User talk:Eric1985

Hey there

I would be glad if you join this wiki site that it's purpose is to reduce anti-semitism. the site is about Israel and Jewdaism history. I would also be glad if you will spred it across other wikipedia users who aknowledge this subject. --DXRD (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived Old Talk

I just archived my old talk pages. See the links from the archive box for past discussions. --יהושועEric (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you can take a look at the Human Rights Watch page? I try to add criticism and it is undone and I am locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.187.186 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-importance Israel-related articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-importance Israel-related articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-importance Israel-related articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-importance Israel-related articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good evening

There is currently a discussion here involving you: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were offended by my comments, but I do feel that there is a major anti-Semitic presence on Wikipedia, as there are on many other sites on the Internet. I also clearly stated in the comment that I wish people luck in keeping things neutral. I do not want bias toward Israel or Jewish causes, I just want the facts stated clearly. I don't like or support lies on either side, but it is very frustrating when you try to focus on facts and truths and people use excuses like "it is the best known term" to avoid putting an accurate, NPOV title/paragraph/sentence in an article. --יהושועEric (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (cross posting on your discussion linked above)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely for serious intent to disrupt Wikipedia via off-wiki canvassing. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 11:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear to passer-by, the website in question is this one. -- tariqabjotu 11:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On ANI

Just so you know, there is a thread on WP:ANI that mentions you: WP:ANI#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

I haven't seen you respond to Tariq's block, I am notifying you that it's my intention to do an Arbcom filing in this case. If you have input regarding the block or reasons that you feel you should not be blocked you should post them here to be copied over. I will advise you when the case has been posted. --WGFinley (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley, I'm sure you see through the dumbness of blocking a inactive editor for something he is doing outside WP. I believe that Eric in the recent past declared giving up editing. --Shuki (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first point but I still wanted to send him the notice in case he wished to remain active. He hasn't put a {{retired}} template anywhere that I've seen. --WGFinley (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I will write something up and post it here for consideration. While I am not very active, I would prefer not to be blocked. You never know, I could always change my mind and come back more often. --יהושועEric (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My Response: From User:Eric1985

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).

Eric1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

WP:TLDR. Perhaps you should review WP:GAB, specifically Item 1. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

My Response: From User:Eric1985 (I wrote this lengthy letter in Microsoft Word complete with HTML links, but those did not translate into Wikipedia. For a version of this complete with links, please visit Wikibias.

If you look at my history of editing on Wikipedia, I was very active for well over a year. In that time, I am proud of what I accomplished. I created articles about my local Boy Scout council and camp, towns and universities I am familiar with, several large companies, and, my favorite topic, Israel. I found that a notice board for Israel related topics, which was championed by User:Hummus sapiens, was insufficient for the quantity of Israel material on Wikipedia, so on September 23, 2006.

In the time I spent working on Israel articles, I wrote on topics such as Sport in Israel and Ben Gurion International Airport. My goal in writing about Israel, as with every other topic, is to put forward the most factual information possible. I never remove facts, whether or not I find them flattering to my opinions, and I never add something that is not verified by a respectable source. I also liked to use principles outlined in WP:Writing for the Opponent, to ensure my writing has both quality and neutrality. Simply put, I work to make articles without errors. There are always opportunities to add, of course, but my facts were never disputable.

Around the end of 2008, my number of edits dropped dramatically. Not coincidentally, that time came roughly six months after membership in WikiProject Palestine began to quickly grow and members began to, in my opinion, regularly vandalize articles that I worked very hard on. After seeing the results of many edit wars and arguments, I eventually became distraught and slowly moved away from editing.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, Israel supporters and Palestinian supporters alike. In a perfect world, and on a perfect internet, we would all be able to work together to build comprehensive, fact checked articles. But, like in the real world, it seems that Jews and Arabs (or Israel supporters and Palestinian supporters) cannot get along.

So, my number of edits dwindled. In all of 2009, I made about five edits. I am sure I made another ten or so on edits on convenient computers, but those were uncontroversial typo corrections for the most part, as I am a stickler for grammar, though I am sure some of you can find problems with the grammar here.  :)

In 2010 to date, I have made twenty two edits, mostly on my user page and discussing why I am no longer generally active on Wikipedia. Inspired by a blog post, I came in and let everyone in Wikiproject Israel, something I am proud to have created, about my thoughts on the state of Israel related topics on Wikipedia. I signed off with the quote, “Keep Wikipedia neutral.”

When my post was removed and I was essentially called a racist for supporting Israel, I got back the spark to make a difference. However, I was still discouraged by prior experiences, so I decided to try something else. Remembering the CAMERA incident, I decided to disguise my identity, even though I was eventually found out, to keep my account active if I ever decided to use it. I still don’t know how Supreme Delicousness connected Eric1985 to Wikibias.com, and Tariqabjotu did not provide the evidence used to connect me to the site when I requested it.

But, the cat is out of the bag now. You have read my history on Wikipedia, so the next few paragraphs will discuss my hopeful future on Wikipedia. Please note that no one had even asked for my opinion or thoughts until several days into the discussion when I was contacted by WGFinley.

I created Wikibias to inform people of biases on the site. I did not establish it to push a POV. I did not establish it to promote Israel over other interests. I started the site to show people who might not otherwise understand the biases that are very prevalent on the site.

In every article I have written, I ask contributors to read the facts, establish their own opinion, and get involved. I do not and have not ever reached out to any specific user (canvassing). The only way people find what I have written is to come visit me. I have not told the public about the site anywhere outside of my personal blog, where I do make my opinions known. However, I treat the two sites very differently, as I have different responsibilities and goals with each site. IsraelSituation.com exists to support Israel. Wikibias.com exists to support the truth on one of the most popular websites on the planet.

There are multiple authors on my new site, and each is entitled to his/her own opinion. I have only had anonymous contact with the other authors through pseudonyms and secondary e-mail addresses, so I do not even know their user names or actions on Wikipedia. They have all approached me and asked to contribute to the cause. Obviously, I am not the only editor frustrated with bias.

However, whenever I edit or write on the site, I ensure it is free of personal attacks. I ensure it is civil. We focus on the topic, not the editors. Yes, some have been mentioned by name, but I have always worked to ensure mentions relate to a factual situation and never accuse anyone of anything, such as bad faith.

I do call users to make a change, but to do so using their own brain. That is far from being a meatpuppet. You may agree or disagree with me. Either friends or foes may freely read and comment on Wikibias, and either friends or foes can take the information and go forth and edit.

I appreciate Tariqabjotu’s willingness to publicize and discuss my case. I believe Tariqabjotu was doing what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. However, what he thinks is best does not seem to match the standard treatment for my actions. (Thank you Tariq and Supreme for keeping my personal information private)

What I have done is off of Wikipedia and does not organize any group to materially damage the site. To the contrary, I ask people to get involved as individuals. That is the point of collaboration. It only works when people participate.

While it is clear that I do support one side of the Israel debate, I never asked someone to go make a pro-Israel edit. I simply presented the facts. People can do what they want with those facts. My posts are written under the name Wikipedian on the site.

Many users in the debate on the ANI have supported me and many have opposed me. Some have sent me hate mail through the contact form and comments on Wikibias (those were deleted), others have sent me supportive messages. But, just because I have an opinion and published it, should I be banned from editing? Just look at my edits. I highly doubt anything is objectionable to an unbiased editor or reader.

I was never an administrator and I have never been involved in arbitration on Wikipedia on the past. I have also never been blocked, so I am new to all of this. However, according to what I have read in the discussion on the ANI, my indefinite block was a major overreaction. These editors on the ANI support my case and use logical arguments to do so, so I am quoting them here:

With regards to the publicly available information, I must say I am underwhelmed by the nature of evidence brought forth against Wikibias. I do not share the characterization of the how-to guide as a guide to 'gaming the system' - is seems like a straightforward guide for new users, providing tips on avoiding disruptive actions that may lead to blocks. I also fail to see a big difference between Wikibias, and a site such as Wikipedia Review, where multiple Wikpedia editors (including administrators) regularly participate. That site, too, has wiki editors calling upon other editors to edit Wiki articles in a manner that could be described as recruiting meatpuppets - see this as one such example. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything sinister about a "how-to-guide." "Don't edit war," "Keep your cool," "Do not accuse editors of bath faith..." I'm sorry but this does not look like gaming the system. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tips and suggestions on how to avoid getting banned is not illegal nor against policy. Reference to Mt. Hermon is irrelevant, if anything it is positive because it tells article x is an article that is often vandalized, watch out for it. We have wikipedia projects that do the exact same thing. The comment about hummus is accurate, editors do often bait other users with differing POVs into an edit-war, often stirring up the pot and provoking conflict, then editors go to enforcement boards to get their opponents banned. It happens all the time around here. The only real problem with the guide is the 1st bulletin, telling users that "we're looking for a few good men." But this isn't the same thing as meatpuppetry, you inferred there is some conspiracy going within wikibias, grouping like-minded editors to attack articles that aren't considered pro-israel. I see no evidence to support such a conclusion - you made this inference. I'm not defending wikibias, but you are exaggerating the crime. IMO I don't see anything wrong with referring users to articles that are problematic, even if it might have a pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian slant. We have wikiprojects that group articles based on their quality class, and alert fellow members of problems and issues that should be corrected. This isn't 1984, we don't know his "intent" other than your own interpretation. For all we know wikibias was created in good-faith. I'd imagine most meat puppetry occurs behind the scenes, in a private yahoo group or something less obvious as "wikibias." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

the Wikibias blog, while containing criticisms of Wikipedia, is facially neutral when asking people to look at the discussion. What you are saying is that by putting this up there, he's hinting what he wants. Maybe so. Facially neutral semi-canvassing goes on all the time on wiki. People ask other people directly on here to comment on an issue. That's considered acceptable, because of the fact they aren't actually asking for support, although they are, by posting at a friendly wikiproject say, really hoping for it. Even if someone went too far with that, the result would be a note asking someone to be more cautious. Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the apparent intention of Wikibias is to sway results to one side, doing that on a publicly available blog can hardly be called (as Sandstein does call it) "covert". Since those on both sides have read the blog, the accusation of "meatpuppet" seems absurd. Not only is the accusation unsupported, it is unsupportable. Wikibias is just a blog where someone discusses what he/she thinks is wrong with WP in general, and a few articles in particular. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, a user found a prior case that discussed of Wiki conduct. Here is the result:

Application of EEML

Per another editor's suggestion I went and looked at the more recent EEML case and it has the following: (bolds are mine)

Off-wiki conduct 11) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So, this two hour writing session is my last stand to remain on Wikipedia. I appreciate the support I have received and hope that justice is served. I made no effort to damage Wikipedia. I simply pointed out problem areas for anyone to visit. I hope that my efforts, like those of many other editors around the internet, make Wikipedia a better, more factual, and more extensive encyclopedia.

I would like to end with a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in the Washington Post. He says about people who dislike the bias on Wikipedia: "they're all welcome" to participate and that "all reasonable viewpoints" should be represented.

Thank you. I hope to edit with you in the future.

Eric

userbox/bsd

Thanks for creating this userbox. -- -- -- 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you wish, you may join WikiProject Colorado at Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/Members. If you have any questions, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Judaism

WikiProject Judaism		An invitation to join us!                                                                                                            If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message.
		Hello Eric1985, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta.

Hi

Just so you know, WP:JEW Collaboration is being revived, which I noticed you were a part of, would you be interested in helping out or do you have any advice/comments? Magister Scienta^talk (3 August 2011)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eric1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My block has now been in place for nearly 18 months. I have obeyed the ruling and have been away from Wikipedia. I still use the resource and would like to be reinstated. My block was put in place for discussing biased articles off of the site, which is not against any Wikipedia rules (many administrators are active on message boards and have similar discussions, they are simply not as public.) I have put a lot of effort into Wikiprojects and worked to make the encyclopedia better. For the time being I plan to stay away from Middle East related topics and focus on more productive topics, such as WP:JEW where I was directly invited to contribute. (This request entered per Toddst1 instructions above)

Accept reason:

I have accepted your unblock request on the strict provision that you stay away from anything related to the Israel/Palestine conflict or the topic of Judaism. Colorado appears to be relatively innocuous. If you run into any trouble, please contact an administrator before it gets out of hand. Do not canvass off-wiki. You seem like a reasonable person, so please follow these instructions and good luck! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you had me ... up until you started justifying the behaviour that led to the block. As per WP:OFFER, tell us a little about your work on other Wikimedia projects while you have been not-editing Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen WP:OFFER before your suggestion above. After the block ruling was final, I stayed away from all Wikimedia sites outside of using them as a resource. I built a Wiki for a local flash mob group to help out, but nothing under the Wikimedia umbrella. --יהושועEric (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. So, if you're unblocked, what do you plan to edit? I ask because, per WP:OFFER, committing to stay away from the area that got you into trouble is part of agreeing not to repeat the behavior that got you blocked. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For the time being, I will stick with Jewish related topics and Colorado related topics. ----יהושועEric (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Colorado#Requested_articles_to_expand_our_rich_history

As Ultraexactzz stated, you need to commit to stay away from the areas that got you blocked in the first place. Jewish-related topics and Colorado seem to both be the areas that got you into trouble ... stating that you're going back to them certainly is not a committment ot stay away from them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The areas where my block came from were all related to WP:Israel and Israel related topics, nothing to do with Colorado or the Jewish religion. Those are areas that I am very knowledgeable but are not politically charged. That is why I picked them and plan to stay away from Middle East topics. --יהושועEric (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, I'd be minded to grant this unblock request, on the condition that he were to stay away completely from articles relating to the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Speaking as someone who has been blocked for a long period of time, repeating the actions that got the user blocked is not something one would do in a hurry, because frankly being blocked sucks. And blocks are relatively simple to re-apply. I'm no admin, but perhaps if you agreed to stay from I/P articles and for the time being edited articles perhaps related to Colorado but not Judaism may get you back in the door. It's probably not ideal, but if you demonstrate down the road improvement, then you could edit other areas of interest, for example Judaism. Just something to think over. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is reasonable and I would agree to it. --יהושועEric (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll ping an admin. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)