The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

formal clarification requested by an arb

---

Please block 91.121.88.13 ( talk · contribs) for reverting the removal of a link to ED per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Will ^{( talk)} 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The above user ( User:Sceptre) has broken WP:3RR in attempting to enforce this, and has repeatedly removed the anon's legitimate comments. Chubbles ( talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

They are not legitimate. Per the above case, any user who inserts links to ED will be reverted and blocked. This includes the url. You've broken the AC ruling too. Will ^{( talk)} 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Note that what was removed was the phrase "" in another user's comment - not a url, but the name of the site - and the same embedded in an Alexa search, which is now a broken link. Chubbles ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Saying "x.com" isn't an url is like saying a cup of tea isn't without two sugars. Will ^{( talk)} 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Saying "x.com" is no less legitimate than referring to Amazon as "Amazon.com". Chubbles ( talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

ED? Legitimate? I'm sorry, you missed the party. BJAODN was deleted months ago. Will ^{( talk)} 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• I believe the above user is deliberatively trying to sabotage a point I made against him in a civil debate. His actions appear in extremely bad form. There was no link to ED, it was a link to an Alexa graph comparing traffic against two other sites. -- Truthseeq ( talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The ruling says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." A debate on the DRV is ongoing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've requested clarification on the ruling itself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 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:

• Incivility in edit summary: [6]
• Incivility at the article's talk: [7]

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. —— Martin^phi ☎ 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 following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked indefinitely. MastCell  ^Talk 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Fresh off a block and right back at it... I'm not going to list specific diffs since pretty much every other edit summary is a case in itself. Check out Special:Contributions/ForeverFreeSpeech.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.03.2008 16:46

Before seeing this post, I indef blocked ForeverFreeSpeech for persistent, unrepentant incivility, personal attacks, POV-pushing, and disruption. If the block is also appropriate under Arbcom enforcement, I suppose that is icing on the cake. · jersyko talk 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What arbcom case is this from? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Presumably Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- ChrisO ( talk) 14:01, 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.

Unrelated. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Banned user appears to have reapeared once again this time as User:weighted Companion Cube. User makes first post on Wikipedia just two days after User:RodentofDeath is referred to ArbCom.

Rodent has already been caught out twice breaching his ban.

User:weighted Companion Cube has posted on same disputed article and seems to follow the same wording and tactics of RodentofDeath.

Then this user posts in deletion request a posting that is an obvious defence of RodentofDeath and seems to taunt User:Edgarde, who had been one of the complainents in the arbitration case.

Edgarde had just previously posted this on my talk page.

Rodent has previously stated in his ArbCom case that he travels and uses multiple IP addresses. A look on this user's talk page also shows the same sort of problems he had as RodentofDeath with other Editors. Susanbryce ( talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)slight copyediting and link piping by • VigilancePrime • • • 23:01 (UTC) 7 Mar '08 for ease of readability. reply

• so the record is clear - i am not RodentOfDeath. if i had known there was some arbitration involved, i likely would have stayed away from this entirely. Also, i dont think having problems with SqueakBox is evidence of anything given what ive looked at. contact me if theres further questions. Weighted Companion Cube ( are you still there?/ don't throw me in the fire) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

WCC is  Unrelated to RodentOfDeath. Thatcher 20:42, 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.

Article restored. Looks like we're done here. Thatcher 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Please restore Son of Stimpy per the injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. This article was deleted on March 5. Related discussion at User talk:Seicer. Catchpole ( talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The injunction doesn't apply to speedy deletion. Will ^{( talk)} 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) I just restored the article because the injunction seemed to say not to delete or undelete (change status quo) as of Feb 3. There is not mention in the injunction that speedies are excluded. This article was re-created Jan 27, 2008 and deleted Mar 5, 2008. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

—  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction

Can't you admins do anything without wheel-warring? I see someone else has deleted it. Catchpole ( talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, but I am out of the loop with recent ArbCom actions. I saw this page at CAT:CSD and took care of it, not knwoing that doing so violated any ArbCom rulings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Viviano ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Gee, thanks for notifying me of this. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• FWIW, I recall discussion of particular episodes having notability. This is one of those landmark episodes I'd have thought. Hopefully finding indep sources won't be too hard. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:33, 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.

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.".

• Denouncing arbcom for setting out to protect its own "errors stupidity"
• Giano denouncing admins as "stupid" for enforcing policy against a banned sockpupeteer

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 following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Not disruptive, no action is appropriate or will be taken. Boldness is subject to reversion. When a long series of edits is made, some of which technically correct earlier parts of the series, the technical corrections don't make the prior edits in the series any more valid than they would have been if the technical correction was part of the original edit. A claim for or against consensus is not self-validating, only the input of other editors can prove or refute it. Retirement is irrelevant. GRBerry 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted Martin is banned from making disruptive edits. I believe that this edit is disruptive because he

1. wholesale reverted eighteen intermediate edits of mine. There were a number of not-even-remotely-controversial changes he completely removed including formatting of citations, addition of sources, and grammatical addenda.
2. accuses me of POV-pushing disruptively without explaining himself on the talkpage.
3. claims that there is no consensus on the talkpage, when I posted on the talkpage to the effect that I believed there was consensus.
4. uses the FA status of the article to justify further stonewalling, tendentious behavior (note that editors are welcome to edit FA articles and be bold).
5. claims to be retired on his user page: User:Martinphi.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Re #4, if you want to be bold, then you must accept that WP:BRD allows Martinphi to revert. You bunched together many edits, and with edit summaries like "at best a fringe science... it may be worse than a fringe science", it's not surprising that another editor decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. On a quick close inspection of these 18 changes, they are predominately related to the revert you did. i.e. these formatting, sources and grammatical changes you mention are mostly tweaks to your own additions.

1. [13] - revert
2. [14] - augmenting the revert with "at best"
3. [15] - augmenting the revert
4. [16] - tweak prior wording replacing "by parapsychology" with "in parapsychology"
5. [17] - expand on reverted intro
6. [18] - tweak reverted intro.
7. [19] - tweak reverted intro.
8. [20] - improve a cite existing in the prior text -- non-controversial
9. [21] - add another cite to text that came as part of the revert.
10. [22] - move a cite
11. [23] - alter text in reverted text
12. [24] - fix reverted text
13. [25] - altering first sentence of section "Organizations and publications"
14. [26] - adding ref name to a new cite introduced into reverted text
15. [27] - altering wording in change #13 above
16. [28] - remove period added by yourself
17. [29] - move "," in text added by yourself.
18. [30] - update wording added by yourself in changes #13 and #15 above.

Can you point out which of those 18 changes you consider to be non-controversial changes to the article as it was before your 18 changes? I dont see many, but if there are substantial good edits that were reverted without due consideration, then the revert could be considered WP:DE. John Vandenberg ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Perfect question JV.

As regards SA's point #5 (claims to be retired), this is (a) incorrect (it's "mostly retired" on MartinPhi's page) and (b) monumentally ironic in the context of SA's retirement announcement in January, exercising "right to vanish" upon being blocked, and returning immediately on the expiration of the block, and SA's defending his actions that "make it look like I have exercised the right to vanish". see diff WNDL42 ( talk) 19:20, 11 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.

WheezyF blocked indefinitely. At this time, no particular need to investigate whether or not it is SevenOfDiamonds aka NuclearUmpf. This will become relevant only if there is an appeal for unblocking. GRBerry 21:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

On 19 October 2007, SevenOfDiamonds ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was banned as a sockpuppet of the banned NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). [31] It is my belief that WheezyF ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of these banned users.

My suspicions intially arose from this checkuser case:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky

In that case, there were two accounts named after playing cards TenOfSpades ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ElevenOfHearts ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that were used to make Ultramarine ( talk · contribs) look bad by faking sockpuppetry on his part. Both of those "playing card" accounts were found to be sockpuppets of WheezyF. Note that the two WheezyF sockpuppets and SevenOfDiamonds have very similar usernames.

When comparing the WheezyF and the SevenOfDiamonds accounts, I saw that the WheezyF account was created on and began editing on 19 October 2007. [32] [33]

This is the day after SevenOfDiamonds' last edit [34] and the day that account was banned as a result of the arbcom decision.

The two accounts (WheezyF and SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmpf) share common interests such as rap music [35] [36] and the State terrorism and the United States article. On the aforementioned article, Wheezy F has pushed the same "anti-U.S. foreign policy" POV that was often pushed by SevenOfDiamonds. [37] [38] [39] [40] These last four diffs were chosen at random. There are many, many more.

It would be much appreciated if a checkuser would confirm that WheezyF edits from the New York area, which was where the NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds accounts edited from. [41] Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Note that there's more than enough checkuser evidence to indefinitely block WheezyF ( talk · contribs) as an abusive sockpuppeteer, and I have done so. The issue of whether he's NuclearUmpf may be largely moot, but I'll leave that up to others. MastCell  ^Talk 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Further evidence, uses unbracketed link to policy pages [42], [43], [44]...uses X, Y, Z or combination of such [45]...refers to others as childish or children [46]...all the same as evidence presented by me during the RFAr SevenOfDiamonds case here.-- MONGO 06:02, 11 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.

Giovanni33 self-reverted to defuse the issue; closed without action as moot. MastCell  ^Talk 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Giovanni33 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a very long block log. He has previously been blocked for breaking his parole. He has again broken his 1 revert a week parole on the State terrorism and the United States article.

Reverts:

• 15:58, 12 March 2008
• 04:38, 9 March 2008

In both cases cases reverted material include adding the Arno Mayer quote back to the introduction. The quote was previously in the article in the same place as seen here: [47] He himself admits that he is reverting material in the edit commentaries of both edits. Ultramarine ( talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Actually, only the first March 12th is a revert. My last revert before that was on March 3rd. The one on March 9th, was not a revert, and I did not indicate that in the edit commentaries as Ultramarine maintains. What I was doing was moving around some sections, and I noticed that the Arno Mayer quote was missing from the body where it was before. So I restored that and moved it to the intro; there was no edit warring about moving that quote back and forth, placement wise, or deleting it. I assumed that the fact it was missing was an accident, as there was no discussion or obvious reason why it would have been removed.
• To be on the safe side, and err on the side of caution, I will revert myself (incase any admin interprets this to count as a legitimate revert), so as to make this complaint moot. Thanks. Giovanni33 ( talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would encourage self-reverting as a mature and sensible way to close this report and render it moot. So far I see this self-revert, but it doesn't appear to undo either of the two edits cited by Ultramarine. Did you mean to make a further self-revert? MastCell  ^Talk 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I tried but it did not take. It appears that the material Ultramarine objected to, he has already moved himself (so when I click on "undo" under my name) nothing shows up as its already been undone. So I tried again and made a small change to show my compliance with self reverting and making this point moot (as you say). Thanks. Giovanni33 ( talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I see - that makes sense. I'm going to close this report as no action required. Thank you for taking the high road and self-reverting to defuse the issue. MastCell  ^Talk 22:33, 12 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.

User:Wakedream blocked as a sockpuppet; referred to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream for further investigation. MastCell  ^Talk 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

• Wakedream ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It is suspected that User:BryanFromPalatine, aka User:Neutral Good, aka User:Shibumi2, is back again as Wakedream ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). His various comments began to draw concern, especially after threads at User_talk:Wakedream#Prior_account and User_talk:Jehochman#NPOV_and_Waterboarding. Wakedream edited random articles on December 17 2007, but since March 8 2008 has waded into waterboarding with language and arguments similar to the advocacy of BFP and NG. His extremely negative reaction to Jehochman's simple question here also set off warning alarms. Lawrence § t/ e 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

 Redflag [51] This is not a new editor. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

•  Unrelated to Neutral Good; this is a different sockpuppeteer and it is a very deep rabbit hole. File this as an RFCU and ping Raul654 to look at it; I will pick it up after work if its not done by then. Thatcher 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(clerks please feel free to move this as needed) I was contacted offline to look into this (I think maybe that might not be a good approach as it can lead to duplicate efforts). I concur with Thatcher here, there's no provable connection to NeutralGood/BryanFromPalantine et al, but something is up... I've shared some of my other findings with Thatcher as well. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

RFCU filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream. Thanks guys. Lawrence § t/ e 15:29, 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.

The bulk of what is herein is a content dispute; which should be, but isn't, being addressed on the article's talk page. I suggest that be taken there. What is relevant to arbitration enforcement is the claim that this editor's editing of this article is disruptive. This is not demonstrated by the diffs, nor by the article's history tab. The terms of probation under this RFAR are drawn to prevent personal attacks, incivility, and edit warring. Those are not issues here, so imposing probation would accomplish nothing. GRBerry 14:31, 14 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 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This editor is a self-admitted member of the Ulster Unionist Party and Young Unionists, and his recent editing to the latter article is giving me cause for concern. In particular edits like this where he claims everything is referenced by these two sources:

• 'The Ulster Unionist Party, 1882-1973 : its development and organisation' (1973), J F Harbinson
• 'A history of the Ulster Unionist Party : protest, pragmatism and pessimism' (2004) Graham Walker

This is complete nonsense. As can be seen, the former was published in 1973, and the latter in May 2004. After checking the latter on Amazon Online Reader (only available on the UK site, not the US one) there are only three mentions of "Young Unionists" in the entire book.

• The first is on page 251, where it talks about Trimble giving a speech to the YU.
• The second is on page 262, where it says the YU and Orange Order "adopted strident anti-Agreement stances", and accounted for 154 seats of the 860 strong UUC body.
• The last is on page 282 (which is actually a footnotes page giving various details) and says Jeffrey Donaldson has a strong background in the YU.

As the first source cannot source anything post-1973, this leaves the following information unsourced, despite TU claiming it was sourced by the book.

• "The body re-emerged under the Chairmanship of David McNarry and continued to thrive throughout the 1980s"
• "It lost members at a greater proportion and sooner than the rest of the party"
• "and by the 2004 AGM only the outgoing Officers could vote due to a voting system designed for a much larger organisation"
• "A new body has again emerged, under the UUP's new Constitution. This means that it is no longer a loosely affiliated body, but an integral constituent part of the UUP, with enhanced representation at the levels of party governance and greater integration"
• "Their website contained the first party political weblog in Northern Ireland"

Some sources were added in an additional edit, but they seem to be sourcing events at the 2004 AGM, when the first source is from January 2004 and states the AGM will take place in March, and the second source was published a few days later and still pre-dates the AGM.

Given the COI and what seems to be a clear misrepresentation of what a source says (in this case - not much!) I welcome further discussion about whether his editing to that article is compatible with an acceptable standard. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's a particularly mischievious and disruptive form of POV-editing, because when citing books it is often the case that other editors don't access to them, so to a largely degree use of such sources is taken on trust.

Given the long history of edit-warring etc by Traditional unionist ( talk · contribs), I don't feel inclined to treat this sort of thing at all lightly, but I suggest that we should first hear what TU has to say about your evidence (which is very persuasive). May I suggest that you notify TU that you have raised the issue here? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll do that shortly. I've discovered there's some more coverage in the book, after a search for "Young Unionist". Details for completeness are as follows:

• Page 148. Brookeborough spoke at a YU dinner
• Page 185. Following the 1970 general election, party dissidents including the YU Council turned up the heat on the leadership.
• Page 206. Footnotes page, mentions 1971 proposal to cut YU representation on the UUC.

If by some miracle the information is sourced in the book without mentions of the phrase "Young Unionist" or "Young Unionists" I'd like to know exact page numbers, and I can quickly verify it myself. I did search for McNarry for the 1980s information, and there was nothing relevant on that search either. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Firstly, Young Unionists is a more modern form of the orginisations name. The more formal Ulster Young Unionist Council was more common in these publications. Harbinson's book covers the formation of the orginisation fully. I have to say I didn't realise that Brian Faulkner's memoirs and David Hume's Phd thesis (as published) wern't listed as sources, I though they were. Please read [ [52]] and [ [53]] for some context to my reluctance to take the users edits constructively. Traditional unionist ( talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As above, a search for "Young Unionist" provided no relevant information either. Faulkner died in 1977, and Hume's thesis was published in 1996, so the only thing that could be sourced by them is McNarry. So there's still unsourced information outstanding that you claimed was sourced. Who tagged the information isn't relevant (and I know quite a lot about this situation), you claimed it was sourced. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's always a wise thing to never reveal one's politics (at least on one's home page). Why? It compromises one's standing in editing & discussing political articles. I give this advice to all Wiki editors. GoodDay ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Only tho those who make it so. I'm curious about the statement "and I know quite a lot about this situation" - how? Traditional unionist ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I pay attention, it's clear you two know each other but that's largely irrelvant. Regardless of who places a {{ fact}} tag, it still needs sourcing. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll use Unionist & Irish nationalist examples here. It's only a theory on my part - if one goes to your page (TU) and learns you're a Unionist? Then editors (quite likely Irish nationalist), may get the impression that your edits/postings have Unionist PoV behind them. Also, if one reveals him/herself to be an Irish nationalist? He/she might create the impression of Irish nationalist PoV behind their edits/postings aswell. Same thing for Israeli/Palestinian or (in my country) Canadian federalism/Quebec seperatism. My point is? One shouldn't be restricted to what one has on their home-page; but I've found that, hiding one's politics helps one come across more as NPOV. GoodDay ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Coming across as something, and being it, are two differnt things. I am honest about my background and opinions. Traditional unionist ( talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've never claimed you weren't honest TU. Also, I would never support any form of 'censurship' on anybody 'home page'. GoodDay ( talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In the defence of TU I dont think it matters if you tell people your beliefs. I have had interaction with TU on a couple of articles and our beliefs are at opposite ends of the divide, but I try always to WP:AGF, this is what make IMO Wikipedia a great project in that all beliefs are heard equally. I dont think that there is this great Unionist or Republican plot to portray articles in a favourable way. It only becomes a problem when an editor refuses to abide the rules of Wikipedia and insert POV or edit war. I think we are being side-tracked a little from what ONIH has produced here. BigDunc ( talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not 'accusing' anbody of a political agenda (ONIH and I had a little disagreement, weeks ago). Note, that I use the word impression. GoodDay ( talk) 15:03, 11 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.

block extended 1 year by FutPer

---

Case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks.

The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before.

He has edited from various anonymous IP's making essentially the same arguments as he did before on the same pages, some which are edited by very few other editors. Some example IP's he has used are 69.245.41.113, 69.180.210.99, 69.180.193.52, etc.

Aside from these comments being essential copy and pastes of his old arguments, and him signing with "A former Wikipedian," and referring to how he will "continue the fight when is allowed back in a few months" they are from the same geographic area as the original user (see [ [55]]). If you would like further information please let me know. If this should be put somewhere else and not here also please let me know and I will follow up. Thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.165.177 ( talk) 2008-03-15T23:46:29 (UTC)

Block evasion is inexcusably bad enough for Wikipedia if the ip saying is really right. However, I just bring something for your information. This IP user, 128.205.165.177 ( talk · contribs) or 128.205.33.79 ( talk · contribs) whose dns is designated to SUNY Buffalo is either Komdori ( talk · contribs) or LactoseTI ( talk · contribs) who suddenly disappeared around the last early November. [56]. In addition, this user seems to be associated with the Japanese bulletin board, 2channel because I saw the same comment as this at the board. We need to have a stronger enforcement to Japan-Korean articles at this point for editors can safely edit and discuss without stalking or being watched by other off-wiki board like 2channel has done [57]. Japanese editors from the board has done something at Talk:Sea of Japan. If you need more information or translation, I will follow up it as well. Thanks.-- Appletrees ( talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Both findings (Wikimachine and LactoseTI/Komdori) are certainly correct. Wikimachine's block extended to another year from today. Appletrees, can you give us a link to the corresponding posting on 2ch please? These days, I'm certainly inclined to take no crap from people who use anon IPs and post to 2ch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My computer is getting out of order, so I can't provide translation from Japanese text right now, so leave the link which shows their talking about Wikimachine's block evasion on Jan. 19th. 2008. See No.133 ~136 [58] [59] Here is presumably Wikimachine's ip addres, so take a look at the contribution on the same date. See this ip address, one of which the Buffalo anon mentioned. 69.245.41.113 ( talk · contribs). In addition, according to 2channel, more than two editors currently reside in east coast of US. I will add the relevant link later. One is assumed as this user per his engagement in Pyrus pyrifolia and Yakiniku. [60]

Original text
:133 [2008/01/19(土) 16:50:39 ID:BLZSbvXs]	どうみてもウィキ機械丸出しのIPも登場したなｗ>りゃんこ 134 [2008/01/19(土) 18:11:27 ID:/pPWY4Xh] 確かに機会っぽいね。 元気そうだ。 135 [2008/01/20(日) 01:00:33 ID:9m20izV4] ウィキ機械っぽいIPに対する管理者の返信もエスプリが効いてて グッドジョブ！ｗｗｗｗ < #｀д´>＜だ、だからWikiもｳﾘの主張するNPOVにするﾆﾀﾞ!!!!! しかし、だんだんと管理者もコリアンの偏り具合に気付きつつあるのかな？ 136 [2008/01/20(日) 01:27:00 ID:xuGEFicO] 機械っぽい、っていうか完全に機械ですな、あれは。 主張内容といい、表現のクセといい・・・ < #｀д´>＜ｳﾘﾅﾗのｸﾚｰﾑの方が強いﾆﾀﾞ!!!　ｳﾘの主張に 従わないﾔﾂはﾅｼｮﾅﾘｽﾄﾆﾀﾞ!!!!

They seem to move their forum regarding English Wikipedia and me. I would see my name on some "worst bulletin board" (it really exist in 2channel) They talk about you a lot as well on the same link (see No. 637, 645, 661~670) -- Appletrees ( talk) 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Lol. I love it when they talk about me as "superman". Especially the way it comes across in Google translator. "Now is the perfect superhuman stopped shooting death sentence mode [...] I kill you immediately declared, is perfect superhuman Gil's left to settle down [...] (Especially now that superhumanはあっPURUTO perfect honeymoon relationship, very dangerous)". Yeahhrrr. I feel like a ninja. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 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:

• Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro
• List of Northern Irish flags
• List of British flags
• {{ British flags}}

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 following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Grandy Grandy and Osli73 both banned from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month. Thatcher 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sets high standards for Decorum and Editorial process for all Balkan related articles. I believe that Grandy Grandy is breaking these by repeatedly making controversial and WP:POV edits on a number of Balkan related articles without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages and, sometimes, despite notices by administrators to respect the editorial process. A number of examples:

• Bosnian mujahideen: Despite a specific request by the involved Mediation coordinator ( User:Vassyana) to all editors "to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion" Grandy Grandy has made a number of major reverts/controversial edits without attempting to discuss these (see [61], [62] and [63]). It should be noted that this is an article which GG on several occasions has tried to delete alltogether ( [64], [65] and [66]).
• Mujahideen: here GG has repeatedly reverted or extensively edited ( [67], [68] and [69]) the section on Bosnia in line with his POV edits of the Bosnian mujahideen article, again, without seeking any consulation or discussion on the Talk page (despite being encouraged to do so).
• Naser Oric: a number of controversial edits/reverts ( [70], [71] and [72]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page, despite encouragement to do so.
• Alija Izetbegovic: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ( [73], [74] and [75]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page.
• Bosnian War: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ( [76] and [77]) without any real attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so.
• Finally, based on this reply and the fact that the reverts by GG are the same as those by Dragon of Bosnia, currently on one weeks block for similar transgression, I believe that these edits are being done in collusion.

Regards Osli73 ( talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment

First of all, I don't agree with @OSLI73. He is the one who started to vandalize articles, I am the one among the others (Dragon, HarisM, Dchall1, Live Forever etc) who repaired the damage. And here is the proof:

@OSLI73's log of vandalism:

• 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
• 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
• 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
• 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
• 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
• 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
• 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Second of all, @OSLI73 is blanking articles (removing sourced parts he doesn't like).

For example @OSLI73 deleted a part from Bosnian War which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."

He deleted this part:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

Soureces:

• Summary of ICTY verdicts I
• Summary of ICTY verdicts II

I asked him why, for a few times, got no answer. He just repeats the same old story he wrote above which is not related to his deletions in order to get Arbitration enforcement cause he doesn't like Radio Free Europe source, doens't like ICTY source, doesn't like this and that...I am not willing to support his idea about arbitration cause there are a lof of other users who worked hard to write smth, and now @OSLI73 is trying to undo that cause he doesn't like some sources. Grandy Grandy ( talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Grandy Grandy comments above:

1. It would be good if he answered the issues that I raised above, instead of bringing other issues
2. I don't see what old transgressions of WP:3RR have to do with the issue at hand
3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits/reverts he has made (at least not prior to me making this complaint) despite encouragement to do so. Please see the relevant talk pages.
4. Grandy Grandy has made major edits to the Bosnian mujahideen article despite being specifically asked by the admin involved not to do so.
5. Grandy Grandy seems to be arguing that as long as information is sourced it is not POV or inappropriate and should never be removed. My belief is that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article. Sourced information can still be POV.

In conclusion, I would encourage Grandy Grandy to reply to the specific issues I raised above. Regards Osli73 ( talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Osli73 comments above:

1. I answered all the issues on the appropriate talk pages.
2. Well "old transgressions of WP:3RR" is all but old transgressions of WP:3RR. Sockpuppeteering and directly violating your arbcom probation and revert parole, violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre, rule violation on Bosnian Mujahidee isn't just the matter of WP:3RR, it's much more.
3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits... Well, isn't true: [78], [79], [80],the real problem is you never answered my questions about blanking. You just skip it and continue to revert which is obvious vandalism.
4. Regarding Bosnian Mujahideen, I just improved the article per comments in AfD, cause other users agreed that the name must be changed as you fabricated it (the title isn't present in any of your sources). Most of the users also voted for the deletion of that article: [81] as it's cloned, POV fork or collection of unreliable source (WP:RS).
5. Please read WP:RS and WP:Vandalism. Persistent removal and blanking of the high-quality and neutral international sources in very sensitive Bosnian War article ( Summary of ICTY verdicts I, Summary of ICTY verdicts II) is probably in appliance with ur belief that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article and that sourced information can still be POV, but it isn't in appliance with Wikipedia rules, cause the sentence started with According to that source. It wasn't just included as a pure fact, it designated the source (International Tribunal), unlike your edits when you included many other speculation about Al Qaeda etc. without relevant source. Grandy Grandy ( talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• relisting with a new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Response I don't see an active attempt at mediation; it looks like Vassyana is periodically stepping in to try and clam the dispute, but there is no ongoing MEDCAB or MEDCOM mediation that I can see. I think the best thing to do here is to ban both Osli73 ( talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy ( talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month, and encourage them to discuss the article on the talk page an engage formal mediation if necessary. Thatcher 00:23, 17 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.

Blocked by FT2. Thatcher 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

Per the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages of articles relating to medieval or ancient history, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. He has been unable to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors: [82], [83], [84], [85],

Since PHG seems unwilling to take to heart the various reminders about civility and collaborative editing, and since his recent actions on article talkpages are continuing to be disruptive and keep other editors away from more productive work, I recommend that PHG be blocked for a short time, perhaps 48 hours, to allow other editors to get back to work. Hopefully this block will be a wake-up call, and avoid further restrictions on his ability to contribute to talk pages. Shell ^babelfish 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, it seems that FT2 has already blocked PHG [86]. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Coming here to post a note following blocking. See his talk page for the full note. By chance, we seem to have concurred on duration - I blocked for 48 hours. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 20:14, 16 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.

THIS ENDS NOW. Comments below. Thatcher 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

• I haven't been at my best this week. Numerically I'm at a disadvantage at this dispute, and I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively.

• I'm also a bit unconvinced that Addhoc, who recently contributed and/or discussed content on Gush Shalom and Daniel Pipes (both extremely political Israel-Palestine related articles); should have been the one to implement administrative decisions on a pre-conceived determination that I'm disruptive, [87] while neglecting Arbcom procedures that editors should be first warned and given the chance to correct problems^** This is not intended to claim that he is purposely biased, but that he was perhaps too quick to reject my good faith step back from my harsh language response to soapboxing on a heated dispute.
  • I believe this perception was increased by (a) not allowing me to post diffs to the not so good faith behavior of other editors and (b) accepting these " repeatedly explained" versions of events at face value.

• I'm not requesting an unblock but believe other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own.

• ** Palestine-Israel_articles: Final_decision: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

- related comment by Jaakobou: "I apologize for aggressive behavior"..."If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing."

Summary recap

Reminder: this is not an unblock request, but rather a request that behavior of other editors be examined in proper context.

Despite my retraction of harder language a mere one and a half hours after it was made (in response to other editor's soapboxing^[i]) and my suggestion that I'd be willing to retract any other possibly offensive statement;^[ii] Tiamut tries to have me blocked to impose her POV, Sm8900 disrupts discussions by ignoring RfC concerns^[iii] and Nickhh^[iv] and Nishidani^[i] are both being down right abusive. I'd gladly take this 1 week topic ban; however if Tiamut ignores RfC, commits repeated advocacy soapboxing and uses AE as a weapon (despite my quick attempts to scale things down); Nickhh soapboxes and commits 2 separate NPA violations, Sm8900 blatantly ignores Dispute resolutions and is being disruptive to the RfC process, and Nishidani also soapboxes heavily about "indiscriminate notorious deeds". Personally, being that I've admitted to my one time mishap (I don't make a habit of soapboxing and have contributed to 3 featured materials) and retracted a mere hour and a half after it was made, I believe the proper protocol as suggested by the Arbcom Final Decisions, suggests I deserve a warning but not a full week ban. However, sick and tired of relentless soapboxing on talk pages, I'm more than willing to take on a weekly topic ban if only my fellow editors are sanctioned properly according to their conduct as well. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• [i] (1) Nishidani: soapboxing about "massive expenditure of ammunition" and "notorious deeds" ; (2) CasualObserver'48: "The ‘occupier’ is Israel, civilian or not, just as the ‘occupied’ are Palestinian... they have few choices left" ; (3) Nishidani: "indescriminate bombings in which on average half the victims are innocent civilians, house demolitions, land theft, property theft" ; (4) Nishidani: Palestinian take on events is " the most neutral" ; (5) Nickhh: English pot shot at fellow editors who disagree ; (6) Tiamut: it would be " misleading the reader" to phrase otherwise. (small fix 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC), name clarification 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

• [ii] Jaakobou: "let me know if there's anything else that needs toning down" 16:26, 17 March 2008

• [iii] (1) Sm8900: " if editors on a particular side never budge, we will get nowhere." ; (2) Sm8900: That's what they believe. i know it's irrational. What do you expect? they're Palestinians. ; (3) Sm8900: there was never a conflict.

• [iv] (1) Nickhh: English pot shot at fellow editors who disagree with him ; (2) Nickhh: claiming to be an "outside observer", and soapboxing also about (Nickhh:) " 40 years of military occupation" followed by a personal attack (Nickhh:) warping my words and claiming "Plenty of people more knowledgeable than you disagree" ; (3) Nickhh: Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists... it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh (I never made such racist commentary about Muslim-Arabs, there is clearly not one body of Muslim-Arabs but rather many with many different views and perspectives)

Longer recap of events (a bit boring and cluttered)

Michael made a 7:2 slightly pro-Palestinian POV suggestion and the following occurred: CasualObserver48 "The ‘occupier’ is Israel, civilian or not, just as the ‘occupied’ are Palestinian... they have few choices left" and Nishidani "indescriminate bombings in which on average half the victims are innocent civilians, house demolitions, land theft, property theft" soapboxed about the "evils of zionism" and who is occupier and who is occupied - with Nishidani adding his always neutral " moral principles" perspective that Palestinian take on events is " the most neutral"; at least this time he did not accuse others of ethnic cleansing he he did on his 'moral principals' comment. Yahel Guhan, notes that editors are presenting a Palestinian perspective and soapboxing for censorship of the Israeli perspective (directed at Nickhh but intended to all). 20:04, 16 March 2008 Nickhh response was to join Nishidani ' s style ( Viewing his English as correct and soapboxing about "notorious deeds") and takes an English pot shot at fellow editors who disagree with him; Tiamut rejects the suggested compromise and further soapboxes that it would be " misleading the reader" to phrase otherwise. She continues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, by making a text suggestion that's equal to the very version that was rejected in the starting point of the RfC. Sm8900 notes his approval to this, ignoring the RfC as well and suggesting " if editors on a particular side never budge, we will get nowhere." I got fed up/took the bait with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, "can't be described anything other than" mentality and long-going soapboxing; and made a comment to that sense, "If you consider "resistance" and "struggle" to be a "good faith compromise suggestion" than I have a completely different perspective -- I find those suggestions insulting [[WP:SOAP|advocacy]]." 14:42, 17 March 2008 Nickhh responds by ignoring my point, claiming to be an "outside observer", and soapboxing also about " 40 years of military occupation" followed by a personal attack warping my words and claiming "Plenty of people more knowledgeable than you disagree" ignoring the RfC as well - I clarify and request he refrain from personal attacks. Sm8900 [ warps my text also as if I demanded that the Palestinian perspective be retracted (I never did). Upset at the personal attack by Nickhh and the general "no RfC" responses; I use the poor phrasing, " disillusioned perspective" while noting that I was willing to accept the inclusion of the Palestinian perspective, if only the Israeli perspective is included also. I continue to explain that If 'Palestinian affiliation' editors wish their own "struggle" terminology implemented into articles, then that comes hand in hand with an equal presentations from the 'Israeli affiliation'. Sm8900 responds by insults me (and possibly Palestinians as well) as if I'm claiming Palestinians are irrational and requests me to allow their version because of that irrationality. I respond by reminding him that I did not object to inclusion of Palestinian perspective. I then notice the hight of the flames and in my desire to tone things down I request clarifications from Tiamut and/or Sm8900 why they believe Tiamut's suggested version (which mimics the version that caused for an RfC) fixed the issues raised on the RfC. 16:12, 17 March 2008 and I proceed to also strike out some of the harder language which I've made an hour and a half earlier. 16:19, 17 March 2008 I note this to Tiamut and add she can "let me know if there's anything else that needs toning down" 16:26, 17 March 2008; Tiamut, fails to admit that she shares in the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/ WP:SOAP problem on the page; notes that she is a Palestinian woman, and proceeds to post this thread on 16:30, 17 March 2008, trying to use AE as a weapon. Meantime on the talk page, Sm8900 claims there was never a conflict and insults me again. I remind him of the editors who agreed with me on the RfC [88] leading him to apologize that he was merely "joking". [89] Nickhh once again makes a personal attack starting by claiming I want a version that presents Arab Muslims as warped people and continuing to soapbox about the 'Nile and Euphrates'. He adds a mock apology to laugh at my earlier request that he remain civil. -- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Comments by involved parties

Is there a section here for comments by uninvolved editors? shouldn't there be one? thanks.

Also, do the Arbcom editors come in to say which items they wish to look at or comment on? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Nickhh Comment: I really not sure this issue needs any comment from me or anyone else, on this page or any other page, but I will make a couple of general remarks which cover the main thrust of the accusations, as opposed to doing a point by point rebuttal of every complaint - 1) I stand by my assertion that people who understand how English words work (and I mean reliable sources on this, not just some editors rather than others) are better qualified to explain what those words mean. How is this controversial or difficult, even if I will accept I could have phrased the point a little less bluntly? Also Jaakobou, in the link to your rant that you kindly but perhaps oddly keep providing for everyone, you suggested that "your [own] perspective" is that the Arabs/Palestinian "public" are "indoctrinated" and want to "kill as many Jews as possible" and to "clear the Middle East of Jews"; so I don't think for me to say you described Arabs as being "warped" or "genocidal" was an unfair exaggeration of your words. You were even insisting that some of that language actually go into the article. I think there's a genuine lack of thought going on here as to how what you say comes across to others. Thanks -- Nickhh ( talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with Nickhh and others posting here, for the most part. Jaakobou, this whole issue began with your counter-productive comments, which were completely injurious to Wikipedia, the approach to the topics at hand, and professional and constructive relaations between editors of varying viewpoints and affiliations. I really don't think you're helping your case by casting aspersions on editors like us who attempted to handle things verbally, and to try in vain to get you to be more constructive on the talk page. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Question by Jaakobou to Nickhh: I had not suggested that all Arabs are indoctrinated, but rather suicide bomemrs like Hussam Abdo, and Wafa al-Bis. Clearly, there is a general problem of indoctrination if Palestinian textbooks and Hamas "educational" television programming promote "martyrdom". My phrasing also made sure not to distinguish between Jewish-Israelis and Arab Israelis, and I consider the Palestinian population to also be victims of this mentality.. so, why are you warping my comments and making these personal attacks?^{see [iv] above} Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add citation 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

p.s. I don't see what's so shocking that many Israelis and Arabs perceive the Palestinian cause as a struggle/war to clear the middle east of the Jewish state... this is a position held by Palestinian Authority TV and their 'moderate' president. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've said all I'm going to say. This is bordering on trolling now, seriously. User: Durova, come and rescue your mentoree. -- Nickhh ( talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Nishidani Comment. User:Jaakobou. Of the many people with whom I dialogue here, you seem, rather singularly, to take exception to me, for my use of the word 'ethical' on occasion, or for my long explanations of why I back this or that edit (soapboxing). I do arguely strongly for the position I adopt. I do also, whenever asked, supply any number of book references to show where in the academic literature my judgements come from. I must admit that this recent altercation, my involvement in it, came simply from observing what I thought was a gross breach of gentlemanly etiquette. I responded most strongly. I do not regard this as a 'clash of civilizations' where one of two worlds must prevail, as you appear to do. I have contributed, I hope substantially to pages on Jewish intellectuals I deeply admire, from Hilberg (a Republican)to Finkelstein (a communist). My purpose here is to make sure, as far as I can, that the realities of Palestinian history are given their due voice. In this I am simply following the lessons I learnt from Jewish mentors, and that trenchant tradition of criticism with which so many Jews have enriched our modernity. I remained somewhat bewildered when I see this extreme nationalist passion, posts that speak of 'my people' (no one has a right to speak in the name of a people, when giving a personal opinion. The point was made by Theodor Adorno in his Minima Moralia. I am disconcerted when a fellow editor, User:Itzse can write on Addhoc's page that, if the ban is not lifted, you, Jaakobou will be 'missing in action'. This language of battle or do or die warfare, of the 'Arab world' as a lethal monolith of racist bent ( Arnold Toynbee admired it in the 1950s because it seemed to him the least 'racist' of the three monotheistic worlds, rightly or wrongly I do not know), this puts many of us in a 'redoubt', in defensive lines against salients that will brook no idea that there can be two sides to history, and that in writing history, both sides are owed due representation. When finally you take my documented defense of the word 'uprising' (based on the OED and Ovendale's book, among 10 other academic sources I have examined) as equivalent to supporting a 'Palestinian take on events is "the most neutral",' (see your remarks above) you are twisting by your synthetic headings to the links, the facts, as any neutral eye can see. I was not supporting a 'Palestinian' perspective, I was defending the proper use of the English language. If you cannot see this, then much of what I or others write must perforce assume a minatory aspect, of heartless insinuation. Nishidani ( talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• I cannot see anything that qualifies as incivility or soapboxing in the comments I have made (nor those of others, though I admittedly did not examine them as closely as my own). I am open to being corrected on that if someone can point me to an actual example of where I could improve.
• I am frankly disappointed that rather than simply accepting a one-week topic editing ban that Jaakobou has instead chosen to respond by casting aspersions upon other editors. If he had such serious concerns, he should have brought them to Durova or here before "responding in kind".
• Since the Arbcomm case, I have not received a warning from an admin indicating that there are problems with my editing behaviour. The only complaints editors raised regarding my editing behaviour then was my block log record for 3RR. I have not been blocked since and have significantly reduced my tendency towards edit-warring by generally disengaging or discussing as required. I do not believe that my behaviour is at issue here. Though I am open to hearing what others have to say regarding the matter.

As for Jaakobou's complaint that he is being singled out here, I think it is without merit, for the following reasons:

• A little more than a month ago, Jaakobou was warned by Rlseve (the final warning that comes before admins may take discrtionary actions) [90]
• A few days ago, a thread was opened here by El C regarding Jaakobou's mockery of my mourning template and it closed (rather prematurely) on the same day [91]
• Durova was the last to comment in the thread, saying, "Let's chalk this up as one ugly misunderstanding. Sensitive subjects + sleep deprivation are the bane of harmonious editing. Now it's high time I got to those Maori textiles (and some other things). Best regards, DurovaCharge! 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Just hours after Jaakobou and I had concluded our discussion on the previous issue, Jaakobou engaged in soapboxing and thinly veiled personal attacks, which included racist comments, at Talk:Second Intifada [92], [93].
• Jaakobou has not apologized for these latest comments, and has instead sought to blame others for his outburst. This is evidenced in his first response to my post raising the concern on his talk page [94] and in the whole rigamorale of activities that have followed.
• In the original Arbcomm case, evidence presented by Number57 [95] states: "The fact that Jaakobou requests discussing his problematic behaviour off-wiki (in the e-mails he sent he said that he "can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging") suggests that he is attempting to sweet-talk editors into overlooking his misdemeanours instead of facing up to his actions." I submit that this has been the case as regards the last two threads discussing his behaviour here.
• Durova spent 12 hours on instant messaging with Jaakobou after the WP:AE report filed by El C. Without Durova's intervention on his behalf, he would likely have been sanctioned, since he had already received a final warning and what he did was widely recognized as wholly inappropriate. After he apologized to me personally, I decided to accept his apology in good faith, thinking it would encourage him to better behaviour and help promote a more collegial atmosphere all around. Jaakobou's actions subsequent therefore leave much to be desired.
• Note too that Jaakobou continued, even as the latest case was ongoing, to single me out on the talk page at Second Intifada, accusing me of soapboxing, [96] for stating my position on how the text should read. [97].
• At this point, I think Jaakobou's behaviour amounts to harassment. The tendentiousness of his edits and commentaries is not subsiding with time, it is getting worse. I believe this is because he has repeatedly managed to escape sanctions for actions that other editors have been blocked and banned for by appealing to higher authorities for special exemptions. Addhoc's decision was the right one, though I think it has perhaps come too late. Had Jaakobou been dealt with more firmly earlier on, I don't believe we would have witnessed the escalation that we have seen in the last week. With respect, Tiamut ^talk 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding Tiamut

Jaakobou writes "Tiamut tries to have me blocked to impose her POV". This is incorrect, as evidenced by Tiamut's statement on the mediation page: "One more thing, User:Jaakobou, a key party in the dispute, is not able to edit I-P related articles for this upcoming week. I propose that we not open the case formally until he can participate fully since his involvement thus far has been extensive and his agreement to whatever compromise is reached, is in my view, important." Although Tiamut's earlier behavior certainly demonstrated a lack of understanding, I think that Tiamut's more recent behavior has demonstrated understanding -- especially given my own conduct --, and I do not think that Tiamut deserves to be banned. ← Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding all the editors

I think that none of the editors should be banned. This is not a productive way to solve conflicts, and it only deepens animosity between editors who are already predisposed to hostility due their opposing viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Occassional soapboxing -- which is sometimes necessary to alert editors to a POV other than their own -- should not be cause for banning. ← Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

STOP!

• Arbitration enforcement is, by its nature, and regrettably, somewhat arbitrary. Unlike Arbitration cases, which may have several weeks for the presentation of evidence and the expectation that the voting Arbitrators will read the entire presentation, enforcement is handled on an ad hoc basis by whichever admins happen to take an interest in this page. I certainly do my best to familiarize myself with a situation before making a decision, and I hope other admins do the same. But there is no human way to guarantee perfect fairness. Admins are not Solomon or even Daniel; we do our best.
• It's a one-week topic ban. Deal with it. A 10,200 word colloquy on the subject is neither required nor appreciated. Reports made on this page should be brief and concise with specific diffs showing violations of Arbitration rulings. Jaakobou may make such reports as he believes are justified by the evidence. Thatcher 22:35, 18 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.

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,

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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,

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

a few new comments

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