A problem is exists with one IP user who continually tried to add in a couple of paragraphs to [[Israel]], including the line:
However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing.
Efforts to remove his additions produced the following summaries -
There facts stated are 100% accurate. Isn't it interesting that you are uncomfortable with FACTS and the TRUTH ??
enhancement to the article --- I am going to gather my friends for a whole range of contributions if you keep forcing your POV. don't delete facts.
I have blocked this person now under a number of different IPs. In view of the above threat of bring friends along to the page, and because of his constant using of different IPs, I protected the page, which everyone on the page seemed to agree was the best temporary measure. I went to unprotect it today to find that under the third IP (which I subsequently blocked) he had left the following message on the talk page:
::Zionist definition of "vandal": A persoan who presents some facts about Israel which demonstrate the racist nature of this state. hmmmmm ... kinda like how the victims of Israeli atrocities are called "terrorists".
::Which part of the facts that I added to the article were "vandalism" you fucking hypocrite? There was not a single word of abuse, misinformation or even inaccuracy in what I added to the article. The more you ugly baboons try to control things and hide the truth, the more you contribute to your own perennial replusiveness.
I don't want to have to keep protecting the page; it unfair to everyone else who wants to edit it. But the nature of the edits are guaranteed to trigger nasty edit wars, and the comments above show the rascist agenda he is following.
Since I started writing this, he has since added to the talk page
Listen you fucking moron, I can use whatever language I want in the duscussion pages. The article however, are a different story. If I used such language in the article, then you had a point. But as itis, ones doens't need to be a genius to realize what you are doing. You are zeroing on on a cheap excuse to keep the page protected. The discussion pages are not part of the encyclopaedia and even a dumb fuckhead like you knows this.
I have blocked him again. The blocks are on 68.120.204.62, 68.120.205.147 and 68.120.205.218. Any suggestions about deal with this bigot?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
james duffy wrote, quoting the vandal du jour:
Listen you fucking moron, I can use whatever language I want in the duscussion pages. The article however, are a different story.
Actually, courtesy to others is mandated at all times, and personal attacks are neer the right thing to do. It's completely beyond the pale for this person or anyone else to call someone a 'moron', fucking or celibate.
I have blocked him again. The blocks are on 68.120.204.62, 68.120.205.147 and 68.120.205.218. Any suggestions about deal with this bigot?
Well, it's very unfortunate, but 68.120.204.* and 68.120.205.* may find themselves all blocked in a few days if he doesn't give up.
One possibility is to invite him to the mailing list, or to email me. Maybe I can calm him down, or maybe when faced with the need to justify his statements, he'll realize that they are inappropriate.
-----
To strike a deeper philosophic note for a second, this is just the kind of situation that illustrates how important NPOV is. NPOV is something that we can all agree on, the "truth" may or may not be.
Is it true that Israel is engaging in policies that are tantamount to ethnic cleansing? It doesn't matter, because there's no way to get consensus on such a claim. I personally think the claim is ludicrous, while at the same time being very uncomfortable with a great many policies of Israel. But the point is -- some will agree, some won't, and it's just not the place of Wikipedia to make that sort of claim.
NPOV doesn't mean the same thing as "true". Of course, everything that's NPOV is also highly likely to be true, because in order to be NPOV, just about every damn person shy of lunatics has to agree that it's true.
--Jimbo
Daniel Mayer wrote:
james duffy wrote:
I have blocked him again. The blocks are on 68.120.204.62, 68.120.205.147 and 68.120.205.218. Any suggestions about deal with this bigot?
A temporary block of the whole IP range would be nice...
68.120.*.* is Pacific Bell, a huge phone (and 'Net) provider in California.
Remember that it included not only our POV user from Pleasanton but also an unrelated vandal from Irvine, almost 400 miles away. Presumably it includes a great many other Californians that aren't so bad.
We could ask <nslookup> to tell us which IPs are from Pleasanton -- the text versions of the IPs say which city they're in (that's how I figured it out!).
Example: Name: ppp-68-120-204-62.dialup.pltn13.pacbell.net Address: 68.120.204.62
(pltn = Pleasanton)
-- Toby
james duffy wrote:
I have blocked him again. The blocks are on 68.120.204.62, 68.120.205.147 and 68.120.205.218. Any suggestions about deal with this bigot?
I am ***extremely*** disturbed by this situation.
Judging from your post, [[Talk:Israel]], and the IP contributions, this user has never done any vandalism on Wikipedia, yet the explanation for the blocking of the IP was "vandalism". In fact, the (original) IP was blocked for taking place in an edit war. Furthermore, you apparently protected the page to win an edit war that you were taking place in.
Perhaps there were further posts containing vandalism which were deleted, and which you forgot to mention in your post. If not, then I don't see why I shouldn't unblock 68.120.204.62.
The later blockings of 68.120.205.147 and 68.120.205.218 are problematic in light of the high probability that the insults which led to them were sparked by the above. But they're not the "extremely disturbing" bit.
-- Toby
Our good friend at 68.x is certainly engaged in vandalism, I had to revert quite a few instances from random pages (nothing to do with Israel, penis for example).
At 01:12 AM 8/23/2003, Toby wrote:
I am ***extremely*** disturbed by this situation.
*snip*
Perhaps there were further posts containing vandalism which were deleted, and which you forgot to mention in your post. If not, then I don't see why I shouldn't unblock 68.120.204.62.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Our good friend at 68.x is certainly engaged in vandalism, I had to revert quite a few instances from random pages (nothing to do with Israel, penis for example).
First of all, we don't know that this is the same 68.120.*.*. In fact, in my opinion, they're probably not the same person. The 68.120.20?.* IPs, which had the argument with JtdIRL, are dynamically assigned dialup connections from Pleasanton CA, while the 68.120.71.* IP, the vandal that you and Jiang blocked, is a DNS connection from Irvine CA, almost 400 miles away. If there's any connection, then it's a 400-mile distant "friend", and the 68.120.*.* relationship (PacBell) is nothing but a coincidence. My guess is no relationship at all, however; the threat seems empty.
Now, I /absolutely/ agree that the 68.120.71.* IP blocked by you and Jiang was certainly a vandal and should have been blocked just as it was. And if JtdIRL thought that they were the same people when he blocked his IPs, then he could be forgiven for that. However, JtdIRL blocked the 68.120.204.* IP 16 hours /before/ any vandalism from 68.*.*.* ever appeared. So I'm afraid that this doesn't lessen my extreme disturbance.
But let us suppose that they are the same person, or at least friends. The fact remains (if the available records are complete) that JtdIRL blocked an IP that had made no edits but a POV edit war -- a rather managable 4 posts of the same 3 paragraphs over 6 hours -- and 2 reasonable edits (no "baboons" or threats) to the talk page. In particular, the IP committed no vandalism, yet that was the reason given. It's little comfort to learn that users of incorrectly blocked IPs may later turn to vandalism /after/ being falsely accused of it.
There was also an odd note suggesting that the person had been blocked before, yet there is no record of any other block that seems to be relevant. So I'm still hoping that there is past history here that JtdIRL just didn't explain in the mailing list post, but which would show why an apparent newbie was treated this way.
-- Toby