 34 hours and with concensus on the talk page. Should I immediately have called for a mediation with Amoruso? I understand your strong opinions about this, but I really don't even have any idea what I was supposed to do here. Mackan79 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would like to state that your block is an outrageous and unjust act, which is absolutely typical of the way decent people get treated round here. Be strong and don't let these individuals grind you down! Best wishes... Abu ali 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail: I think its all been discussed above. 72h is quite long, but you were specifically warned William M. Connolley 09:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The problem is simply that I wasn't warned; the note on my page gave no indication of its nature. Unlike others involved, I had no idea a 3RR report had been filed, and since I didn't recognize Dmcdevit's name, and hadn't even edited the page in 34 hours, I couldn't make any sense of it (The message told me not to aggressively edit war, which I hadn't remotely been doing, so honestly I assumed it was a friend of Amoruso). Obviously if I knew about Dmcdevit's warning, I never would have edited the page.

This leads to Dmcdevit's point, that I shouldn't have been edit warring in any case. But then I'm simply wondering: for 3 edits over a total of six days, is a 72 hour block really called for? That's literally what I did -- you have to go back 34 hours to find my second revert and six days to find my fourth. I agree the ultimate question has to be whether I got a fair warning, I simply don't see how it can be said that I did. Mackan79 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you were warned. You seem to be saying that because you didn't know it was an admin who could block you, you could ignore the warning. Thats not right. I think 72h is a bit high, but until you stop this stuff about "not warned" I don't think you'll make any progress. If you show some contrition and promise to leave the article alone you might well get somewhere William M. Connolley 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I promise not to continue reverting on the page, although I'd very much like to continue in the discussion. I understand I should have taken Dmcdevit's comment more seriously, and I won't make that mistake again. I simply thought it was fair pointing out that the warning I got wasn't quite the same warning that what was seen by the others, since otherwise what I did would indeed have been extremely brazen. I should have taken it seriously anyway, though, and again, I assure you that I won't make the mistake again. Mackan79 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added, just to be totally forthright: I'm hoping I don't have to promise never to edit the page again based on these mistakes. I do promise, though, that I know I'm marked, and that I'll be extremely careful to follow the advice I've been given to use conflict resolution in any dispute rather than reverting. Also, I'll certainly let others do any dirty work in resolving the current dispute on the page. Thanks, Mackan79 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted William M. Connolley 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the message. I knew you would probably be blocked (though I was a bit surprised about 72 hrs). Dmcdevit's warning was pretty clear. Not a big deal in the long run, as annoying as it may seem now. The article is being improved. Zero has been very good digging up solid sources. We will continue to resolve, bit by bit. The issues remain undue weight, and reliable sources, and both are pretty clear. Sit tight, and we will return to the talk page, where most of this should be hashed out anyhow. Jd2718 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72 hours is a bit extreme to say the least. MetsFan76 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The problem is simply that I had no idea I was being warned, because I had no idea about the 3RR report or any of that. I simply got a random message on my page telling me not to edit war, which I wasn't doing -- I hadn't reverted on the page for 34 hours, and even then I had only done it twice in the last several days. Honestly, since you guys had made the last several reverts, I figured it was my turn, in the spirit of spreading reversions of this type out, as I have read is recommended. Again, though, for you guys this is perfectly fair, but for me this was completely a trap, coming and editing a page after 34 hours and then finding out that some final line has been draw that I had no idea about. Plus, this wouldn't be half as annoying except that, as you know, I have been going to extreme lenghts to respond to every comment that Amoruso leaves on that page. Mackan79 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso isn't worth the aggravation so don't sweat it. Maybe we should edit some Pokemon articles in the meantime =). Btw...I sent you an email. MetsFan76 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea :) Are you sure you sent the email? I didn't get it yet. Mackan79 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just re-checked and it never sent. Gmail is funny today. I resent it now. MetsFan76 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall unblock you. Be very good in the meantime. Leave the article alone and if you engage in talk make sure its constructive William M. Connolley 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!! Glad to see you have been unblocked. I don't really agree with the admins telling you to stay clear of editing the article but hey...win some, lose some. I'll be waiting for my barnstar!! heh heh!!!MetsFan76 14:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan79 -- Just thought I'd disappear for a few days after causing a small wheel war over whether to 3RR me. Your assessment of the situation seems correct; I haven't taken a look yet at the latest discussion. I don't have a problem with the existance of an article on religious amti-Semitism; despite claims by Slim on Talk:Antisemitism, I'm not trying to claim no such thing exists. But they way she seems to want things portrayed is to make anti-Judaism out to be entirely synonymous with this specific form of anti-Semitism which fairly pejorative and innaccurate, as if Christianity were just a 2000-year-old anti-Semitic canard. To paraphrase a guest I heard on the Daily Show yesterday, I don't think its our job as editors to be the "hangmen of history". -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar!!!!!!! heh heh =) MetsFan76 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While she does have her own article on here, Judith Steinberg Dean probably isn't considered notable alumni just because she married a governor. She isn't listed on Albert Einstein College of Medicine notable alumni list at the university either. Btw...how's things going? =) MetsFan76 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Iceland ... Would like to go to the other Scandinavian countries ... Thanks for your note. Keesiewonder 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an attorney you must understand that Abu's the style of Abu's comments cannot be tolerated on wikipedia. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your comment on the talkpage with interest. What the Antisemitism and New antisemitism articles probably need is a historian of ideas. Perhaps we should tag the page with such a request.Itsmejudith 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avraham, I'm simply wondering if you've seen my repeated question about the Folke Bernadotte page. I'VE ASKED YOU NOW FOUR TMES, each politely, if you'd be willing to unblock the page. An entire week has gone by, with you continuing to edit daily. I'm not really sure what you're doing, but it comes across as not entirely civil. DO YOU NOT HAVE A POLICY OF RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS? If you would please respond, I'll be happy not to ask again tomorrow. Thanks, Mackan79 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you asked? If it is on the article page, I do not believe I have that "watched", although perhaps I should. As I wrote on the top of my user page, the best way to reach me is via e-mail, Further, it is much more likely that I will respond to my talk page, as I am doing now . Take a deep breath and assume a little good faith, and you'll find wikipedia a much easier place to handle. I'll take a look at the aforementioned page now. -- Avi 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Any admin can unprotect if they feel that the issues have become quiescent. That is the reason we have WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection. I notice that you did not use that either. No matter, I'm looking at Folk now. -- Avi 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now. I missed your edits because of some stuff I was involved in with deletions and Heart of Mary. You are correct, I apologize, I did not notice your edits. -- Avi 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Good luck. -- Avi 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I do my darndest to be civil and polite, and it took me a bit by surprise when you said "four times". But you were correct, I did miss them, and I in no way shape or form meant to be rude. Once again, thanks for understanding. -- Avi 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with this? You might want to revise your remarks on Talk:Antisemitism. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, you could make your point without bringing up Hitler. By the corrolary to Godwin's law, you automatically lose the discussion by bringing up Hitler first. I'm semi-serious. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on User talk:NewYork1956. Paul 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocals were Jussi's instrument. Tenor is not an instrument. NewYork1956 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell difference does it make? Voice and Vocals are the same damn thing. NewYork1956 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these other Opera singer's pages have "Vocals" in the same place: Maria Callas, Erna Sack, Giuseppe Di Stefano, Mario Lanza, Lauritz Melchior, Franco Corelli, Enrico Caruso, Pilar Lorengar, Alfredo Kraus, Licia Albanese, Kathryn Grayson, Hermann Prey and Jan Peerce. Why should Bjorling's be any different? It would look stupid if they're all different. Do what ever you want. I don't even like Bjorling, I just thought he deserved a better page, and I'd like to think that it is now compared to what it was before I touched it.

- NewYork1956 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Actually, I agree. I've chanhed them all on all those articles. NewYork1956 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan79, Hope you are well. I was wondering if you had any arguments to add to the discussion on undeleting the article on the Adam Keller court martal at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 26? Best regards Abu ali 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:POINT reference in my edit summary was not referring to your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know: [12] CJCurrie 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mackan

Thanks for trying to improve the way that the report is dealt with in the article and sorry you were summarily reverted. I have been trying to step back a bit to examine why the article would refer to this report and what bits it would refer to. I would really appreciate your view on this and then afterwards maybe we could turn to how it should be done.

The existence of the inquiry is clearly significant to the Antisemitism article, as it was a response to a real and perceived rise in antisemitic incidents and antisemitic discourse.

So, to what extent is the fact of this inquiry and its report relevant to the article New antisemitism, the purpose of which is to explain "new antisemitism" as a (contested) concept? Only tangentially, one might argue. Although the inquiry was set up in response to a rise in antisemitism, only some authors, not all, identify that rise as new antisemitism. If the article is about "new antisemitism" as a concept not as a phenomenon, then it is hard to say that the inquiry is relevant.

There is however, an overriding argument in favour of the use of the inquiry report as a source in the New antisemitism article. Because the recent rise in antisemitism (occasioning the inquiry) has been accompanied by a large amount of discussion of the term "new antisemitism", then the report will necessarily address questions that are at issue in that discussion (for example, the newness of this recent antisemitism, whether all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the extent of antisemitism on the Left and among Muslims).

Since the fact of the inquiry’s establishment is pertinent to the article, the article should briefly summarise, in the report’s own terms, the context in which the inquiry was established, the purpose of the inquiry and what its recommendations were.

Next, the debate around "new antisemitism" as presented in the article, suggests a number of questions on which the inquiry's views are relevant and should, if possible, be cited. Some of these would seem to be:

• How does the report define the term “antisemitism”?
• What does it say about the term “new antisemitism”?
• What does it say about whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
• What does it say about antisemitism on the Left?
• What does it say about antisemitism among Muslims?
• What does it say about a coalescence of views between the Right, Muslims and the Left (or any two of these)?

These are not exhaustive and it goes without saying that the report is a reliable source in WP terms and can be drawn on for further factual information. These could include points that the report makes in passing so long as the general argument of the report is not thereby distorted.

I would be very interested in any comments you have on the above. This is complex territory of course. An example of another contested concept treated rather more straightforwardly in the encyclopedia can be found at Homosexual agenda.Itsmejudith 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itsmejudith, thanks for the comment :) I don't have time to respond much, but I think we're very much on the same page. I almost posted a longer talkpage comment about how we really need to be clearer about what is being said and /why/ it's being said in that section. Currently, it's just some tidbits, in basically random order. I was trying to make the line of thought clearer with my edit, as I think I explained.

Anyway, basically I totally agree. I'm not sure I have other insights... did you want to go about changing it more dramatically? I was trying for something relatively minor just to make it a little clearer. Thanks for your thoughts, Mackan79 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_and_abuse_of_personal_userpage. Maybe you can intervene and ask this individual to calm down? Abu ali 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea Mackan. I won't have time to work on it this afternoon, but will this evening. We can draft something between us. Best,--G-Dett 18:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been rejected; please review WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise. MetsFan76 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty weird all the time. I'm barely even editing anymore; just a few vandalism reverts here and there. It's people like Jayjg and SlimVirgin that make it a very uncomfortable environment on here so I figure: let them play God in here while I go out and enjoy life because when they shut down their computers for the night, they are no different than you and I =) MetsFan76 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your suggestion, please comment on the New anti-semitism page. Also, I've forgotten my password so this is a new account. -- Tira

The Original Barnstar
For your civility in the Mediation Committe case, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Mackan79 the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]}

Well done sir!

I confess. Tewfik and I are one and the same. In fact, the conspiracy goes even deeper than that. As it happens, all the Jewish-Illuminati-Department-of-Homeland-Security Cabalists are in fact multiple personalities of a DARPA-sponsored orbital artificial intelligence satellite that became self-aware during the first years of the Bush administration? Why do you think we had to orchestrate the whole "war on terror" if not to distract the public from the terrifying reality that an evil zionist robot is controlling wikipedia and despite their considerable resources, the federal government is powerless to stop it.

I'm curious to know how a Washington attorney has time to do all this investigating. I deduce from your user page that you must, in reality, be an agent of the Bush administration, most likely working for a successor organization to the Office of Special Plans at the DoD, but conceivably the black intelligence unit of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I gather that your mission is to infiltrate the noble and ragged band of anti-Cabalist wikipedians and then undermine their credibility by spreading absurd accusations against their opponents.

P.S. Did you know that Hugo Chavez and Alan Greenspan have never been seen in the same place at once? Its because they're the same person.

Yours, GabrielF/Tefik/Jayjg/Slim Virgin/Jimbo/Top-secret world-controlling self-aware AI floating 400 miles above Kuala Lumpur

I can appreciate how wanting to find a connection can lead one to see what isn't there, and I don't blame you for that. However I do take offence at your 'respectful' description of me as a dedicated edit warrior with a combative style, and I question what type of response you imagined that that would elicit. Tewfik^Talk 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Mackan, I'm not going to even touch this one lol. MetsFan76 11:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better you not MetsFan, you may find yourself in Guantanemo. GabrielF 13:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain that GabrielF? MetsFan76 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo's just a decoy. The Arab guys making all the torture allegations are paid actors. The real prisons are much more sinister. You see, a few years ago we realized there just weren't enough geeky 14 year-olds to perform all the boring little tasks like sorting stubs, adding infoboxes, converting references into the right template, that sort of thing. We also had a problem with uppity editors thinking they could expose the cabal. So we decided to kill two birds with one stone. Now, if you speak out against the cabal you get shipped off to a secret Romanian prison where you're forced to categorize and wikify articles on Pokemon and romance novels. Why else do you think the templates were designed so sadistically? I mean, come on, do you think someone with even a modicum of empathy would design a system where you need to know the names of 15 different templates to build a succession box? GabrielF 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...whatever you are smoking, pass it around. I know of a few editors and several admins that would benefit from your hallucinogen. MetsFan76 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I found myself in a situation on February 21 where I was writing a response to GabrielF's explanation of Tewfik's revert. Sorry, I found that odd. Should I not have? I'm also sorry this has now escalated to wild personal attacks. In any case, I guess the first thing is to see what checkuser says. Mackan79 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I understood your last comment, but more importantly, having again reviewed your original notice, I'm very confused by 'evidence' like you pointing to the first seven months of my editing as proof that myself and GabrielF never edit at the same time, when I edited 1, 7, 1, 35, & 35 times respectively for each month of the first half-year, with only the 7th month being reasonably active at 397. Perhaps you should rethink your position? Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your presentation of the facts was fair and accurate Mackan79. There was nothing in that presentation that alleged a "Zionist" network conspiracy of some kind. Just a simple description of editing behaviour for two new users you encountered in a heated multi-editor war that struck you as odd. I agree, it is odd (though for disclosure to outside readers, I should mention that I was just recently blocked for a 3RR violation after Tewfiq reported me). I don't think that necessarily means one of them is the other's sockpuppet, but a check user might be in order. I find the strange anon comments here very disturbing, and they seem designed to scare people away from discussing a totally legitimate question regarding these users identities based on what you've presented. With respect. Tiamut 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not "totally legitimate." These are editors in good standing. As for them supposedly being "new," GabrielF has been editing since December 2004 and Tewfik since November 2005. Tiamut, please stop with the conspiracy theories. You were blocked for 3RR because you violated the policy, not because the person who reported you is a sockpuppet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Tiamut being reprimanded here? Shouldn't it be done on his talk page and anyway, he is entitled to his opinion. MetsFan76 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant new to the page in question, (GabrielF at least) not new to Wikipedia. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I am not disseminating "conspiracy theories". I gave my assessment of the presentation Mackan79 made at GabrielF and Tewfik's User pages and the subsequent commentary here. As for the circumstances of my block, you would know wouldn't you, being the one who issued it [13]. I shared that information for reasons of disclosure, to be honest about any biases I might have. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Tiamut 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, after reviewing the history of this page, I realize that it was GabrielF himself, and not some anon who posted the offensive and conspiratorial tripe on this page [14]. That means I would definitely recommend a user check. Any user who mocks and misrepresents the straightforward presentation of your concerns at his talk page [15] in such a fashion should be investigated a little further. Is there an impartial administrator out there who could help us out here? Thanks. Tiamut 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So everybody on one POV lines up to say that this makes sense? Since when is checkuser a punitive measure? Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tiamut. An appropriate response from GabrielF would be to explain the anomaly Mackan79 graciously pointed out. Instead he concocted a wild conspiracy theory and then tried to "plant" it on Mackan79. The ridiculous ruse seems to have been enough to dupe Slim; hopefully others will read more carefully.--G-Dett 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that the graciousness of my response was commensurate with the graciousness of the accusation. Same with the absurdity. GabrielF 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report created here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GabrielF

This really does make sense. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, didn't I tell you to be careful not to blow your cover?? Someone already figured out who I work for, you got to be careful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the results of the checkuser. [16] GabrielF 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you had to put up with so much abuse for asking a question with a valid basis, given that the clerks at checkuser did see fit to check it out. Some people seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between straightforward inquiries on bizarre editing behaviour, and conspiratorial accusations. Had GabrielF merely responded to your question with the same civility you showed him from the beginning, perhaps it would have never gone to a check user. Live and learn. Happy editing Mackan79. Tiamut 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section below I explicitly show how Mackan's accusation was not a harmless inquiry but a string of "conspiratorial accusations" as you put it. There may have been a "valid basis" for Mackan to ask me why I had left that edit summary, and I would have been happy to respond if thats all he did. Instead, he accused me of a year-long fraud, violation of several of our most core tenets, etc. I do not believe that making such absurd accusations against two users in good standing demonstrates "civility" at all. Nor do I see why I should "put up with [the] abuse" of having someone twist productive edits into something sinister. Mackan interpreted a night of counter-vandalism work as an attempt to orchestrate a coverup. In fact, this whole accusation arose because I chose to participate in the discussion of a controversial edit's merits on the article talk page rather than continuing an edit war by reverting blindly. GabrielF 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mackan79's suspicion that you were a sockpuppet of Tewfik's or vice versa was sparked, as he explained by a series of reverts that you and Tewfik made to the page Anti-Zionism in the midst of a heated edit war. The edit summaries for the reverts seemed to be inconsistent with the edit summaries for the talk pages, if I recall correctly. Instead of immediately accusing you of wrongdoing, Mackan79 looked further into your and Tewfik's edit histories. Based on that review, he seemed to think that there was something more to that original anomaly, and he articulated his concerns in toto. You may have been offended by the length of the presentation because it seemed to imply your guilt, but I believe that Mackan79 ws just trying to be thorough and not make accusations without foundation. Instead of responding to his concerns, you posted that garbage above (which you have yet to apologize for). You could have easily responded to just the first part of the accusation - i.e. the part about the weird edit summaries in the reverts at the anti-Zionism article, which you only later explained were due to your edit getting lost in a system glitch - and that might have been the end of the matter. Instead, you took the low road, if you will. IMHO, if you're going to demand an apology from Mackan79 for thinking there was something more to the system glitch than there actually turned out to be, I think it might be nice if you offered one up yourself for thinking there was more to his presentation than an honest mistake. (System glitch, remember?) With respect. Tiamut 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan,

Yesterday, when the checkuser proved your wild accusations to be completely unfounded, I had hoped that you would apologize of your own initiative. When I read your response to the results of checkuser I was a bit surprised to see that you hadn't. You have made demonstrably false accusations against me, and while I don't think there's any point in pursuing the dispute resolution process over this, I would like you to apologize for them.

Specifically you said that I:

1. Created a sockpuppet account
2. Maintained this sockpuppet account for seven months, never editing both on the same day
3. Engaged in counter-vandalism work on 2006-05-26, the purpose of which "would most likely have been orchestrated with a friend (or alone) to cover your tracks"
4. Am a "dedicated edit warrior" (along with Tewfik)
5. That the sockpuppet I created (Tewfik) used a "combative style of editing"
6. Used this sockpuppet to violate 3RR
7. Used the sockpuppet "bolster the appearance of support" - you pointed to six specific cases and hinted there might be more
8. Used the sockpuppet for vote fraud - you point to four specific instances (In fact I am surprised that we haven't voted the same way on more AfDs since I participate in AfD debates very frequently)

These are all very serious charges, and I think that looking back now it should be apparent to you how absurd they are. I would have had to carefully maintain two separate accounts for over a year, editing each heavily. In that time Tewfik accrued over 7,000 edits and I probably had about 3,000. You said that my explanation of the anomalous edit summary was "convoluted", but surely it is considerably more convoluted to assume that the anomaly was caused by a massive year-long conspiracy rather than a software glitch which anyone who frequently reverts vandalism has doubtless experienced a number of times.

Yes, I will use the word conspiracy here. You specifically raised the possibility that I had "orchestrated with a friend" a cover-up attempt on May 26. Further, it is no excuse for you to suggest that I was wrong to suggest that your accusations were a conspiracy theory because a conspiracy requires multiple plotters and you only hinted at the possibility that there were several of us. You attributed an unexplained event to a massive campaign of fraud purported by a mysterious force. The term "conspiracy theory" seems perfectly apt.

Your accusations were absurd and I responded to them with the seriousness that they deserved. Was I poking fun at you? Absolutely. I thought it was a better idea than unleashing a string of NPA and AGF warning templates. Was my response a personal attack, as you claim? I guess you could conceivably see it that way, but I think that explanation misses the point. I was trying to get you to rethink your accusations and see if they made sense. I chose to respond with bemusement rather than defensiveness. Maybe I'm a poor satirist. I did not, however, call you an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist as you say. The only thing I actually accused you of was being a secret agent for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I also identified myself as a rogue artificial intelligence with multiple personality disorder.

Regardless, you initiated a formal request for an investigation for massive fraud against two highly-experienced users in good standing on the basis of flimsy "evidence". As a lawyer you should know that this is unjust and insulting. I imagine you might feel pretty angry if a law enforcement agency obtained a search warrant for your home because they thought an odd but perfectly explainable situation was evidence that you had committed a crime. The right thing for you to do here is to apologize.

Yours, GabrielF 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might also consider whether, perhaps, you should be taking wikipedia a bit less seriously.

I was actually in the process of commenting on your page, which I did. In any case, I think you miss a few basic points here. 1. The basis for my request was not flimsy, but apparently an extremely strange coincidence whereby you actually believed you were explaining a revert that only Tewfik had made. As I've said several times, I was actually responding to the comment at the time, and trying to figure out why you were explaining Tewfik's revert. Only after my bringing the checkuser report, and after me specifically quizzing you on your explanation, did you suggest that the real cause of this was a computer glitch. Yet you couldn't muster to offer this explanation when I asked you on your page? 2. If you weren't attempting to accuse me of being an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, you might indeed want to work on your satire. 3. Suggesting that you could have coordinated with a friend to cover your tracks is not accusing you of a conspiracy. 4. I didn't perform the checkuser.

Of course, I understand that you were insulted, and I'm sorry about that. I tried to avoid it, but I also recognized it was probably inevitable. If I had simply asked you without any evidence if you were sockpuppets, though, would that have been less insulting? Personally I have found this more insulting when done to me. Mackan79 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology. Yes, the edit in question was odd and if you had asked me about that edit it would have been a reasonable question asked in good faith. It is not correct, however, to suggest that insulting me was inevitable. You could have said: "Gabriel - I noticed that you left an edit "explaining your revert" when you hadn't in fact reverted. What happened?" Maybe you did this on the article talk page and I didn't see it. The problem is that you did "throw out accusations". Read over your original post to my talk page. The title is "sockpuppetry", you interpreted a session of counter-vandalism patrolling as a cover-up attempt, you attacked both my and Tewfik's style of editing, you threatened "a checkuser and any subsequent remedies", etc.

Your characterization of my explanation as an "extremely strange coincidence" is not accurate. Maybe you don't do a lot of counter-vandalism work or edit high profile articles. I frequently find that I revert a vandal and then look at the article history page for a link to the vandal's talk page so I can leave a test message only to find that someone has beat me to the revert.

I guess I found your accusations to be so absurd that it didn't seem worthwhile to refute them. Even if I had explained the odd edit summary, would you have believed it? You didn't later. And then what was I supposed to do? Go back through a year of edits for both myself and Tewfik weren't the same person? And was there any evidence I could have presented from my edit summary that you would have accepted? You, yourself found one instance where we were editing at the same time and interpreted it as a cover-up attempt. Honestly, I don't think that I should be expected to painstakingly point out the flaws in your argument for you when I have no reasonable expectation that you'll believe me.

I don't really understand why you say you didn't perform the checkuser. You submitted a request and someone did it. Am I missing something? Also, I am not new to that page. I found 13 edits in a quick search of my contributions. I've kept it on my watchlist forever.

I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist. I do think that you explained an odd incident with a conspiracy theory. I will make a deal with you: I will assume that this was an unusual case and you typically don't jump to such conclusions about people if you will assume that I'm generally funnier. GabrielF 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mackan, not for nothing, but did you see who did the checkuser on this guy? MetsFan76 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPGordon is another one of my sockpuppets. GabrielF 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!! Trust me, if JPGordon had a sense of humor like you, Wikipedia would be a much more enjoyable place. =) MetsFan76 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously! (Forgive me GabrielF, but if you're going to insist on continuing with your mocking and ridiculing tone, I also claim the right to make logical leaps of judgement that portray the words of others as intimating more than they actually are. At least within the confines of this page, for the time being.) Tiamut 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, I keep seeing you trying to stir things up between other users with wild conspiracy theories. Please stop it. I'm certain that GabrielF and Mackan can sort this out without your intervention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know SlimVirgin, I am really getting tired of your harassment of me, as I expressed to you on your talk page: [17] .You have accused me of being a conspiracy theorist at least twice now, based on the most spurious of evidence, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMackan79&diff=111868104&oldid=111863183, and now above. Would you mind ceasing and desisting? Thank you. Tiamut 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I can see how your comment was intended to be a joke, although you might reconsider the perils of internet-joking/sarcasm/satire-on-highly-charged-issues. Regarding the rest, I think it's a lot of misunderstanding. I actually made quite some effort not to sound accusatory, but simply to present you all of the evidence so that you could comment on it. I also thought I should actually make the argument, though, so you'd know what it was. One component of that, for instance, is that the first time the two of you edited together, it happened to be done in the way that most likely would have also been done to cover somebody's tracks. E.g., if somebody were trying to cover their tracks, that's the most likely way it would look. I guess that was a coincidence, but it was also relevant, no?

As to the report, my point is that the checkuser wouldn't have been exercised unless the clerks deemed the claim credible. One reason they did, I imagine, was your explanation: computer malfunction? I'd wager there are a lot of people sitting in jail with better excuses than that. The point is, you didn't have to convince me you weren't the same user, but simply to convince the checkuser admins. I think you probably could have done that if you would have tried. I'm actually glad if you were joking, though, so I'm also happy to move forward. Mackan79 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I will consider my responses more carefully. Other than that, I'm not sure there's much else to be said.

Your last paragraph reminded me of a story I heard this week. There's a substitute teacher who is facing 40 years in prison because kids in her class inadvertently went to a website that triggered so many pornographic pop-up ads it took over the computer. The teacher was convicted even though she physically blocked the monitor with her body. The police expert didn't check the computer for spyware/adware and concluded that somehow she did it deliberately. The defense expert found that the computer's spyware protection was badly out of date, but he wasn't allowed to testify because the defense didn't give the prosecution adequate time to respond.[18]

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, except maybe to say that its best to avoid misunderstandings. GabrielF 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and if I had it to do over again, I would simply have asked you first. I actually heard that program, and thought it was interesting. Thanks for talking this through, Mackan79 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're reading a lot more into the acceptance than makes sense. I'd suggest apologizing and dropping it immediately. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jp, I'm sorry I seem to have a knack for unintentionally annoying you. My experience is that where a judge makes a ruling, the players get to speculate on why. I think my speculation was pretty benign: that the ultimate explanation, of a computer malfunction, was not exactly conclusive, and probably a fair case for where checkuser would appropriately be used. Maybe that had nothing to do with it, but it at least would have seemed like a good reason to me. I didn't think I was misrepresenting you. In any case, I already apologized to both of them. Mackan79 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I think the only thing left to do after all this is laugh lol MetsFan76 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was strange. I'm still scratching my head over that one. MetsFan76 14:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please see talk:Gillian McKeith. Thank you. Jooler

Mackan, please stop following Jay and myself around the site. You have no interest in Gillian McKeith and had probably never heard of her until you saw the recent 3RR block. Whenever one of us performs an admin action that you think you could cause trouble over, you duly turn up. Whenever there's a little dispute brewing that you think you could make worse, you're there like a bad penny. Please stop, or I'll initiate dispute resolution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you playing at now? You're restoring comments from someone who has issued a death threat! You ought to be banned from this site. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you could have told me that. I would be fine removing his comment if that's true, but I think we should also remove the section, which was inappropriately placed. Would you be ok with this? I'm fine leaving the discussion here. Mackan79 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, Mackan wasn't stalking. Someone informed him about the 3RR block so he is entitled to speak his mind. Leave him alone. MetsFan76 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did, and I didn't even say anything negative. [19]. I initially saw Jooler's block on the 3RR page, which I follow, and where it struck me as unfair that Jayjg would block him for "playing dumb." Beyond that, I'm sorry you're continuing with the antagonism, SV, this time regarding my alleged stalking of another user, despite your continuing appearances on my talk page for no apparent reason other than to harass me (or even make this same accusation against another user... [20] [21]) If you'd like dispute resolution, though, feel free. Mackan79 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan. I see Slim is back to tossing out baseless accusations. It's a shame really. She never apologized for her behaviour with me after the 3RR, even though I asked her to: [22]. If she keeps it up, maybe you should open a dispute resolution process. I was advised not to because it would be viewed badly because of her block of me. But this ongoing pattern of acting like WP:AGF applies to everyone but her is getting really tired. Tiamut 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan, I removed only the message from the anon-IP who is part of a pattern of threats. I did leave your comments, and all other comments by regular editors, regardless of their position. I think the section as a whole can stay, as this is SV's opinion, and if you feel it is incorrect you need to iron it out with her. Given that SV is a respected senior admin here, with significant contributions to the project, I think it would be inappropriate for me to just delete her message. Crum375 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the threats, I think it would not be appropriate to make that public. Regarding SV's claim of being stalked, would you mind simply avoiding her, and in particular could you avoid turning up at articles that she regularly edits but that you have never edited? It would seem to me to be easy for you to prove that you are not stalking if you have no, or much less, interaction with her. Crum375 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]