Jump to content

Requests for comment/Yiddish wikipedia sysop abuse

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a public request for comment into a dispute on the Yiddish Wikipedia, which does not have a large enough community to resolve it locally.

The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.


There is only one sysop active the rest of active sysops where all desysoped by a steward after a vote, in order to bring civility and end the constant edit wars by its sysops who were all its users. since then that sysop blocks users and articles daily without regards to the rules and policies that a sysop cannot use his tools to win a edit fight. the foundation stewards don't want to interfere saying that if a local community doesn't desysop an abuser they have no authority to intertwine, although the project in itself is currently far from a community in the literal sense of the word. But in their Judgment once u have more then one user its a community.--יודל 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputants' statements[edit]

This section is for statements by users involved in the dispute. Nobody else should edit this section, and disputants should only edit their own section.

Old issue, Already finalised[edit]

Disputants' statements[edit]

This section is for statements by users involved in the dispute. Nobody else should edit this section, and disputants should only edit their own section.


Since our community is a non existent I am forced to take this case to the English speaking community to decide:

We have a sysop who blocks users for no good reason. It is impossible to let him go on with this since our wiki is too small to watch his acts of abuse; so please read the following discussion and act upon it in your decision, to warn him, to block him or to strip away his sysop rights.

Please note that before commenting, Yiddish wikipedia policies and rules are the same as the English wikipedia.

That means:

  1. in case one: Not to block user who are in edit wars, not as a punishment afterwards.
  1. and in case 2: a sysop should not make use of his/her blocking privileges whilst involved in the discussion.

read carefully both cases and decide:

Case 1: Sysop blocking users for warning someone about the violation of policy[edit]

Sysop blocks user, who tried to warn other user for breaking policy, after everything is long over , as punishment
We have here, a case of a user who acted recklessly and nobody willing to confront him on numerous issues. The reason why the admins are silent is that since we are a non existient community, i have to warn the user who acts recklessly.

The following 4 breaches of policy, is what this new user has done to trigger my warnings:

  1. Using a user name of a known funny person in our community, without saying he is not that person. and i warned him to put up a notice that he is not the real name the community knows. my warning [1]
  2. putting up news items without proper sources against policy, and i warned him not to do it.
  3. evasively posting images which the free licensing was in question, no attribution on the copy rights what source it is. i was the only user who cared to warn him on his talk page and questioned the user to not break universal wikipedia policy.
  4. Writing childish harassing comments on article of well known figure: that he pickpockets, and prays sexually on men. [2], and that the girls who are his secretaries at his work in the Forward newspaper buero have long been complaining against his dirty ethic.. [3]. now seeing that his unsourced baby talk doesn't get tolerated he wants to shop for sysop rights to block the article [4]. my warning [5]

While this admin was silent, and the latter came in to say that he saw everything, i struggled with this user for days not to act like this and the user was constantly deleting my warnings , so in a way i was forced to act like admin without admin tools since no sysop is active. and this particular sysop was silent as well. When I saw the user erasing the warnings to hide his track record, I reverted it since it was vandalism to undo warnings from talk pages in order to hide your previous history, and consistently doing this, as the person has done.

Now this admin has agreed that the other user has also done 3rr, but he had never blocked him, only warning him about 2 of the issues. Afterwards i was blocked, to make it sound good and mask his sockpupetry.

The only way to expose his abuse is by this example why and how he blocked me, against normal sysop procedure to only block before a warning while in an edit war, here he blocked me after the edit war when everything was over... --יודל 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this admin always is silent and if he would have acted i would have not have to warn nor to revert even one time.
As I said before, if I'm not alerted I have no way of knowing.--Shmaltz 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sour point is that to block yidel you are always alert and to warn other users you are not aware of whats going on.--יודל 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case 2: Sysop blocks user for insulting him[edit]

The sysop is insulted by word and blocks the guy who wrote it
It is clear policy in all wikipedias, even translated in Yiddish policy as well: a sysop must not place a block when involved in a fight with the other user.

Chronicle of events and what exactly transpired

  1. A user with the name רוני has been a bureaucrat, and he has made himself other user name יידיש [6]
  2. Then he gives himself sysop power with 2 names, without any votes or due process. His response for this abuse of bureaucrat privileges was that he feared hackers, and that's why he created a second name and gave it sysop powers....


  1. Since he has lost his bureaucrat and sysop power under the name רוני due to abuse, with his second account,יידיש , he agrees to only use it for technical things [8]
  2. He, then blanks everything from his userpage. [9]
  3. Months pass by and silence, after this 1 user with both names רוני and יידיש breaks his own word that he will not use the name יידיש to help the name runy [10]
  4. So a user נבוכדנצר put it back for everybody to see [11]
  5. And warns him that he is not holding his vow when he promised that he will not use the sysop powers [12]
  6. Up comes running this abusive sysop שמאלץ and warns the user not to write on others user page only on their talk pages. [13]
  7. נבוכנדנצר answers: it is very important to put it on his user page so everybody should know they are the same user. [14]
  8. Abusive sysop שמאלץ cleans the whole page of יידיש taking away any link between both users so that nobody could see that we are dealing with a sock puppet.[15]
  9. Sysop שמאלץ warns the user not to put back the message on יידיש 's userpage [16]
  10. שמאלץ erases the warning from the talkpage [17]
  11. נבוכנדנצר puts back sysops warning and tels him that "You can block me 5 times a day, i will not let others act as sockpuppets." [18]
  12. שמאלץ answers that he will block נבוכנדנצר from Wikipedia if he does it again. [19]
  13. שמאלץ writes that he was mistaken for the warning and asks to take it off. [20]
  14. נבוכדנצר puts it back and answers him; " i am putting back this warning for everybody to see since you are a wild windy sysop that blocks everybody for nothing, go ahead and dear to put it up...."
  15. שמאלץ blocks the user נבוכדנצר. giving the reason as "personal attack" [21]
  16. He clarifies in the log book that he blocked נבוכדנצר for attacking me personal... Saying clearly that he abused his power here to achieve personal revenge. [22]

Answers to Shmaltz's points[edit]

answer from yidel on the allegations from shamlts

  1. a sock puppet means when you use 2 or more names to gain consensus. i haven't done that. and neither was נבוכדנצר so shamlts evidently is trowing the kitchen cabinets here in a last attempt to divert the subject from his abusiveness. yes i have allot of names and never ever will i use it to be a sock puppet. the reason i must write with countless names, is simple all the stewards and admis by now know how many times i was persecuted with my personal info dispersed by those like this abusive sysop. he has never ever done anything. every single time i must turn to the stewards to stop it. now is it any wonder i must hide myself with many user names? but again i haven't used in any disruptive way. not in votes and to create any kind of consensus.
  2. yes i keep on intimidating users who are sockpupets because that's the right think to do, if i have powerful evidence to it especially when they use it to intimidate and abuse others.
  3. There is no community in Yiddish wikipedia, it is a scam and a joke that he says he has votes. [23]. Who are those votes? רוני he has made himself a known sock puppet with creating himself as a new sysop under his other name יידיש . alzuz is blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry in exposing my privacy numerous times [24]. shamlts is now on the debating table and the other hasn't have 4 edits in the Yiddish wikipeida and is probably a sock puppet. that's it! so here you see what votes we have against me. a bunch of vandals terrorists and criminals!
  4. and nobody has provided any link where i was disruptive. it is a simple lie: i was never ever disruptive!--יודל 11:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Because of recent events on the yiddish project I am currently withdrawing my request, and for the moment just want to keep this on record but ask that no action should be taken agains Yidel. My points are however still valid.--Shmaltz 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The problem can be described in 3 words, a disruptive editor.
  • It happens to be that that editor has been by one of his names a sysop, it was removed after the community asked for it to be removed[25]. His name with sysop rights has been יודל. As you can see here he is the only user that oposed the vote.
    • He has created for himself at least 5 names, and left disruptive comments on usertalk pages with diffrent names, users thought that it is all different users. I don't have a list of those names, but there are other users that kept track.
    • Used one name to disrupt the project (which is what happened today as well), I blocked that user, then came back with his sysop name to cry sysop abuse, when in fact that was the goal, to first disrupt and then be able to yell sysop abuse.
    • He keeps intimidating users that they are sockpuppets [26] therefore creating the image to other users that they can ignore it, and/or giving himself an excuse to ignore things.
    • He has constantly gamed the system, by wiki lawering thru the rules, and then came back to intimidate everyone that they are braking the rules.

The only resolution I see for the moment is to block User:יודל from the yiddish project, togther with all names, I think a vote on this will show a lot.

More evidence[edit]

1/30/07 19:51 EST shows Yidel unblocking an IP address that was blocked because of this user. Right after that he (Yidel) starts writing with this username. The fact that in that edit war both were blocked, and Yidel only unblocked one user says a lot about his motives.--Shmaltz 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of his distruptive behavior, he constantly speaks to others in a way that discourages collaborative work on wikipedia, and making sure that there is no worktogether whatsoever. Here I asked a simple thing if the picture should be removed, to which he answers: Shmaltz, your whole behavior here is a bother, start writing articles and stop bothering, It's a lie that the hebrew doesn't have it (the photo) and also if you want take it off nobody is blocking you (from doing so), you just want to make a fight, let go and don't be a pest becaue you will get lost once and for all just like Alzuz and Kotzker. The above is a translation from Yidel under his yet another username ahroni (ארוני). That was totaly uncalled for, and up until then I didn't even know that was him. Which again just shows how disruptive his using many names is.--Shmaltz 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now come to a point where it is almost impossible to write anything without him getting involved in a negative way. The only way I see to make sure that people come back and write for the Yiddish project is to immediatly terminate and block all his usernames.--Shmaltz 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the 5th of Feb 07 I flew to the UK, which gives me very limited access to a computer. Which is noticable on my presence on the wikipedia, on the 8th when I did have Internet access thanks to my host lending me his private office, I did some reoutine editing on the Yiddish wikipedia, to which I get a welcome message here where this user askes to be blocked, since my guess (based on the edits from that user) tell me that it's yidel, I go for it and blcok him here with the IP blocked as well, sure enough Yidel unblocks himself with the IP so that he can continue writing with that name.--Shmaltz 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of his ongoing disrutive behavior he leaves me a message here, complaining - using this username - why I don't create more usernames since it's not fun to work without editwars. He has been told more than once, that accusing users as having more than one username is very offending if/when there is no evicence, and this is another one of his very disruptive behavior. Accusing every users that is agains him (everybody that means) that they are sockpuppets.--Shmaltz 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this page one editor כי טוב made changes which is against this policy, claiming that the person in the above article is on drugs. When anohter editor changed it citing above policy he didn't answer as to why it still should be there. The other editor then asked for help from me being and admin, I asked the user כי טוב why we shouldn't follow that policy to which he again didn't answer, but editor קרעכמער made some comments. I then chnanged it - removing the offending text - קרעכמער then changed it back. I went and blocked קרעכמער for one day citing 3RR, and then locked the article. Yidel then unblocks קרעכמער citing abusive block in the midst of an edit war. There was no edit war, but in fact user כי טוב, user קרעכמער, and user יודל (Yidel) are all the same. Since he is using the Yiddish wikipedia as his personal blog, he wanted to keep that offending text in, clearly violating policy, when being blocked he unblocks citing edit war, which was non existent.--Shmaltz 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to Yidel's points[edit]

In general[edit]
  • Non existent, Only because a user by the name of yidel, who happens to had his sysop rights removed after a vote by that nonexistent community, has chased away lots of active users [27] look at Nov 22 edits.
  • I always gave a reason why I blocked [28]
  • If I'm not alerted I have no way of knowing that something needs my attention.
  • If someone writes 70+ edits on the same page, then I don't need to be alerted, I will spot it on my own, the same goes for any disruptivness, otherwise it wouldn't be disruptive.
  • the following is an answer I gave here and I am copying here:
The issue at hand was that that particular user was editing his own talk page, not an article and was therefore not a vandal, while User:יודל kept reverting that users talk page to what he wanted the page should say. Which is exactly the reason that 3RR exists, to avoid edit wars, and that was the reason he was blocked, to unblock a user that clearly violated 3RR is quite irresponsible. On a side note, he has been involved in too many disruptive editing, and has been gaming the system for a long time now. He does whatever he wants just making sure that it is not a violating a policy but still very disruptive. On the english wikipedia he would have been blocked a long time ago. I don't think he should be blcoked now, but to just unblock someone who has violated 3RR just because he asked for help, without contacting the one that blocked him, or anybody else on that project is very irresponsible, as it gives way for more of the same to happen.--Shmaltz 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were other reasons that נבוכדנצר which is also יודל was blocked, and that is that he (they) are disruptive and it was needed so that it doesn't get out of hand, which is exactly what it did, since you can see that it moved here for a resolution.
About case 2[edit]

sysop answer in case 2, that although the given reason of the sysop while blocking was that he was insulted, but in truth he blocked user because of disruptiveness

While everything outlined in case 2 by User:יודל is true besides for the minor fact of that he said 'ביסט א ווילדער רוח' in English translation You are a wild ghost (a very insulting phrase in the Yiddish language), I disagree in the events of what happened. Here is my outline of the events and the problem, I can get more users to agree with me on this.--Shmaltz 03:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shamalts please say what was he disruptive?--יודל 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all its not that insulting if we take it in context, and mainly that proves the point that you blocked him because he insulted you. this is sysop abuse, because you have to relinquish you sysop power when you are involved.--יודל 03:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, while the given reason was personal attack, there were other reasons, and that is that that user was disruptive as outlined in the problem. I acted based on best effort not to disrupt the project even more. Which is ecactly what it did, as you can see, we got it all here :) --Shmaltz 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shamlts if you did not block him because he insulted you what was the reason you block him?--יודל 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note nobody was disruptive, he claims this without even backing it up. Samalts was blocked from English wikipedia in the past, [29] so he has a history and well known reputation outside our wikipedia of being a trouble maker and bully. now should we block him? desysop him? or give him another chance? you decide--יודל 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More abuse[edit]

There was a technical error by this user (which is anther username used by Yidel) that I fixed here. He reverts it here and leaves me the following message on my talk page (translated to english):

Hi you big shmuck. Nobody said that kitniyot ([30]) is chometz ([31]), that you should come here and get on (my) nerves. Get back to your hydepark toilet and let me live in peace. Now do me a favor block me and lock the article, and continue with the happy feeling that you are boss here and getting on (my) nerves daily, but write nothing on WP because it's yidels blog.

The above is just one very good example with what type of provocative and noncollaborative user we are dealing with. Please someone wake up and do the communities will of blocking him, or at least take away his admin rights.

en:wp:point and gaming the system[edit]

He is constantly gaming the system, and constantly engaged in proving points that disrupt the Yi project. here he keeps reverting someone elses usertalk page with the excuse that the user shouldn't erase his own user talk page. When I warn him here that it's 3RR, he answers here that I also violated 3RR, when I ask him for a link showing I violated 3RR he just erases it to prove a point, that since it's his talk page he can erase it. I then ask him why he removed it, to which he replies with another removal, so that the page reads only his statement that I also violated 3RR with no supporting evidence, or even my request to provide such.--Shmaltz 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Vandalism[edit]

On the first I added the Google april fools as a news story and he (under yet another username) deleted it with the excuse that it's not news that interests the community. I then told him that although I think he is doing it just to create a fight I will not put it back. On the second of April he duplicates the whole comversation to my talk page using yet a different username, while doing that he changes the header to read: Don't put news that is just a lie. I go ahead and remove it he just puts it back, I then lock my talk page, he comes back with his username yidel and changes it back. At this point I don't think more evidence is needed since this is simple vandalism.--Shmaltz 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from other users[edit]

This section contains comments from other users. Each user's comment should be in it's own section. Do not respond to comments; if necessary, summarize your response in a single sentence and link to discussion section.


i agree. we should to block him for a while. Jiddisch 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See relevant comments: clarified that it is Yidel that should be blocked, accused of being a disputant.


About the dispute[edit]

  • Yidel, the definition of sockpuppet is well defined, no need for you to redefine it. Why is using the name נבוכדנצר to disrupt (as is evident from previous links), and then when blocked as deserved go yell sysop abuse not disruptive?--Shmaltz 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
because i may alert the community on your abuse Evan when against נובכדנצר
again those who voted against me are blocked for vandalism and are known sockpupets.--יודל 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your own words: how many times i was persecuted with my personal info dispersed by those like this abusive sysop. he has never ever done anything Show me at least one line where you asked for help from any admin. In fact look at this.--Shmaltz 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't want the stewards are well aware of this.--יודל 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again quoting you: how many times i was persecuted I have to tell you although still unjustified, you earned it. You are disruptive and that's why people did it.--Shmaltz 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know you think so that's why we are having this discussion for all to see and others to judge.--יודל 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please don't quote me out of context you lowlife--יודל 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not out of context, we have had the discussion before, you can't intimidate users even if they are in fact sockpuppets. Yidel don't forget personal insults are not allowed, and is very unconstructive.--Shmaltz 14:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
listen bully don't quote me out of context!--יודל 14:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote: who are sockpupets because that's the right think to do, if i have powerful evidence to it especially when they use it to intimidate and abuse others. Name one sockpuppet, and the evidence. This is an old tactic of his and part of his disruptivness, if there is a sock-puppet on the Yiddish project s/he should be blocked.--Shmaltz 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change this paragraph in a way that completely changes the meaning? [32] this is unacceptable.--Shmaltz 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

יידיש and רוני --יודל 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

רוני and יידיש, was known to be one and the same user, he actualy had that on the userpage.--Shmaltz 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so why dont you block him?--יודל 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there is a community, although a modest one. You have succeeded in making sure that any good editors don't write anymore. BTW, how was it decided that alzuz is katlukanye? and again I never noticed that, you never came to any admin. Just for the record we all agree that personal info misuse is a crime.--Shmaltz 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no comuinity stop lying--יודל 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quote: Please note nobody was disruptive, he claims this without even backing it up. Samalts was blocked from English wikipedia in the past, [33] so he has a history and well known reputation outside our wikipedia of being a trouble maker and bully. now should we block him? desysop him? or give him another chance? you decide--יודל 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was blocked in the middle of an edit war, and I have earened that block. No I did not bully anyone, and I'm not a known troublemaker.--Shmaltz 14:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey buddy the defention on a bully is somebody who breaks the 3rr rule--יודל 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: [34]. Now judge who is the bully.--Shmaltz 14:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
now who has blocked whom i you or you me? last time i checked you hae bloced me.--יודל 14:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiddisch's comment[edit]

Is there anybody who will back you up that you would like to call here? I mean if everybody in the yiddish community is against you, the problem probably lies with you. Also, if there's someone who only speaks Hebrew who you would like to call, that's okay too as I can translate this (assuming others agree of course). Yonatanh 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no community to call here there is only those 1 sysop abuser and the other one רוני that has made himself 2 times sysop and the third one that was blocked out from wikipedia due to harassment. please explain what it is unclear to you here? that you need backup. for translating there is no dispute here on translation so this is not of any issue here.--יודל 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm from the yiddish wikapadia. (my user page [35]) Yes! it is currect, EVEREBODY wants out this and this user! as you can see in all pages wich Jiddisch gave you. and we had votes to give back the sysup tights for Jiddisch (in the yidish wikipadia: [36]רוני) as you can see here. PLEAS take care!
you can see more details here or here from yiddish wikipadia members.
Thank you!--Nullad 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this page for edit[edit]

The entire day is user י.מ. סופר fighthing on this page. He turn it back and back 100 of times. after we got votes that in the news we shoud'n have no sex related issues from the news section on the front page. Pleas block this user from editing this page. thank you.--Nullad 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking aigan, can someone help us emergency??--Nullad 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The votes were undecided look here, this is just a stupid edit war, and shows how disruptive Yidel is.--Shmaltz 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This post by user Nullad, is more evidence on Yidels disruptivness, in that edit war he is one of the users, as I already posted before.--Shmaltz 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nulad has been proven as a vandal he is blocked from our wikipedia due to check user prove that he disseminated privacy of other user. and for shamltz to use him against me shows the colors of this bloodthirsty abuser.--יודל 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU requests[edit]

Moved from Requests for CheckUser information which is *not* a place to argue. guillom 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for CheckUser at yi.wiki[edit]

this and this user are both editind this page. can you check pleas if they are one user? Thank you.--Nullad 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? What's the reason for the checkuser? Satisfying your curiosity is not a strong enough reason. From the checkuser policy

at [37] :

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism or check abuse of sockpuppets, for example when there is a suspicion of illegal voting. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
One is not allowed to use the tool for political control, nor to apply pressure on editors, nor as a threat toward an editor with whom you are in disagreement. There must be a valid motive to check a user (a bare disagreement with the leaders of a wiki is not a valid motive).
(...) As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon.
so, why should we check those? drini [es:] [commons:] 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for yi.wikipedia.org[edit]

This user was in a edit war on this page. He went with this user name, and close the page for edits. Please check if they are both one user. Also, with his sysop name hr abuse the sysop rights a lot of times, as you can see here.

thank you--Nullad 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy it was me that locked the page, because of ongoing editwars, what he (Yidel) did do wrong there, was unblock מקוה איד since it's him itslef, he should have asked me to do it, since he had agood reason for unblocking, because he was just reverting vandalism. However I don't think there is any check user required since I'm sure it's him. unless you want to take action with this checkuser against all of his accounts as requested here.--Shmaltz 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: This above corrupt sysop did not block the article only after the edit war was long over--יודל 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, how is one minute apart called long over?--Shmaltz 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for CheckUser yi.wikipedia.org[edit]

This user had a edit war with this user on this page. So he went with his other sysup name to take action and blocked him out for ever for no good reason. PLEASE check it out soon, thats realy sysup abuse!.--Backist 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do that, user was blocked after confirmation that it's a sockuppupet of blocked user.--Shmaltz 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Check user necessary. it is me. and i was forced to block out the blocked user since other sysop wont do it. There was another sysop in steward irc and he saw this he did not bother to act because he is an old corrupted user so I was forced to take action. as said this user has been identified by jhs who is a Steward that he is responsible for exposing privacy of other users therefore i blocked him.--יודל 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you control my eyes as well, I saw? How do you know? Even though I was logged in, how do you know I actualy watched at that moment whats going on in IRC? Weren't you there as well? And why did this happen?--Shmaltz 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you had fully participated in the subject. we can ask JHS about this.--יודל 17:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't I realy block him?--Shmaltz 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record i have asked the steward Jhs to come on this page and sign that Shmaltz is lying, he told me that since it is only his memory he wont come on record and write openly that Shamltz is lying. But his memory says that shmalts participated in this discussion that i had on IRC how to block this vandal the kept coming back under different names. And when Jhs started numerating all the names if they are series users, Shamlts was the one to say that he can go ahead and block them! Through the IP that all tghis users or user is sharing all IP's. So whoever can produce that backup to prove Shmaltrs the lying abuser he is should post the copy here. Thanks--יודל 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Yiddish Wikipedia[edit]

I request that sysop access be removed from yi:user:יודל

What a joke This Shmalts is! He doesnt write anything series in wikipedia at all, (his answer that he strikes until yidel is there he doesnt want to contribute), and has said numerous times that he uses this name on different computer then the runi name, he doesn't provide any serious case why yidel should be removed. This Shamlts is one big phony who tries, over and over again, to represent himself as a community. Shame on him for trying to shut out a tireless wikopedian like yidel from wikipeida.-- 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: and has said numerous times that he uses this name on different computer then the runi name Please provide a link that I said at least once that: 1. I use Runi s name. 2. That I log in from many computers. You (User: keep writing like you are NOT yidel. Just for the record, it IS Yidel, and I have the evidence if needed.--Shmaltz 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yiddish wikipedia votes to take away my sysop rights[edit]

i have reason to believe that this 3 users are the same please make check-user because votes [38] to rip powers from other users is series consensus building and i would like to be sure this is not a scheme. thanks

  1. yi:באַניצער:געוואלד
  2. yi:באַניצער:שמאלץ
  3. yi:באַניצער:רוני

now one of this users have openly write that they are the same guy but since no steward understands Hebrew or Yiddish we will have to rely on check-user thanks--יודל 16:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do support to do the check user, I would also request immediate action taken - and yidel be taken away his sysop rights - based on the outcome of those votes. On a side note, Yidel do you have any link showing one of the users writing that they are the same guy?--Shmaltz 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes i do, but not for u since u r part in this debate. i would like also the checkuser to say explictly if shcmalts yi:באַניצער:שמאלץ uses difrent ip adresess all the time when he logs in to edit. becouse he has declared to use a ip changer the checkuser should not detect his tracks. thanks--יודל 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
any link that I declared using ip changer?--Shmaltz 16:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i will give when stewrd will ask--יודל 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I would be very surprised if the database will have logs for me having logged in from other than 2 maybe 3 ip addresses. The IP address I use is ARIN registred to me.--Shmaltz 16:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has said this lie before, but never came up with a link to it.--Shmaltz 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the mere fact that u don't write anything there only to block is enough to prove that u r there to play games and to block out others in order to gain single rullship. look at his contribution list, it is clean from normal edits, only talk pages and blocks[39]--יודל 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that answer why I am more than one user? or does it provide a link to where I said that? or does that just show that you are disruptive enough that nobody can write at the moment on the yiddish project because you are disrupting it, and thanks for that contribs link, which shows exactly when I stopped writing, which is around the same time that you became disruptive to a point of shutting down the yiddish project.--Shmaltz 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i appreciate your point why you have stopped writing, but that doesn't give u any help, because in a free wikipedia you cannot say that someone is disruptive and ask to block him just like this, disruptive behavior if its not vandalism is arguable ludicrous to block somebody, since u r Jewish u probably know the biblical story of the 2 mothers that solomon saw which one is ready to cut his throat. u admit that u have stopped writing there so please don't try to rule it now. thanks.--יודל 17:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact back in June 2006 he complimented me (using one of his over 20 docuemnted other usernames) that I am a talented editor that has contributed so much to the growth of the yi:wp.--Shmaltz 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in a free wikipedia, however at the moment it's not free it's your personal blog.--Shmaltz 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to revert 4 articles that were erased by abusive sysop user Schmaltz[edit]

Since we agreed i don't do nothing against schmaltz and shmalts doesnt do nothing against me, only after trying with you, i would like to notify you that he has broken this agreement once more, please warn him to act civilly. 2 guys have expressed that certain articles should not be erased. and he without talking nothing just went ahead and eraised it anyway despite clear consensus against his action. i would like to voice the opinion of our wiki against him on those 4 people biographies he erased just by saying that they are private, the community respectfully disagrees and believes that they are indeed very public and their life is a matter of notability by all standards for any encyclopedia. I need your honorable opinion on this, if i may go ahead and do the will of the community against his tyranny?. Thanks--יודל 14:27, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

I erased it as any other article that writes about private ppl should be. this user created yesterday articles dealing with over 15 on the staff of Satmar Yeshivah in Queens, NY and as such I erased them all, since none of them could be considered public figures. In my eyes this is no less a problem then publicizing the identity of Yidel, in a non direct way (like not mentioning that it's yidel). The fact that some of them are Mashgichim in a Kashrut orgonization doesn't make them public. --שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 16:39, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

im sorry שמאלץ :::but all this people is very known in the hasidic comunity as well. --מה נשתנה 16:59, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, they are only known to the satmar community.--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 17:56, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)
This is just the perfect example of who this shmalts is all about, he declares here that yes they are public for the satmar community. but he goes ahead and erases them anyway. With this he wants to lie to danny that he is not a satmar guy. Please note that he has told me in chat (i still have the record) that he is the son of one of our most active politicians and trouble makers in our society and community. So this is a real political game here to torpedo our project with a lie that he doesnt know those people are public to ensure that their articles are not to open. i am happy that this is all documented here like this danny sees up front the situation of why this shmalts wants yidel out of the project over a year and a half now. he is a deeply corrupted man with a one sided partisan mission to destroy the free flow of information in this encyclopedia all in the name of a wiki! Please take away his ability to abuse those tools of a sysop in the name of God and his truth. Thank You Shmalts for showing us your kushere chazir fislech--יודל 11:23, 15 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)
Ok danny he gave in on his talk page [40] and said that he will not revert my UN-erase and gave me permission to do it. thanks schmaltz--יודל 18:18, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)
Which talk page? I serached his English, Hebrew, Yiddish and Meta talke pages and didn't find that.--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 18:39, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

Permission to revert abusive sysops talk page?[edit]

Shmalts keeps on erasing some warning [//yi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%91%

D7%90%D6%B7%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%A8_%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%9F:%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A5/Archive3&curid=17085&diff=83890&oldid=83843] about the front page current events section apparently he is shy and wants to run from his record perhaps the wording is too sharp, i am wiling for him to change the wording but the essence of the talk must be reverted on his talk page because it shoes allot for the community about his history and world out look what he believe the front page should look for the wikipedia community. thanks for you guidance.--יודל 17:22, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC).

the reason for me ereasing it is twofold. 1. It's a repeat from here. 2. He changed the title to reflectd a very bad image on the news I put, which is just a smearing compaign on his side. There is no reason even if it is a real warning that I shouldn't be able to remove it from my own talk page. In this case where it's just a personal agenda from this user, I see no reason to leave it. BTW, on a side note, he claimed then that the reason for removing the news is because it has nothing to do with yiddish and doens't interest the communtity, I then replied to him, that I don't agree with him, and think he just trying to create an issue out of nothing, but I'll leave it out. He has since published many non yiddish/jewish related sotries including [//yi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%9E%D

7%95%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%A8%3A%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%A2_%D7%92%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9F&diff=83847&oldid=83746 here] a story about a labonise male dancer, and a story about some country allowing more than one wife.--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 18:04, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

As i told u, please change whatever language u find offensive and hurtful, but the essence of the discussion isn't a think u can run from even doe i agree with your point that the warning is framed to make you in a negative way. Please note that every warning in a sense has the goal to corner the receiver of that warning, please prove us wrong with your future actions to change this picture on your work here...--יודל 18:16, 13 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

Permission to revert partisan delete from abusive sysop user Schmaltz[edit]

I know this sounds really ridicules but unfortunately since u don't comment on your talk page this desperate imbecile thinks u don't watch his deeds.

The case now is really mind boggling how brazen and open this partisan censorship crusade tries to eradicate freedom of information in our wiki.

Here he agrees [41] that the facts in discussion is no question that they are true, and fact, but since only i and he say its true, and even doe nobody is disputing it, it must be deleted in his dark age opinion of telling the reader what he may read and what not, and he goes ahead and deletes it[42] once twice and 15 times already [43].

WOW!!! Is there no shame?!--יודל 16:47, 16 אין אפריל 2007 (UTC)

Unfurtunately this fact has no source and is therefore OR, and based on WP:OR and WP:V could and should be deleted. I know lots of facts about this story, and have the documentation to support (Court papaers, Minutes, etc.) However being that here is an encylopedia and not a blog, such can only be written with the guidleins that have been esteblished under WP:OR and WP:V. And as such I removed it from that page. Keep in mind that from a political POV I would love to keep that in. HOwever, I don't think that WP should be the place to publicize it, when no ohter place that can be used for WP:V has ever written about it. BTW, this is negative private info.--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 04:01, 17 אפריל 2007 (UTC)

evidently his rubbish of wp and other initials shoes that he is a perfect abuser throwing some much empty meaning initials just to show smoke that he talks about some rules he doesnt bother to explain. But let me just say to his statement that tis is a private matter that he is lying out of his teeth. this was exposed in newspapers and was a major discussed issue in the haraidy world since it was done by its biggest rabbi. he is unbelievable.

Bottom line what he tries to put up on your smoke screen to blur your vision can be explained in your English terminology like this: Bil Clinton is public, he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Monica is private. everybody agrees on the facts how it happened and what happened. comes along Dick Morris a paid political consultant, writes a few hundredth articles to gain sysop tools. And deletes the Bil Clinton article from any mention of the Monica Lewinsky scandal since Monica is private, on those Shmaltsy arguments.

Danny if you don't recommend to take away Dick Morris tools i doubt your love to the English wiki. only if you really read all this saga in detail which i pray please do only for the entertainment value of this abuser--יודל 05:11, 17 אפריל 2007 (UTC)

Yidel please bring a link to a single newspaper article so that these facts comply with WP:V and it will stay there. Until then its gone.--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 13:04, 17 אפריל 2007 (UTC)
if u agree that every word is truth don't dear to erase it--סטיוו ווינדער 13:10, 17 אפריל 2007 (UTC)

Is that instead of a link, or a link is going to follow?--שמאלץ רעדן / בליץבריוו 13:42, 17 אפריל 2007 (UTC)