User talk:Bhadani/Archive10

block on User:Armsnax

Hi, I noticed that you also blocked Armsnax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and from looking at the block log I see you have the set time to expire in 24 hours. [1] I am curious as to why this is? Is there some reason why we would want the block on this vandal's account to expire? I am just curious because I don't want to see such vandals running amok again on wikipedia. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I myself wanted to come to your page. Thanks for dropping in. I set the limit as 24 hours and then I noticed that you have blocked him indefinetely. Your curiosity is fair. Actually, after seeing the block log and the indefinite block, I think that my block for 24 hours had become infructuous. Cheers! --Bhadani 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that once your block of 24 hours expires, it will allow the user to edit again? This is really the reason why I asked in the first place. I don't want to make a big deal of the whole thing, but I just wanted you to be aware that this sort of thing can happen. I have already made adjustments to insure that this user is indefinately blocked again. Thanks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I was not aware - as I administer less and contribute to the contents more. Thank you for not making a big deal of this! Still, I am not sure of all our blocking policies. I will remain in touch with you to learn more. --Bhadani 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indef block on a particular user will not stop him from creating sockpuppets to edit wikipedia. In my opinion, one should follow the policy of redemption rather than blocking some user so that he is unable to edit. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My response, copied from his page: Hello. I feel nice coming to your page. I also thank you for your input as regards above on my talk page. We shall surely interact more. Regards. --Bhadani 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

• Reference

Yeah, Wikipedia still sickens me for the most part, but it's a slow time at work(sold my first house last week), and i'm trying to remove my writers block in regards to my book on Wikipedia politics. If there were some way to remove the sickening feeling I get towards Wikipedia, that'd help alot. In any case, good to see you again. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply from his page: :Our red tape and processes and all the attendant paraphernalia created to save and value add to wikipedia may be doing more harm than the good. Still, I being an eternal optimist shall do my part to improve the credibility of the Project and make it an encyclopedia in the truest sense than an encyclopedia based on consensus, and ultimately the largest blog created in the human history! Nice to hear from you. --Bhadani 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Wikipedia is different; it wouldnt end up like Usenet or something like that. What we are here to appreciate is the nobility of the project and the good that we all are doing for humanity. Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 09:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do know, I was talking of an eventuality if we allow degeneration of ourselves. But, I believe that wikipedians are the most resilient virtual community of human history and shall surely deliver the Best. --Bhadani 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Nice

Thanks. Take Care :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Emails

I am quoting below an exchange of emials with User:Professor33

Quote

My dear Professor,

I have full sympathy with you.

I have at least one example of an indefinite block which I know that was wrong. I knew persoanlly the person who was blocked indefintely by an administrator under the presumption that he was a sock-puppet of a user. As the user concerned got highly disgusted with this, he/she told me that he/she would never access wikipedia. I was also requested to keep his/her blocked user identity to heart.

(added few words, not in the email - for the sake of clarity}

Having said this and having experienced this first hand, I know that your psotion may be similar. However, I am not able to comment on this except that on a long-term basis wikipedia shall be losing a number of good editors. I know that editing wikipedia is a privilege and I am thankful to the Wikipedia Foundation for giving me this opportunity to edit. But, there may be several editors including adminsitrators who may hold the opinion that they are doing great service to wikipedia by editing or/ and doing admin services. Actually, the position is reverse.

I am posting this letter on your talk page so that other wikipedians may see the same.

I trust that the community shall evolve a better system to deal with such issues and the sysop shall be made more accountable.

With regards, and all the best!

Yours Bhadani

--- Professor33 wrote:

Since you are the blocking admin, I wanted to give you the courtesy of this email below. So far I have > only e-mail one admin. I don't want to waste > everyone's time on the same problem. I will e-mail > another tommorrow, and so far. When I am done with > all the admins and the problem is not corrected, I > will write some letters to contacts I have who know > Jimbo to look into this problem. I wish to exhaust > all preliminary steps first. > > Thanks. > E. > > > Greetings esteemed administrator of Wikipedia. > > I am writing because I have been falsely accused, > and e-mail is my last means to try to have this > mistaken corrected within the Wikipedia community. > I respect the project and do not wish to add harm to > it, despite some serious problems. I hope that you > can advise me as to what to do my case, as I am > innocent. I have a lot more to contribute to a > number of scientific articles in particular, and > would like to do so. My user name is Professor33. > > The problem is have been banned indefinitely. The > reason given is that I am accused of being a > socket-puppet (suspected), of a user who was > recently blocked for violating the 3rr rule. Because > it was assumed that I was his socket-puppet, this > user's block was extended from 24hours to one week. > That is also a mistake, also. When I requested to be > unblocked and posted my own protests on my talk > page, it was reverted, and my talk page was locked, > preventing me from communicating with anyone on my > talk page, and stopping me from posting an unblock > request so that other admins could review my pleas. > The admin denying my request each time and locking > my talk page is friends with the editor who attacked > me as a socket-puppet. > > In truth, I have done nothing wrong. I am not a > socket-puppet. I have followed every rule, and > always intended to. I have watched for some time > before I decided to jump in and “be bold.” A > user check will clear my name, and I am willing to > prove my identity if that is necessary. Perhaps the > other editor in question would be willing to prove > his identify as well? Let me know what can be done, > if anything, to correct this injustice--even if it > may not be an honest mistake; my greatest fear is > that this is not an innocent mistake. I am convinced > there is at least a clear malicious element at play > and serves as motivation to suppress an opponent’s > point of view. Let me explain. > > I have long admired Wikipedia, having given it as > assignment of students to start new articles. Some > time ago I started to follow with interest some of > its going-one’s brought to my attention by some of > my students. I ran into a few critical sites of > Wikipedia, some well know, other less so. They each > alleged abuse with the process. I took these with > grains of salt, however one topic--the alleged > "Christian Cabal," which was said to exist around > several article of related religious topics, > dominated by interested Christian editors and admins > with a strong POV in a close-knit relationship-- I > looked into this with some interest, on and off for > several month. You can say I was lurking. One such > site, for example is: This > site does document some of these things I have seen. > There are others, and I can tell you specific other > things I've seen that include double-standards and > dishonesty, and what seems to be a clear intent to > push away legitimate and v > aluable editors by using several tactics, including > following them around, subjecting them to > hyper-scrutiny, and looking for ways to paint a > picture that would lead to them being painted in a > very negative light for the purpose of having them > eliminated. Several users have left in protest, and > other removed as I was. > > In all fairness, sometimes this was due in part to > mistakes of the editors themselves, which were > gladly seized on, but it was clear that it was > always by certain religious extremists who make it > their duty to go after these “enemies.” I say > extreme because they have expressed beliefs such > extreme views such as that the Inquisition and > Crusades were good--or the principal behind them was > good, when pressed). These are the same editors who > have accused me and have resulted in my being > excluded from Wikipedia. This is because I have > taken an interest in countering their bias. Editors > such as myself with a secular humanist perspective > become targets. The editor I'm accuse of being a > socket-puppet of has done a good job and uses tons > of references with extensive use of the talk pages, > which he is able to devote tons of lots of time to > supporting claims. He does this while being attacked > with impunity, but remains level headed and polite, > to his credit. However, many other go > od editors have been banned, some clearly unjustly, > after only making a few edits. NPOV77 is one such > user, for example. He was banned outright as a > socket puppet in a very similar way to how I was. I > finally decided to join after looking at this for a > few months. Of course, I edited things more to my > own interest, such as climate change, global warming > issues. I will note that the editor I’m accused of > being (Giovanni33) has not shown any interest in > these issues. I confess I did follow Giovanni33 to > articles to test out my theory: If I supported him, > would something happen to me? Sadly it has. I just > did not think I'd get banned indefinitely, given my > contributions to other articles and having > established myself as a legitimate editor. But > because of coming into conflict with the > “Christian cabal”, I am no longer welcome at > Wikipedia---I am banned from editing at > all--forever! This is a loss, but it did prove my > point that there is a problem. > > AnnH and Str1977 are the principal antagonists. > AnnH, in particular, is quite zealous in her > obsession against Giovanni33. She has referred to > him as her "enemy." She brings up his alleged past > mistakes constantly, however these are over 6 months > old when this editor first joined. Still, she makes > sure to bring up this past history to rub his name > in the mud and effectively “poison the well.” I > note that Giovanni33 also disputes the > characterization of these events, which AnnH of > course spins to her advantage. > > I’m not so much interested in tackling this major > problem, as is too big of a problem to solve. It may > be just a fact of life at Wikipedia. However, I > would like to edit again, honestly and openly. I do > not wish to sneak back in with another IP address > and account. Since I am completely innocent, despite > some appearances to the contrary, and assuming good > intentions among some admins, what can I do to > correct this? What do you advise for someone in my > shoes to do next? As a professor with contacts in > the media I am tempted to bring media attention to > the problem, publishing my case. However, I’d like > to first exhaust all possible venues within the > Wikipedia system, assuming an honest mistake has > been made, despite the best worst intentions of some > of its members. > > I am sorry to bother you and do not want to waste > your time, but this is a good cause and I am > interested in participating in Wikipedia. I am also > innocent. I’m sure that if I go outside the > mechanisms of Wikipedia and add my voice to those of > the critics, I’d for sure never be welcomed back. > I’m hoping it will not come to that. You are the > first admin I have written. I will wait patiently > for your advice. > > Thank you very much in advance for your > consideration. > > -Eugene S. >

Unquote

--Bhadani 17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had the patience to read all these, please spare few moments more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Professor33&diff=prev&oldid=61564688 Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I shall not enter into any discussion as regards the above matter. I do not want to get myself involved in issues over which I do not have any control. However, fellow wikipedians are welcome to offer their valuable inputs. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind words on my talk page. I have decided to follow your advice and unblocked myself. Again, thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Help in updating image

Hi, i need your help again in deciding whether to upload an image or not, and if so, what is the best possible way to do it. I am trying to add this [2] image to the article on Ravi K Chandran. However, i am not sure of the copyright scenarios, and would like your comment on this particular image. Thanks. - unni 06:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My response, copied from his talk page: Hello. This has reference to your latest message: [3]. I would suggest you not to upload image without any information about the copyright. They may be deleted. I do not find anything in the link provided by you to understand that the image is in {{public domain}} and free for use. Wishing you all the success in your search! --Bhadani 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)