Cut it out. Seriously, cut it out. You know who you are, because plenty of other people have told you to cut it out.
Disruptive editing and insulting behavior are not acceptable. Read this notification. If you were not aware of the ArbCom ruling before, which I doubt, you have been notified now. Any further disruption will result in topic bans or blocks, without further warning. This has been way out of hand for too long. It been three months since the ArbCom case, and many have been involved for much much longer. Just to be sure you don't miss it, read: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I'm quite sure that everyone understands what is expected of them and how Wikipedia works. Avoid making comments about other editors. Do not engage in general debate about topics. Stop escalating already heated situations. Do not use demeaning edit summaries. Do not cloak personal attacks in general comments and pretend they are not personal attack. And so on, and so on. There are pending dispute resolution processes and people offering to help out; I strongly suggest accepting such options and trying your best to move forward productively. Vassyana ( talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: ' Case Final Decisions' .
“ | referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. -- User:Eleland unblock request. (00:34, 15 February 2008) | ” |
See #Comments leading to the block included
To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge while getting unblocked.
There is no doubt that there are issues with many of Jaakobou's edits; however, a certain set of editors, including, quite frankly, those listed below, have taken that as a license to insult and revert him with impunity, mercilessly tag-teaming him, and even publicly encouraging each other to revert him. '
(undent) @ Nickhh - Your reaction to a compliment I paid you -- I consider the ability to reasses and admit the fault in one's own words as a significant measure of self awareness -- pushes the bounds of credulity. "Errant child"? "Atone"? Come on. I never said that, and I never said anything close to that. Let's stop the silliness.
Also, I am familiar with Jaakobou and his general MO. I have mediated a case he was involved in, and made reasonable progress in doing so, on an article which was getting quite contentious. From that vantage I can indeed say that there is a way to constructively work with Jaakobou even if you disagree with him and there is a constructive way to communicate with him. The failure of the people involved in this complaint to find out how to deal with him does not excuse their behavior. It doesn't excuse anything he may have done wrong, either. I understand the situation much better than you think I do. But when push comes to shove, if civility cannot prevail, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to just walk away until he or she can respond in a cool and constructive way. That's just the way it is.
@ Nishidani - Artful wanderings notwithstanding, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to act within the bounds of acceptable behavior as governed by policy. No amount of poetry is going to change that. Sorry. If you feel that Jaakobou has acted in an inappropriate way, then address those concerns specifically and in the proper venue. And please, do so in English, for those of us who only speak two languages. - Revolving Bugbear 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This posting is a mélange of exaggerations, half-truths, and simple nonsense. Jaakobou has previously been given a final warning for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping [3] and yet here he repackages many of the same claims from his "dodgy dossier" and "sexes it up" with a truly despicable accusation of blood-libel (related to an eight-months-stale dispute!)
Those admins who would like to know Jaakobou's history of such spurious accusations should examine Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou#Evidence of disputed behavior. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have reposted this here because it was unaccountable removed and relocated in a separate space on the grounds that it dealt with content. In fact it did not deal with content. It addressed User:PhilKnight, who had just posted. By removing both pieces and fixing them in an unalterable archive page below, Jaakobou appears to me to be 'fixing' the page to suit his suit. I am not a technician of rules, but it appears to me that he is determined, having raised a complaint, to manage comments in the order he likes, as if he owned the page. Therefore I append my comment here, where, not being archived, it can be adjusted, expanded or corrected. I should add that while rules ask for civility, repeated futile, tendentious and wall-eared editing, often in disregard of the talk page conversation, to establish a text which then is regarded as authoritative, and may only be modified by persuading its one editor, Jaakobou, to do so on the talk page, is exasperating, and exasperation provokes. I have no intention of building cases against other people, as Jaakobou appears now to do as part of a personal campaign. But I do think it a very grave breach of whatever rule governs interactions in Wiki that he persistently compiles dossiers, over time, on separate administrator pages, without so much as a hint to his targeted victim, in order to disseminate a deeply negative impression about people he has conflicts with in several administrators' minds. His excuse, when this is noted, is invariably, 'Oh sorry. I forgot. Cordially' etc. Nishidani ( talk) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I totally back Nishidani's observations above. Jaakobou is an incredibly frustrating editor to deal with, often stirring up huge talk page debates over relatively simple issues of language and sourcing, especially on articles that he wants to claim ownership of. His mission here as well seems to be to ramp up as much material as he can that pushes a very right wing Israeli POV, or that criticises public figures who he appears to dislike (eg Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat) on the assumption that this is simply in response to the allegedly egregious "Palestinian propaganda" that otherwise dominates Wikipedia. This leads to fairly robust debate on talk pages, but very rarely any genuinely insulting or ad hominem attacks. Culling together a few random quotes from such encounters, going back months, does not provide a balanced reality of Eleland's & Jaakobou's interaction. And most of those quotes, as has been pointed out, are anyway aimed at fallacious arguments not at Jaakobou or any individual editor. And beyond that Jaakobou is quite capable of taking on his interlocutors and making pretty broad and unfounded accusations, as evidenced by the diffs presented here. In turn he has taken to forum shopping with multiple complaints against the same editors, often for the most trivial (bordering on fraudulent) of reasons - and he seems to be oddly proud of that behaviour, as evidenced by the "Memorabilia" section on his own userpage. If I had more time I'd add more diffs. -- Nickhh ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I too would like to second the statements by User:Eleland, User:Nishidani and User:Nickhh. User:Jaakobou is here only to push his own, somewhat radical POV on all articles regarding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His constant edit-warring and wiki-lawyering are a serious impediment to the advancement and improvement of all aritcles in this area.
WP:AGF was tried many times and failed. As a recent example, consider his recent edits on Avigdor Lieberman and compare them to his behaviour at Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat. In the former he edit-wars to remove criticism of a politician he likes whereas in the later he edit-wars to have such criticism included, displaying, in both cases, completely opposite interpretations of policy and/or judgement. This is not the work of somebody following policy and contributing constructively, but of somebody pushing his or her POV.
I have complained about User:Jaakobou here before ( here, here), as have many other editors, usually to no avail. Interactions with his mentor have had the same frustrating result. Recently he's been accusing User:Nickhh, User:Eleland and myself of tag-teaming against him, an accusation which he refuses to prove or drop and persistently uses as an excuse to flout WP:3RR or WP:BRD and massively disrupt articles which are not to his liking.
Summarizing: this is not an isolated incident, but yet another incident by a chronic, un-repenting repeat offender.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2008 14:43
The complainant in this case appears to be a political extremist who cannot be expected or trusted to usefully contribute to a reputable reference work. He is on good, personal terms with violent (and convicted, I think) criminal settlers so extreme that even Israel is abandoning them. The unlimited time he has to wiki-lawyer so harmfully drives away good editors. The mediator who claims to be improving his conduct is world-famous for paranoia and abuse of procedures in Wikipedia. And seems to act only to protect him. I fail to see how WP can expect to be taken seriously while this kind of thing goes on. I'd like to add that nobody brought me to this page, I happened to be looking at the contributions of a different editor I suspect of being a serial abuser. 193.109.81.249 ( talk) 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In his response to 193.109.81.249, Jayjg speaks more accurately than he knows. Indeed "193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others ... on Wikipedia," although I would suggest that they more accurately represent a common reaction to Jaakobou's tendentious editing style. In the last several months I have witnesses at least a half dozen instances in which Jaakobou has initiated long and painfully drawn-out wiki-lawyerly arguments designed to stifle BOLDness and to promote his own non-neutral POV, but like 193.109.81.249 I have also been disinclined to whistle-blow for fear of reprisal.
Jaakobou has a long history of frivolous POINT edits that appear to be employed as punishment for those who cross him [4] [5] . He seems to have a great amount of time on his hands despite suggestions that he is occupied as a student, and as a result he is capable of binding articles up in states of perpetual limbo by dogmatic refusal to compromise and OWN-like behavior. To the average editor this can be very frustrating and behavior such as this tends to drive editors (especially new editors) away from wikipedia.
When confronted with the fact that his position is in fact in the extreme minority, Jaakobou has made threats to return at a later date, subsequently placing these broad consensus articles on his "unresolved" list to remind himself that he personally took issue with them [6]. The fact that such an editor may return to the article at a later date is enough to turn away many good editors and I believe this is the intent of making such an otherwise unnecessary remark. Although he makes frequent accusations of others stalking him, I do not believe that he is above the same tactics which considering his disruptive editing is of great concern to those who fear reprisal.
Such fear is not without warrant. As both Nishidani and Nickhh have pointed out, Jaakobou collects one-sided dossiers on those he perceives as his enemies and later uses his collection of quotes stripped of context in order to impugn the names of otherwise valuable editors. To make the collection of such quotes easier for himself he engages in baiting behavior and general tendentiousness to provoke editors against their better judgment. His most recent victim of such character assassination is eleland. This AE action was actually filed in response to eleland's RfC action which can be found here. It is a true pity that there has not been greater response to this RfC, but I believe there are two reasons that other editors who would gladly certify the veracity of the claims have not done so. The reason editors like 193.109.81.249 and I hold back is for fear of reprisal. The more unfortunate reason for those few who have had the courage to oppose Jaakobou (all members of Jaakobou's offensive "memorabilia" gallery) is that they have been involved in so many disputes with him and have been implicated by Jaakobou so many times as belonging to some imagined cabal against him that they hold back for fear of demonstrating bias. I would argue that bias against a manipulative and corrupt editor is wiki-appropriate bias however I am in no position to criticize these editors' very real concerns.
Like 193.109.81.249, I have similarly found my way here without anyone telling me about it. I have, in fact, not participated in any of the Israel-vs.-Palestine articles which seem to be Jaakobou's main hangout. Yet, after a brief meeting with him, I have observed Jaakobou's actions as a concerned and editor for some time now because I believe that he represents the worst kind of wikieditor - an intelligent manipulator. I don't believe anyone here would disagree that Jaakobou is clever, but his use of one-sided character-smearing dossiers are exceptionally dangerous for wikipedia. Most administrators are extremely busy and as a result they do not have time to delve deeply into problems which have brewed for months or years. In such cases, for better or worse, administrators are likely to be heavily swayed by an apparently fully detailed log documenting a long history of disruptive, biased, and racist edits even if this log comes from the other editor concerned. By storing these dossiers on the talk pages of other administrators and failing to inform his intended victim, Jaakobou simultaneously gains an ally in that administrator who hears only a one-sided story and covers his tracks for anyone not stalking him. Nishidani and eleland have both recently discovered the cost of not stalking Jaakobou. When it's time to launch an AE case, Jaakobou has a storehouse of goodies to draw from as well as the support of a neutral administrator.
Above all this, however, the fact that Jaakobou seeks to become an administrator himself is the thing which worries me the most. I feel terrible for Durova who seems to be a very wiki-conscious and all-around good mentor. She has been forced into the position of endlessly defending Jaakobou's actions against his "enemies" and she must by now be getting quite a headache from his controversy-ridden edit-wars. I think Durova sees some good in Jaakobou as she is his mentor after all, however I think this view is misguided. The potential which Jaakobou has to be a good administrator (as evinced from his intelligence, doggedness in defending/promoting his ideals, and perseverance in the face of adversity) is unfortunately dwarfed by the potential he has to be a bad administrator (as evinced by his strong political views, uncompromising attitude, and penchant for malice).
I strongly dispute the charges against eleland and would recommend, instead, a strong warning if not a temporary ban against Jaakobou to remind him that wikipedia is neither an appropriate venue for personal philosophies, nor a BATTLEground where GAME-playing and rhetorical wiki-lawyering are the weapons. My dream scenario involves a permanent topic ban resulting from violation of the final AE warning, however I recognize that this is unlikely. Finally, I would recommend that Durova review her decision to mentor Jaakobou and I plead for the anonymous editor in general that such an editor not be released as a full administrator without thorough proof that he can look beyond his own POV. 204.52.215.95 ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
p.s. I hope more people come in. This is all quite entertaining. We all must look like tiddlers gasping at the bait Jaakobou has thrown to reel in, gugdeon after gudgeon, the notorious off-line school of a fishy pro-Palestinian cabal CAMERA talks of!!!! Nishidani ( talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Decided to remove content related complaints. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) retracted. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) added comment by Nishidani intended to PhilKnight. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest refactoring the "yet again" out of this request title. Not sure what else to say here, so I'll be taking a tall glass of water plus a good meal and a good night's rest before posting on this matter again. Durova Charge! 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've gotten an idea today and I think I'll message the people who've been posting to this thread. Durova Charge! 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is unfortunate that we are here at arbitration enforcement once again to discuss issues concerning, or raised by, Jaakobou. I have reviewed the comments in Jaakobou's evidence above. Even when taken out of context as they are, they do not, to my mind, constitute personal attacks, though they are somewhat ascerbic, likely due to the exasperation Jaakobou's editing style evokes in many editors in the I-P domain. While Jaakobou has made a number of solid contributions to featured photos outside of this domain, his contributions within the I-P topic range are often hindered by his strong POV and single-minded focus on inserting minority interpretations of controversial events in an undue fashion.
While Eleland has been previously blocked for civility issues, it is essential to recall that Jaakobou has received a final warning for using AE and a shopping block for ungrounded complaints [8]. In my opinion, there is nothing in Jaakobou's evidence (or in the two diffs provided by User:Ynhockey) that indicates that Eleland has again breached Wikipedia civility guidelines. Indeed, a comparing his comments pre-block and post-block, there is evidence that he has toned down his commentary, and I believe that he can and will do better in the future.
I do not envy the admins who have to deal with this problem and am quite sorry to see that it has not been resolved between the users involved. I must admit however, that I find Jaaakobou to be extremely difficult to deal with. Indeed, since our last run-in with one another, I have largely avoided editing at pages where he is involved. I might issue the same advice to others. However, the problem is that his edits are often problematic and do require the intervention of other editors to ensure that they are line with Wikipedia policies. Many of the people above have taken on that task, and while their comments often express exasperation, anyone who has worked with Jaakobou on an I-P article would understand from whence such comments come.
In conclusion, I don't think Jaakobou's ability to collaborate on I-P articles is going to improve any time soon. I think he should be prohibited from posting complaints targeting Eleland, Nickhh or Nishidani, since he seems to have an unhealthy interest in their talk page pecadillos that has little to do with bulding an encyclopedia. I reiterate my earlier suggestion that Jaakobou be placed on a short-term topic ban, so that he work in other areas of the encyclopedia where he can get a better idea of what NPOV and collaboration involved. Hopefully, he will return to I-P articles with a fresh perspective and less of a battleground approach. Tiamut talk 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following response was replaced by the one registered here:
In order to focusing on the raised issue, a continuous problem of incivility and improper dispute resolution. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor who has (a) objected to basic Arabic translations and (b) reliable secondary sources, (c) suggested multiple disclaimers in the third paragraph (lede) of Israel and (d) called multiple other editors "gatekeepers" when they objected her perspective.
On
Palestinian fedayeen she repeatedly ignored my legitimate concerns, and only after 3rd opinions (
[9],
[10],
[11]) showed signs of willingness to compromise.
I've taken a lot of verbal beatings from Tiamut, who supports the Palestinian "struggle against occupation" narrative, and believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The previous response was replaced by the one registered here:
In order to focusing on the raised issue, a continuous problem of incivility and improper dispute resolution. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Tiamut is very involved and difficult to work with:
I believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective.
On point, minor incivility is not an issue and my ability to work with her (there's always room for improvement) has little to do with Eleland or his close company.
My personal attempts to achieve proper editing correspondence and dispute resolution with:
Have not resulted in the proper decorum or editorial process as indicated by arbitration comittee. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I.e. everyone you come in conflict with in here, and indeed, in the Palestinian world or the Arab world at large, must change culture to accommodate themselves to your view of them and their racial-terroristic culture. I presumed this on reading your remark, taking it as an unconscious allusion to your professed conviction that the Arab's world has a terroristic culture dedicated to the racial elimination of Jews from Palestine (contextually, the implication is that culturally Tiamut, for one, has tendencies towards terrorism) a comment you quickly edited into relative innocuousness to cover your tracks). You haven't changed one whit, so the change you have tried to achieve isn't personal, it's basically something others must deal with by modifying their outlook in response to your recent habit of signing obtuse posts with 'cordially'. You have failed to change our way of thinking, and thus, explicitly ask administrators to assist you in this attempt to modify our 'culture' with its pro-Palestinian (hence pro-terrorist-racist) sympathies. Speed reading by time-pressed administrators may not pick up such innuendoes. But they are there. None of those you have recklessly and relentless hauled before the Wiki administration over the years for occasional exasperated slips of the tongue have ever said anything comparable to the explicit violence of prejudice this remark betrays. It copped you a mere 2-week rap. You deserved a couple of months suspension, at least, or site ban for 6 months to reflect deeply on the implications for wiki I/P articles of that worldview. So, at this point, I will withdraw and self-suspend myself for a month (?: administrators will not find me offended if they think my own self-set ban is far too short, and lengthen it), and punish myself for the infractions I have committed here in saying this and calling a spade a spade. That way, at least the Nishidani problem is solved, and administrators won't be required to waste their time on it. This last recourse of yours, forcing us to squabble over trivia, is making wiki a farce. What you fail to understand, young man, is that a hectoring ambition to be someone, camouflaged under warrior-editing to plunk a nationalist slant all over I/P articles, and put down the other party, is not the point of editing,. The strong sense other editors have is that most of our disputes with you reflects exasperation at your tenacious pushing of a nationalistic slant, and that this causes precisely the exasperation you then exploit to charge them with rule infractions. It would be subtle, were you also. A desire to make this collaborative encyclopedia a worthy and reliable neutral source for the world, and just not for perusers wandering in from CAMERA, is what all of those you accuse of bad faith aim for. Cordially, and pop the champagne cork. I've given you the victory you've wanted by flagrantly nviolating in full WP:CIVIL, because I really don't see on present form that your behaviour with its egregious insouciance to to wiki ideals of NPOV smack of civility in any normal understanding of the word. For details of my self-suspension see my page shortly. Nishidani ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) replyA necessary starting point would be a real change in culture. (However, my attempts to achieve this without administrative intervention have all failed.'
I did not re-edit to avoid problems with admins and I consider any analogy between my attempts to stick to the point of this thread and between Orwell's 1984 book to be just as cheep a shot as was your earlier tribute limerick. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am chiming in quite late in the piece, however I have had experience with the issues at hand. I agree with many of the points raised by Nishidani, Nickhh and others. I think the point being made is that while everyone is guilty of inflammatory comments, more often that not in my (and obviously others) experiences, these are made in a heated environment which is sparked by the actions of Jaakobou. Ultimately what needs to happen is that a special administrator needs to be appointed to I-P articles to enforce the rulings already made, and to stop these ridiculous wiki-lawyering wastes of time. IMO this huge political talk page fighting which is starting to consume WP in general, but especially the I-P articles, is driving away good editors and scaring new editors from having a go. I admit it is becoming disillusioning even for me. And this is due in no small part to the actions of Jaakobou. Suicup ( talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't normally get involved here on this topic; FWIW, my actual personal opinion on the underlying political issues is very different from Jaakobou's. Nonetheless, I was asked by Jaakobou to have a look, and I think his original complaint deserves to be dealt with. Looking at the above discussion, i see J discusses the comments and edits, and his opponents discuss politics. Looking at the discussion page for AL, I notice J discusses primarily the edits, and his opponents discuss his motivations. The implication is obvious--regardless of what may have gone before, J's complaints have merit. eleland's edits and comments are marked by a personal animus that is altogether inappropriate; he may think as he pleases, but he cannot insult other editors. If bad editing has provoked him, he still needs to discuss the edits, not the editors. Under the terms of the arbcom decision, I would unhesitatingly give a block of about 7 days to prevent continuing impolite discussion. given the quick unblock previously, I'd like confirmation by another admin.
Civility related comment - I'm getting bit miffed at the "claiming victimhood" suggestions/commentaries. One, two, three "the old victim-strategy he employs" (Nishidani), ok. But now Tiamut also? PLEASE! consider
WP:CIV and avoid using Israeli-Palestinian conflict terminology to describe
user's personal traits.
Dear Tiamut,
The "gatekeepers" remark was insulting and also the way you ignored my legitimate concerns on Palestinian Fedayeen. However, my main concern is the civility issue, which is not a huge issue with you although suggestions that I'm a good schmoozer(?) and a Hollywood vicim
typecast are not exactly a model of civility and could definitely be considered as a verbal abuse.
Thank you, (edit conflict/rephrase)
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nishidani,
I've already retracted, apologized, received administrative action and avoided repetition of past offenses but here is your chance "to make a noble gesture":
There's a few others, but I don't think it's germane to the "Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something" Eleland's civility issue. With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"Final warning given to Jaakobou for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping. This flood of reports is getting out of hand."
Which he violated by opening the thread bleow, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Eleland issues persist and by contacting other admins on- and off-site (i.e. here, here and whatever resulted in this). Not content with attacking User:Eleland, he uses the same thread to lash-out at User:Tiamut and User:Nickhh.
Summary: User:Jaakobou has been warned about block-shopping and has done it again anyway. I suggest the admin who gave the final warning follow-through with whatever sanctions he/she had in mind.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 06:26
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I can see a problem here that the parties are commenting on the editors, and thus infecting incivility. As I can see it, there is a lack of assumption of good faith from all parties, and that needs to be addressed. I recommend forced mediation for all parties and place them om incivility parole (i.e. any admin can block them without warning for uncivil statements). → Aza Toth 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Retracted a generic question unrelated to the civility issue raised. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(offtopic) Is it just me, or does anyone else find Nishidani's 7000 words on this thread disruptive also? It's a bit of a prolonging issue ( sample). Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
Aatomic1 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week. He has twice reverted in less than two hours on Killings at Coolacrease to this version - first revert and second revertand now third revert. Probation was imposed here. BigDunc ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom cases: Armenia-Azerbaijan and * Armenia-Azerbaijan 2' .
Only days after his AA1 1RR limitation expired and even after promising that he would stick to 1RR, Grandmaster is back at edit warring. He has been re-adding the Azeri language template to the Nakhchivan khanate article that doesn't belong there since April 6th. The template doesn't belong there because that language didn't exist at the time. The only appropriate template would be the Persian/Arabic script that was used at the time. Since his first revert on April 6th he has reverted the article 5 times the last two came yesterday. He first reverted an IP address claiming him to be a banned user [15]. Then reverted me claiming that the first revert was to a banned user [16].
I would like to note that he is yet to provide the sources I requested almost a month ago [17], instead his gaming the system and edit warring. VartanM ( talk) 07:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
And here is how disregard to behavior such as that of VartanM, Fedayee against myself, User:Ehud Lesar and User:AdilBaguirov impact the community [25]. Perhaps, it's time to pay attention and explain disruptive nationalist POV pushing editors, that they should concentrate on topics rather than on identity of editors. Atabek ( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
User VegitaU who recently acted against consensus and tried to insert his own POV in 911 Attacks Article left this warning at my talkpage. I'm exercising extreme patience on this issue, but I fail to see how this sort of conduct can be tolerated by the wider community. I'm asking for your opinions on this matter, since I believe that User: VegitaU as well as User: Aude should have been banned the very moment they've decided to violate Arbcom decisions. In light of those, I'm asking you to stop this sort of discrimination and revoke editing privileges of mentioned editors until they show will to follow long established rules and guidelines of our encyclopedia. Tachyonbursts ( talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
(indent)
I'd like a second opinion, preferably by someone who has been here long enough and who knows all of the editors which are involved (Thatcher). To clarify, apparently I've been on parole because of the edits I've done today.
Apart from a plea, I have to wonder, why is acceptable for VegitaU to call me a headache? Where are the sanctions I've sought above? What sort of miserable discrimination is this? How should one respond to such insults?! With smile and applause? Tachyonbursts ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I see that request was not fulfilled? On contrary, user Aude and user VegitaU are allowed to run amok? I'm not sure why you folks think I'm passionate on that particular topic?
Do we have a second opinion? Is community banned from this topic or do we have a community ban on it? Yes or no will do. Tachyonbursts ( talk) 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
I just caught Martin reposting a long attack on ScienceApologist that was originally posted by two different accounts which were SPA attack accounts devoted solely to SA. The first account used Raul654's page on Civil POV pushing to attack SA here and restored the comment here and here before being blocked by Stephan Schulz. The 2nd account reposted the attack before being blocked for a month for harassment by Raul. I have to ask, with Martin under editing restrictions and all of the acrimony between the two editors, are his actions at all appropriate? Baegis ( talk) 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No one even informed me of this thread. I posted a list of links previously posted by an IP. I didn't use the preface that the IP gave. However, as I've stated before, what matters to me is content. I don't care if it's Hitler's ghost, if the content is good I won't refrain from using it. You may look at the post as entirly and completely mine, and I take complete responsibility for the post which fulfilled ScienceApologist's request for specific diffs and explanations of what is uncivil about them. Just go read WP:BAN instead of wasting people's time here. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
What banned user and which specific diffs are we talking about? Where is the wiki policy on this? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind."
This is clearly a disruptive edit and a violation of Martinphi's arbitration restrictions. There's two problems:
1) Reposting of harassing material. In this post Martinphi reuses material posted by 216.246.79.210 and 67.228.120.234. Those IPs were blocked, the second explicitly for harassment. In other words, the post was already judged to be harassment and block-worthy before Martinphi used it. Martinphi was aware that the material had been judged to be harassment and that the IPs had been blocked because of it. In fact, he takes full responsibility for reposting it, and asks that we regard it as his own ( [30]). Fair enough; Martinphi has taken full responsibility for a harassing post.
The problem is not that Martinphi is posting for a banned user; the problem is that Martinphi is reposting material that was already found to be harassment.
I will say, though, that 67.228.120.234 is now indef blocked as an open proxy, and it's pretty reasonable to think the posts from that IP were by a banned user.
2) Martinphi's claim that this post simply responds to SA's "request for specific diffs and explanations of what is uncivil about them" is disingenuous. The context is a conversation on SA's talk page; Martinphi begins the conversation by citing diffs from Talk:Parapsychology and asking SA to refactor them. This is a good beginning, but when SA asks for an explanation of what is uncivil about the diffs, Martinphi doesn't explain what's wrong with the posts to Talk:Parapsychology--instead, he posts a list of diffs that have only a tenuous connection to the specific problem that the conversation was ostensibly about. I have trouble seeing this as a sincere attempt to address a specific instance of incivility--instead, it looks to me like an attempt to provoke SA by giving a laundry list of every instance of alleged incivility Martinphi can think of. Unfortunately, it looks like SA's taking the bait.
So, as I said, Martinphi's edit is disruptive, and a violation of the Arbcom decision. However, instead of blocking, I would like to see if Martinphi will remove or strike the offending post, and instead continue his conversation with SA by explaining precisely what he found uncivil with SA's posts at Talk:Parapsychology. If he is unwilling to do so, then I think a block is called for. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not concerned with his refactoring specific diffs. I'm concerned with his stopping his behavior in the future. He's trying to make it out as if he is a sweet little thing who would refactor if only he knew. Or if we did as he says. Well, he's not supposed to be uncivil in the first place. I'm under no obligation to teach him basic civility. I gave him the opportunity to learn, and was repaid with more incivility and attacks from his friends- and now from others.
You see he's an attack machine. You know he's disruptive. You know he's under ArbCom sanction to not do what he's doing.
And as far as blocking me, you cannot do it under the ArbCom restrictions, as I have not been banned from a page and violated that ban. I have a right to post any good material I take responsibility for. Read WP:BAN, and other posts above which explain it.
Harassment to post diffs of what a user says? I don't think so. If they're harassing, it's because of the content. They are merely a list of specific instances of SA violating his ArbCom restriction. That's not harassment, especially when he asked to be taught. He asked for specific instances. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Um, no...ScienceApologist originally created the series of diffs and posted each and every one...the "banned user" merely collected them and posted them, this doesn't mean that those same diffs can never again be used as evidence or examples. AND, per WP:BAN, one would have to show that Martin posted those diffs at the direction of the banned user, and even then "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." See Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Tachyonbursts has here been banned from "making edits anywhere in the encyclopedia that relate in any way to the September 11, 2001 attacks". He is edit-warring [31] [32] [33] to include a permanent ban request on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. This may be an attempt at making some kind of statement of "martyrdom"; it's certainly disruptive to the group of editors who are trying to improve the article to GA status. A block may be necessary to enforce the ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 00:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
This editor has a conflict of interest as he is a former UDR member, verging on a single purpose account. Despite many warnings and talk page discussions, he persists in adding unsourced information to the article, including but not limited to original research, misrepresentation of sources and use of unreliable sources, and edit wars to maintain his policy violating additions. I would like enforcement of the principles from the above case, specially principle #2 "Reliable sources". The current problems surrounding this article all directly stem from his disruptive editing, and I feel the problem should be tackled at the source. Sample diffs below:
Thanks, BigDunc ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am presuming I am allowed to defend myself against these allegations? If not then I apologise in advance for adding information here which I shouldn't have. I am reasonably new to Wikipedia however and am struggling with the plethora of rules and procedures. Whilst I may have been unaware of policy initially and made some mistakes typical of a newcomer, I have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of civility and good faith extended to me by some editors. The discussion page for the article is testament that I have examined the various rules and guidelines thrown at me and, from them decided that, although they are being used to show me as a disruptive editor, they also apply to those editors who seem to be opposing most of what I post. I do have serious objections to spending a lot of time on creating items for the article and then finding them immediately deleted, despite my requests to discuss the reasons why on the discussion page. When discussion does take place I feel my position is not being view sympathetically. I have one situation where a neutral third party editor approved a particular source for reference, included links to that page himself which were ok for over a week then cut because another editor decided the source wasn't verifiable, thus destroying the verifiability of a lot of content. I have endured accusations of conflict of interest, being a "Unionist Bigot", been "outed" because of content I unwittingly gave in a private e-mail, colluding with another editor (who I don't know) and generally of displaying a partisan attitude when I have been at pains to point out otherwise. The discussion page is proof positive that from the outset I have attempted to learn, to post within the guidelines, request help and guidance when needed and above all, have tried my utmost to use my intelligence and knowledge of the subject to improve the article and to reduce the apparant bias in it which led to the overall impression of a discredited force. One editor has blatantly said the regiment IS a discredited force but continues to use Wikipedia policy to delete my work. If the editors who seem so determined to prevent me improving the article were to properly engage in discussion and assist me in adhering to the policies I am now accused of breaking then the matter would, and should (in my opinion) have been much less contentious. I did apply for arbitration on this but was unaware a previous judgement had been made and have spent the last two days reading the report and trying to decide what Wikipedia guidelines suggest I should do next to try and calm the situation down. I was not aware (but not surprised to discover) that articles which touch on the Northern Ireland "Troubles" have been the cause of bickering in the past. However, I hope that any member of the arbitration enforcement section who reads my history of contributions will note that I have made edits to other articles which have not been challenged and which have benefited the concept of Wikipedia. I ask all parties to note I am not engaged in this issue because of any political standpoint or prejudice. I simply have an in depth knowledge of the history of the regiment, the politics of Ireland and, in my view, a balanced logic. I wish to edit the article and create as full a record as possible containing as much information about the inner workings of the unit as I can. When this is done I have other projects in mind and it is my fond hope I will remain a useful member of Wikipedia. I believe it's just my poor luck that the first article I decided to edit as an absolute beginner with no knowledge of the rules, should turn out to be one which seems to trigger the worst in some people. For the record, I am not a member of any political party and never have been. I do not live in Northern Ireland, although I was born and raised there. I spent most of my extensive military career in the British regular army (with an Irish unit) and am now a respectable, successful businessman in another part of the UK. I am 50 years old. While I accept none of this makes me "neutral" I believe it does make me a reasonable choice to make informed edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I welcome any guidance other experienced editors wish to pass on to me.
GDD1000 ( talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely pointless, and a waste of everyone's time. Despite lengthy discussions on the talk page this editor refuses to abide by policies such as verifiability, no matter how many times it is explained to him. Why are no administrators prepared to enforce the principles from the ArbCom case? You're quick to jump in with blocks and protection and probation, yet you're unwilling to tackle the problems at the source. The many transgressions are documented above, and you've done absolutely nothing to solve the problems. Why not enforce WP:COI? Why not enforce WP:V? Why not enforce WP:NOR? Why bother when you can protect the page then bury your head in the sand by pointing to dispute resolution? The dispute is clear - an editor with a conflict of interest refuses to obey policy - please enforce policy as the ArbCom case mandates. Domer48 ( talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am content to have someone adjudicate on this. I have tried to oblige other editors but it's like banging my head against a brick wall. Even though there is a page protection on at the moment BigDunc has made a request to continue editing one of the items under disagreement. I disagree with his reasons for doing so because I feel the item is relevent and well sourced. Additionally Domer48 has duplicated the information on the Miami Showband Massacre which I respectfully suggest is in response to my including information on the Remembrance Day Bombing. I believe this is the nub of the matter, that some editors are objecting to the UDR receiving any credence in the article simply because they figure in the Northern Ireland Troubles and that this battle I'm facing is not as a result of anyone wanting to stick to Wikipedia policy but rather to use policy to restrict the information I add. As a newcomer, and bearing in mind the manifold documents which counsel on how to treat inadvertant policy breaches due to ignorance, I feel that the approach used against me thus far has been somewhat heavy handed in some cases. Other, more moderate editors seem to lose interest and abandon the project when they see the amount of bickering going on. GDD1000 ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Rather than let this devolve into an RFC or a new RFAR, I'll just bring this here because it follows up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Requesting review of actions of Justallofthem and myself, with regard to the case's discretionary sanctions.
Justallofthem was a named party to that arbitration on his previous account, Justanother. I was not involved in the underlying dispute but named myself as a party procedurally when I opened the RFAR. Justallofthem posted to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Getting_It:_The_psychology_of_est today; it is the only FAC where he has participated in at least the last four months. This appeared to me to be a continuation of his wikistalking campaign against Cirt, and an uninvolved editor had already commented twice about Justa's inadequate rationale, so I posted a brief an neutral statement with a link to an AN thread from late March. The linked thread contained a discussion from late March where Justa was nearly sitebanned for wikistalking Cirt and other policy violations, including checkuser-confirmed block evasion, multiple sockpuppetry, and repeated personal attacks. Justa's response accused me of repetitious and meddlesome attempts at character assassination.
I posted a brief and neutral retraction request at his talk page. [34] He replied at my user talk, with what I considered to be a series of unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. The thread got this far before I blanked it. Justa refused to honor my request to end the conversation, continuing to post afterward. [35] [36]
I would have been glad to let this little episode pass without a noticeboard thread, but SirFozzie--an administrator I respect--suggested conduct RFC or arbitration, [37] and Justa agreed. [38] This actually follows up on a closed case, so taking this here seems like the path of minimum drama. To the reviewing admin: please contact me privately regarding part of the relevance to the arbitration case; the Foundation privacy policy constrains me from explaining a couple of things onsite. If there was anything inappropriate in my actions I welcome correction. Likewise, it appears from my perspective that Justa's unblocking admin is exercising insufficient mentorship and there is very little positive work in Justa's last several months of contribution to offset the ongoing problem. Durova Charge! 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you'd like to withdraw it anyway, Durova? I'm having a little trouble understanding why you post on this page, in stark contravention of the page instructions:
"This page only involves violations of final ArbCom decisions. It is not for re-opening the dispute, or arguing about any ongoing dispute, but purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them, and enforcing a suitable remedy if there is a breach."
Was there any ruling that applied to JA in the COFS case? [39] Well...there was this one, yes: JA was "urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions." An interest in Anynobody's actions is not your complaint. Why are you taking your dispute to AE? Note that "this page is not part of dipute resolution." The mediation that JA pleads with you to accept, on the other hand, is part of dispute resolution. ( [40] (note Durova's edit summary) Wouldn't mediation be a better way of avoiding having this spat "devolve into an RFC or a new RFAR"? Considering you would even "have been glad to let this little episode pass without a noticeboard thread".. if it hadn't been for Sir Fozzie.. Come on, now. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC). reply
Per ScienceApologist's ArbCom, he is restricted from using sock puppets. I have noted that a new IP address has made two key reverts in support of ScienceApologist's position at two different articles which may correlate that this IP is a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist.
Fringe Theories
Mokele-mbembe
Perhaps an official sockpuppet report needs to be filed. I am not sure. I guess I am looking for some direction to take this (if it should be taken anywhere at all). Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
That IP has been used for vandalizing before, but it is surprising that it shows up today to revert within minutes after an edit and in support of SA. Not enough evidence though for a claim of sockpuppetry. OTOH, that edit war at WP:FRINGE should not continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: AA 1 or 2, or maybe just general sanctions.
Eupator has been blocked for a minor scuffle on Nairi, with Sumerophile ( talk · contribs) and Nicklausse ( talk · contribs). Based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile, there is a good chance something is going wrong here. Admin Mikkalai is also in the recent history, doing a revert, and Moreschi gave a quick opinion on the talk, regarding the templates being used.
Eupator was blocked for violating 1RR, which is an AA 1 remedy, and the unblock request was denied "per general sanctions". There was a recent discussion at WT:RFAR#AA_1_restrictions regarding this. The result is confusing, especially as the article is only tangentially related to AA, and Eupator is feeling the brunt of this confusion.
I am bringing this here for review; I think Eupator should be unblocked and a request for clarification filed to work out what arbcom remedies are in play. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Please note that I've blocked Nicklausse ( talk · contribs) indefinitely as a disruptive meatpuppet of Sumerophile ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile shows the connection between the two, and this is confirmed by their editing patterns (essentially, all the Nicklausse accout has done is revert-war in tandem with Sumerophile). Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am forwarding this case from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd). User:Hobartimus wrote there, in perhaps more words than necessary, that MarkBA has repeatedly created sockpuppets to disrupt controversial articles and game the system. He noted that MarkBA is restricted per the Digwuren arbitration case. [45] I think Hobartimus is not asking whether a particular IP address happens to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA, but rather, what to do about the sockpuppeteer? That question belongs here. It is already being discussed at [46], and maybe it should stay there. I don't know how this process works, and I need to sign off for the night. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
While I feel this "thing" is getting too much and too heated and going on too many pages, I have to say, that the referred "experiment" is ongoing for a month or so now, and we have reached nothing with MarkBA, except that he continues the same editing and style through IPs. Got it? His account got restricted, so he simply dropped it ("announced retirement" combining with a lengthy attack in general against the - Hungarian - editorial community [48] - wikipedia "hijacked" and he's being "chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "mob rule", "extreme nationalist and chauvinist", "propaganda", etc.), and continued the very same thing but now logged out. And does not stop, despite asking, warning and even blocking (for "sockpuppetry").
There was a daily habit of reporting each other on various wikipedia pages before. Since Elonka's intervention, only Mark was able to provocate a "checkuser" ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA → 8 confirmed "sockpuppets") and a WP:AN/I and now a WP:AE thread against himself, wich I think tells alot.
No matter that it was confirmed [49] that all those IPs were used by MarkBA, he still(?) denies them [50] and randomly demands apologies for "accusations of sockpuppeting". He also thinks that I am (or someone is) that dumb that (I) buy(s) this: [51] ("the IP range just happens to be in my area"). Oh, please, just look at these: [52], [53] :)
I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like WP:NPA), then denying them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally posted this on another noticeboard ( here)but have since determined that this might be the better place.
In short, there are a few articles aparently on "probation" where I've noticed some odd actions that might require a closer look. User:Bassettcat and User:John Nevard are hitting Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling in ways that hint at undisclosed conflicts of interest.
User:William Ortiz says that User:Bassettcat resembles User:Mantanmoreland. In response, John Nevard called William Ortiz (and me, too) "crazy."
Please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.164.228 ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Reply: I have no conflict of interest to disclose. I am a trader by profession, but have no current or former position in Overstock.com and no commercial relationship with that company. I have no other account on Wikipedia and I don't believe I can be classed as a "single purpose account," unless interest in finance is a singular purpose. I corrected the Byrne article recently to fix an error that Hulda himself discovered, concerning an award given to Byrne. I also corrected an error in naked short selling that was serious in nature. It stated that naked shorting was always illegal, which was contradicted by the article itself and by the Securities and Exchange Commission website. That error has now been reinstated to the article by the same IP who raised this issue, and who apparently has an axe to grind.-- Bassettcat ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't know whether it falls under the purview of this section, but you may be aware that the above IP and User:PatrickByrne rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion. That was aborted by Nakon, and PatrickByrne then reinstated the changes and the IP again,in the process reinstating the inaccuracy that I stated above. Nakon warned PatrickByrne for vandalism. -- Bassettcat ( talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure confirmed that Eyrian, who participated aggresively in AfDs and last edited in October 2007 and who was subsequently blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, made "numerous IP edits". Notice this IP's edit history that follows seems to focus on certain kinds of articles. Now today, notice this edit in which the IP writes, " It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but if you look again at the edit history of the IP, there are NO previous edits to any IPC articles, which thus makes that statement odd and as if it is from someone who either edits using different IPs or who is an old user. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The IPs are unlikely to be related. They all originate from home internet providers. Two originate from the same provider, but different regions. The other originates from a different provider. Vassyana ( talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I am not a checkuser. reply
On April 19, Jac16888 initiated an AE thread concerning Eusebeus, saying Eusebeus "has begun blindly restoring redirects." That thread was closed April 23 by GRBerry with no action taken. Since then, Eusebeus has continued to edit war over Scrubs episode articles like My Best Friend's Mistake [54] [55] [56], My Mentor [57] [58] [59], and My Princess [60] [61] [62]. I believe that's a violation of the ArbCom remedy where "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." and the also the Principle that "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited" and the Principle that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." As far as I know, no other involved party of E&C2 has been edit-warring with Eusebeus on those articles, and restrictions were not imposed on Eusebeus in particular — so I could understand if no action is taken yet again. However, if that's the case, I think an amendment of the remedies of the E&C2 arbitration case may be in order. Any input would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I would like to point out that I really can't see a motive for this report other than enflaming an already unpleasant situation. This report documents events that are
What's the purpose of bringing it to AE now? Kww ( talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am somewhat concerned about other unconstructive behavior with regards to the editor under question.
Please also consider DGG's comment regarding Eusebeus' incivility and how Eusebeus ignoed DGG's warning and brushed off BrownHairedGirl's later warning on his talk page and even edited her post. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Andranikpasha ( talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see: [89], which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However he exceeded his limit on Hayasa-Azzi, where he made at least 2 rvs today: [90] [91] The edits that he reverted do not appear to be vandalism like he claims and look like a content dispute. Grandmaster ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
It is also worth noting that Andranikpasha was permanently banned from the Russian Wikipedia for disruption on Urartu related articles. Grandmaster ( talk) 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
We have an IP 91.103.25.22 that is reverting on all the hotspots, including reverting Moreschis revert on Urartu. I've given it a short block for disruptive editing, but it might as well be a block for abusing WP:SOCK. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi there. User Andranikpasha is actively manipulating and reverting the Hayasa-Azzi and the Urartu article's today with an anon IP. If he wants to push his POV on Hayasa-Azzi (especially), he should NOT do it with 17 references about the hypothetical Armenian links to Hayasa-Azzi. This sounds like an abuse to me to get his point across. It feels as if he wants to smother all debate here like Ararat Arev. The same anon IP just reverted my edit on Hayasa-Azzi. I think someone has to stop this nonsense somehow. Artene50 ( talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K. There is highly credible evidence that Pete K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has evaded his topic ban from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review by editing anonymously. I suggest that, if an admin supports this finding, he or she should semiprotect the affected articles and block Pete K for at least two weeks. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
What is that highly credible evidence, please? It has not been reported here. DianaW ( talk) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [92] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [93] [94] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
One week after TTN was blocked for a week for violating the restrictions imposed on him in the E&C2 arbitration case, TTN decided to violate his restrictions again. In the E&C2 case, TTN was " prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." (bolding mine)
On May 11, 2008, TTN went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and said "Only seven articles...and seven character lists...are necessary....That's the basic plan...The main thing is that it gets started..." and also said "as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out." Sonic the Hedgehog characters are television characters. TTN made an edit to a project page requesting that a merge be performed on television character articles, and this a violation of the restrictions imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The full thread is visible here ( oldid). -- Pixelface ( talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This kind of thing could be avoided if someone would just clarify the overall restriction. Truth be told, I never even noticed the part about project pages, but the whole thing really isn't clear about it. Does that mean any project page or talk page, or is it just a catch for another case like the failed "Episode review" project? Is a merge request the same thing as pointing out bad groups of articles? Am I to be completely silent every time some random old redirect gets brought back, or can I show it to someone and let them make a call on it? Is that considered having someone edit for me?
Those are just a few of the things I'm confused over. Can someone ask some arbitrators to either comment here or one of the open requests for clarification? That would clear some things up. TTN ( talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As TTN's actions (and those of his co-worker group) with these TV and fiction articles consistently and endlessly generate reams and reams of drama, conflict, and Arbitration cases, perhaps the community should simply develop custom sanctions in regards to them in place of or beyond what the Arbcom has put in place. The community has supreme power to limit internal disruption via such means, if they deem it required. Does the subjective benefit of TTN and company eliminating fiction articles and content outweigh the massive historic disruption they cause? If the answer is yes, then TTN's case needs to go immediately back to Arbitration for clarification. If the answer is no, the community needs to establish binding limitations on these actions to stop disruption. Which is it? Opinions of uninvolved editors on this matter will carry more weight. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Pixelface is correct, the restriction clearly says he is not to request a merge or any of the other procedures. These edits are then a violation. But since I did the first block, I'll leave it to someone else this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition to requesting a merge of articles related to television characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games on May 11, on May 8, 2008 TTN requested at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard that the Bulbasaur article, another article about a television character, be redirected [98] — which is another violation of the ArbCom ruling. The full thread is visible here ( oldid) -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [99] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [100] [101] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [103] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [104] [105] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Meowy ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring together with MarshallBagramyan on the same articles about Lachin (town and district). He was explained many times that in controversial articles like this independent sources are preferable. However he restored to the article a reference to the Armenian nationalistic author Samvel Karapetian yet again, which is 2 rvs within the last 2 days. [107] [108] His persistence on using this particular source is very strange, considering that I provided a much better independent source, which he mentions in his subsequent edit, but does not use for whatever reason. I’m not quite sure what this user is trying to do, but in any case it is an obvious and deliberate violation of 1RR limitation, on which he was placed as per the arbcom case AA2: [109] and which is still in force. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cut it out. Seriously, cut it out. You know who you are, because plenty of other people have told you to cut it out.
Disruptive editing and insulting behavior are not acceptable. Read this notification. If you were not aware of the ArbCom ruling before, which I doubt, you have been notified now. Any further disruption will result in topic bans or blocks, without further warning. This has been way out of hand for too long. It been three months since the ArbCom case, and many have been involved for much much longer. Just to be sure you don't miss it, read: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I'm quite sure that everyone understands what is expected of them and how Wikipedia works. Avoid making comments about other editors. Do not engage in general debate about topics. Stop escalating already heated situations. Do not use demeaning edit summaries. Do not cloak personal attacks in general comments and pretend they are not personal attack. And so on, and so on. There are pending dispute resolution processes and people offering to help out; I strongly suggest accepting such options and trying your best to move forward productively. Vassyana ( talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: ' Case Final Decisions' .
“ | referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. -- User:Eleland unblock request. (00:34, 15 February 2008) | ” |
See #Comments leading to the block included
To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge while getting unblocked.
There is no doubt that there are issues with many of Jaakobou's edits; however, a certain set of editors, including, quite frankly, those listed below, have taken that as a license to insult and revert him with impunity, mercilessly tag-teaming him, and even publicly encouraging each other to revert him. '
(undent) @ Nickhh - Your reaction to a compliment I paid you -- I consider the ability to reasses and admit the fault in one's own words as a significant measure of self awareness -- pushes the bounds of credulity. "Errant child"? "Atone"? Come on. I never said that, and I never said anything close to that. Let's stop the silliness.
Also, I am familiar with Jaakobou and his general MO. I have mediated a case he was involved in, and made reasonable progress in doing so, on an article which was getting quite contentious. From that vantage I can indeed say that there is a way to constructively work with Jaakobou even if you disagree with him and there is a constructive way to communicate with him. The failure of the people involved in this complaint to find out how to deal with him does not excuse their behavior. It doesn't excuse anything he may have done wrong, either. I understand the situation much better than you think I do. But when push comes to shove, if civility cannot prevail, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to just walk away until he or she can respond in a cool and constructive way. That's just the way it is.
@ Nishidani - Artful wanderings notwithstanding, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to act within the bounds of acceptable behavior as governed by policy. No amount of poetry is going to change that. Sorry. If you feel that Jaakobou has acted in an inappropriate way, then address those concerns specifically and in the proper venue. And please, do so in English, for those of us who only speak two languages. - Revolving Bugbear 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This posting is a mélange of exaggerations, half-truths, and simple nonsense. Jaakobou has previously been given a final warning for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping [3] and yet here he repackages many of the same claims from his "dodgy dossier" and "sexes it up" with a truly despicable accusation of blood-libel (related to an eight-months-stale dispute!)
Those admins who would like to know Jaakobou's history of such spurious accusations should examine Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou#Evidence of disputed behavior. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have reposted this here because it was unaccountable removed and relocated in a separate space on the grounds that it dealt with content. In fact it did not deal with content. It addressed User:PhilKnight, who had just posted. By removing both pieces and fixing them in an unalterable archive page below, Jaakobou appears to me to be 'fixing' the page to suit his suit. I am not a technician of rules, but it appears to me that he is determined, having raised a complaint, to manage comments in the order he likes, as if he owned the page. Therefore I append my comment here, where, not being archived, it can be adjusted, expanded or corrected. I should add that while rules ask for civility, repeated futile, tendentious and wall-eared editing, often in disregard of the talk page conversation, to establish a text which then is regarded as authoritative, and may only be modified by persuading its one editor, Jaakobou, to do so on the talk page, is exasperating, and exasperation provokes. I have no intention of building cases against other people, as Jaakobou appears now to do as part of a personal campaign. But I do think it a very grave breach of whatever rule governs interactions in Wiki that he persistently compiles dossiers, over time, on separate administrator pages, without so much as a hint to his targeted victim, in order to disseminate a deeply negative impression about people he has conflicts with in several administrators' minds. His excuse, when this is noted, is invariably, 'Oh sorry. I forgot. Cordially' etc. Nishidani ( talk) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I totally back Nishidani's observations above. Jaakobou is an incredibly frustrating editor to deal with, often stirring up huge talk page debates over relatively simple issues of language and sourcing, especially on articles that he wants to claim ownership of. His mission here as well seems to be to ramp up as much material as he can that pushes a very right wing Israeli POV, or that criticises public figures who he appears to dislike (eg Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat) on the assumption that this is simply in response to the allegedly egregious "Palestinian propaganda" that otherwise dominates Wikipedia. This leads to fairly robust debate on talk pages, but very rarely any genuinely insulting or ad hominem attacks. Culling together a few random quotes from such encounters, going back months, does not provide a balanced reality of Eleland's & Jaakobou's interaction. And most of those quotes, as has been pointed out, are anyway aimed at fallacious arguments not at Jaakobou or any individual editor. And beyond that Jaakobou is quite capable of taking on his interlocutors and making pretty broad and unfounded accusations, as evidenced by the diffs presented here. In turn he has taken to forum shopping with multiple complaints against the same editors, often for the most trivial (bordering on fraudulent) of reasons - and he seems to be oddly proud of that behaviour, as evidenced by the "Memorabilia" section on his own userpage. If I had more time I'd add more diffs. -- Nickhh ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I too would like to second the statements by User:Eleland, User:Nishidani and User:Nickhh. User:Jaakobou is here only to push his own, somewhat radical POV on all articles regarding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His constant edit-warring and wiki-lawyering are a serious impediment to the advancement and improvement of all aritcles in this area.
WP:AGF was tried many times and failed. As a recent example, consider his recent edits on Avigdor Lieberman and compare them to his behaviour at Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat. In the former he edit-wars to remove criticism of a politician he likes whereas in the later he edit-wars to have such criticism included, displaying, in both cases, completely opposite interpretations of policy and/or judgement. This is not the work of somebody following policy and contributing constructively, but of somebody pushing his or her POV.
I have complained about User:Jaakobou here before ( here, here), as have many other editors, usually to no avail. Interactions with his mentor have had the same frustrating result. Recently he's been accusing User:Nickhh, User:Eleland and myself of tag-teaming against him, an accusation which he refuses to prove or drop and persistently uses as an excuse to flout WP:3RR or WP:BRD and massively disrupt articles which are not to his liking.
Summarizing: this is not an isolated incident, but yet another incident by a chronic, un-repenting repeat offender.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2008 14:43
The complainant in this case appears to be a political extremist who cannot be expected or trusted to usefully contribute to a reputable reference work. He is on good, personal terms with violent (and convicted, I think) criminal settlers so extreme that even Israel is abandoning them. The unlimited time he has to wiki-lawyer so harmfully drives away good editors. The mediator who claims to be improving his conduct is world-famous for paranoia and abuse of procedures in Wikipedia. And seems to act only to protect him. I fail to see how WP can expect to be taken seriously while this kind of thing goes on. I'd like to add that nobody brought me to this page, I happened to be looking at the contributions of a different editor I suspect of being a serial abuser. 193.109.81.249 ( talk) 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In his response to 193.109.81.249, Jayjg speaks more accurately than he knows. Indeed "193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others ... on Wikipedia," although I would suggest that they more accurately represent a common reaction to Jaakobou's tendentious editing style. In the last several months I have witnesses at least a half dozen instances in which Jaakobou has initiated long and painfully drawn-out wiki-lawyerly arguments designed to stifle BOLDness and to promote his own non-neutral POV, but like 193.109.81.249 I have also been disinclined to whistle-blow for fear of reprisal.
Jaakobou has a long history of frivolous POINT edits that appear to be employed as punishment for those who cross him [4] [5] . He seems to have a great amount of time on his hands despite suggestions that he is occupied as a student, and as a result he is capable of binding articles up in states of perpetual limbo by dogmatic refusal to compromise and OWN-like behavior. To the average editor this can be very frustrating and behavior such as this tends to drive editors (especially new editors) away from wikipedia.
When confronted with the fact that his position is in fact in the extreme minority, Jaakobou has made threats to return at a later date, subsequently placing these broad consensus articles on his "unresolved" list to remind himself that he personally took issue with them [6]. The fact that such an editor may return to the article at a later date is enough to turn away many good editors and I believe this is the intent of making such an otherwise unnecessary remark. Although he makes frequent accusations of others stalking him, I do not believe that he is above the same tactics which considering his disruptive editing is of great concern to those who fear reprisal.
Such fear is not without warrant. As both Nishidani and Nickhh have pointed out, Jaakobou collects one-sided dossiers on those he perceives as his enemies and later uses his collection of quotes stripped of context in order to impugn the names of otherwise valuable editors. To make the collection of such quotes easier for himself he engages in baiting behavior and general tendentiousness to provoke editors against their better judgment. His most recent victim of such character assassination is eleland. This AE action was actually filed in response to eleland's RfC action which can be found here. It is a true pity that there has not been greater response to this RfC, but I believe there are two reasons that other editors who would gladly certify the veracity of the claims have not done so. The reason editors like 193.109.81.249 and I hold back is for fear of reprisal. The more unfortunate reason for those few who have had the courage to oppose Jaakobou (all members of Jaakobou's offensive "memorabilia" gallery) is that they have been involved in so many disputes with him and have been implicated by Jaakobou so many times as belonging to some imagined cabal against him that they hold back for fear of demonstrating bias. I would argue that bias against a manipulative and corrupt editor is wiki-appropriate bias however I am in no position to criticize these editors' very real concerns.
Like 193.109.81.249, I have similarly found my way here without anyone telling me about it. I have, in fact, not participated in any of the Israel-vs.-Palestine articles which seem to be Jaakobou's main hangout. Yet, after a brief meeting with him, I have observed Jaakobou's actions as a concerned and editor for some time now because I believe that he represents the worst kind of wikieditor - an intelligent manipulator. I don't believe anyone here would disagree that Jaakobou is clever, but his use of one-sided character-smearing dossiers are exceptionally dangerous for wikipedia. Most administrators are extremely busy and as a result they do not have time to delve deeply into problems which have brewed for months or years. In such cases, for better or worse, administrators are likely to be heavily swayed by an apparently fully detailed log documenting a long history of disruptive, biased, and racist edits even if this log comes from the other editor concerned. By storing these dossiers on the talk pages of other administrators and failing to inform his intended victim, Jaakobou simultaneously gains an ally in that administrator who hears only a one-sided story and covers his tracks for anyone not stalking him. Nishidani and eleland have both recently discovered the cost of not stalking Jaakobou. When it's time to launch an AE case, Jaakobou has a storehouse of goodies to draw from as well as the support of a neutral administrator.
Above all this, however, the fact that Jaakobou seeks to become an administrator himself is the thing which worries me the most. I feel terrible for Durova who seems to be a very wiki-conscious and all-around good mentor. She has been forced into the position of endlessly defending Jaakobou's actions against his "enemies" and she must by now be getting quite a headache from his controversy-ridden edit-wars. I think Durova sees some good in Jaakobou as she is his mentor after all, however I think this view is misguided. The potential which Jaakobou has to be a good administrator (as evinced from his intelligence, doggedness in defending/promoting his ideals, and perseverance in the face of adversity) is unfortunately dwarfed by the potential he has to be a bad administrator (as evinced by his strong political views, uncompromising attitude, and penchant for malice).
I strongly dispute the charges against eleland and would recommend, instead, a strong warning if not a temporary ban against Jaakobou to remind him that wikipedia is neither an appropriate venue for personal philosophies, nor a BATTLEground where GAME-playing and rhetorical wiki-lawyering are the weapons. My dream scenario involves a permanent topic ban resulting from violation of the final AE warning, however I recognize that this is unlikely. Finally, I would recommend that Durova review her decision to mentor Jaakobou and I plead for the anonymous editor in general that such an editor not be released as a full administrator without thorough proof that he can look beyond his own POV. 204.52.215.95 ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
p.s. I hope more people come in. This is all quite entertaining. We all must look like tiddlers gasping at the bait Jaakobou has thrown to reel in, gugdeon after gudgeon, the notorious off-line school of a fishy pro-Palestinian cabal CAMERA talks of!!!! Nishidani ( talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Decided to remove content related complaints. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) retracted. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) added comment by Nishidani intended to PhilKnight. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest refactoring the "yet again" out of this request title. Not sure what else to say here, so I'll be taking a tall glass of water plus a good meal and a good night's rest before posting on this matter again. Durova Charge! 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've gotten an idea today and I think I'll message the people who've been posting to this thread. Durova Charge! 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is unfortunate that we are here at arbitration enforcement once again to discuss issues concerning, or raised by, Jaakobou. I have reviewed the comments in Jaakobou's evidence above. Even when taken out of context as they are, they do not, to my mind, constitute personal attacks, though they are somewhat ascerbic, likely due to the exasperation Jaakobou's editing style evokes in many editors in the I-P domain. While Jaakobou has made a number of solid contributions to featured photos outside of this domain, his contributions within the I-P topic range are often hindered by his strong POV and single-minded focus on inserting minority interpretations of controversial events in an undue fashion.
While Eleland has been previously blocked for civility issues, it is essential to recall that Jaakobou has received a final warning for using AE and a shopping block for ungrounded complaints [8]. In my opinion, there is nothing in Jaakobou's evidence (or in the two diffs provided by User:Ynhockey) that indicates that Eleland has again breached Wikipedia civility guidelines. Indeed, a comparing his comments pre-block and post-block, there is evidence that he has toned down his commentary, and I believe that he can and will do better in the future.
I do not envy the admins who have to deal with this problem and am quite sorry to see that it has not been resolved between the users involved. I must admit however, that I find Jaaakobou to be extremely difficult to deal with. Indeed, since our last run-in with one another, I have largely avoided editing at pages where he is involved. I might issue the same advice to others. However, the problem is that his edits are often problematic and do require the intervention of other editors to ensure that they are line with Wikipedia policies. Many of the people above have taken on that task, and while their comments often express exasperation, anyone who has worked with Jaakobou on an I-P article would understand from whence such comments come.
In conclusion, I don't think Jaakobou's ability to collaborate on I-P articles is going to improve any time soon. I think he should be prohibited from posting complaints targeting Eleland, Nickhh or Nishidani, since he seems to have an unhealthy interest in their talk page pecadillos that has little to do with bulding an encyclopedia. I reiterate my earlier suggestion that Jaakobou be placed on a short-term topic ban, so that he work in other areas of the encyclopedia where he can get a better idea of what NPOV and collaboration involved. Hopefully, he will return to I-P articles with a fresh perspective and less of a battleground approach. Tiamut talk 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following response was replaced by the one registered here:
In order to focusing on the raised issue, a continuous problem of incivility and improper dispute resolution. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor who has (a) objected to basic Arabic translations and (b) reliable secondary sources, (c) suggested multiple disclaimers in the third paragraph (lede) of Israel and (d) called multiple other editors "gatekeepers" when they objected her perspective.
On
Palestinian fedayeen she repeatedly ignored my legitimate concerns, and only after 3rd opinions (
[9],
[10],
[11]) showed signs of willingness to compromise.
I've taken a lot of verbal beatings from Tiamut, who supports the Palestinian "struggle against occupation" narrative, and believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The previous response was replaced by the one registered here:
In order to focusing on the raised issue, a continuous problem of incivility and improper dispute resolution. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Tiamut is very involved and difficult to work with:
I believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective.
On point, minor incivility is not an issue and my ability to work with her (there's always room for improvement) has little to do with Eleland or his close company.
My personal attempts to achieve proper editing correspondence and dispute resolution with:
Have not resulted in the proper decorum or editorial process as indicated by arbitration comittee. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I.e. everyone you come in conflict with in here, and indeed, in the Palestinian world or the Arab world at large, must change culture to accommodate themselves to your view of them and their racial-terroristic culture. I presumed this on reading your remark, taking it as an unconscious allusion to your professed conviction that the Arab's world has a terroristic culture dedicated to the racial elimination of Jews from Palestine (contextually, the implication is that culturally Tiamut, for one, has tendencies towards terrorism) a comment you quickly edited into relative innocuousness to cover your tracks). You haven't changed one whit, so the change you have tried to achieve isn't personal, it's basically something others must deal with by modifying their outlook in response to your recent habit of signing obtuse posts with 'cordially'. You have failed to change our way of thinking, and thus, explicitly ask administrators to assist you in this attempt to modify our 'culture' with its pro-Palestinian (hence pro-terrorist-racist) sympathies. Speed reading by time-pressed administrators may not pick up such innuendoes. But they are there. None of those you have recklessly and relentless hauled before the Wiki administration over the years for occasional exasperated slips of the tongue have ever said anything comparable to the explicit violence of prejudice this remark betrays. It copped you a mere 2-week rap. You deserved a couple of months suspension, at least, or site ban for 6 months to reflect deeply on the implications for wiki I/P articles of that worldview. So, at this point, I will withdraw and self-suspend myself for a month (?: administrators will not find me offended if they think my own self-set ban is far too short, and lengthen it), and punish myself for the infractions I have committed here in saying this and calling a spade a spade. That way, at least the Nishidani problem is solved, and administrators won't be required to waste their time on it. This last recourse of yours, forcing us to squabble over trivia, is making wiki a farce. What you fail to understand, young man, is that a hectoring ambition to be someone, camouflaged under warrior-editing to plunk a nationalist slant all over I/P articles, and put down the other party, is not the point of editing,. The strong sense other editors have is that most of our disputes with you reflects exasperation at your tenacious pushing of a nationalistic slant, and that this causes precisely the exasperation you then exploit to charge them with rule infractions. It would be subtle, were you also. A desire to make this collaborative encyclopedia a worthy and reliable neutral source for the world, and just not for perusers wandering in from CAMERA, is what all of those you accuse of bad faith aim for. Cordially, and pop the champagne cork. I've given you the victory you've wanted by flagrantly nviolating in full WP:CIVIL, because I really don't see on present form that your behaviour with its egregious insouciance to to wiki ideals of NPOV smack of civility in any normal understanding of the word. For details of my self-suspension see my page shortly. Nishidani ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) replyA necessary starting point would be a real change in culture. (However, my attempts to achieve this without administrative intervention have all failed.'
I did not re-edit to avoid problems with admins and I consider any analogy between my attempts to stick to the point of this thread and between Orwell's 1984 book to be just as cheep a shot as was your earlier tribute limerick. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am chiming in quite late in the piece, however I have had experience with the issues at hand. I agree with many of the points raised by Nishidani, Nickhh and others. I think the point being made is that while everyone is guilty of inflammatory comments, more often that not in my (and obviously others) experiences, these are made in a heated environment which is sparked by the actions of Jaakobou. Ultimately what needs to happen is that a special administrator needs to be appointed to I-P articles to enforce the rulings already made, and to stop these ridiculous wiki-lawyering wastes of time. IMO this huge political talk page fighting which is starting to consume WP in general, but especially the I-P articles, is driving away good editors and scaring new editors from having a go. I admit it is becoming disillusioning even for me. And this is due in no small part to the actions of Jaakobou. Suicup ( talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't normally get involved here on this topic; FWIW, my actual personal opinion on the underlying political issues is very different from Jaakobou's. Nonetheless, I was asked by Jaakobou to have a look, and I think his original complaint deserves to be dealt with. Looking at the above discussion, i see J discusses the comments and edits, and his opponents discuss politics. Looking at the discussion page for AL, I notice J discusses primarily the edits, and his opponents discuss his motivations. The implication is obvious--regardless of what may have gone before, J's complaints have merit. eleland's edits and comments are marked by a personal animus that is altogether inappropriate; he may think as he pleases, but he cannot insult other editors. If bad editing has provoked him, he still needs to discuss the edits, not the editors. Under the terms of the arbcom decision, I would unhesitatingly give a block of about 7 days to prevent continuing impolite discussion. given the quick unblock previously, I'd like confirmation by another admin.
Civility related comment - I'm getting bit miffed at the "claiming victimhood" suggestions/commentaries. One, two, three "the old victim-strategy he employs" (Nishidani), ok. But now Tiamut also? PLEASE! consider
WP:CIV and avoid using Israeli-Palestinian conflict terminology to describe
user's personal traits.
Dear Tiamut,
The "gatekeepers" remark was insulting and also the way you ignored my legitimate concerns on Palestinian Fedayeen. However, my main concern is the civility issue, which is not a huge issue with you although suggestions that I'm a good schmoozer(?) and a Hollywood vicim
typecast are not exactly a model of civility and could definitely be considered as a verbal abuse.
Thank you, (edit conflict/rephrase)
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nishidani,
I've already retracted, apologized, received administrative action and avoided repetition of past offenses but here is your chance "to make a noble gesture":
There's a few others, but I don't think it's germane to the "Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something" Eleland's civility issue. With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"Final warning given to Jaakobou for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping. This flood of reports is getting out of hand."
Which he violated by opening the thread bleow, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Eleland issues persist and by contacting other admins on- and off-site (i.e. here, here and whatever resulted in this). Not content with attacking User:Eleland, he uses the same thread to lash-out at User:Tiamut and User:Nickhh.
Summary: User:Jaakobou has been warned about block-shopping and has done it again anyway. I suggest the admin who gave the final warning follow-through with whatever sanctions he/she had in mind.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 06:26
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I can see a problem here that the parties are commenting on the editors, and thus infecting incivility. As I can see it, there is a lack of assumption of good faith from all parties, and that needs to be addressed. I recommend forced mediation for all parties and place them om incivility parole (i.e. any admin can block them without warning for uncivil statements). → Aza Toth 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Retracted a generic question unrelated to the civility issue raised. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(offtopic) Is it just me, or does anyone else find Nishidani's 7000 words on this thread disruptive also? It's a bit of a prolonging issue ( sample). Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
Aatomic1 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week. He has twice reverted in less than two hours on Killings at Coolacrease to this version - first revert and second revertand now third revert. Probation was imposed here. BigDunc ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom cases: Armenia-Azerbaijan and * Armenia-Azerbaijan 2' .
Only days after his AA1 1RR limitation expired and even after promising that he would stick to 1RR, Grandmaster is back at edit warring. He has been re-adding the Azeri language template to the Nakhchivan khanate article that doesn't belong there since April 6th. The template doesn't belong there because that language didn't exist at the time. The only appropriate template would be the Persian/Arabic script that was used at the time. Since his first revert on April 6th he has reverted the article 5 times the last two came yesterday. He first reverted an IP address claiming him to be a banned user [15]. Then reverted me claiming that the first revert was to a banned user [16].
I would like to note that he is yet to provide the sources I requested almost a month ago [17], instead his gaming the system and edit warring. VartanM ( talk) 07:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
And here is how disregard to behavior such as that of VartanM, Fedayee against myself, User:Ehud Lesar and User:AdilBaguirov impact the community [25]. Perhaps, it's time to pay attention and explain disruptive nationalist POV pushing editors, that they should concentrate on topics rather than on identity of editors. Atabek ( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
User VegitaU who recently acted against consensus and tried to insert his own POV in 911 Attacks Article left this warning at my talkpage. I'm exercising extreme patience on this issue, but I fail to see how this sort of conduct can be tolerated by the wider community. I'm asking for your opinions on this matter, since I believe that User: VegitaU as well as User: Aude should have been banned the very moment they've decided to violate Arbcom decisions. In light of those, I'm asking you to stop this sort of discrimination and revoke editing privileges of mentioned editors until they show will to follow long established rules and guidelines of our encyclopedia. Tachyonbursts ( talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
(indent)
I'd like a second opinion, preferably by someone who has been here long enough and who knows all of the editors which are involved (Thatcher). To clarify, apparently I've been on parole because of the edits I've done today.
Apart from a plea, I have to wonder, why is acceptable for VegitaU to call me a headache? Where are the sanctions I've sought above? What sort of miserable discrimination is this? How should one respond to such insults?! With smile and applause? Tachyonbursts ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I see that request was not fulfilled? On contrary, user Aude and user VegitaU are allowed to run amok? I'm not sure why you folks think I'm passionate on that particular topic?
Do we have a second opinion? Is community banned from this topic or do we have a community ban on it? Yes or no will do. Tachyonbursts ( talk) 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
I just caught Martin reposting a long attack on ScienceApologist that was originally posted by two different accounts which were SPA attack accounts devoted solely to SA. The first account used Raul654's page on Civil POV pushing to attack SA here and restored the comment here and here before being blocked by Stephan Schulz. The 2nd account reposted the attack before being blocked for a month for harassment by Raul. I have to ask, with Martin under editing restrictions and all of the acrimony between the two editors, are his actions at all appropriate? Baegis ( talk) 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No one even informed me of this thread. I posted a list of links previously posted by an IP. I didn't use the preface that the IP gave. However, as I've stated before, what matters to me is content. I don't care if it's Hitler's ghost, if the content is good I won't refrain from using it. You may look at the post as entirly and completely mine, and I take complete responsibility for the post which fulfilled ScienceApologist's request for specific diffs and explanations of what is uncivil about them. Just go read WP:BAN instead of wasting people's time here. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
What banned user and which specific diffs are we talking about? Where is the wiki policy on this? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind."
This is clearly a disruptive edit and a violation of Martinphi's arbitration restrictions. There's two problems:
1) Reposting of harassing material. In this post Martinphi reuses material posted by 216.246.79.210 and 67.228.120.234. Those IPs were blocked, the second explicitly for harassment. In other words, the post was already judged to be harassment and block-worthy before Martinphi used it. Martinphi was aware that the material had been judged to be harassment and that the IPs had been blocked because of it. In fact, he takes full responsibility for reposting it, and asks that we regard it as his own ( [30]). Fair enough; Martinphi has taken full responsibility for a harassing post.
The problem is not that Martinphi is posting for a banned user; the problem is that Martinphi is reposting material that was already found to be harassment.
I will say, though, that 67.228.120.234 is now indef blocked as an open proxy, and it's pretty reasonable to think the posts from that IP were by a banned user.
2) Martinphi's claim that this post simply responds to SA's "request for specific diffs and explanations of what is uncivil about them" is disingenuous. The context is a conversation on SA's talk page; Martinphi begins the conversation by citing diffs from Talk:Parapsychology and asking SA to refactor them. This is a good beginning, but when SA asks for an explanation of what is uncivil about the diffs, Martinphi doesn't explain what's wrong with the posts to Talk:Parapsychology--instead, he posts a list of diffs that have only a tenuous connection to the specific problem that the conversation was ostensibly about. I have trouble seeing this as a sincere attempt to address a specific instance of incivility--instead, it looks to me like an attempt to provoke SA by giving a laundry list of every instance of alleged incivility Martinphi can think of. Unfortunately, it looks like SA's taking the bait.
So, as I said, Martinphi's edit is disruptive, and a violation of the Arbcom decision. However, instead of blocking, I would like to see if Martinphi will remove or strike the offending post, and instead continue his conversation with SA by explaining precisely what he found uncivil with SA's posts at Talk:Parapsychology. If he is unwilling to do so, then I think a block is called for. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not concerned with his refactoring specific diffs. I'm concerned with his stopping his behavior in the future. He's trying to make it out as if he is a sweet little thing who would refactor if only he knew. Or if we did as he says. Well, he's not supposed to be uncivil in the first place. I'm under no obligation to teach him basic civility. I gave him the opportunity to learn, and was repaid with more incivility and attacks from his friends- and now from others.
You see he's an attack machine. You know he's disruptive. You know he's under ArbCom sanction to not do what he's doing.
And as far as blocking me, you cannot do it under the ArbCom restrictions, as I have not been banned from a page and violated that ban. I have a right to post any good material I take responsibility for. Read WP:BAN, and other posts above which explain it.
Harassment to post diffs of what a user says? I don't think so. If they're harassing, it's because of the content. They are merely a list of specific instances of SA violating his ArbCom restriction. That's not harassment, especially when he asked to be taught. He asked for specific instances. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Um, no...ScienceApologist originally created the series of diffs and posted each and every one...the "banned user" merely collected them and posted them, this doesn't mean that those same diffs can never again be used as evidence or examples. AND, per WP:BAN, one would have to show that Martin posted those diffs at the direction of the banned user, and even then "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." See Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Tachyonbursts has here been banned from "making edits anywhere in the encyclopedia that relate in any way to the September 11, 2001 attacks". He is edit-warring [31] [32] [33] to include a permanent ban request on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. This may be an attempt at making some kind of statement of "martyrdom"; it's certainly disruptive to the group of editors who are trying to improve the article to GA status. A block may be necessary to enforce the ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 00:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
This editor has a conflict of interest as he is a former UDR member, verging on a single purpose account. Despite many warnings and talk page discussions, he persists in adding unsourced information to the article, including but not limited to original research, misrepresentation of sources and use of unreliable sources, and edit wars to maintain his policy violating additions. I would like enforcement of the principles from the above case, specially principle #2 "Reliable sources". The current problems surrounding this article all directly stem from his disruptive editing, and I feel the problem should be tackled at the source. Sample diffs below:
Thanks, BigDunc ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am presuming I am allowed to defend myself against these allegations? If not then I apologise in advance for adding information here which I shouldn't have. I am reasonably new to Wikipedia however and am struggling with the plethora of rules and procedures. Whilst I may have been unaware of policy initially and made some mistakes typical of a newcomer, I have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of civility and good faith extended to me by some editors. The discussion page for the article is testament that I have examined the various rules and guidelines thrown at me and, from them decided that, although they are being used to show me as a disruptive editor, they also apply to those editors who seem to be opposing most of what I post. I do have serious objections to spending a lot of time on creating items for the article and then finding them immediately deleted, despite my requests to discuss the reasons why on the discussion page. When discussion does take place I feel my position is not being view sympathetically. I have one situation where a neutral third party editor approved a particular source for reference, included links to that page himself which were ok for over a week then cut because another editor decided the source wasn't verifiable, thus destroying the verifiability of a lot of content. I have endured accusations of conflict of interest, being a "Unionist Bigot", been "outed" because of content I unwittingly gave in a private e-mail, colluding with another editor (who I don't know) and generally of displaying a partisan attitude when I have been at pains to point out otherwise. The discussion page is proof positive that from the outset I have attempted to learn, to post within the guidelines, request help and guidance when needed and above all, have tried my utmost to use my intelligence and knowledge of the subject to improve the article and to reduce the apparant bias in it which led to the overall impression of a discredited force. One editor has blatantly said the regiment IS a discredited force but continues to use Wikipedia policy to delete my work. If the editors who seem so determined to prevent me improving the article were to properly engage in discussion and assist me in adhering to the policies I am now accused of breaking then the matter would, and should (in my opinion) have been much less contentious. I did apply for arbitration on this but was unaware a previous judgement had been made and have spent the last two days reading the report and trying to decide what Wikipedia guidelines suggest I should do next to try and calm the situation down. I was not aware (but not surprised to discover) that articles which touch on the Northern Ireland "Troubles" have been the cause of bickering in the past. However, I hope that any member of the arbitration enforcement section who reads my history of contributions will note that I have made edits to other articles which have not been challenged and which have benefited the concept of Wikipedia. I ask all parties to note I am not engaged in this issue because of any political standpoint or prejudice. I simply have an in depth knowledge of the history of the regiment, the politics of Ireland and, in my view, a balanced logic. I wish to edit the article and create as full a record as possible containing as much information about the inner workings of the unit as I can. When this is done I have other projects in mind and it is my fond hope I will remain a useful member of Wikipedia. I believe it's just my poor luck that the first article I decided to edit as an absolute beginner with no knowledge of the rules, should turn out to be one which seems to trigger the worst in some people. For the record, I am not a member of any political party and never have been. I do not live in Northern Ireland, although I was born and raised there. I spent most of my extensive military career in the British regular army (with an Irish unit) and am now a respectable, successful businessman in another part of the UK. I am 50 years old. While I accept none of this makes me "neutral" I believe it does make me a reasonable choice to make informed edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I welcome any guidance other experienced editors wish to pass on to me.
GDD1000 ( talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely pointless, and a waste of everyone's time. Despite lengthy discussions on the talk page this editor refuses to abide by policies such as verifiability, no matter how many times it is explained to him. Why are no administrators prepared to enforce the principles from the ArbCom case? You're quick to jump in with blocks and protection and probation, yet you're unwilling to tackle the problems at the source. The many transgressions are documented above, and you've done absolutely nothing to solve the problems. Why not enforce WP:COI? Why not enforce WP:V? Why not enforce WP:NOR? Why bother when you can protect the page then bury your head in the sand by pointing to dispute resolution? The dispute is clear - an editor with a conflict of interest refuses to obey policy - please enforce policy as the ArbCom case mandates. Domer48 ( talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am content to have someone adjudicate on this. I have tried to oblige other editors but it's like banging my head against a brick wall. Even though there is a page protection on at the moment BigDunc has made a request to continue editing one of the items under disagreement. I disagree with his reasons for doing so because I feel the item is relevent and well sourced. Additionally Domer48 has duplicated the information on the Miami Showband Massacre which I respectfully suggest is in response to my including information on the Remembrance Day Bombing. I believe this is the nub of the matter, that some editors are objecting to the UDR receiving any credence in the article simply because they figure in the Northern Ireland Troubles and that this battle I'm facing is not as a result of anyone wanting to stick to Wikipedia policy but rather to use policy to restrict the information I add. As a newcomer, and bearing in mind the manifold documents which counsel on how to treat inadvertant policy breaches due to ignorance, I feel that the approach used against me thus far has been somewhat heavy handed in some cases. Other, more moderate editors seem to lose interest and abandon the project when they see the amount of bickering going on. GDD1000 ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Rather than let this devolve into an RFC or a new RFAR, I'll just bring this here because it follows up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Requesting review of actions of Justallofthem and myself, with regard to the case's discretionary sanctions.
Justallofthem was a named party to that arbitration on his previous account, Justanother. I was not involved in the underlying dispute but named myself as a party procedurally when I opened the RFAR. Justallofthem posted to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Getting_It:_The_psychology_of_est today; it is the only FAC where he has participated in at least the last four months. This appeared to me to be a continuation of his wikistalking campaign against Cirt, and an uninvolved editor had already commented twice about Justa's inadequate rationale, so I posted a brief an neutral statement with a link to an AN thread from late March. The linked thread contained a discussion from late March where Justa was nearly sitebanned for wikistalking Cirt and other policy violations, including checkuser-confirmed block evasion, multiple sockpuppetry, and repeated personal attacks. Justa's response accused me of repetitious and meddlesome attempts at character assassination.
I posted a brief and neutral retraction request at his talk page. [34] He replied at my user talk, with what I considered to be a series of unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. The thread got this far before I blanked it. Justa refused to honor my request to end the conversation, continuing to post afterward. [35] [36]
I would have been glad to let this little episode pass without a noticeboard thread, but SirFozzie--an administrator I respect--suggested conduct RFC or arbitration, [37] and Justa agreed. [38] This actually follows up on a closed case, so taking this here seems like the path of minimum drama. To the reviewing admin: please contact me privately regarding part of the relevance to the arbitration case; the Foundation privacy policy constrains me from explaining a couple of things onsite. If there was anything inappropriate in my actions I welcome correction. Likewise, it appears from my perspective that Justa's unblocking admin is exercising insufficient mentorship and there is very little positive work in Justa's last several months of contribution to offset the ongoing problem. Durova Charge! 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you'd like to withdraw it anyway, Durova? I'm having a little trouble understanding why you post on this page, in stark contravention of the page instructions:
"This page only involves violations of final ArbCom decisions. It is not for re-opening the dispute, or arguing about any ongoing dispute, but purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them, and enforcing a suitable remedy if there is a breach."
Was there any ruling that applied to JA in the COFS case? [39] Well...there was this one, yes: JA was "urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions." An interest in Anynobody's actions is not your complaint. Why are you taking your dispute to AE? Note that "this page is not part of dipute resolution." The mediation that JA pleads with you to accept, on the other hand, is part of dispute resolution. ( [40] (note Durova's edit summary) Wouldn't mediation be a better way of avoiding having this spat "devolve into an RFC or a new RFAR"? Considering you would even "have been glad to let this little episode pass without a noticeboard thread".. if it hadn't been for Sir Fozzie.. Come on, now. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC). reply
Per ScienceApologist's ArbCom, he is restricted from using sock puppets. I have noted that a new IP address has made two key reverts in support of ScienceApologist's position at two different articles which may correlate that this IP is a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist.
Fringe Theories
Mokele-mbembe
Perhaps an official sockpuppet report needs to be filed. I am not sure. I guess I am looking for some direction to take this (if it should be taken anywhere at all). Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
That IP has been used for vandalizing before, but it is surprising that it shows up today to revert within minutes after an edit and in support of SA. Not enough evidence though for a claim of sockpuppetry. OTOH, that edit war at WP:FRINGE should not continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: AA 1 or 2, or maybe just general sanctions.
Eupator has been blocked for a minor scuffle on Nairi, with Sumerophile ( talk · contribs) and Nicklausse ( talk · contribs). Based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile, there is a good chance something is going wrong here. Admin Mikkalai is also in the recent history, doing a revert, and Moreschi gave a quick opinion on the talk, regarding the templates being used.
Eupator was blocked for violating 1RR, which is an AA 1 remedy, and the unblock request was denied "per general sanctions". There was a recent discussion at WT:RFAR#AA_1_restrictions regarding this. The result is confusing, especially as the article is only tangentially related to AA, and Eupator is feeling the brunt of this confusion.
I am bringing this here for review; I think Eupator should be unblocked and a request for clarification filed to work out what arbcom remedies are in play. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Please note that I've blocked Nicklausse ( talk · contribs) indefinitely as a disruptive meatpuppet of Sumerophile ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile shows the connection between the two, and this is confirmed by their editing patterns (essentially, all the Nicklausse accout has done is revert-war in tandem with Sumerophile). Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am forwarding this case from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd). User:Hobartimus wrote there, in perhaps more words than necessary, that MarkBA has repeatedly created sockpuppets to disrupt controversial articles and game the system. He noted that MarkBA is restricted per the Digwuren arbitration case. [45] I think Hobartimus is not asking whether a particular IP address happens to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA, but rather, what to do about the sockpuppeteer? That question belongs here. It is already being discussed at [46], and maybe it should stay there. I don't know how this process works, and I need to sign off for the night. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
While I feel this "thing" is getting too much and too heated and going on too many pages, I have to say, that the referred "experiment" is ongoing for a month or so now, and we have reached nothing with MarkBA, except that he continues the same editing and style through IPs. Got it? His account got restricted, so he simply dropped it ("announced retirement" combining with a lengthy attack in general against the - Hungarian - editorial community [48] - wikipedia "hijacked" and he's being "chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "mob rule", "extreme nationalist and chauvinist", "propaganda", etc.), and continued the very same thing but now logged out. And does not stop, despite asking, warning and even blocking (for "sockpuppetry").
There was a daily habit of reporting each other on various wikipedia pages before. Since Elonka's intervention, only Mark was able to provocate a "checkuser" ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA → 8 confirmed "sockpuppets") and a WP:AN/I and now a WP:AE thread against himself, wich I think tells alot.
No matter that it was confirmed [49] that all those IPs were used by MarkBA, he still(?) denies them [50] and randomly demands apologies for "accusations of sockpuppeting". He also thinks that I am (or someone is) that dumb that (I) buy(s) this: [51] ("the IP range just happens to be in my area"). Oh, please, just look at these: [52], [53] :)
I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like WP:NPA), then denying them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. -- Rembaoud ( talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally posted this on another noticeboard ( here)but have since determined that this might be the better place.
In short, there are a few articles aparently on "probation" where I've noticed some odd actions that might require a closer look. User:Bassettcat and User:John Nevard are hitting Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling in ways that hint at undisclosed conflicts of interest.
User:William Ortiz says that User:Bassettcat resembles User:Mantanmoreland. In response, John Nevard called William Ortiz (and me, too) "crazy."
Please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.164.228 ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Reply: I have no conflict of interest to disclose. I am a trader by profession, but have no current or former position in Overstock.com and no commercial relationship with that company. I have no other account on Wikipedia and I don't believe I can be classed as a "single purpose account," unless interest in finance is a singular purpose. I corrected the Byrne article recently to fix an error that Hulda himself discovered, concerning an award given to Byrne. I also corrected an error in naked short selling that was serious in nature. It stated that naked shorting was always illegal, which was contradicted by the article itself and by the Securities and Exchange Commission website. That error has now been reinstated to the article by the same IP who raised this issue, and who apparently has an axe to grind.-- Bassettcat ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't know whether it falls under the purview of this section, but you may be aware that the above IP and User:PatrickByrne rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion. That was aborted by Nakon, and PatrickByrne then reinstated the changes and the IP again,in the process reinstating the inaccuracy that I stated above. Nakon warned PatrickByrne for vandalism. -- Bassettcat ( talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure confirmed that Eyrian, who participated aggresively in AfDs and last edited in October 2007 and who was subsequently blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, made "numerous IP edits". Notice this IP's edit history that follows seems to focus on certain kinds of articles. Now today, notice this edit in which the IP writes, " It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but if you look again at the edit history of the IP, there are NO previous edits to any IPC articles, which thus makes that statement odd and as if it is from someone who either edits using different IPs or who is an old user. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The IPs are unlikely to be related. They all originate from home internet providers. Two originate from the same provider, but different regions. The other originates from a different provider. Vassyana ( talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I am not a checkuser. reply
On April 19, Jac16888 initiated an AE thread concerning Eusebeus, saying Eusebeus "has begun blindly restoring redirects." That thread was closed April 23 by GRBerry with no action taken. Since then, Eusebeus has continued to edit war over Scrubs episode articles like My Best Friend's Mistake [54] [55] [56], My Mentor [57] [58] [59], and My Princess [60] [61] [62]. I believe that's a violation of the ArbCom remedy where "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." and the also the Principle that "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited" and the Principle that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." As far as I know, no other involved party of E&C2 has been edit-warring with Eusebeus on those articles, and restrictions were not imposed on Eusebeus in particular — so I could understand if no action is taken yet again. However, if that's the case, I think an amendment of the remedies of the E&C2 arbitration case may be in order. Any input would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I would like to point out that I really can't see a motive for this report other than enflaming an already unpleasant situation. This report documents events that are
What's the purpose of bringing it to AE now? Kww ( talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am somewhat concerned about other unconstructive behavior with regards to the editor under question.
Please also consider DGG's comment regarding Eusebeus' incivility and how Eusebeus ignoed DGG's warning and brushed off BrownHairedGirl's later warning on his talk page and even edited her post. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Andranikpasha ( talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see: [89], which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However he exceeded his limit on Hayasa-Azzi, where he made at least 2 rvs today: [90] [91] The edits that he reverted do not appear to be vandalism like he claims and look like a content dispute. Grandmaster ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
It is also worth noting that Andranikpasha was permanently banned from the Russian Wikipedia for disruption on Urartu related articles. Grandmaster ( talk) 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
We have an IP 91.103.25.22 that is reverting on all the hotspots, including reverting Moreschis revert on Urartu. I've given it a short block for disruptive editing, but it might as well be a block for abusing WP:SOCK. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi there. User Andranikpasha is actively manipulating and reverting the Hayasa-Azzi and the Urartu article's today with an anon IP. If he wants to push his POV on Hayasa-Azzi (especially), he should NOT do it with 17 references about the hypothetical Armenian links to Hayasa-Azzi. This sounds like an abuse to me to get his point across. It feels as if he wants to smother all debate here like Ararat Arev. The same anon IP just reverted my edit on Hayasa-Azzi. I think someone has to stop this nonsense somehow. Artene50 ( talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K. There is highly credible evidence that Pete K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has evaded his topic ban from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review by editing anonymously. I suggest that, if an admin supports this finding, he or she should semiprotect the affected articles and block Pete K for at least two weeks. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
What is that highly credible evidence, please? It has not been reported here. DianaW ( talk) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [92] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [93] [94] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
One week after TTN was blocked for a week for violating the restrictions imposed on him in the E&C2 arbitration case, TTN decided to violate his restrictions again. In the E&C2 case, TTN was " prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." (bolding mine)
On May 11, 2008, TTN went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and said "Only seven articles...and seven character lists...are necessary....That's the basic plan...The main thing is that it gets started..." and also said "as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out." Sonic the Hedgehog characters are television characters. TTN made an edit to a project page requesting that a merge be performed on television character articles, and this a violation of the restrictions imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The full thread is visible here ( oldid). -- Pixelface ( talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This kind of thing could be avoided if someone would just clarify the overall restriction. Truth be told, I never even noticed the part about project pages, but the whole thing really isn't clear about it. Does that mean any project page or talk page, or is it just a catch for another case like the failed "Episode review" project? Is a merge request the same thing as pointing out bad groups of articles? Am I to be completely silent every time some random old redirect gets brought back, or can I show it to someone and let them make a call on it? Is that considered having someone edit for me?
Those are just a few of the things I'm confused over. Can someone ask some arbitrators to either comment here or one of the open requests for clarification? That would clear some things up. TTN ( talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As TTN's actions (and those of his co-worker group) with these TV and fiction articles consistently and endlessly generate reams and reams of drama, conflict, and Arbitration cases, perhaps the community should simply develop custom sanctions in regards to them in place of or beyond what the Arbcom has put in place. The community has supreme power to limit internal disruption via such means, if they deem it required. Does the subjective benefit of TTN and company eliminating fiction articles and content outweigh the massive historic disruption they cause? If the answer is yes, then TTN's case needs to go immediately back to Arbitration for clarification. If the answer is no, the community needs to establish binding limitations on these actions to stop disruption. Which is it? Opinions of uninvolved editors on this matter will carry more weight. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Pixelface is correct, the restriction clearly says he is not to request a merge or any of the other procedures. These edits are then a violation. But since I did the first block, I'll leave it to someone else this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition to requesting a merge of articles related to television characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games on May 11, on May 8, 2008 TTN requested at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard that the Bulbasaur article, another article about a television character, be redirected [98] — which is another violation of the ArbCom ruling. The full thread is visible here ( oldid) -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [99] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [100] [101] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
MarshallBagramyan ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [103] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [104] [105] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Meowy ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring together with MarshallBagramyan on the same articles about Lachin (town and district). He was explained many times that in controversial articles like this independent sources are preferable. However he restored to the article a reference to the Armenian nationalistic author Samvel Karapetian yet again, which is 2 rvs within the last 2 days. [107] [108] His persistence on using this particular source is very strange, considering that I provided a much better independent source, which he mentions in his subsequent edit, but does not use for whatever reason. I’m not quite sure what this user is trying to do, but in any case it is an obvious and deliberate violation of 1RR limitation, on which he was placed as per the arbcom case AA2: [109] and which is still in force. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply