This IP user seems to be edit warring.
[1] Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble?
Jehochman
Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). --
ChrisO (
talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Where is the 2nd block within a week? --
nyc171 (
talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts?
MastCell
Talk 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life.
Jehochman
Talk 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of
Neutral Good (
talk ·
contribs) and
BryanFromPalatine (
talk ·
contribs).
Jehochman
Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now.
MastCell
Talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.--
70.109.223.188 (
talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Bold text
reply
Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting
Dpotop (
talk ·
contribs) and
Xasha (
talk ·
contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx.
El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I think you mixed up
Moldova with
Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.)
Fut.Perf.
☼ 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Exactly! (you remembered
the M, to boot: full credits for that!) I copied the wrong template and a comedy of errors ensued. All fixed.
El_C 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
BereTuborg (
talk ·
contribs) added to the restrictions.
El_C 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- No actionable complaints.
MastCell
Talk 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
This may or may not violate the Arbcom rulings at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist; I'll let the readers decide. The links:
Additionally, he's edited tendentiously, as well as against consensus. The above article (
electronic voice phenomenon) was locked due to editwarring. The edit war occurred between SA and
User:LionelStarkweather. See
this diff for the last edit before it was locked, showing the content dispute. It was was locked with the Lionel version intact; while locked, there was a discussion on the talk which initially include SA; however, he stopped discussing after a while. Following the article's unlocking, he reverted without any further mention, starting a revert war that led to the article being locked again. He also removed the infobox and a sound file without any talk discussion and vague edit summaries (
here and
here). He calims
WP:V on the second; it is not being used as a source, ergo, WP:V doesn't apply.
Per the arbcom ruling, he's restricted from making disruptive edits. I would argue that these edits are extremely disruptive, especially seeing the (for a while) constructive discussion that was occurring (see
Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon sections "Moving on" and "edit request".
130.101.152.155 (
talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Arbitration enforcement requests should not be accepted from sock puppet accounts.
Jehochman
Talk 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Not a sock Jehcoman, see your talk. I use public computer terminals where the IP changes with different terminals. I use various IPs in the 130.101 range. See
Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon and
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). You shouldn't have posted that reply before I had a chance to respond to the message you left on my talk.
130.101.152.155 (
talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Much of the "edit-warring" and "tendentious editing" you cite is from 2 months ago. Additionally, full disclosure would mandate noting that
User:LionelStarkweather is a confirmed block-evading abusive sockpuppet of the banned user
Davkal. Reverting edits by an abusive, ban-evading sock is generally not considered edit-warring, but rather part of enforcing the ban. No comment on the alleged incivility in the first two diffs; I'll leave that for another admin.
MastCell
Talk 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The edits in question are from the 8th of March. You can see them at
the history. The older edits were showing the pattern- those were pre-article lock. He has engaged in the behavior that caused the block in the first place.
- Sorry I left out the sock of Davkal; however, it doesn't take away that SA has reverted without consensus on an article that was locked from revert warring.
130.101.152.155 (
talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
I can vouch for this user. I am in contact by email, and the IP is a sock of a Wikipedia user who is in good standing. The IP has, for exceptionally obvious reasons, decided to use only an IP on this article. The EVP article is once again locked, as with so many other articles, because of ScienceApologist's actions. Also, I do not believe that this user knows of the previous claims here against SA on this page, and I did not know of this claim till I saw it now on my talk page, nor did I urge this claim. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ—— 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
I find that there is no incivility, and that the IP editor is using multiple IP accounts in a way that prevents scrutiny of their contributions. Such an account should not be used to level accusations at another editor. At this point, I am not going to block the IP, but I suggest that they register a pseudonym account and use it consistently. This will avoid revealing their real life identity and provide a measure of transparency to other editors who have a legitimate interest in tracking the IP editor's contributions.
Jehochman
Talk 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless Wikipedia changes its policy to only allow registered users to edit, I'm using wikipedia as designed. I have yet to see a policy that requires static IP addresses. Besides, the purpose of this or any AE report is the conduct of the user in question, not the poster. Checkuser me if you think I'm the sock of any of the registered users involved in this debate. As it is, I think you're ignoring the evidence simply because I'm posting anonymously.
130.101.152.155 (
talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There is nothing actionable in your allegations against ScienceApologist. You are an admitted sock puppet account. Please, stop disrupting this message board with frivolous and stale complaints.
WP:AE is not a tool to be used for gaining position in an editorial disagreements.
Jehochman
Talk 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Giano's not getting blocked today - any block would be without consensus, for one thing, and inappropriate anyway, for another. Whether he was baited or not is, for now, not relevant. The most depressing thing about this is the way all the old hatreds and jealousies have sprung out from under the bed, yet again, when potential Giano drama enters the room.
Moreschi (
talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Civility:_Giano placed Giano under the following restriction: "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.".
Is this compatible with arbcom's ruling? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That seems to be the same diff twice. Is that correct? You may want to fix that. In my outside view I don't see this particular edit as falling within the cited definition. The closest to the line I saw was Giano assuming that there are some admins that are unwilling to take Giano's advice about how to handle the matter. I'd suggest that is in fact the case, there are some that aren't. I have no official standing of course, I'm just sharing my view. ++
Lar:
t/
c 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If you read the section of Giano's talk page above the one in which the "denouncing admins as stupid" diff is located, it is clear that Giano is talking about reinserting errors because they were removed by a sock of a banned editor. It is also worth noting that BrownHairedGirl and Giano have been exchanging views on Newyorkbrad's
talk page. The first diff (which has been changed since Lar posted) was written before the ArbCom case was closed - as is clear from the fact that it talks about it being likely that the civility sanction will pass. This is a pretty weak case for invoking the ArbCom ruling for a block, in my opinion.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
This seems to a bit of a stretch. I am particularly unimpressed by this comment by BrownHairedGirl to Giano: "
Does anyone know what strange quirk of the weather has brought Giano back around here to troll on behalf of Vintagekits?" which is most certainly uncivil, an assumption of bad faith and frankly unbecoming of an administrator. To then file a request for enforcement against Giano is pretty ridiculous.
WjB
scribe 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (ec)The first diff is more than a month old. Why bring it up now? The second diff shows Giano making a frank assessment using the word "stupidity". Based on a quick review of the situation, his assessment seems like it might be accurate. "Stupidity" is quite mild compared to what Giano previously said that resulted in the sanction. While not the most diplomatic term, there is nothing in the sanction that forbids Giano from being
forthright. I think no action is required here. I hope people will not be running to this noticeboard every time Giano makes a comment they disagree with.
Jehochman
Talk 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry Lar, I have now fixed the duplicate diff. The
second diff invokves Giano saying "we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation"], and concludes "Let stupidity reign". It's fine to disagree with a course of action, but is it really compatible with arbcom's restraint to describe those he disagrees with as being "without a clue" and summarising their actions as "stupidity"? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Do you accept that your comment to Giano I cite above was totally unacceptable? Do you not see any irony in so casually calling him a troll and then asking for action to be taken against him for incivility and assumptions of bad faith?
WjB
scribe 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You are mistaken to assume that I was casually calling Giano a troll. I made that comment after long experience of Giano intervening to object to any sanction against Vintagekits, and of his sneering at the admins who take in the task of dealing with it. Vintagekits has a long history of disruptive editing (set out length in The Troubles arbcom), and after a final last chance he resumed sockpuppeteering, including multiply voting in favour of Giano at the arbcom election, and it was that conduct which led to his recent removal. I have yet to see Giano ever offering support for admin action against Vk. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I find the characterisation of someone who has contributed the volume of excellent content to this encyclopedia that Giano has as a "troll" unwarranted and inflammatory. In tense situations, such as the editing around "the troubles" articles, it would be my hope that administrators would act calmly and reasonably with a view to cooling things down. With respect, your input into the discussion should have been to try to extinguish the flames, not pour petrol over them.
WjB
scribe 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I hope that no-one disputes the significance of Giano's excellent contributions to article space, including his writing of a slew of exquisitely-written featured articles. However, that does not excuse his highly provocative sniping in other areas, such as [
this one, which prompted me to note that he had resumed trolling. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You are quite mistaken BHG, and taling,out of the top of your head, my proposals for dealing with VK from the workshop page to the present time, have been amongst the most draconian and restraining. Had they been adopted you would noyt find yourself in this position that you do now. Frankly, I'm confused as to what your agenda is, if it solving the Troubles problems and less disruption to the encyclopedia, you appear to have an odd way of going about it. Ypur presence on this page being a prime example.
Giano (
talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- PS: at least this sorry and misguided affair has brought Bishonen
[8] back to us, even if her rare edit is causing her to be harrassed buy one of BHG's friend. Oh yes regarding BHG's comment about VK voting for me, i was delighted to have his suport, even though I did not realise quite how "supportive" he was being. Or is BHG asserting otherwise?
Giano (
talk) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The arbitration ruling was intended to (and should be interpreted so as to) reduce drama, not cause it. Please let's not get into a silly argument about whether Giano's comments were uncivil or suggest that he should be blocked (having said that I note with thanks to all that this suggestion has not yet been explicitly made). </doc_glasgow> --
Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you Ant..(ah I've just seen the connection Anthony/Tony - very good that)this I suspect is exactly what the Arbs anticipated happening everytime someone disagrees with me,and ultimately will lead to immense bad feeling and disruption. curious solution wasn't it.
Giano (
talk) 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
All users that work in the area of arbitration enforcement are expected to work collaboratively as they enforce the Committee's rulings. I expect that both BrownhairedGirl and Giano will discussion various approaches to enforcing our ruling in thoughtful and civil manner. Two wrongs do not make a right. Brownhairedgirl, if you have concerns about Giano's approach to dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. Giano, if you have concerns about the approach that administrators are using when dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. This is a caution to both of you. Both of you, please take this advise on board so no further warning or sanctions are needed.
FloNight
♥♥♥ 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Don't you start warning me! You and your Arbs deliberatly imposed this sanction knowing exactly the problems it would cause. Now accept the blame yourselves and stop trying to pass the buck!
Giano (
talk) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- PS: I assume this is another of your admins
[9].
Giano (
talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Flo, I commented after reading
this comment by Giano, in reply to Rockpocket, in which Giano described the admins involved as "completely inept" and make a clear assumption of bad faith by accusing them of "trying to make a name for himself". What purpose does that serve except trolling?
- At the time I replied, to Giano, I was unaware that he was on civility patrol, or I would have brought the matter here rather than replying directly to him. Is the assumption of bad faith in accusing Rockpocket of simply
"trying to make a name for himself" compatible with the arbcom ruling? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- And yet again if BHG bothers to read to the end of the "trying to make a name for himself" quote rather than lifting7 words out of context, it is quite clear I am not referring to those admins already involved. I think BHG is deliberatly not AGFing, is this what the Arbcom considers admorable Admin behaviour?
Giano (
talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Giano, that makes no sense. I cannot see any reasonable way of reading your comments in the way you now claim they were intended to be read, but if you were not referring to those already involved, how exactly was it assuming good faith to pre-emptively denounce anyone else who became involved as "trying to make a name for himself", before those people had even appeared?
- You also said "You are completely inept at sorting these matters out for yourselves", and I see no doubt that was aimed at those already involved. That's a straightforward personal attack on the edit to whom you were replying. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Using the term "troll" makes some assumptions about the intent of the contributions that are unhelpful. Giano is an established users that needs to be treated with respect even if you do not agree with his approach. Applying derogatory labels is rarely useful if your goal is developing a good working relationship with an user. And that is our goal, right?
FloNight
♥♥♥ 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Flo, I think that many of us commenting here are established users, and that all deserve to be treated with respect. So please could you address the degree of respect which Giano showed to the established editor Rockpocket in
this comment, after he had been specifically injuncted by arbcom to refrain both from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Calling any editor in good standing a troll is inflammatory, unrequired, and unbecoming. We should simply issue an official warning to Brownhairded girl for violating NPA and being disruptive, and be done with it.
Lawrence §
t/
e 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Can I just check that I understand your proposal? You appear to be saying that
this comment by Giano is to be regarded as just fine, and no action should be taken about it despite (as I subsequently discovered) the editor concerned already being under civility patrol, but that describing it as trolling merits a warning? Is that really what you are saying?
- Also, are you sure that is appropriate to describe an editor already injuncted by arbcom as being "in good standing"? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I take a very deep offense to any baiting of any editors, unintentional or intentional, especially when others then turn around to use that baiting as a weapon (for good or ill) in dispute resolution. Especially when that weaponized position needs to be heavily defended--stand by your initial statement or conviction, if you feel it's valid. Having to convince, cajole, and work to get it enforced tells that it had no validity. And yes, to me an editor in good standing is anyone who is not blocked. Arbcom enforcements are there alone by the goodwill of the community, and are no scarlet letter. Giano's edit was not exactly wise, but it was not a violation of the terms of his probation by any stretch. Your comment, however, was the classic definition of a disruptive edit. Continued disruptive editing could lead to editing sanctions against yourself, so forewarned.
Lawrence §
t/
e 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Lawrence, you're off base here. Your suggestions of editing sanctions against BHG are very ill-founded.
SirFozzie (
talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Her edit was as much a violation as the thing she's claiming against Giano. Fair is fair, and all rules will be applied equally to all users, is all I'm saying.
Lawrence §
t/
e 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Look up the part of AGF which says that one should assume good faith to the point where one has a reason not to AGF. I like Giano. Giano is very passionate about what he argues about. but look at those statements he made. Calling administrators "Stupid" for following one of Wikipedia's base policies, that banned users do not have the right to edit, is de facto and de jure trolling. If in Giano's mind, the edits are good, he can certainly reinstate them, and take "ownership" of them, (being careful not to become a proxy for a banned editor to continue editing).. But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found.
SirFozzie (
talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Foz, I'm not disputing any of that--I said my peace, and I think Giano's comments weren't wise, or the most helpful--but I don't think they were violations in this case of his probation either. But I'm not going to debate that. My only point here was that BHG's statements were actually worse than Giano's, in the civility and NPA department, highlighting the irony of the AE request.
Lawrence §
t/
e 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- SirFozzie, you might be interested to know that Newyorkbrad does not share your interpretation that posts should be reverted whether good, bad, or indifferent: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant.
[10]. If you look at the context within which Giano's comment was made (look at the discussion above the diff that BrownHairedGirl provided, as well as the diff itself), it is pretty clear he was talking about the exercise of good judgment and common sense, rather than the blind and mindless application of policy - This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. Now, he shouldn't have referred to such actions as "stupidity" because
WP:CIVIL is presently the most important WP policy. But, he does have a point.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Not to my eyes, he doesn't. Banned users are banned for a reason. If folks want to re-revert afterwards and take ownership of the content, fine, go ahead. Anything less however, encourages more disruption and delays the banned user getting the hint that their contributions are just plain not welcome.
SirFozzie (
talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- SirFozzie, you might not see a difference, but I believe others will:
- SirFozzie: But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found.
- Newyorkbrad: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters.
- I think the difference here is stark - revert no matter what on the one hand, use judgment and common sense on the other. The idea of reverting a correction of a typo because the correction was made by a sock of a banned editor, and then reverting the reversion - but noting that you are now taking responsibility for the content - is ridiculous. The idea that policy requires that an editor reintroduce errors, and then allows and endorses the right of that editor to walk away, leaving the error behind, is ludicrous. Any such policy needs urgent re-writing, and any editor unwilling to invoke
WP:IAR to avoid carrying out such an unnecessary reversion should expect to have their judgment questioned or criticised.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Part of the difference is a nuance you are missing - NYB is speaking of reverting past edits by a newly banned editor, whereas I think SirFozzie is referring to edits by a banned user after the ban (please correct me if I am wrong). No edits, constructive or otherwise, are welcome from a banned editor. Some edits by a now banned user made before the user was banned can remain, if they are not controversial and clearly benefit the project. The difference isn't a contradiction - the situations are different, and the point is different.
Avruch
T 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Avruch, you are wrong, because NYB made this comment today on his talk page in part of a discussion with BHG and Giano - and he is not talking about edits made prior to banning. I agree that edits from a banned user aren't welcome, but that does not mean that they must be reverted. I just happen to think that NYB (and also Giano) are correct about this point - and I say this making no claim that Giano should have used the language that he has.
Jay*Jay (
talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Jay, I've copied the relevant section from the policy, that regardless of the merits, that a post by a sock of a banned user may be reverted at any time (it's one of the few things the electric fence of 3RR allows through) to your talk page.
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Folks, if no action is going to be taken on this enforcement request (and it looks like that is the case) then it should be archived. Spreading disputes to multiple forums is part of both underlying issues here, so lets not support prolonging the problem.
Avruch
T 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Lawrence, I quite agree with you about the inappropriateness of baiting: that's precisely what I was commenting on when I described Giano's intervention as trolling and why I lodged compalint here about Giano's continued attcks on those he disagrees with for stupidity. Calling other editors
"completely inept" and accusing them of
"trying to make a name for himself" is baiting by any reasonable definition.
- However, I do note a decided reluctance in some quarters to take action against Giano, which was most clearly articulated by WjBscribe
[11], who appears to be suggesting that good contributions to article space mean that an editor cannot also be a toll. I also note
Giano's shock and outrage that anyone would warn him about his conduct, even when he launches again into calling other editors "stupid", "inept" and accuses admins of "trying to make a name for himself" without any evidence to substantiate this.
- In closing, though, may I suggest that some other admins take over the headache of dealing with Vintagekit's numerous sockpupets? Those who have been doing it are unlikely to continue if they don't get support when trolled by an editor already under civility patrol.
- There's not much I can say on this situation, except to suggest a read of
WP:TROLL, so this will probably my last contribution to this thread. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Giano was provocative and uncivil, attacking the people who are trying to deal with a banned user. Troll fits the bill quite nicely. I notice
Until(1 == 2) agrees also.
[12]
Ty 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If you think that then ban me! It says any Admin can! Please the Arbs and get on with it then.
Giano (
talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry, Jehochman, I have temporarily unarchived this, because discussion continnued despite the archiving tags (about somewhat unrealted issues, sure, but stil, I don't want to give others the impression that we're forcing them not to talk about it)
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
ZOMG, an admin acted stupid, and Giano called them stupid. Oh, horrors.
Zocky |
picture popups 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Request that he be added to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against
User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. -
Kittybrewster
☎ 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality?
Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at
WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection.
GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of
Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. -
Kittybrewster
☎ 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Arbcom case:
Editor
Liftarn (
talk ·
contribs) has been making:
Liftarn (
talk ·
contribs) has been violating
Purpose of Wikipedia spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "
per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.
His latest edit
[50], explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "
promotional clutter" claim.
I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a
WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to
get the points raised, follow
WP:NPOV and
editorial process.
Respectfully.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit
this is less than impressive. The current dispute over
Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned.
Moreschi (
talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic.
Moreschi (
talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.
- p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.
- p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (
latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- Astrotrain placed on probation; limited to one revert per week on pages related to The Troubles (including articles, templates and other project pages).
Thatcher 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Current issue moved from
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Case link
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.
Thatcher 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Why is nothing being done to stop this editor continuing to edit war and POV pushing, he was named in the arbcom but instead of answering his case there he decided to disappear until the arbcom was ended, he was also involved in mediation on the same issue, and dispite being unable to provide
WP:RS to support his edits he continued to edit war throughout the mediation which resulted in the mediation process being abandoned.
He has recently started to edit war again on the issue in breach of
principles#2 and
principles#3 of the arbcom ruling. I have reported him in the past couple of days to two admins, to date neither have done anything about it. Some of the articles and templates he has been disruptive on include:
Astrotrain has a been blocked numerous times for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on other editors and myself, he also came back as a possible for using anon IPs to continue evade 3RR in edit wars.--
Padraig (
talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The integrity of an article's stability? must be preserved. Thus 'two' options - 1) Page protections or 2) Blockings.
GoodDay (
talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg
1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really.
One Night In Hackney
303 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I'm not overly familiar with the (apparently) lengthy debate that has been had about this issue, but there does appear to be a number of different editors reverting Astrotrain's additions of the Ulster Banner. Given the fact that it isn't currently an official flag, its difficult to see why its additions to these articles is particularly germane. In addition, the addition of flags to pages is over-used generally. I have already asked Astrotrain to stop edit-warring over the addition of the Union Flag to
1801 in Ireland. I extend that request to include these other articles too. If he continues then I guess we can look at other options. As other editors have found out, there is a rapidly decreasing tolerance for this sort of behaviour though, I'm hopeful he will appreciate that.
Rockpocke
t 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I have also noticed that Black Kite has also warned him that he will be put on probation should this continue. So, I guess we wait and see. If there are further flag related reversions without prior discussion, please note it here.
Rockpocke
t 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Personally, I'd be delighted to see 99% of the flags removed from wikipedia, but however tedious the little national emblems are in list entries, Astrotrain has been busy adding huge flags to articles where they are barely relevant and — as he well knows — highly provocative. As well as the addition of the Union Flag to
1801 in Ireland, he also added the
Ulster Banner to
1953 in Ireland (in
this edit), which seems to me to be nothing gratuitous mischief-making. There is a separate
1953 in Northern Ireland article where it might have some relevance (though it seems pretty marginal to me), but I can't see any useful purpose its addition to
1953 in Ireland. The whole Ulster flag debate is a minefield, and it took a lot of effort by many folks to achieve some stability there, and trying to reopen it like this is disruptive (his comment
here of "how can a flag be POV?" is thorougly unpersuasive faux-naivety). I'd support a crackdown on this, and I am glad that Astrotrain has been warned of possible probation. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
- I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Wikipedia is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images.
Astrotrain (
talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As I said, flags a ridiculously overused on wikipedia, and there is for example guidance against the use of {{
flagicon}} beside place of birth. This isn't a matter of censorship, it is matter of not going around looking for opportunities to splat a huge flag on pages where it is at best marginally relevant, and you would be in similar trouble if you were going around adding huge pictures of Jesus in articles making a brief mention of him. In the cases where the flag is relevant, such as the first use of the tricolour, a small icon will do fine, with a link to the article on the flag explaining its design and history. You are trying to use wikipedia as a device for nationalist flag-waving, and I deplore that whatever flag is being waved. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Astrotrain in this edit
here you inserted the Ulster Banner saying it was the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland, it was never the official flag of Northern Ireland not even during the period 1953-72, so can you explain why you feel its necessary to include a image of a governmental banner that has been defunct for thirty-five years in the portal for Northern Ireland today.--
Padraig (
talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
As normal, you bring nationality of editors into it. Is that the be all and end all of your arguement? Your looking to edit war, simple as and if things quiten down too much you can be counted on to start thing up again. --
Domer48 (
talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The fact that there is different nationalities is a good thing. However, it seems to me that people are being too sensitive. We should not be a situation that we cannot use images in case it offends one nationality. Describing the national flag as "POV" is one example of this sensitivity.
Astrotrain (
talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide
RS to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with
RS.--
Padraig (
talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick.
GoodDay (
talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
And if they persist?--
Domer48 (
talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If Wiki has done one thing it has put me off flags! Look at the article
Irish Sea - every bleeping town has its "national" bleeping flag attached (and NI had the Teddy Bear's head). Daftness. Should Isle of Man, Wales and England not have the Union Jack as well? I mean that layout makes it appear as if Ireland is just another part of the UK? And so on......SCRAP the damn things.
Sarah777 (
talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- relisting with new timestamp pending resolution.
Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Can a decision be made on this issue.--
Padraig (
talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Padraig, unless Gino gets involved you will not have an Admin doing anything at all. See this is an issue that can be resolved by Administrative action, simplys lacks the will. --
Domer48 (
talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Response Certainly enough evidence here to place Astrotrain on the one revert per week limitation.
Thatcher 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week.
Addhoc (
talk) 14:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Jaakobou continues to make poor editing choices that have more to do with
soapboxing and
assumptions of bad faith than with editing to improve articles per
WP:NPOV and
WP:RS. The latest example is
this edit which comes on the heels of
this section opened by El C just three days ago. Attempts to get Jaakobou to reflect upon the inappropriateness of such comments on his
talk page are going nowhere and it was only two days ago that I asked him to please "reflect upon how your behaviour might be interpreted negatively by others or be coming from a place unrelated to or incompatible with the building of a healthy, collaborative working environment."
[98] He seems unable to understand what this means or how to do so.
Considering that Jaakobou is a repeat-offender whose editing at
Palestinian fedayeen led to the original
WP:ANI complaint which led to the opening of the Arbcomm case on I-P articles, and considering that he is repeatedly before
WP:AE for his edits in this domain, I am proposing that he be topic-banned for a period of three months. His repeated ability to escape sanction for multiple, repeat offenses has led him to think such behaviour is okay. It's not. It's corrosive to the general working environment and is often disruptive.
Durova (
talk ·
contribs) has indicated that he is doing great work on featured pictures outside of the I-P subject area. He would do well to continue that and other work until he learns how to bring the same spirit of collaboration to I-P related articles.
Tiamut
talk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Tiamut, is a highly involved editor; upset that I replied to her soapboxing against Israeli civilians which insisted on a Palestinian "liberation struggle" POV disregarding the Israeli POV. I've since
toned down my language and
suggested to tone down anything else that might be offensive.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- p.s. Tiamut believes I assume bad faith by explaining the subtext of her suggestion, but this is untrue. I assume good faith, but also see that Tiamut misses the problem of her own soapboxing.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- p.p.s. Tiamut's is not alone in missing the issue, as editors seemed to have
completely ignored a certain perspective expressed by a sizable number of editors on the article's talk page.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- To all admins and editors, please do review the discussion at
Talk:Second Intifada#What is neutral? where you will be able to judge whether there is any validity to Jaakobou's characterization of my comments as "soapboxing" or as "disregarding the Israeli POV".
Tiamut
talk 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Jaakobou's conduct on
Talk:Second_Intifada has recently been poor, and has included
soap boxing. Also, his user talk page conduct is overly aggressive. I'll wait for Durova to give her opinion, however, I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban.
Addhoc (
talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Addhoc, I apologize for aggressive behavior, but my people have been soapboxed against on that article repeatedly and vehemently for a prolonged period and I myself stood silent taking
repeated personal attacks by three separate involved editors, claiming that
there isn't a conflict(?). If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing. However, I believe that more than one of the involved editors (Nickhh in particular) should have their demeanor examined. The recent discussions started
here.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC) small addition.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Based on your response, I'm more confident that a 1 week topic ban should be applied. The arbcom sanctions exist because there has been widespread edit warring and talk page soap boxing on these articles. In this context, it's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides. Using this to justify or mitigate continuing poor behavior only allows the problem to continue. The entire purpose of the arbcom sanctions was to prevent a continuation of this poor conduct.
Addhoc (
talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
I don't really see what the big deal is. I just read the comments on Talk:Second Intifada after following the discussion on Jaakobou's talk page. There basically seem to be two options: 1) Jaakobou is completely alone in his opinions, and alone prevents the article from progressing. If this is true, then he can just be ignored when editing the actual article, and if he edit wars, he will be wrong and there will be justification to ban him. Or 2) Jaakobou is not alone in his views, which means that Tiamut's accusations of bad faith are unfounded, and maybe there is merit to what Jaakobou says. If this is true, then it's clear that Tiamut is pushing to get Jaakobou banned in order to advance her own POV in the article by taking out her prime opposition on the talk page.
It's not immediately clear which of the two is correct, so in either case, as I said before, I don't really see the big deal, and suggest to wait until there's visible disruption to the actual article before instituting any bans, because if #2 is true, then the ban will hurt the balance of the article.
--
Ynhockey (
Talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The problem is his disruptive conduct, not his views.
Addhoc (
talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion on the
Second Intifada article has really heated up lately, mostly over a contention between
me and
Tiamut. The dispute has led to high tensions and the involvement of many editors, and no editor -- myself included -- is free from blame. While
Jaakobou's comments may be in poor taste, I think that banning
Jaakobou given the conduct of all editors involved on
Second Intifada and given that these comments arose directly in connection with a particular article and should not prevent
Jaakobou from editing other articles, I recommend that
the article be placed under severe anti-
soapbox supervision. ←
Michael Safyan (
talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Also, I would like to personally apologize for my improper conduct on
Second Intifada. I should have approached the issue in a less disruptive manner. ←
Michael Safyan (
talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The article and talk page are under arbcom probation, which covers soapboxing. I don't think additional probation restrictions are required.
Addhoc (
talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (e/c)I would note further that the latest comments by Jaakobou come after a series of warnings that he simply refuses to heed. If there are other editors who have exercised poor judgement that is a separate matter, and one which in any case should be dealt with by providing diffs, rather than making blanket generalizations.
Tiamut
talk 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It is? Where does it say that it is under arbcom probation? ←
Michael Safyan (
talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I recommend that both
User:Michael Safyan and
User:Ynhockey be sent notices of the Arbcomm decision since both are regular editors at the I-P related articles. Additionally, Michael Safyan recently canvassed a number of users, including Ynhockey and Jaakobou, to participate in the RfC he opened at
Second Intifada specifically in order to gather together users who shared in his view that "uprising" is a POV term.
Tiamut
talk 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Hi, I was offline for about a day. Thanks very much for the note at my user talk. Jaakobou got me on chat as soon as I fired up the computer. I'm getting up to speed right now and will post a follow-up soon. If anyone else wants to do a gmail chat with me, drop me a line via Wikipedia e-mail and I'll send you an invite.
Durova
Charge! 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- An involved editor I know, but I did want to make a comment, not least because Jaakobou has dragged my name into this.
This diff soon brings up the phrase "I have a different perspective ..", suggesting we are about to hear an honest description of Jaakobou's beliefs, and then launches into a borderline-racist diatribe posted on the talk page. The impression given is that he is only refraining from incorporating these views into the article itself verbatim because of his own concerns about balance and not giving offence. There is no qualification here that he doesn't actually believe any of this, or that he is arguing for a mock-extreme viewpoint, simply for the purposes of debate. When called up on it, he then tried to defend what he wrote as mere pretend soapboxing in response to Tiamut's stated preference for the use of the word "struggle" to describe how the Palestinians view the Intifada, which he states is offensive to the victims of suicide bombings and other attacks. Even if this is true, a) this is not how his original words read; and b) he misunderstands Tiamut's clearly expressed point that the word struggle is being used not to refer to suicide and rocket attacks, but to the Intifada as a whole, which includes many examples of non-violent protest as well. The prominent Israeli counter-view is in any event also included in the lead, with clear references to "terrorism" and how Arafat is to blame for the violence of the Intifada. Re-reading the talk page discussion again, all I can see is two or three editors haggling for the most part constructively as to how to reach an agreement on words, and one - who has only just emerged from having to apologise profusely for a recent piece of appalling ill-judgement, involving as it happens Tiamut again - coming in suddenly from left-field to rant about an entire ethnic group, which that editor happens to belong to. Not pleasant. --
Nickhh (
talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
This is typical Jaakobou - he regards expression of mainstream, internationally-accepted, majority point-of-view on Israel-Palestine articles as contemptible "soapboxing" and "advocacy" for a Palestinian-terrorist point of view, and he constantly tries to stamp it out with accusations of disruptive editing and counter-rants of his own. One constantly sees conversations in this vein:
Somebody: Well, in fairness, the wall does cut off Palestinian farmers from their land, and it's been condemned by the international community. We can't just call it a "security fence against suicide bombers" as if that's the last word on the subject.
Jaakobou: I warn you be careful of
WP:SOAP expressions of Arab POV, we wouldnt want "ultra-Zionist" counter-POV coming in would we, lets have a communal editing and less of the justification for terror.
(I apologize for the paraphrasing, I'll go digging for some actual diffs, but this is my general impression of trying to work with Jaakobou on the subject.) <
eleland/
talk
edits> 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
[99]; uses edit summary to call Nishidani a 'decent and ethical editor who so happens to soapbox against Jewish people "on occassion".' This after Nishidani objected to a message Jaakobou placed on his userpage which seemed to mock User:Tiamat's concern over the bombing of Gaza by likening it to concern over his upcoming exams.
- Jaakobou also has a nasty tendency to revert as part of an edit war, while simultaneously condemning reversions and edit warring as disruptive:
[100]
- Jaakobou claims that because British media outlets were criticized in 2002 for their coverage of Jenin, no British newspaper can ever again be a reliable source for Isr-Pal coverage (and that using them somehow violates BLP:)
[101]
[102]
- And here's an exchange that captures what I was getting at above:
Nicknh:[in part] Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists who simply want to murder Jews and drive them into the sea, then the balance to that is the view which sees Jews as bloodsuckers in a conspiracy to take over the world, starting with an area that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. Both are fringe, extremist viewpoints, and I apologise for having to even refer to them here, but it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh, especially in the light of recent events. As usual even people more sympathetic to your POV are asking you to tone down your behaviour and act in a more constructive manner.
Jaakobou: [full comment] I'm highly offended by what you suggest and your phrasing. To be frank, I don't see how we can collaborate if you continue to warp my words and make personal attacks.
[103]
<
eleland/
talk
edits> 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Eleland (
talk ·
contribs) has persistently attempted to marginalize me by characterizing me (and Jayjg) as an extremist to other editors. I resent that and view the following instances as attempts to burn my bridges ahead of me.
- The common pattern is of making numerous "indirect" user directed commentary and uncivil attacks in violation of the
Arbcom final decisions.
- "a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate"
[104]
- "Jayjg... anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation" -
[105]
- "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" -
[106]
- "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and
Avigdor Lieberman do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." -
[107]
- "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." -
[108]
-
Eleland's approach suggests he purposefully makes personal attacks that are "vague" and "indirect". It has been the same pattern when he previously had the audacity to "indirectly"
suggest I was a war criminal or when he made an old
apology that looked more like mockery; and I note that at the time the above comments were made
it hasn't even been the pledged 7 days since his first block was lifted.
- To be frank, I'm stunned that he had the audacity to join this thread after his recent activity on Israel related articles.
- In response to a basic Arab nationality listing to the Palestinian people, Eleland has first removed the nationality implying that any editor who uses this is automatically denying the existence of a Palestinian people or nation and moved on to replace the
State of Israel with
Zionist movement.
19:44, 8 March 2008
- A revert on Battle of Jenin
23:37, 9 March 2008, blatently inserted an out of context quote made on March 5th at the end of a paragraph discussing the preludes to the operation in Jenin which followed a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack that killed 30. This is a clear case of
WP:NPOV and
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the issue was already discussed multiple times (
[109],
[110]), clarifying that it's context with Battle of Jenin and also Operation Defensive Shield was not only
synthesis but also out of context propaganda. On this occasion there was no discussion/reply made
[111] since the editor already knew
the nature of the quote which he reinserted.
- With respect,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Jaakobou has simply reposted a tissue of exaggerations and
contextomies, which earned him a "Final warning [...] for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping" the last time he tried; see
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive14#Eleland (talk · contribs) again. Admins who take the time to check the discussions related to those diffs will see that Jaakobou ignored direct reference to reliable sources in favour of his personal interpretations. "Palestinians" is preferred over "Palestinian Arabs" on Google News sources by a margin of over 100:1; the "out of context quote" was cited by TIME magazine and Amnesty International in the same "out of context" fashion, etc. Jaakobou is being manipulative, and he is being deceitful. <
eleland/
talk
edits> 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Let's for one moment assume that you are correct and the quote was not made on march 5th after a weekend of terror attacks, how does that justify the rest of your personal attacks and your posting here?
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 09:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sect Break 2
- Jaakobou is drafting something regarding this thread and it should be ready to go in a little while. In the meantime I'll make a few general comments. In September 2007 he started approaching me to ask for advice. The requests came out of the blue in some regards: I don't edit this topic and don't have strong opinions one way or the other about it, and we'd never been introduced. Nobody had told Jaakobou to look for my advice; he just figured it would be a good idea to seek independent feedback and had seen my name around. We touched bases on a semi-regular basis until arbitration opened. At that time it was my idea to formalize the mentorship: he had already demonstrated a commitment for several months to trying to get things right, and hadn't sought to leverage the relationship in any way. Since arbitration he has branched out and become a featured content contributor. Now I don't mean to imply that he's perfect or to minimize his mistakes. Sometimes I do a facepalm when I see this dispute heating up.
- I do think he's sincere, rather than deliberately malicious or Machiavellian. And whether or not other editors agree with his perspective, the Israeli POV is notable in a way that (for instance) the pro-perpetual-motion-machine POV is not. Now per
this essay I don't encourage editors to push their own hot buttons. In my experience with disputes generally, flareups tend to bring out heated and hasty actions: people who are already engaged intensify their engagement and the effects of that distract from the shared goal of creating an online encyclopedia.
- Shortly before this week's flareup I had been encouraging Jaakobou to take an eventualist approach and walk away from the Israeli-Palestinian dispute for a while (6 weeks? something like that). The reasoning was this: if he's right and the articles would lose neutral balance without him, then after a month or two the result would be obvious to any uninvolved observer. So if there's a problem a content RFC would get useful input then (and if there isn't a problem he'd be off the hook). The average encyclopedia reader is pretty smart. They can sniff the aroma of a soapbox. My general approach has been to encourage de-escalation; I don't have a specific solution to the problems now. Yet anyone from either side of the fence is welcome to come to me with concerns. Jaakobou will be posting shortly, I hope, and you'll see what he has to say.
Durova
Charge! 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It's getting late here, I'll post a breakdown in the morning.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Stating the obvious somewhat, however I think a week ban should be applied because he is sincere and causing disruption. If he was insincere, I would be proposing a site ban.
Addhoc (
talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- How is he being disruptive? He posted a strongly worded comment on the Talk page. So have his ideological opponents. You yourself have stated, above that "It's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides." - so why is he being singled out for these comments? What , exactly is the disruptive behavior? I don't see it.
I am Dr. Drakken (
talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I have no specific recommendation as to how to remedy this incident.
Durova
Charge! 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- May I ask a couple of questions, Durova? Do you think that the "several (very) long chats" you held "with him over the last twelve hours" on 15 March had the desired effect? As you wrote to Nishidani,
"He's going to do his best to make amends and ensure that this doesn't happen again." Well, here we are (again) as there has not been any change in the behaviour. He's still making unconstructive edits that amount to poking other editors with sticks. So why are you witholding comment this time around? Is Addhoc's proposal really so unreasonable?
Tiamut
talk 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- "Strongly worded"?? As I have said earlier, it was a borderline racist rant, covering about four paragraphs. It's a little unnerving that people can't see that - it was also a blatant breach of the the ArbCom guidelines, let alone of normal civility standards. Editors on I-P pages, myself included, occasionally dig at each other a little when things get heated, but this was something else, and came only days after the previous Tiamut-poking via the spoof userbox and let's-hint-at-upcoming-genocide photo caption. Any hint of anti-Semitism and the involved editor would quite rightly be turfed out. Let's have the same standards for anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian diatribes shall we? --
Nickhh (
talk) 07:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
I think Jaakobou's little bit of soapboxing was poorly timed given his recent AE appearance, but in fairness it's not as though this guy soapboxes a lot. Not that I've seen anyhow. And I'm not sure it's such a good idea to totally discourage this sort of thing. It does give one an insight into how one's opponent experiences the issues, and in that sense enables us to understand better where they are coming from and perhaps to tailor our own messages and proposals accordingly.
I mean, it's one thing to constantly harangue and denounce and effectively, troll the other side as we've seen some users do in the past. But it's quite another to passionately state one's POV in relation to a particular issue, as Jaakobou seems to be doing here.
I suppose one could raise the issue of whether someone who is so evidently blind to the POV of the other side, as this diatribe suggests, is ever likely to be a constructive editor. But I think we may be venturing into murky waters if we start disqualifying editors on the basis of allegedly "unacceptable" views. Maybe we should do, but where does one draw the line, and who makes the decision?
Gatoclass (
talk) 08:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Hi Gatoclass, thanks for your comment. I would point out however that there is ample evidence all over the
Talk:Second Intifada page of Jaakobou's soapboxing, which is not confined to the diffs he refactored above. For example, take
this RfC comment. Note that he writes: the Second Intifada was a directed propaganda and terror campaign of attacks and offenses aimed almost exclusively at civilians. This is not an 'uprising' but an attempted genocide and direct attack on the Jewish statehood. He provides no source for this rather offensive claim. It's just plain old soapboxing. He also knows what soapboxing is, he cited it to us back in December
here.
- My question is, how do the comments and actions undertaken by Jaakobou contribute to healthy editing environment? How am I, as a Palestinian editor, who has seen many Arab editors get banned for much less (i.e. repeatedly calling editors "Zionists"), supposed to feel welcome and safe in such an editing environment? Jaakobou can make off-the-cuff accusations about genocide and assume bad faith of an entire ethnic group and religion (i.e. where he blames the "The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure" for an "Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians" as in the post at the top of this section) make polemical, rambling posts, and this is all viewed as okay? He's just "sincere" but "misguided" and "not malicious" in his intentions, I am assured, over and over. I share Nickhh's thoughts about a double-standard at work here. I am not blaming anyone in particular for that, I just think it's high time we admitted that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants at Wikipedia (and in the real world) are not viewed with the same seriousness as such rants against others. I haven't even touched here the issue of his misrepresentation of my comments (I have asked for one diff that would support his claim that he only soapboxed because I did - he has not provided one) nor the personal nature of his soapboxing posts, coming on the heels of his mockery of my mourning message. I don't now if a one-week break from I-P articles will make a difference, but I think it's the appropriate next step to take here. It's not draconian and it would send a message that such behaviour across the board is simply not cool with the community. Regards,
Tiamut
talk 11:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Shortly after I posted the above, it occurred to me that from the POV of a Palestinian or an Arab/Muslim, some of the things that Jaakobou has said must be deeply offensive. So I think you have a very valid point there, I can't deny it.
Gatoclass (
talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for acknowledging what it might be like to stand in my/our shoes.
Tiamut
talk 11:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I apopreciate the constructivce remarks above. however, this is getting a little crazy. the way to edit articles is not by dancing close to the edge of hugley partisdan statements, then pulling back with apologies if one gets too "offensive." The way to edit is by realizing there are two world-views here, and by trying to present them both fairly in a professional manner. most importantly, the proper thing to do is to recognize that we have credible, articulate reliable editors on both sides, and to work with the many Palestinian-affiliated editors who are capable of working together positively. --
Steve, Sm8900 (
talk) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sect break 3
- I'm almost done arranging my text (I have a few obligations so I will probably close it later today), but I'd like to point out to you that Israeli-Jews exist and get offended also. I was personally offended both for my own people and also for Palestinian people when events of, militants sending Palestinian youth, strapped with explosives, to make attacks on pizza eating women and children (let me know if you need examples); is portrayed as a 'struggle' and editors soapbox that it can't possibly be presented as anything else (such as 'insurgency' or 'terror campaign') and that other editors need to learn English and bow down to this perspective. Anyways, I will post my breakdown of events later today.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) rephrase/clarify
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 11:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
(Reset) No sane or reasonable human being disputes the horrifying effects of suicide bombings or any other kind of violent attack using bullets, missiles or explosives. And "offended" probably understates it, which you I imagine know better than I do, even though my city has suffered from its share of bombs and violence, both recently and in the past. The issue here is not about the actual violence on the ground or the effects of it, which affects both Palestinians and Israelis in any event, but the comments made by editors - in this case you specifically - in this encyclopedia. To rant and generalise about other groups of people in the way that you did is plain wrong. Nor did you do this - as if this would mitigate the offence - in response to even vaguely similar comments by anyone else. I am not going to repeat here, for the 4th time, the debates about the use of the words "struggle" or "uprising" as value-neutral words to describe the Intifada AS A WHOLE, even though you seem to be claiming that your misunderstanding of this point provides some kind of justification for what you wrote. I first came across your editing when you were trying to re-insert the alleged outcome "Palestinian Propaganda Victory" into the info box on the
Battle of Jenin page, to describe events that killed more than 50 Palestinians, many of them civilians. I don't see much change in your attitude since then, ArbCom decisions or not. In fact, looking at events of the past few days your behaviour seems to have deteriorated. It's time, as I've said, that administrators took as firm a stand against this sort of behaviour as they do - 100% correctly - against anti-Semitic rantings on talk pages. --
Nickhh (
talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Nickhh,
- Are you taking back channel notes about 6-8+ month ago events from Eleland? I've already admitted on the January Arbcom to a few article errors of judgement; however, both you (who's making repeated personal attakcs) and Eleland have not.
- Despite utterly uncollegiate infuriating atmosphere (putting it mildly, as
being called war criminal by both PalestineRemembered and Eleland is just one event that won't be easy to forget) on that article, I've managed to add/make a number of very nice additions (
sample) that survived long after I've taken a break from the article.
- I find it offensive that you soapbox with "killed more than 50 Palestinians, many of them civilians" on the Jenin Massacre/Battle issue where 23 Israeli soldiers died fighting militants booby trapped house to booby trapped house in a location that's responsible for 28 suicide bombings on Israeli civilians. Geneva conventions note that civilain loss of life in these instances is 100% responsibility of the insurgents, not to mention that the local militants used a female "civilian" decoy to lure in soldiers into a trap and killing 11.
- I find it odd that a person who makes a habit of soapboxing and personal attacks has the audacity to warp my words, accuse me of antisemitism and forcefully try to have an editing leverage by demanding a block for someone holding different views ... and a quickly retracted excessive phrasing. As previously stated, I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today.
- --
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oh dear. I can't do this much longer, nor I guess does anyone else want to read it. However ...
- 1) No, my own memory of events is perfectly good thanks. And my point is precisely that these "errors of judgement" seem to keep on coming, post-ArbCom
- 2) I had nothing to do with these accusations, as I'm sure you know. And I do accept that it wasn't helpful or appropriate for those editors to raise the possibility that you fought in Jenin, even if I can understand why some people might have been looking for an explanation for your apparent fixation with those events and with
Saeb Erekat. I haven't seen anything like it aimed at you since.
- 3) Um, this is not "soapboxing", I was merely describing part of the background for people who might not be aware of it ahead of highlighting the phrase you wanted at the top of the article. Why are you posting a long (and incorrect as it happens) rant about what the Geneva Conventions say in response, and flinging around accusations about events on the ground in Jenin? Isn't that closer to soapboxing?
- 4) I'm not aware of my habits of soapboxing and making personal attacks, I guess they're all in the eye of the beholder. A couple of minor digs or forcefully put points from time to time, but I've certainly never accused a whole race of people of being religiously-inspired genocidalists (it's not "warping" your words to say that, it's called paraphrasing - re-read what you posted). And please read what I wrote again as well - I never accused YOU of anti-Semitism, nor have I "demand[ed] a block".--
Nickhh (
talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Nickhh,
- Oh dear, is certainly not a civil way of respond editors raising concerns about soapboxing. Neither is
mocking people asking you nicely not to make personal attacks; Btw, I couldn't for the life of me understand who was supposed to be sympathetic or
more scholarly.
- I'm not following what these is supposed to intend to as I was using the talk page to accentuate that editors, you included, are not noticing their
advocacy (soapboxing) to exclude the Israeli perspective from the article.
- I do believe that you were being utterly insensitive here, describing a battle between militants, responsible for 28 suicide bombings, and the IDF as if it were a massacre of innocent civilians... and I also suggest you give a second look to the Geneva conventions since my statement was correct.
- In retrospect, you did not accuse me of antisemitism; my apology for slight misreading into your text. However, you are utterly warping my comments and accuse me of inherent racism while making soapbox against Israeli right to self defense and demanding "administrators took as firm a stand against..." your warped interpretation of my comments. Translation: personal attack, soapboxing, and demanding a block for leverage on the article.
- ...I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) small addition of nickhh personally directed commentary.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Jaakobou, I appreciate your positive attention to my comments elsewhere. However, i'm distrubed by the contentious tone emerging here. why are your esponding to people's allegations with counter-allegations of your own? Many of their points and concerns happen to be correct. I really don't feel that you should be trying to counteract them or refute them so vehemently. i think you really need to listen to them, and to actually absorb them. I'm sorry, but I repeat, many of the concerns raised by Nickhh, Eleland, and others above happen to have much accuracy, or at least validity. So I really would ask you to simply hear them, and absorb them, and not allow this discussion here to become one of a litigous or adversarial nature. If you want a collegiate atmosphere here, you must help to allow such an atmosphere to occur.--
Steve, Sm8900 (
talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
collegiate atmosphere
- I don't wish to see punitive sanctions here against anyone, including Jaakobou. However, he and I do have slightly different approaches. I gave him some friendly suggestions recently. My suggestion to Arbcom is to read
Talk:Second Intifada.
- Jaakobou, my suggestion to you is to find more multilateral ways to pursue discussion. My concern in making these comments is I'm not sure what the context is for discussions here. Do discussions here automatically lead to sanctions? Or may I consider this a useful forum to take up some issues which need to be addressed, and which need a neutral constructive place to be discussed?
- I would ask that people's concerns here be heard. Jaakobou,. as you know, you and I have different ideas on how these issues should be discussed and how these articles should be edited. I'm disturbed by the tone of allegation and counter-allegation here. However, I did find some issues with Jaakobou's approach, which I have already expressed to him personally in a cooperative way. My suggestion to Jakkobou were basically to not attempt to make overtly partisan statements, but to work more constructively with editors from other viewpoints. it is not helpful to recite the grievances of the Israeli side, then defend them by saying that they are really true. both sides feel that way.
- My goal here is not to inflict sanctions on anyone, but to make sure that all concerns are heard, and to try to direct discussion to a level where people can feel that issues can be heard here, and somewhat definitively addressed; and also, that this might result in some constructive feedback and advice, which might help to resolve some of the open issues here. thanks. --
Steve, Sm8900 (
talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sm8900, I don't won't hold a grudge over this, but you've certainly ignored the point raised on the RfC and suggested it be ignored rather than help it being heard. This would be a good time to apologize for uncivil responses made on the discussion (suggestions to ignore RfC and editor directed commentaries '
sample').
- I'll do my share and start by apologizing to you for possibly making you uncomfortable with my response to soapboxing of other editors and objecting to a version which you thoughts was reasonable (despite
the RfC showing clear disagreement).
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add RfC wikilink.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
This discussion is being pushed off course - the intent wasn't to hold a general discussion of all involved users' conduct. Jaakobou's conduct has been disruptive, and so he is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week.
Addhoc (
talk) 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Jaakobou, you are incorrect. I have not been uncivil. I feel my comments were basically appropriate. I hope you will try to listen to them. I do appreciate your positive comments to me, and I'm sure we will have a positive relationship going forward. thanks. --
Steve, Sm8900 (
talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Tiamut. You are quite correct. This is another example of systemic bias. To have someone intimate to you that you are like the Red Indians of the Wild West, doomed to extinction except in quaint photos that memorialize the life your tribe once had. Then see that it required extensive and extenuating negotiations by third parties to have
User:Jaakobou retract that insinuation. Then see, within a few days, the person who, if only formally, apologized, take to your suggestions with a slash and burn approach to the world and culture you were raised in, by asserting that it, 'the Arab world' has a cultural structure which, informed by Islam, is responsible for racism and terrorism against Jews for a century, that those who occupy your land are there as the result of being victimized by Arab terrorists, only to find that the best Wiki administrators can do is to hum and haa over the issue, all this is proof at least
User:Jaakobou lives a privileged editorial life in here, and nothing can be done about it. He has rights no one else has. I know this from my own case. In an unfortunate exchange that looked like an edit war, I reported both him and myself for violating 3RR. It turned out I had calculated badly. He had violated the rule, I hadn't. Result? He privately contacted
User:Swatjester of Iraqi fame, and had the ban cancelled. Swatjester then intervened to have a ban that had been improperly placed on me confirmed, though I hadn't engaged, as the administrator and other colleagues showed, in anything like a violation of the 3RR rule. The only suggestion I can make to you is to ask that on pages where you edit, administrators allow you to ignore
User:Jaakobou's harassing time-wasting tactics, as not conducive to serious dialogue with yourself as a responsible editor. He can personally pester you with queries, but ignoring them should not be taken as a refusal of dialogue, but simply as a refusal to get dragged into edit-wars with an edit-warrior who has openly declared your culture is so shaped that it is ontologically racist and terrorist. My advice to
User:Jaakobou is to move on from Wiki where his talents are underused. If he can so consistently manage to prevail on administrators in off-the-page email and phone chats, as often before, to repeal administrative penalties he has incurred, and hold off from imposing the kind of sanctions the rest of us must, rightly, wear if we infringe policy, clearly he has charismatic persuasive powers, and they would surely ensure him a great career in politics, in Israel or anywhere else.
- Had, I repeat, had anyone on the 'other' side written, to slightly modify
User:Jaakobou's complaint about the Arab world, something along the lines of:-
'I find those suggestions insulting
advocacy. The Jewish world, Judaism-inspired cultural structure, is the main cause of the Jewish/Israeli 91 year racist terror campaign against the Palestinians.'
- He would have had the whole Wiki house come down on him like a ton of blocks for antisemitic prejudices, rightly so, and would have been declared persona non grata because that order of prejudice cannot conduce to editing, if strongly, to the equanimity required, an equanimity which is absent because, by the premise in such words, all those from that world who edit here to achieve equal representation of POVs are tacitly or otherwise either 'racists' and 'terrorists' or supporters of the same, given their cultural background.
Nishidani (
talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- p.s.I apologize for commenting when an administrative decision had already been made, while I was still writing, unawares, my post above. I wrote it on evidence of a certain administrative neglect in the past, which has obviously been remedied here, and apologize therefore for what I wrote concerning systemic bias against User:Tiamut. Regards
Nishidani (
talk) 14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.