Hello, Rachel.Greenberg, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Kylu (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 February 2009
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).
I wish to appeal. I feel that I have been ganged up on: I added a section on the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition controversy to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, IsraelXKV8R deleted it 14 times, including 4 times on February 10, Richard Arthur Norton deleted it twice even though the issue was going to be mediated, and now I, rather than IsraelXKV8R, am the one who gets blocked.
I added my section in good faith, because I read about this and saw that there was nothing about it in the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I did not realize I was stepping into a hornet's nest.
IsraelXKV8R has a documented conflict of interest (his film, shown in at least one of the exhibitions, was criticized in a published article by the key critic of the traveling Dead Sea Scrolls exhibitions), but he doesn't get blocked for deleting my section over and over again.
My section was based on newspaper articles only (National Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and Jewish Week), and IsraelXKV8R keeps accusing me about all kinds of blogs on the same topic, in some of which his film is also criticized, and which have nothing to do with me.
I respect Richard Arthur Norton's opinion that the controversy reported on in the newspaper articles is "minor," but I disagree with him, and I feel he should not delete my section without discussing the importance of the controversy first and having the issue mediated.
I added this section in good faith, I did not want to violate any Wikipedia rules, but here two people kept deleting my section which is perfectly germane to the topic and based on entirely respectable sources.
P.s. I am also not a sockpuppet, and I have never used Wikipedia before. IsraelXKV8R keeps making this accusation on the basis of an old case from two years ago that I have nothing to do with, it is guilt by association without any evidence at all apart from paranoid links between all kinds of people who, according to him, have infiltrated or manipulated the national press, and I hope you will see through his charade, which is simply aimed at convincing you to delete a section based on reliable sources describing the basic elements of a controversy in which he is personally involved.
All of this does not matter here. Your request needs to address the issue of WP:3RR compliance exclusively. The conduct of others is irrelevant to your block. Sandstein 21:41, 14 February 2009 (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.
Yes, I do care to comment, thank you. I am not a sockpuppet, and I have never used Wikipedia before. IsraelXKV8R keeps making this accusation on the basis of an old case from two years ago that I have nothing to do with. It is guilt by association without any evidence at all apart from links between all kinds of people who, according to him (see his latest comment on the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion page), have infiltrated or manipulated the national press. How convincing!
I sincerely hope you will see through these accusations, which are simply aimed at convincing Wikipedia editors to delete the section I added in good faith to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, based on reliable sources (the National Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Jewish Week).
My section describes, without injecting any opinion of my own, the basic elements of a controversy in which IsraelXKV8R, as I easily ascertained from reading his Wikipedia userpage and the Wikipedia article on his film, is personally involved: he helped create the material (specifically, the film) used in the exhibitions that are the subject of controversy (and his film was specifically criticized by the main critic of the exhibitions).
I did not even mention IsraelXKV8R's involvement in the controversy in my section (which I wrote before I even realized he was involved), yet he has deleted my section 14 times.
I have repeatedly had to respond to his accusations on the discussion page of the Dead Sea Scrolls article, and I would also respond to his latest claims but I have been temporarily blocked from editing because he kept deleting my section and I kept putting it back. I do not even know who "Bart Ehrman" is, and I was not familiar with the Indy Week article IsraelXKV8R refers to, or I would have used it too in my section because it is another reliable source dealing with this interesting controversy. (I have now added an expanded section with this additional source.)
P.s. I think I should also point out that there are 20,000 students here at NYU, and we have one of the largest Judaica departments in the country given New York City's population of nearly 2 million Jewish people. So it's not surprising if other people at NYU wrote about the Dead Sea Scrolls two years ago. But I'm apparently the only one writing about it now, and by blocking my IP address from editing, all NYU students who use these computers are also blocked, which is not fair to any of us. This is what IsraelXKV8R wants, but he's the one who is personally involved in the controversy. As I said, I did not even mention this in the section I added to the article, but it's my duty to point it out, and I hope someone at Wikipedia will consider this case from a fair and neutral perspective and do the right thing with respect to the abusive treatment I have had to endure on account of IsraelXKV8R's obvious conflict of interest.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (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).
I have not abused any editing privileges whatsoever. I merely added a section on an important controversy to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, based on entirely reliable sources in major newspapers, and an editor who is involved in the controversy has deleted my section 14 times in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rule. Full explanations can be found above and on the discussion page of the Dead Sea Scrolls article.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Over and above the sockpuppetry question (and, after reviewing the investigation, it really isn't a question anymore), and your COI allegations, and WP:NOTTHEM there is the question of whether you violated the bright-line rule that is 3RR. And it looks to me like you did. Strict liability applies here. It doesn't matter how good the material is or isn't, as long as it isn't vandalism or a BLP violation you have to stop at three reverts. In fact, you shouldn't even get that far. And even if you didn't, your conduct is disruptive and tendentious. Oh, and as for worrying about all those other people at NYU, I'm sure the university has lots more IPs they can use. And even if it doesn't, they can get accounts and edit that way. Like you did (more than once, apparently). — Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2009 (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.
