User talk:NYScholar/Archive 3

Quick note
Just thought I should let you know about this edit. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing your unblock request(s) before the block expired. You mentioned autoblocks, but I haven't found any in your name -- if you're having any trouble, feel free to email me, unblock-en-l, or make use of the unblock-auto template. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for your time. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The whole ordeal has been an extremely-distressing experience.  I'm sorry that you or the other administrators whom I addressed didn't see my calls for help sooner. --NYScholar 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 22 2007 to Middle East Forum
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Alex Bakharev 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made no [substantive] changes without [having already engaged in detailed] prior discussion (or completely-accurate and honest summaries in the editing history). See the talk page.  It is the other user who was reverting my corrections and improvements to the article by continually deleting them without prior discussion and also making false claims in the 3RR report about my changes.  They are bonafide changes, some of which actually responded to his request for qualifications and information, which I supplied. I have engaged in full disclosure and discussion of my changes in the talk page prior to the changes made (the discussion pre-dates the changes).  I also had returned to the talk page to discuss my subsequent changes, which are not reverts but improvements, corrections, additions requested by other(s). --NYScholar 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In his own talk page Isarig, and in his comments on various article talk pages (see his "contributions" history), it is very clear that Isarig has a history of violating not only 3RR but also WP:AGF, WP:NPA, Etiquette, and Civility (then disingenuously making attacks citing these same guidelines). I edit in good faith.  He invariably focuses on the contributor and not the content (as does self-interested administrator Slim Virgin, who lacks impartiality in matters relating to my editing and edits with a non-welcoming, uncivil, unyielding and non-neutral POV of her own).  See my comments below and in response to her posting in the 3RR violations report page. --NYScholar 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 Attn: Newyorkbrad ((unblock|Thank you for your attempt to help. But, unfortunately, I believe that you have misinterpreted my own report of 3RR violations against Isarig, filed on February 20, which received no action until you read it today, citing a "withdrawn" report. You misinterpreted the situation: I have not withdrawn my 3RR violations reports against User talk:Isarig. (Armon withdrew his 3RR report against me.) Yet I am blocked  (both my user name and my IP address). (Thus, I cannot return to respond to your comment in the 3RR report page because of the block, as I cannnot edit anywhere but my own talk page.) Please remove both blocks. Note that Isarig (as I predicted in my earlier requests for unblocking me below) has returned to revert the article Middle East Forum yet once again (see my earlier reports in the 3RR reports page). Isarig needs to be administratively warned and blocked for the repeated 3RR violations in which he has been engaged for over three days. He has indeed just reverted my version of the article yet again, dishonestly (as is his pattern and history) citing "POV" in his editing history; the version that he reverts to is POV (see consensus on talk page). Instead I have been blocked (see below). Clearly, the problems of Middle East Forum and Middle East Quarterly are not fully resolved (despite my own attempts to resolve them (see my comments on the talk page in conjunction with those by anon. IP user 70....): Talk:Middle East Quarterly. Isarig had reverted improvements to these articles by earlier editors (including me) multiple times every day in the past few days, reverting again today (Feb. 22, 2007). I believe that until today he had not reverted my most-recent version because he was afraid of getting blocked due to his prior 3RR violations.  He was just "waiting it out" and will return to the article to revert my version to his earlier POV version if he is not warned not to do so and blocked from doing so by an administrator.  I repeat: I have not withdrawn the 3RR violations reports that I filed against Isarig (or Armon).  Armon withdrew his 3RR violations report against me.  Please unblock me immediately.  Please issue a warning to him and/or block him.  Please review the editing history of Middle East Quarterly and Middle East Forum to see the problems.  See earlier requests below.  Thank you for your help if you can provide it. What is occurring here is extremely unfair.  When I am unblocked, I will take this up at the highest level of Wikipedia that I can find and file a formal complaint if this matter is not resolved to my satisfaction. This block should have expired by this time at any rate. Please unblock both the individual block and the IP address block.)) --NYScholar 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (updated)--NYScholar 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Attn: CSTAR Attn: Alex Bakharev ((unblock|See below: This block is an unfair block. It should have expired by now but it is not yet removed. Please unblock. See original block message above; see request for unblock below with other earlier reasons for request to unblock. Despite the request for unblock and despite earlier 3RR violation reports that I posted re: Isarig (and Armon), no action was taken on those reports and none has been taken on my request to unblock. This is decidely unfair. Please help remove the blocks (both on my user name and on my IP address--an automatic block apparently. Thank you.)) --NYScholar 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Attn: Alex Bakharev: ((unblock|(See "No action" on my own prior reports of 3RR violations vs. Isarig--User Armon and User Isarig reported by User NYScholar--who has been repeatedly blocked and tasked before for the same violations.  If any administrator blocks me, then he needs to be blocked as well.  He has engaged in more than 4 reverts of my work every day over a period of several days, masking them as my reverts of him.  See the talk page, which apparently the latest commentators are not reading fully; scroll up and one will see the objections made by another (anon IP) user to Isarig's latest reverting back to information that user (and others) object to as unbalanced.  Let's try to be fair here.  Also see my own comments on the talk pages of articles which Isarig has been reverting back to his own earlier versions despite my very rational explanations and discussions in talk page discussions. It is very unfair to block me and to take no action on his very clear 3RR violations. Also note: Armon removed his report of 3RR violations vs. me. Only Isarig posted one after I posted mine about him. (scroll up on the 3RR violation report page and read my comments replying to what he says in his later report. I challenge anyone who argues that I am reverting his changes, when they were simply versions of my own work that I was correcting and improving.  Some notes are now missing from a page in Lewis Libby because I cannot replace the blank spots with the actual notes (moved from para. 1 to that spot in family history.) I have no interest in engaging with any of these users anymore: see my comment in my talk page archive 2.  In terms of the rest of the block history, at the time it was clear to me and would have and should have been clear to any neutral observer, that the descriptions of those blocks were written by supporters of administrators engaged in wars of editing content eliciting help from their friends to block me and describing my behavior in entirely dishonest terms.  Those descriptions should be expunged from block and editing histories.  They are outrageous lies.  I am not a troll (Internet) and I am not "disruptive"; those are descriptions initiated by parties involved in editing wars over form and content of articles.  They are not truthful.  I am a serious good-faith editor who does not engage in so-called gaming or edit wars.  I am sincerely trying to make the articles as thoroughly neutral and well-documented with full citations as possible. See the Barnstars on my user page contributed by others. In his own talk page Isarig, and in his comments on various article talk pages (see his "contributions" history), ''it is very clear that Isarig has a history of violating not only 3RR but also WP:AGF. I edit in good faith''. --NYScholar 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ))--NYScholar 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (I tried to archive the administrative warning, but I cannot put it into archive page 2 or 3, as I was attempting to do, because I have been blocked from editing any page but this one it appears. It is now logged in the block log. --NYScholar 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Other information re: the unblock request
[I see no need for so-called "brevity"; this is my talk page, and I have things that I want to say on it.] My changes are in keeping with policies in WP:Cite and WP:BLP (central to the article are statements by and pertaining to the founder of Middle East Forum, a living person, Daniel Pipes: see the problems that I encountered in that article by the administrator causing the block (Slim Virgin) as well. She has been repeatedly engaged in editing my talk page, abusing her administrative power (clearly stalking me via monitoring my talk page and contributions history).  She has already declared self-interest in the editing conflict over Daniel Pipes, yet she unethically has involved herself in the 3RR report dispute as well.  Please scroll up the 3RR Reports page to February 20-22 for the reports that I made and my responses to another (withdrawn) report, that have received "no action" as of yet.

See parenthetical note at start of my unblock request; after the block I couldn't access my archive (as I state very clearly).

There is no need for Slim Virgin to come in here (my talk page) repeatedly and to edit my talk page repeatedly; I archive the content (when I can). The actual blocking editor Alex Bakharev knows that he blocked me, and I address him directly in my unblock request (not her). If he wanted to put it back in, he would do that. The block is linked in the unblock notice linked to my contributions page. I strongly advise Slim Virgin to stay out of my talk page and to cease from making personal attacks and personal comments about me as a contributor in editing histories of articles and talk pages of articles and 3RR revert reports pages (as opposed to commenting on content itself in actual article talk pages), especially given her obvious lack of neutrality, incivility, and self-interest. See my reply to the 3RR report again in the 3RR report page. She violates WP:NPA. She actually makes negative comments on contributors (not content) in editing histories and acts without civility on talk pages, attempting to drive other contributors like me away from editing rather than welcoming us. [See Talk:Daniel Pipes.] She herself should be blocked. I also think that her administrative status should be revoked on the basis of her self-interested behavior and inability to render impartial judgments. ''She needs to stop her stalking. I have no interest in her other than the grief that she is causing me''. --NYScholar 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice that my own version of the article Middle East Forum is the current version. It is acceptable and there are no objections to it other than Isarig's, who is probably sitting tight until he has 24 hours to start reverting the article again. I suggest keeping a close eye on what he is doing to that article. My current version is documented with notable and reliable and verifiable sources. If he removes all that material again, he will be reverting the article to a non-consensus version (his own) that is unbalanced and lacks neutrality (tags that I added and that he would continually revert by removing them). He is doing the same in the article on Middle East Quarterly, along with the help of Slim Virgin and Jayjg (two administrators who are not acting neutrally. That article has objections by other users to the inclusion of a long list of staff and board of editors:  see sections of Talk:Middle East Quarterly (scroll up) for fuller discussion.  Jayjg has apparently not even read the earlier users' objections to including that list: see Talk:Middle East Quarterly, where another user (70....) makes objections; in deference to those objections, I removed the section for discussion (Talk:Middle East Quarterly; yet Isarig simply reverted w/o any respect for the differences of views among editors of the article from his own. The article is just repeating material from the publication's website; it presents no alternative perspectives on the subject (since Isarig continually deletes them). As far as sources for the Staff and Board of Editors: it was I who took the time to add them as proper citations in notes (see the editing history). Due to consensus in talk (70.... and my ultimate willingness to consider that user's objections), I moved it to the talk page for discussion; instead of discussing the matter, Isarig simply reverted it (multiple times over the past few days). It is back in the article due to his reversions (w/o participation in discussion on talk page). Such dishonest point of view and non-neutral editing really gives Wikipedia and Wikipedians a very bad reputation. (For a perspective on some of the problems that academic scholars find in Wikipedia, see Brock Read, "Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" Chronicle of Higher Education 27 October 2006. For additional articles on Wikipedia in the Chronicle, see menu links in "Related materials.")

'''My edits are done in the context of WP:Cite as linked in WP:BLP, which requires removal of unsourced negative (or faulty and misleading positive insufficiently sourced) statements about living persons--or provision of full citations to document claims made in such articles. Articles on subjects are not supposed to be repetitions of material on their website home pages. They are supposed to follow guidelines in Neutral point of view and present several perspectives (sourced) on a subject, not merely the subject's own perspective on itself or him/herself. See my unblock request above.''' --NYScholar 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(When I am unblocked, I will archive portions of this talk page starting with the administrative message through the one below. (I will leave the above "NOTE." The archived material will be in archive page 3. --NYScholar 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

((unblock|it should have expired by now: see comments above and previous requests for unblocking. This is an unwarranted block to begin with, but the expiration date and time has expired and it should no longer be in effect. (Both my user name and my IP address need unblocking.)) --NYScholar 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon and User:Isarig reported by User:NYScholar (Result:No action at this time)

 * I just saw the above report re: me (NYScholar): The two users above have actually been reverting all my changes to the article continually over a period of over 3 days now: I have been documenting the changes and being reverted anyway; then they have the nerve to complain that I am reverting them. If they hadn't continually reverted reasonable changes to the article countering consensus, there would be no issue with the article at all. Other problems were easily resolved.--NYScholar 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the editing history: Isarig's and Armon's consorted reversions of my contributions to the article: [The reverts are numbered; they are cumulative because these two editors were apparently reverting in consort with each other; see their own talk pages.] There are the number of reversions; mine were attempts to restore deletions that were part of Isarig's and Armon's continual reversions; their reversions appear to be part of an editing war that pre-existed my editing of this article; they appeared also to be done in consort with each other to get around 3RR. Alone and together they engaged in over 4 reversions of my work over and over again within 24 hours. --NYScholar 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) >>  After February 17, User:Isarig continued to revert my changes to the article, over four times within 24 hours. The editing history makes that clear too. I will not display it, unless it is needed. Apparently User:Armon has withdrawn his 3RR complaint against me (NYScholar); however, I am going on record here to say that each of them--Armon and Isarig--have themselves engaged in multiple violations of 3RR. For more information, please see Talk:Middle East Quarterly. I hope that these reversion and editing wars have ceased. Thank you. --NYScholar 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Given the withdrawal of the earlier report, hopefully the edit-warring will cease. No action at this time. Return if problems continue and reference this report. Newyorkbrad 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Newyorkbrad: Please see Talk:Middle East Forum, Talk:Middle East Quarterly, and Talk:Daniel Pipes and the editing histories (some which now appear to have been doctored by administrators taking part in editing disputes) in Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes. Thank you. Given the time it took to report and the total lack of action given the report, I have no time left now to update it further. I suggest that impartial adminstrators examine these and other articles in which these users (Isarig, Armon) and these administrators (Slim Virgin and Jayjg and possibly others) are engaged in suppressing editing that aims to follow Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, and WP:Cite. The "edit-warring" does not seem to have ceased. Please go to my User talk: NYScholar Archive 3 for my previous attempts to contact you and other administrators for assistance, to no avail. --NYScholar 08:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:41, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rm POV pushing and irrelevant material. see Talk.)["POV pushing" was not the case; attempt to provide NPOV was the case.]
 * 06:00, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv please stop see talk)[Had already discussed the changes being made in talk page.]
 * 05:53, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv apparent blind revert -see talk)[It was explained in the talk page already and in previous editing history.]
 * 05:38, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (poisoning the well)[No idea what he is referring to; he reverted my work.]
 * 05:36, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism of the journal and contexts of its publication - Waaay too much based on one cite. WP:UNDUE)[The opposite was actually the case; revision was an attempt to restore NPOV instead of Armon's POV deletions.]
 * 00:16, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Please participate in the discussion on Talk before reverting agian.)[Had done so. He had not.]
 * 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - typo)[RV of my work]
 * 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - technical correction) [That is not what it was; deleted sourced information that was correct and provided incorrect information in its place; RV of my work.]
 * 1) February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism - reduced criticism section to part that actually discusses MEQ, rather than Pipes)[RV of my work.]
 * 14:37, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rv POV-pushing - see Talk.)[RV of my work]
 * 12:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (let') [unclear expl.; RV of my work]

User:Isarig reported by User:NYScholar (Result:No action at this time)
User:Isarig also escalated the reversions behavior by continually (over and over) wrongheadedly deleting an established fact in the article Lewis Libby (that Lewis Libby is a "Jewish American lawyer") despite notable verifiable and reliable sources establishing its pertinence and relevance to the article and even the already-existing reference to his being born to Jewish parents in his biographical section. There is a category in Wikipedia for Jewish lawyers that is included at the end of the article, and Libby is included in the category (factually). The category pre-exists Isarig's continual deletions (objected to by more than one editor prior to my editing the article: see the talk page). The editing history will bear out that the talk page discusses the rationale for the inclusions of the fact (inserted originally by earlier editors and continually removed by Isarig, despite my provision of a source). The talk page discusses the rationale for its inclusion. Talk:Lewis Libby. --NYScholar 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have today encountered a reasonable question from another user in the talk page and responded accordingly. My current position is stated in that discussion on the talk page section cited above. --NYScholar 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the withdrawal of the earlier report, hopefully the edit-warring will cease. It appears some progress is being made on the talkpage. No action at this time. Return if problems continue and reference this report. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Newyorkbrad: Please see Talk:Middle East Forum, Talk:Middle East Quarterly, and Talk:Daniel Pipes and the editing histories (some which now appear to have been dishonestly doctored [deleted] by administrators taking part in editing disputes) in Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes. Thank you. Given the time it took to report and the total lack of action given the report, I have no time left to update it further. I suggest that impartial adminstrators examine these and other articles in which these users (Isarig, Armon) and these administrators (Slim Virgin and Jayjg and possibly others) are engaged in suppressing editing that aims to follow Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, and WP:Cite; or to truly respect other editors w/ regard to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The "edit-warring" does not seem to have ceased. Please go to User talk:NYScholar Archive 3 for my previous unblock requests/requests for assistance, to no avail. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[Slim Virgin, once again, deleted my writing, in this case, my bonafide 3RR report (see dates) today Feb. 23, 2007, from the original place where I wrote them. She is way out of line. I had posted the link to this report, as requested by another administrator; now, due to her unauthorized interference, the link goes nowhere. It will now go here. --NYScholar 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See, e.g.,: her statements made in response to my comments: Cleanup tag and then the next section where I explained why I deleted those (what I perceived and perceive as) "personal attacks" (which it has been and is my stated policy to do: see top of my talk page [current]) and the absurd denial by her consorts and reverting of the attacks. That's part of the context of her conflict of interest.  She attacks or reverts nearly every edit that I make when I happen (by chance, following links according to my interest) upon articles in which she has been involved in the editing.  (Sometimes I have seen that she agrees w/ my edits (almost always on subjects having to do with politics and Jewish issues, which I myself come to generally indirectly); but very rarely.)  I hadn't even noticed that she had edited the article, until she wrote that same thing to me in the editing history: what happened to WP:NPA: Focus on the content not the contributor? And, then, she has the nerve-- Chutzpah--to claim that I am "harrassing" Isarig or her???? I don't see her focusing on the content of the changes that I try to make; she just focuses on me.  I am an extremely-experienced professional academic editor; it appears to me from the content of the articles that she is producing that she is not. --NYScholar 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

[When I see misrepresentation and false presentation and lack of citations in articles (and I inadvertently seem to stumble on them by following Wikipedia internal links in other articles), especially those dealing with living persons WP:BLP, I get involved in trying to fix the problems and to supply the missing citations. I simply cannot tolerate the thought that people all over the world might be misled by these slanted and distorted and inaccurate articles often on matters of critical contemporary importance. --NYScholar 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

See top: I guess another administrator, after the block expired, changed the curved brackets to parentheses so that the requests for unblocks would not register as current requests, since I've been unblocked. --NYScholar 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)