Jerusalem21

Image:Aksuit1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aksuit1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

The seven user/IPs on this list have been primarily or exclusively single-purpose accounts used for editing only one article, Aaron Klein. More than one editor is quite certain that all of these accounts have been and/or are used by the subject himself.

• SandyBMW (Talk) (contribs) (January 2007)
• 89.1.187.177 (talk) (contribs) (November-December 2006)
• MikeJason (talk) (contribs) (November-December 2006)
• 89.1.187.215 (talk) (contribs) (August-November 2006)
• Joshua1988 (talk) (contribs) (September 2006)
• 192.118.11.112 (talk) (contribs) (March-December 2006)
• Jerusalem21 (talk) (contribs) (March 2006) (Wrote first version)

Every image ever placed in the article has been uploaded by one or more of these user/IPs. Every such image has been obtained from World Net Daily. All have persistently added add far more external links to that single site than Wikipedia consensus deems appropriate.

All of these user/IPs have repeatedly violated key Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia guidelines, several of which are here referenced in two excerpts:

Conflict of interest

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.

This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
2. avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality
3. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
4. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

↑ Excerpted from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

↑ Excerpted from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Additional sockpuppet

See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry 13:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• 192.118.11.120 (talk) (contribs) (January 2007)

Questions

→ See also: Wikipedia:Single purpose account.

If you have questions about these policies and how they pertain to your edits, please post them on the article talk page, Talk:Aaron Klein. — Athænara ✉ 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aaronklein.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aaronklein.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI Conflict of interest guideline

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Aaron Klein, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you for 72 hours for your disruptive editing/edit warring at Barack Obama. Based on the SPI complaints above, just be happy I didn't go indef. Wizardman 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please go to Talk:Barack Obama to discuss your addition before adding it again. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not alone

Jerusalem21, you are not alone. See the last section, "Article probation notice," here. By the way, I'll assume you know you are in the article I included on the Talk page before my edit was cut out in seconds, just as the article described happening to you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Why is Wikipedia censoring the Barack Obama page? No one is allowed to post anything that isn't blowing sunshine up his every orifice, it seems. Those controversies were legitimate, widely covered by the media, and relevant to the article. Whatever happened to wikipedia is not censored? When did thinking the president wasn't a SAINT become a crime? Must've been a new rule of Obamas', otherwise the Bush article would be censored, too. But Bush is white, so we not only CAN rag on him, we HAVE TO rag on him. Well, you aren't alone in your determination that Wikipedia will not censor real things, just because they don't show the president in beautiful light. Good luck!Politicalfactwatcher (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, sadly, that Wikipedia IS censored by a contingent of radical leftists who've made it their goal to band together to own many, many articles regarding politics, religion and science. They circumvent the 3-revert-rule by making sure there are more of them defending those articles than there are people trying to insert dissenting factual information. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice Job. You're on Drudge. Keep it up --Oursinees324 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship in Obama's Page

Greetings, Jerusalem 21. I'm a journalist from Ynet.co.il, and I'd be glad if you could discuss this story with me. Please contact computers@y-i.co.il. Shalev.Adar (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Based on various information, including the admissions by Klein in the Sydney Morning Herald and other newspapers that you work for him, I have blocked you indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges, conflict of interest, and disruptive editing. Please feel free to submit an unblock request if you think the block is unjustified. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy that this user violated?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You may notice that my edit summary in making the block parallels closely the language in WP:BLOCK. There's also a WP:COI problem of huge proportions. If Jerusalem21 wants the block lifted, he is welcome to tell me why I was wrong. Thanks for your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you are only confirming the truth of the matters he asserts. And normally, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Unblock him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? He was disruptive, and there is strong evidence of meat/sockpuppetry. Do we treat him different because he's some notable figure? Don't be ridiculous. Grsz¹¹ 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should we even expect he's willing to cooperate. His only edits here were to polishing Aaron Klein and working to manufacture this "controversy". Grsz¹¹ 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. But he's a total newbie. Usually newbies are gently guided instead of curtly punished. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The account has been editing since 2006. That's enough time to learn WP's policies.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, I'm assuming good faith and certain you are overlooking that he has a grand total of 45 edits. This is a newbie by anyone's definition. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There are warnings on this page going back two years. The "gently guided" stage has come and gone.   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but did he ever get such guidance? Embarrassingly, when I was a newbie, I did not understand the rules for quite a while, well past 45 edits. I now have almost 6,000 edits. Obviously I have greatly improved and now make valuable edits. If the guy never got the kind of "guidance" I got over his 3 years making 45 edits, he should get that now. That is our responsibility as experienced Wikipedians. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

I think you're being kind of ridiculous. It was admitted that this user's sole purpose was to create a dispute in order to write about it. He didn't want guidance...he wanted to cause problems. Grsz¹¹ 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's never responded to any guidance that's been offered. If he wants to contest the block and ask for another chance then no one is stopping him.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been editing for years. That's not a newbie by any definition. cacophony ◄► 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>I think editing for the purposes of conducting an journalistic investigation can be construed as disruptive. It's not activity in line with improving the encyclopedia. If Jerusalem21 wants to contest the block or make a case that he/she's here to build the encyclopedia that's up to him/her. I think this block is reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem21 made approximately 40 edits to Aaron Klein, making his account a SPA. He did this for almost 3 years. However, then he decided to edit Barack Obama. He was warned and still did not listen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anybody can edit. However, Wikipedia does have policies and Jerusalem21 did not follow them even after being warned. The indef ban is appropriate, and Jerusalem21 has not contested it. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think whether Jerusalem21 asked me to reconsider, or asked for a block review, which would be decided by another admin after consultation with me, the admin deciding would insist on a full account of what he did, with emphasis on Klein's role. So he'd have to give up Klein. Which isn't going to happen. Unless, of course he is Klein, in which case it still is not going to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, what policies did this account violate? Where are this users warnings about not following said policies? I was not aware that editing just one article was against any wikipedia policy. Perhaps some of you are puting the cart before the horse and blocking this editor based on a statement someone made outside of wikipedia. That is not right. How do we know that those statments are even true? Did anyone look into it? No. The user was banned based on nothing more than unproven hearsay.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should always be open to discussing their administrative actions, so I will respond at a bit of length. First, this is not a court of law, and "hearsay" is not barred.

WP:BLOCK says "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." In my administrative judgment, Jerusalem21 did that.

WP:COI says "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

In view of the editing, which had resulted in a prior block (which is a warning, you know), and other talk page intervention, and due to the severity of the disruption as many editors and admins were distracted from building an encyclopedia, and the possibility of recurrance, I felt an indef block was justified, while notifying Jerusalem21 of his right to a block review."

If I was wrong, let Jerusalem21 tell me so, and explain all this away. As yet, he has not done so.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of wikipedia policy. As should any admin be as well. Yet, what policy did this editor not follow since the last block? None, since this editor hasn't even made a single edit since the last block two weeks ago. How can you justify blocking an editor when that editor hasn't even edited? Why should this editor have to come here and beg anyone to undo the block? Blocking an editor without provocation or proof is the same as accusing someone of being a witch and then asking them to beg for mercy as your dunking them in a tank of water. I believe that this editor was blocked for political reasons. It is just another way to keep conservatives from editing wikipedia. Being an admin is a trusted responisbility and shame on you for using your position to block political ideas that are differant from yours.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can, because the admin who blocked him (who indicated that Jerusalem21 was this >< far from an indef block) did not have all the information before him. He did not know that Jerusalem21 was editing to intentionally disrupt. Had he known what was up, I have no doubt Jerusalem21 would have been indef blocked then and there. And I don't block for political reasons. While two of my current projects involve Democratic politicians, one Franklin Knight Lane has been dead for almost 88 years; the other Jerry Voorhis has been dead for 24 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Joj, you are forgetting that an indefinite block does not equal an infinite block. If Jerusalem21 wants to log back in and request an unblock that's an option. But as it stands right now, with this account being used only to promote Klein and create disruption so he can write an article about it, this account is a role account, and we don't allow those no matter who it is or what his goal is. Grsz¹¹ 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh the guy had only 45 edits in 3 years. I can't believe all those harsh remedies applies to his case. And what's to say he won't get the Wiki bug and become a long-term, useful Wiki editor. Yes, he focused on Klein when he first edited and to this point, but I focused on one person as well, for well over 45 edits, and I was always running a foul of something or other, and now I edit like wild, with Jay-Z getting the most of my edits. It seems like he is getting the heave ho solely because of his affiliation with someone people oppose politically. Really, that's what this looks like to me and apparently to quite a few others. Wiki policy should not be tossed aside so cavalierly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If he wants to be constructive, all he has to do is make his case here. Is that really too much to asked? You are dragging this on and making it obvious that you don't understand the block in the first place. This user was not innocent and we don't just let people carry on like that in hopes that they might turn it around. This guy has absolutely no intention of being constructive, or he would have objected here already. I'm not even sure why you care so damn much, as there is really no indication wants to or would come back. He served his purpose and is gone. Move on. Grsz¹¹ 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't have to beg for anyones forgivness. He did nothing wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, all he has to do is come here and say that in an unblock request, and another admin will look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Joj, if you really think that way, you've got some reading to do. You've been around long enough to know rhat that is bull. Grsz¹¹ 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet, No one has given a valid reason as to what this user is blocked for. No edits since the last block. You people are even trying to act unbiased anymore. You just do whatever you want and argue until the other person goes away. Well guess what? I'm still here and I wont give a biased admin a free pass on this.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)