For your information=

For your information I have taken my case to the attention of the Stewards at Meta:

==An abuse of Checkuser and Sysop priveleges on English WP - How to resolve when English has failed?== Hi All,

I know this has probably arose many times before but the level of power abuse by wikipedia user Jayjg has been steadily rising for a long time.

When I discussed the possibility of arbitration on English I was blocked indefinately.

The reason for my block was Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet - however Jayjg never filed an RfCU, nor discussed this with any other editor. He unilaterally performed the checkuser without consideration for the community. I cited this as "inadmissable evidence" for an indefblock. At which point my userpage was protected by suspected meatpuppet of Jayjg, SlimVirgin.

Despite the fact that the checkuser rules here on meta state that resolving a dispute with the leaders of a wiki is not a valid motive. It seems that Jayjg is able to disregard the rules. I would like an external view, but every time I have requested Jimbo's attention on my talk page - the request has been removed.

I therefore request the attention of one or more stewards and/or further information on procedure to resolve a problem outside of English WP. --MiddleEastern 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiddleEastern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above and extensive discussion below - see also contribs of Jayjg and numerous complaints of Admin abuses.--MiddleEastern 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have had your unblock request denied four times already. We normally permit a maximum of two, but this fifth request has clearly passed in to unblock abuse territory. This page is now protected for two weeks for your continued admin-shopping. — Yamla 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Welcome to "MYTALK"

Welcome, MiddleEastern!

Hello MiddleEastern, and welcome to Wikipedia! We are very glad that you have registered and look forward to your contributions. Here are some helpful links for a newcomer:

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! A few things to remember:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, please check out Wikipedia:Help Desk. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page, I'll help you to the best of my ability; If I can't, at least I can point you in right the direction. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Be Bold and ignore all rules!

Cheers and happy editing!--Pea ceNT 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

I like your edits, and am glad that you have joined us. But be careful. We have many oppenents here. Beware of the WP:3RR 3 revert rule. If you revert an article more than 3 times in a day, they can get you blocked. Best to move to a different article before this happens. Best of luck! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

There is nothing wrong with your edits. Just be careful not to reinsert them more than 3 times a day, or respond to provocations by attacking other editors. Otherwise they can get you blocked. One of the things I enjoy about Wikipedia is that I can discuss with people who would shoot me on sight if they met me in real life. But here the worst they can do is revert my edits. I am not on line for long each day, but if any of them try to provoke you, don't get angry or respond in kind, but just drop me a note and I will do my best to help. Look after yourself! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. I don't deserve it. I don't get many of them, and are far more accostomed to recieving final warnings. I would just give a bit of advice: don't waste time attacking admins here. You are likely to get banned, or worse still waste your valuable time. Better to create and imporve articles on the many aspects of the Middle East which are under-represented here. Good luck! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

It looks like Abuali and I both have the Israel article on our watchlists. I was coming by to tell you practically the same thing. Making edits to the introduction of that particular article which provide a reflection of reality as most people outside of Israel see it is nearly impossible. You don't have to stop trying, but be prepared to be deeply frustrated, even if you make sure to raise your points in the talk page and source them like crazy. Usually, they will just gang-up revert you anyway. But you'll have a better chance. Good luck. Tiamut 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

FYI, democracy is defined by rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, free press, and not by the absence of security barriers (many states have them - but you picked Israel as your target). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian. Please see WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (or anyone else's for that matter) personal information is none of your business. Please learn our policies before you proceed. This was uncivil, consider it a friendly warning. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Hi there -- Meaning no disrespect, could we discuss the tag issue on the talk page before putting them in? If we're unable to resolve the issue, then perhaps they can be included; otherwise, there's an active discussion on the talk page regarding how to fix various NPOV problems that you might be interested in participating in. That said, based on my experience, I'd recomend trying to really stick to the substantive matters of specific content, rather than the larger political issues if possible. Wikipedia asks this of editors on all sides, so things don't get too heated and contentious, even if the larger topics can be so. Cheers, Mackan79 13:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I am no good with that kind of thing. I copied mine from other users pages. I tried a quick scan in help, but it turned up nothing. If I do find something, I'll let you know.

On a personal note: I totally understand your passion. So many times I have felt very frustrated and angry about the diminishment of crimes that seem so obvious to me (and many others). Of course, it's normal to be angry or disturbed by that. Just remember not to let your anger get the better of you. I know it's deeply offensive how some people ignore reality and make apologies for crimes that you or those you loved ones might be affected by, and it's tempting to hurt them back by telling them what you think about people who do that kind of thing. But don't even bother. They won't hear you anyway and your comments will just be used to make you look unreasonable when they are taken out of context at a later date. I'm just sharing my own experiences which I hope are helpful, rather than hurtful. :) Tiamut 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-call

See Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I've listed Template:De-sysop, Template:AdministratorsNoticeBoardDiscussion, and Wikipedia:Template messages/UserPage Namespace for speedy deletion because the templates seem to be divisive and inflammatory. Wodup 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is just a procedural notice that I've deleted User:MiddleEastern/Templates I've created, which appeared to be a recreation or copy of the deleted pages above per our criteria for speedy deletion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MiddleEastern/United States

Please do not remove the deletion notice from the page while the debate is in progress. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA canvasing

Please stop asking other editors to vote in support of your RfA. This is not acceptable behavior, as you would know if you had read the RfA instructions. I have removed your canvasing, and if you continue to do this you may be blocked for disruption. Thanks, Gwernol 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I strongly suggest that you withdraw. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi! I have closed your RFA prematurely as it does not meet the current expectations of the community. Please spend some time on wikipedia before you apply again. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was too harsh to you in your self-nomination. If you want to know, I don't approve of Israli actions in Palestinian conflict; to the contrary, if I lived in Israel, I would probably be a member of the organization Gush Shalom, or perhaps in jail for refusal to serve in the military. But the point is that Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, and it's not supposed to be a soapbox. Regards, Mike Rosoft 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of me for adminship

Dear MiddleEastern. I am flattered that you view me as worthy of being an administrator. I am not sure, however, if I can accept the nomination at this time. Nominations to adminship are not supposed to be made lightly, and people may automatically dismiss the seriousness of this nomination coming so closely on the heels of your self-nomination. Additionally, while I welcome a review of my editing history and any comments people may have for improvements, I am also quite sure that I could use some more experience with some of the wikitools here before moving towards adminship in earnest. Thank you for your generous gesture, but perhaps it would be better to wait a while before considering a nomination again. At this particular moment in time, I will have to respectfully decline. Tiamut 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I will certainly nominate you in the future --MiddleEastern - For Palestine

16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues

السلام عليكم, MiddleEastern. I would like to point out some things to you which you most likely are not aware of yet. I understand from this comment of yours that you think that if you or someone who agreed with you was an administrator, then it would be easier to influence the content of articles (for better or for worse, it's not my place to comment). I'm afraid that administrators are not allowed to use their administrative privileges in disputes to which they are a party, so I think that maybe you should drop the issue for now. If you want an Arab admin to discuss certain issues with (for whatever reason, e.g. you don't know how to say something in English), then try User:FayssalF. About your signature, you're not allowed to include images in your signature, see WP:SIG#Images regarding this. Welcome to Wikipedia from me also.--Domitius 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator does, then yes, it is abuse, however in my experience, "certain admins" (especially the older ones) are more likely to get away with it than others.--Domitius 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Hello MiddlEeastern, and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you are a relative newcomer here and have got stuck right in to some rather controversial subjects. Thats great, especially as I think its important for combatting Western bias that we have contributers from all cultures and countries. However for your work to be respected here, I would really counsel against comments such as these in future. It fails our policies on so many levels (see WP:NPA for starters) and it is also completely speculative (and apparently untrue). Please don't take this as an attack, i'm simply trying to ensure you remain in a position whether you can help improve the project, as if these sorts of accusations are repeated you will most likely find yourself blocked from editing. Best wishes, Rockpocket 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please remove the flag fro your signature. Per WP:SIG, images should not be included in signatures. Thanks, Gwernol 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Dear Wikipedians,

The administrative hierarchy has decided to block me as a sockpuppet of a user I've never heard of. This is because I challenged their control over the site. I will return before long to continue the constructive work I am doing. I will not accept this block which calls me a sockpuppet vandal, where vandal simply means that I have disagreed with the leadership. I urge my fellow sensible users to continue the noble challenge of neutralising Israeli articles. The administrator User:Jayjg has a vendetta against me. I have been discussing my unblock with a respectable admin Gwernol, Jayjg has been trying to stop him from speaking to me, probably because Jayjg knows I have caught him out and is trying to rally around other "established users" in order to silence my call for fairness and liberty throughout the internet. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I would like all admins involved in my block to know that despite the fact that I am using an IP masking suite which makes me appear as a different IP, that you had no right to run a checkuser, in accordance with the rules of checkuser on Wiki Meta - "(a bare disagreement with the leaders of a wiki is not a valid motive)." (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Use_of_the_tool) --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol,

I am not a sockpuppet and I dont know how it is decided who is one, I dont know how to prove I'm not. I can re-align my IP mask to a different address if that helps?--MiddleEastern - For Palestine 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe what you mean by "IP Mask"? I don't know what you are referring to. Is this a service you use or a setting on your computer? If you can describe it I may be able to help. Gwernol 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a program I download, it makes my IP look like it is from a different country so that I can access British TV and other British sites, plus sites that are banned in my area without having to travel to Europe, basically it a program that scrambles and changes one's location --MiddleEastern - For Palestine

20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I believe this is the root of the problem. Can you tell me the name of the software or the URL you downloaded it from. Was it (http://www.maskmyip.com/)? If I can find the software I can figure out how it works and what might be going on here. Gwernol 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I buy the software from ebay, it is called MaskMaster. The way it works is I select a country I want to appear to be in, and the mask hosts me from an IP address of another user of the same software in the selected country, it is possible for me to simply change my IP and log in again, would that be enough to be unblocked? -MiddleEastern - For Palestine

15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol again, I read the message from Jayjg the administrator who blocked me. I says I am this user Frogsprog, I tell you I am not this man. Perhaps he uses the same software as I do as you suggested on Jayjg's talk page. Please ask this admin not to be involved, I do not trust a man who is not willing to consider two sides of a story. Thankyou --MiddleEastern - For Palestine

21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiddleEastern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never vandalised nor disrupted wikipedia intentionally, I am using an IP masking software "MaskMaster" to scramble my location so that I can access sites banned in Israel. Furthermore, I believe that the checkuser run on me was not done so In good faith. I believe I was "checkusered" for the sole reason that I challenged some admins' authority over English WP. The rules of checkuser as laid down by Meta Wiki state that "(a bare disagreement with the leaders of a wiki is not a valid motive).". In conclusion, I believe that there was no valid reason to run the original checkuser, and that I was blocked for a conflict of interest with a high-ranking administrator. Therefore I request the unblock I am entitled to-- I now also request the attention of Jimbo Wales and/or The arbtitration committee, PLUS my immediate unblock so that I can actively participate in discussions about my edits in order to have fair representation. You have my word that I will not edit articles for content until the dispute is resolved. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears you have been established per checkuser to share an IP with a persistent vandal. It is unlikely that this happened by accident even if it is true that you were using IP masking software. Wikipedia does not have rules about the inadmissibility of evidence, so your allegations about the motives of the checkuser investigation are immaterial. As you have removed previous unsuccessful unblock requests, your talk page is now protected. — Sandstein 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On second thought, I've reverted the protection to discuss this with the blocking admin. Do not issue further unblock requests in the meantime. Sandstein 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiddleEastern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(as above)

Decline reason:

I am not sure about this claim of using "MaskMaster" (that does not seem to yield any Google hits, neither it is available or was ever available from eBay as the user claims. (Also note that there is no feasible way to accomplish that "IP scrambling" with just a piece of software), neither I am impressed with the purported use of such IP software to access "sites banned in Israel". There is no Internet censorship in Israel. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To be fair to this user, he may be referring to sites that restrict access to IPs from certain countries. True, they are not strictly "banned in Israel" but the net result is the same. Rockpocket 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I still find it difficult to accept as an excuse. The use of proxies is banned in Wikipedia in any case. He could have use his real IP to edit Wikipedia, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Rockpocket 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RFCU case for this user? I cannot find it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it either. This editor does seem a somewhat unlikely sock of Frogsprog (talk · contribs · count) but Jayjg seems to suggest its solid. [1] Sandstein has requested more info. Rockpocket 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that Jayjg seems to have edited the same articles as me for content, which may constitute admin privelige abuse. There was no RFCU, User:Jayjg unilaterally conducted checkuser himself, again which constitutes a privelege abuse. Meta wiki categorically forbids this kind of use of checkuser. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine

21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I believe that I should point out my tireless efforts over on Wikitravel, where I have never once been warned or even had a disagreement. I have even influenced several policies there; including the policy on security recommendations for travellers. I also draw your attention to my activities on Wikimedia meta, where I am attempting to get justice here. I am committed to the principles of wiki, and more-so to ensuring that these principles are followed in practice. I will therefore tirelessly continue my quest for fairness throughout wiki. I thank you in anticipation of a civil outcome (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MiddleEastern) --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason or appropriateness of the checkuser is a separate issue to what it showed. If you are the sock of a blocked editor, it doesn't matter whether the checkuser should have been carried out or not, you will still remained blocked. So you may as well drop the inadmissable evidence argument. I take your point about your Wikitravel contributions, but recent comments such as this hardly show great respect for our principles and put your claims of a good faith editor in perspective. Moreover the software you claim to use doesn't appear to exist, how do you exlain that? Lets wait and see what Jayjg has to say in response to the query about the RFCU. By the way, you are not doing your cause any good with that signature. You have already been asked to remove the flag per WP:SIG - I would recommned you heed that advice. Rockpocket 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I still do that whilst blocked? I did not know I will try it now --MiddleEastern - For Palestine

22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can.--Domitius 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I do think this may be a coincidence. I'm basing this on the babelboxes; Frogsprog claimed different linguistic capabilities [2]. If MiddleEastern can confirm his level of Arabic as his native language (there are plenty of native speakers on Wikipedia), and perhaps also his Persian and Turkish (je peux confirmer ton niveau de français si tu veux :)) then I'd recommend unblocking him or at least getting a checkuser admin who was not in a content dispute with him to give his or her opinion.--Domitius 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendy advise, MiddleEastern: Wikipedia is not a place to bring about our advocacy for a cause: Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas. It is an encyclopedia developed by a community of people within a framework of respect and civility. If you want to pursue justice for your cause, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Asserting that admins are against you because of they are Jewish, is highly inflammatory and worthy of an indefblock , regardless of the sockpuppet accusations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my comments against Jewish admins, my main goal here is to help Wikipedia. I want this place to be completely democratic and fair. If I am unblocked, I will certainly leave all Israel related articles alone, and not make any edits at all on them without discussing on the talk page (with the obvious exception of vandal reverts). As for my linguistic skills:

I am proficient in English (not so good grammar though).

Mon francais, c'est OK! Mais seulement au lycée les étudiants nivellent.

I speak a few dialects of Arabic, mainly Lebanese/Syrian. "أنا يستطيع أكّدت قدرتي في العربية الآن."

--MiddleEastern - For Palestine 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::In MiddleEastern's defense, I find her explanations about being a regular editor on WikiTravel to be quite compelling. Having met her on the editing pages, I was wondering how she could be so proficient in coding and editing, but so unaware of the strict application of WP:CIVIL policies as regards political content (which led to think that she could be a sockpuppet, something I intimated to Avi/Avraham after her block). But at WikiTravel she would have been editing articles largely unrelated to political issues and would not have had a chance to test the limits of allowable political discourse. I do wish Gwernol were here. He was involved in following up the block with Jayjg after it was placed. Perhaps he knows something about the check-user request or related issues? Tiamut 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little stressful for me! Gwernol was very helpful until Jayjg told him without substance that I was lying! Something I find really offensive (in my personal opinion, it's a personal attack - but I'd never take it up) --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, you say you are a native speaker of Arabic, perhaps you can confirm that MiddleEastern is a native speaker (just have a few words with him). It's a formality in my opinion, and I don't believe he is lying or anything, it's just evidence that he's not Frogsprog.--Domitius 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I would be happy to chat with Tiamut. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll remind her to have a look at the page (in case she's not following the discussion).--Domitius 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW MiddleEastern, ne fais pas ce que tu dis que tu feras quand tu seras débloqué sur ton page d'utilisateur sur meta - mon conseil: oublie-le, les administrateurs perdent très rarement leur statut et tu auras l'air d'un WP:TROLL; efface la section.--Domitius 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'll sign in to Meta and get rid of the section. I think the phrase is forgive and forget is it not?--MiddleEastern - For Palestine 11:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you mind if I type in english font? My classical written Arabic is very rusty. Tiamut 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for example: Keifick ya MiddleEastern! Ikteer azabti? Maalaysh habibti. Hayk il hayat. Sa’abi bas nahna samdeen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Sa'abi tifhami allayi hayk? Wella mashi il hal? Tiamut 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ما فمتيش عليّ؟Tiamut 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think MiddleEastern must have gone to bed. It's 1:20am local time where I'm at, but I'm an insomniac (and my husband is out of town). Perhaps, we can try again tomorrow? Tiamut 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here he says "I can fairly easily slip into the West Bank", so that seems to pinpoint his location.--Domitius 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut: أنا لست جدّا جيّدة مع الأبجدية إنجليزيّة! أنا سأضطرّ استعملت "[منقحر]" إن نحن ينبغي اتّصلت في هذا أبجدية! --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope your traditional arabic is enough to read that ^, I am telling you that I will use a transliterator to change my traditional arabic to roman alphabet. I am not too good at transliteration, sorry!) --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious to me that you do speak Arabic (and you write it way better than I do - though I did understand it). I hope that some kind of resolution to this situation can be found soon. Do pay attention to the comments above. Most people here are trying to give friendly advice. I think Domitius' recommendation above in French is worth considering as well. I hadn't thought about it myself, but he seems to be an experienced user with knowledge of these kinds of things. Tiamut 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tiamut :), but what happens next. I have established my Arabic skills but now what? --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readd the 'unblock' template.--Domitius 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will that be considered disruptive? Or is it okay because there is new evidence to consider? Tiamut 15:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, IMO it's legitimate grounds to reconsider the block.--Domitius 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another template now -MiddleEastern - For Palestine 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my use of this phrase is correct, I would like to offer an "olive branch" to User:Jayjg. I had hoped to exact some sort of justice on this editor, but now I realise he was acting in good faith, he ran the checkuser because he believed it was the right thing. This is to be commended, rather than condemned. Jayjg, a fresh start? --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request in light of new evidence presented above 18/03/07, 16:07 UTC

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiddleEastern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now proved beyond reasonable doubt that my having the same IP as Frogsprog was purely coincidental. Before making a decision could the admin reading this please view the entire section of my talk page, entitled "block". I certainly believe that a username unblock reflects consensus. I would request however that the IP in question be blocked from editing by all but already registered users. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia doesn't allow editing via proxies, zombies, etc. Block is justified on these basis alone. See WP:BLOCK#Disruption" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What if he promises not to use proxies? He said it was an accident, he used them to access other sites and forgot to turn them off for this site.--Domitius 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would take a leap of faith that I am not sure we can afford this user, given his comments and uncivil behavior. He can register a new username, use his IP and not a proxy and edit and engage withing WP's norms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Despicable! there is consensus, Wikipedia works on consensus! I request immediately to speak to Jimbo Wales, Jossi has previously made negative comments about me also. I request Jimbo Wales or at least another meta steward, someone who can see this case at face value - and see this plain consensus! --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion, you've been given permission to create another account, take the chance. Normally, if you have a blocked account and create another account, that will be blocked as well. Create User:Middle Eastern or something and carry on.--Domitius 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would firstly like to hear from User:Gwernol. The principle here is what matters, there is clear consensus requesting my unblock, Jossi must have barely read what has been going on here over the past few days. That is the reason that I want to speak to Jimbo Wales, I want wikipedia to be fair. If nobody takes the flaws here seriously they will never be addressed! There must be some agreement here? Tiamut? Gwernol? --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, on such matters, if you're not an admin, your opinion doesn't count (or that's the way it seems to work in practice). This is the way the system is and is not going to change (see systemic bias); campaigners for change usually get branded trolls and are banned, so don't go down that route. Gwernol hasn't edited for two days (perhaps he's away for the weekend), you can wait if you want, or you can just create the new account.--Domitius 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have posted a request on User:Gwernol's page to come check out how this situation has developed since he begin investigating your original unblock request. A note on his user page says he is only going to be around intermittently in February and March which may be why he has not swung by here yet. I fully understand that this must all seem terribly unjust from your perspective, but I ask that you to continue to be as patient as you can be while this situation is all sorted out. As you noted, it could all just be a deeply unfortunate misunderstanding. Tiamut 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domitius, it must be changed. Most admins must also agree that systematic bias is not a good route to send wikipedia down. Can one of you make me a request for ArbCom, please! --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, believe me, you really don't want to do that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a legal system. Most people here don't want justice, they just want to get the work done and get trouble-makers summarily banned and not have long trial-like procedures for every vandal and troll. You have more chances of getting what you want by apologizing (even if you don't think you are at fault) and doing what you were asked to do rather than asserting "I am right, the decision makers are wrong", mostly because people never admit they're wrong so the dispute will only end if you admit you've been wrong.--Domitius 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I agree that every vandal should not be tried, but I am not a troll. Everyone knows that now --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiddleEastern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now proved beyond reasonable doubt that my having the same IP as Frogsprog was purely coincidental. Before making a decision could the admin reading this please view the entire section of my talk page, entitled "block". I certainly believe that a username unblock reflects consensus. I would request however that the IP in question be blocked from editing by all but already registered users. I also request that an admin who has not been at all involved in this discussion review this time. That's only fair! --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this block almost entirely on the semi-proven sockpuppetry allegations. You have clearly been incivil, but we don't just hand down indefinite blocks willy-nilly for incivility. Others on WP:ANI have said blocking you indefinitely for incivility alone is reasonable, but... um... no, it's not. It took us over two months to hand down an indefinite block to seriously anti-Muslim RunedChozo (talk · contribs). I won't leave out the suggestion that certain biases from editors had bearing on the great amount of disgust that came in response to your incivility, but it's not relevant here. The facts speak for themselves. As a disruptive sockpuppet, you have already wasted any second chance you may have been offered by going to a second account. If, however, the sockpuppet allegations are definitively disproven, I would be the first to unblock you and give you the second chance that so many other incivil editors have been given after an appropriate reprimand. Please do not see this as even a partial endorsement of your conduct at all; it is not at all. I find hate speech offensive no matter who it is directed at – whether they be Muslims or Jews, Americans or Iranians, tall people or short people. I'm simply trying to make the fairest decision possible, based on previous experience and the opinions expressed at WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will request other admins to take a look at this, just to be 100% sure that the block has the necessary support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reviewers, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_user_MiddleEastern. Sandstein 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this for a few days now and I'm also happy that there is enough circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on the merits of the original block. There is still good policy reasons to maintain a block (i.e. for editing from a proxy alone), but common sense tells me that - if MiddleEastern's story is true and she will never use the proxy again - then that is an unusual basis for an indef block. There are a few things that still puzzle me though. Firstly how do we know Frogsprog isn't an Arabic and French speaker also? Second, there was a suggestion that the software MiddleEastern claims to use doesn't appear to exist. Can anyone resolve these?

That all said, i'm not content to over-rule Jayjg's actions without hearing his/her opinion first. So I would ask MiddleEastern for patience while this is resolved. I would also strongly encourage her to tone done the political rhetoric. It may well be that her aims are to promote neutrality here on WP, but signing "For Palestine" after every comment implies a very different agenda. Of course, we all have our biases and causes, and some people believe it is better to be open about them than hide them, but there is a difference between full disclosure and campaigning. Finally, MiddleEastern, making grand demands for Jimbo's attention or Arbcom intervention is not going to help you. Please be aware that the few admins (myself included) that are following this situation are keen to see "justice being done". None of us are interested in blocking you as punishment or to "silence" you, so please work with us, have patience and we will get to the bottom of this. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, I thank you for your impartial comments and advice. I will remove the words for palestine from my signature. If I am unblocked I would be more than willing to be on some kind of probation with you, domitius, gwernol etc. I will also leave every article in relation to Israel completely alone except for RV vandal. Any content edits I may desire to make will be requested to be made by other editors at their discretion. (please inform the discussion on Admin Noticeboard of my promise, thanks) --13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out RE:Jayjg's coments at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_user_MiddleEastern]. I appear to be an experience editor because I am an experienced editor on Wikitravel. --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also post this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&action=history to Jayjg's contribs. You will see many edits to Golan heights, Hamas and many other Israel related articles. I am not trying to attack Jayjg, simply refresh his or her memory in relation to our conflict of interested regarding Israel, please see above for my declaration promising to leave Israel articles alone --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like the discussion at ANI reviewed by Jimbo, just because I want to know the unbiased opinion of our community's most senior member... please! --MiddleEastern 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jayjg's comments on the noticeboard - Jayjg I am saddended by your cold reception to the proverbial olive branch. --MiddleEastern 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Reviewing the discussion at AN/I, I'm afraid it is looking unlikely that you are going to be unblocked. It appears the consensus is that, even if you are not a sockpuppet of a blocked user, then your block will remain because of a violation of WP:OP. Putting the WP:SOCK issues to one side for the moment, I personally believe that if you take these issues separately, an indef block for an open proxy violation is extreme (not least because it serves no real purpose, if the blocked user is intent on reforming, they will simply come back from another IP and edit in a reformed manner). However, it appears there is no appetite among the community to "cut you some slack" mainly because they see no evidence that you will be a constructive member of the community. I can hardly blame them for reaching that conclusion that having reviewed your contibutions myself. So, the bottom line is that - even if I do have some concerns over the reasoning behind this block - my opinion is contrary to the consensus and I therefore have no authority to act against it.

Be aware that, as an idef blocked editor, you are liable to be blocked again on sight if any future edits are identified as being from you. Moreover, any contentious edits to controversial subjects will be identified very quickly indeed.

However, no-one would likely investigate an editor contributing to non controversial articles and behaving like a model Wikipedian. So, my advice to you is to think about what your motives are for wanting to contribute here. Then spend some time reading Wikipedia and get a feel for what is and what is not acceptable behaviour from a model contributor. Then act accordingly. Rockpocket 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my first good deed!

User:Spearhead_no._2 blanking and vandalising Israel --MiddleEastern 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are no._2 and that you made that vandalism edit? Because if that is the case, I think you're being completely foolish and that you do deserve to be banned. Tiamut 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO, I'm doing a good deed by reporting it! --MiddleEastern 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Oh my god. I'm so sorry. I failed to WP:AGF. Please forgive. :) Tiamut 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it is ok, forgiven! --MiddleEastern 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]