User talk:Abenyosef

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:HIZKIAH/Welcome


I'm trying to help edit a page, but am constantly attacked by other editors on a personal level.

They don't respond to my arguments and claim that because they're in a majority, they don't have any obligation to. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenyosef (talk • contribs)

OK, I haven't looked in detail but scanned down some of the talk page discussions, I didn't see any obvious personal attacks so it might be useful if you were to highlight them when making such statements. Realistically the {{helpme}} system isn't able to get involved in disputes, we are volunteer editors just like you and have no special status. You can try looking to dispute resolution for some ideas of ways to move the problem forward. --pgk 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Abenyosef,
I'm also copying a reply made by User:ais523 to another user with a similar question, as well as a summary of the dispute resolution options below.
I'd suggest that the administrator's incident noticeboard would be a good place to discuss and/or report this (it will bring the matter to the attention of administrators, who will decide what needs to be done, if anything); however, you might want to try talking to the user concerned on their Talk page some more if you think it would be constructive (it might not be, I don't know the details of the situation). --ais523
In this case, the material at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes seems relevant. To summarize:
Hope this helps. Feel free to let me know in case you need any further assistance. —XhantarTalk 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT[edit]

Please don't alter policy pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abenyosef, if I may chime in, let me give you my take on your concern. I see two separate issues here. First, in general it is a bad idea to directly make large or substantive changes to policy pages, as these are very critical to the functioning of WP, and most words there are carefully selected and tweaked by consensus. Of course, suggesting constructive changes in the applicable Talk pages is always welcome. Second, regarding your specific point about OR in Talk pages, it is true that we have more leeway there, but remember that WP's mission is to simply present a summary of what has been previously published. So as an example, if we have a reliable published source saying X, we should not engage in trying to show that X is 'wrong', because that would be counter-productive to our "attributability not truth" mission. Of course if we can show that a given published source is actually saying something else than what was quoted, or that a given publication is actually a personal blog with no editorial oversight, those would be relevant Talk page topics and/or arguments. Again, our goal is to present balanced summaries of existing publications in a neutral tone - not to create new knowledge, arguments or positions - innovations of any kind should be published elsewhere. I hope this helps. Thanks, Crum375 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats for your adminship, a well-earned one indeed.
As you say, we must have "a 'reliable' published source saying X." But how do we decide that the source is reliable? Answer: by doing our own O.R. into the source. In disagreement with you, I think we 'should' investigate wrong claims, because they are usually related to their sources' lack of expertise -- and wp:rs does require expert sources.
But in any event, it's urgent that we clarify that the concept of O.R. applies only to materials that will be written into the article. --Abenyosef 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the congrats! Now regarding the OR issue. I agree with you that a 'reliable source' has to be qualified by Wikipedians prior to its use. Without knowing the specific details of your situation, I would generally follow the publication. If the publisher is a respectable newspaper, for example, I would accept any pertinent information on it, even if they quote, as SlimVirgin says, a scientist claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Of course we would not say that WP believes that, only that NYT (for example) says that, per the cited quote. Similarly for a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal - anything published there would generally be acceptable as source. OTOH, a blog, an advocacy site, an attack site, etc. would normally not be acceptable (except when addressing themselves). So as I see it, the focus should be on the publication or publisher, not the author. It is the job of the publisher to vet the author, not ours. If we start vetting authors on the Talk page, that would be OR and not relevant to WP. OTOH, vetting publishers and publications, i.e. qualifying sources, is very much something that belongs on the Talk page, IMO. Crum375 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not what wp:rs says. wp:rs only endorses scholarly publications. Non-scholarly sources are to be checked on a case-by-case basis, which includes research on the authors. wp:rs is very clear that expertise is needed, and if a greengrocer called John Doe claims in the NYT that the moon is a ball of cheese, we certainly can --and should-- object to the source because he doesn't have the expertise needed to make that claim. On the other hand, if John Doe claims that the moon is made of cheese in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Dairy and Astronomy, then we can't reject that source, because it's scholarly.
Wikipedia by no means endorses the NYT, and with good reason.--Abenyosef 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just carefully re-read WP:RS, and I am not sure where you see that "WP:RS only endorses scholarly publications". AFAICT, we support all potential sources assuming they meet certain criteria. Again, the focus is on the publisher, its neutrality, reputation and its editorial oversight. I don't believe that it is WP's responsibility to second-guess the editors of a publication, once that publication is deemed otherwise acceptable. We let them vet the authors and their work, while we vet the publication. IMO, for WP itself to try to research the authors' qualifications, quality or 'authenticity' of their work, assuming they were published in a reputable and otherwise acceptable publication, would be WP:OR, and is not our mandate here. And AFAIK, WP does accept the NYT as a reliable source - this does not mean that what the NYT says is gospel to us, but it means that we may cite it as a source, possibly balanced with other reliable sources, as the case may be. I invite comments from others about this issue, but this is my own understanding. Crum375 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia divides sources between scholarly and non-scholarly. When we consider using non-scholarly sources, we must ask questions not only about the publisher, but also about the authors --whether they are experts in the field they're writing about; whether they're explicit about the data-collection process; whether they may have a certain bias, etc. All of these are included in the wp:rs guideline. In other words, if, let's say, a jeweller claims that the moon is square, wp:rs requires us to vet him to see what expertise he may have to make his claim. The only exception is if he publishes in a scholarly journal, in which case we must accept the claim without asking questions. Scholarly journals being defined as, basically, peer-reviewed ones. Since the NYT is not peer-reviewed, it is not automatically accepted as a source; we must first see who the authors are and what they're writing about. This doesn't mean Wikipedia rejects the Times as a source. It means Wikipedia doesn't accept it blindly, like it does with Nature or the Journal of the American Chemical Society. To me that's crystal clear. --Abenyosef 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-argued[edit]

Hi there. Marhaba. I really appreciated your very articulate intervention on the Anti-Zionism talk page regarding the Reinhardt quote. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope to see you around more. Tiamut 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see many people on that (and other) pages more concerned about their own POV than they are about truth. And this I don't like.--Abenyosef 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's quite sad actually and all too common around here when it comes to articles on Palestine, Israel, Judaism, Islam, etc., etc. By the way, would you mind taking a look at this Template:Palestinians and the talk page discussion there? I would like an outside opinion to see if I'm totally off-base or what. Thanks. Tiamut 13:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell. I'm participating in the Anti-Zionism article discussions because I'm an anti-Zionist Jew and I find the idea that anti-Zionism is intrinsically antisemitic outrageous. However, I don't know much about Palestinians as a people. I favor a one-satate solution in which a state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan would encompass both the Jews and the Arabs living there with equal rights, and I don't care if the name for that state is Israel, Palestine, Equalia or whatever. --Abenyosef 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Original Barnstar
Awarded for your tireless pursuit of truth, your levelheadedness in heated talk page discussions, and your ability to administer what in less academically strict contexts is referred to as "ownage". MeteorMaker 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note about NOR[edit]

Hi Abenyosef, OR isn't really allowed on talk pages either. It's okay for someone to argue for or against a certain source so long as his arguments are based on Wikipedia's policies, but it's not okay for them to argue that a particular source, otherwise regarded as reliable, is right or wrong based on their own opinion. For example, suppose we have a New York Times article that says company X is selling faulty goods. The managing director of company X arrives at Wikipedia and starts arguing on talk pages that the NYT article shouldn't be used as a source because the reporter is someone who dislikes him in real life and the report is full of mistakes. That's OR and it's not allowed. It's not allowed in the article, obviously, and it's also not allowed to affect our decision to use the NYT, which is a reliable source for us even if it publishes that the moon is made of green cheese, and therefore there's no need for the managing director's opinion of its reliability to be posted to talk pages.

Can you show me an example of the NOR policy being used to prevent someone from making legitimate arguments on a talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

And I've answered that Muir's status as a scholar is completely irrelevant when she publishes in a non-scholarly journal. Muir's review is no more scholarly than her personal diary, her letters to her children, or the notes to her husband she sticks on the fridge door, which are also "materials written by a scholar."
Of course, ideally the sources for a Wikipedia article should be as variegated as possible; but they must be reliable in the first place. Now Muir's article is notoriously inaccurate and notoriously biased, and I'm beginning to suspect that you're more interested in the bias than in any enlargement of information. She claims that K&S's research is about anti-Zionism, when in fact it's about anti-Israel attitudes, and she doesn't prove that both concepts are equivalent. She makes judgments about the correlation between two sets of data, but doesn't have the expertise needed to evaluate it. She makes general claims about the bias of European journalists, without providing the faintest hint of evidence and without being an expert media analyst.
In short, Muir's article is not scholarly, and she's not an expert in any of the areas she makes claims on. It's absolutely safe to declare her a non-reliable source. Abenyosef 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop filling the page with repetitive and irrelevant original research, let's stick to policy. Now, you have said something which might be relevant: "Muir's article is notoriously inaccurate and notoriously biased". If true, this is good news, as I hadn't realized there was any notoriety at all. Please provide the reliable sources which have deemed Muir's work "inaccurate and biased". Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I was arguing against Diana Muir based on her lack of expertise -- [wp:rs] requires expertise. In particular, I argued against her conclusions about the correlation between two sets of data, because she's not an expert in statistics. How did I learn this? Because, thanks to my original research, I learned that she's a historian, not a statistician.

Now the answer was "stop filling the page with repetitive and irrelevant original research." Does doing research about an author and showing she's not an expert in the areas she makes claims on amount to irrelevant original research?--Abenyosef 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAS[edit]

Please stop adding more Finkelstein. He already has a section devoted to his views; he is not at all notable in relation to the British enquiry; he is not a specialist in this area; and you're using his personal website as the source. There's no justification for using more of his views, or for giving him two sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquiry has been criticized by several sources, and that's a fact that should, in my view, be reported in the article, with examples of the criticism. Finkelstein's looks quite solid to me, but if you can suggest a better example, please do so, by all means.--Abenyosef 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It contained its own criticism. It might more sense to use the sources the inquiry used, as they're the experts. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is disingenuous, since the Inquiry's sources are lopsided, and one can't expect members of an inquiry committee to criticize their own findings.--Abenyosef 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wo![edit]

I'm impressed! A freelance journalist, AND a translator? That's something wonderful! I want to be an interpreter, which is translating but in spoken words not written ones. Just check out my user page and if you want to watch it. This will also put a watch on my talk page. I'm learning Portuguese very slowly. learnportuguese 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dropping a line to you[edit]

Olá. I was just dropping a message because I haven't see any posts from you on my talk page for awhile. Be assured that my talk page is a friendly and dynamic environment with discussion on many aspects of the beautiful and fascinating Portuguese language. Just scroll to any section or the end of anyone's comments and type away. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands and POV[edit]

Just a short note: even if your own personal family history (are you a Lebanese Jew, perhaps?) would suggest that this article is widely POV, there are widely differing experiences among the different communities. it is definitely not safe to assume that the lebanese jewish experience (for example) would be comparable to the iraqi one. So, what may seem like POV to you, might look to another also as POV for the exact opposite reason. just one more reason to try and rely on professional scholars (like stillman) and the problem with shenhav as a source for the criticism. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA[edit]

You are in danger of becoming an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion (User:Alex79818 on clear behavioral evidence) (possibly compromised account), tendentious editing, and personal attacks making it clear you are not here to improve the encyclopedia.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 22:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

UPDATE 12 March 2012: AN IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE SPI CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME

I was blocked after user Wee Curry Monster launched an SPI against me[1]. In substantiating it, said user stated, among other things:

Alex79818 has been a long term disruptive editor on Falklands topics for some time. On 26 August 2011 he was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. At that time his IP was blocked for six months. Abenyosef showed up on Falkland Islands on 26 February 2012, exactly six months later.

At the time it didn't occur to me to verify if the date provided for User:Alex79818's block was accurate.

It turns out not. User:Alex79818 was blocked on 20 (not 26) August 2011; the 26 August date is for his being banned from his own talk page. Also, there's no indication, in his SPI history[2], that his IP was blocked for precisely six months. If it was, User:Alex79818 could hardly know. But in any event, if the alleged 6-month IP block commenced on 20 August, it ended on 20 February, and the "striking date coincidence" argument becomes even more unconvincing.

Since the blocking admin considered such "date coincidence" a fundamental aspect of the SPI[3] (he even emphasized the phrase exact date), I request that the reviewing admin gathers all possible information as to exactly when did User:Alex79818's IP block expire, and whether such user had any means to know the length of his block.

This does not, of course, invalidate or supersede any of the arguments presented below, including the fact that, if there was a date coincidence, it's irrelevant, since my IP had never been blocked prior to 26 February 2012.


DEFENSE AGAINST THE SOCK PUPPET ACCUSATION:

1) My IP does not coincide with that of User:Alex79818. UPDATE 12 March 2012: In a previous SPI[4], an admin stated: "For the most part, Alex79818 seems to be editing from Florida, while this IP is from Argentina." This was used as evidence for dismissing a block request. As a CheckUser will show, my IP is from Argentina, too.

2) User:Alex79818 entered Wikipedia in 2006 and edited exclusively Falkland Islands-related articles. I came here in 2007 and have made substantive contributions in three areas: the Middle East and Jewish affairs, the Spanish and Portuguese languages, and, now, the Falkland Islands. This is in line with my being an Argentinian of Middle Eastern descent and an expert in Spanish and Portuguese. WP:DUCK can't be applied to only one part of a user's contributions. I.e., if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and composes concertos for violin and orchestra, it most definitely isn't a duck.

3) The blocking admin states I'm possibly using a compromised account. However, I recently made a very specialized edit (described below; see (*)) to the Differences between Spanish and Portuguese article, which I had previously edited extensively, to prove that I am in fact Abenyosef. The blocking admin was made aware of this [5], but did not comment or respond to the evidence. Alex79818 never contributed to any article about either language.

4) The whole SPI was started because I began to edit the Falkland Islands article on the same exact date that the block of Alex79818's IP ended. This is pure coincidence and means nothing since my IP was not blocked before that time, as a CheckUser will show.

5) As for the "behavioral evidence," it consists exclusively of the fact that I wanted to make edits to the Falkland Islands article that Alex79818 also wanted to make. But this is hardly surprising, since they're the kind of edits that any Argentinian would want to make. Nothing can be concluded from the similarity of behaviors when it's the logical behavior, the expectable behavior from a certain community of users. (This point is expanded below; see (**)).

6) As I pointed out in the SPI, there are notable differences between Alex79818's debating style and mine. Alex79818 liked to argue things by making an anlysis of historical events of his own[6]; my argumentation, however, has consisted almost exclusively of quoting the reliable sources that say what I want said[7].

8) In sum, I was indicted on highly subjective evidence, and on an improper application of WP:DUCK. My previous contributions to the encyclopedia have been completely ignored, as has been the fact that I proved that I'm not using a compromised account.

For these reasons, I request that my block be immediately lifted.


UPDATE 11 March 2012: DEFENSE AGAINST THE WP:NPA ACCUSATION:

The blocking admin also states that I violated WP:NPA. In the SPI page, he pointed[8] to one edit of mine[9], commenting: "Abenyosef, you've been skirting the line of WP:NPA this whole time, but you've gone too far - you have just made several personal attacks in that last post."

This is simply not true. A personal attack is a very serious affair. In Wikipaedia, it involves using racist epithets, threatening someone, comparing an editor to Nazis, etc.[10] I did none of this. It also involves "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I did accuse an editor of lying about what I had said, but I gave evidence. In concrete, I said to that editor:

One more thing. In a comment above you claimed: "For example, twice now you've claimed Alex restricted himself to user talk pages." I said he was a heavy user of User Talk Pages, but I never said that he restricted himself to writing on those pages. This is the kind of small distortions that you love to introduce. And it's not the first time I catch you lying.

And as you'll be able to verify, it is a fact that the other editor used the phrase I quoted[11]; and it is a fact that I never said that Alex79818 restricted himself to using User Talk Pages. I said that he was a heavy user of those pages[12] and that he used the User Talk Pages to proselytize for his ideas and proposals[13].

I did not engage in personal attacks as Wikipedia describes them. I think this accusation was included to somewhat strengthen the very weak case that was made against me on sock-puppet grounds.


UPDATE 12 March 2012: DEFENSE AGAINST THE WP:TEND ACCUSATION:

This is a most baseless charge. WP:TEND is trying to introduce bias in an article. In my intervention in the Falkland Islands talk page, I mostly tried to introduce one change that would clarify an ambiguously-worded phrase (see (**) below). But that change wouldn't have been biased; on the contrary, it enjoyed the support of scholarly literature both from the British, Argentinian and neutral perspectives. I gave reliable sources for the change I was trying to introduce[14], and these sources were overwhelmingly British and American. Therefore, the edit I was proposing was not biased, and did not breach either WP:TEND or WP:NPOV.

It is absurd, almost ludicrous to state that I engaged in tendentious editing.

(*) Description of my edit cited in point 3): My edit consisted of providing an example, which was missing, for a consonant shift which happens in Portuguese but not in Spanish.[15]

(**) Expansion of point 5): In concrete, I wanted to replace the sentence "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities" with "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities." My reasons were twofold: 1) the current text is ambiguous as to whose settlement it was; and 2) the established scholarship unanimously describes the settlement as Argentinian. It is not a POV, since all sources agree, British, Argentinian and neutral; for instance, Martin Middlebrook, fellow of the British Historical Society, writes in a chronology of the Islands: 1826. An Argentinian settlement was established at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis) with Louis Vernet as governor. Britain protested. [16][17] The BBC states, for its part: The long running dispute between Britain and Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland Islands has its origins in the founding of an Argentine settlement on the islands in 1826.[18] It's also what Argentinians are taught at school -- is it any surprising that an Argentinian (or any other person with a minimal understanding of the topic, for that matter) would want to introduce the change? Just think: if an American came to the Apollo 11 article and found that the American nationality of the astronauts is not mentioned -- wouldn't it be logical for him to try and fix that? And if he were blocked, would another user who wanted to make the same change be automatically suspected of socket-puppetry?


Abenyosef (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not comfortable with unblocking this account until I know that there will be no drama afterward. It is clear from the contributions of this account that you're going to fight tooth and nail for your preferred version of the Falkland Islands article, and that your preferred version favors one party over another. Advocating a non-neutral version of the article when a neutral version is in place is the very definition of Tendentious Editing. A first step here would have been to see if there was some sort of middle ground that would address your concerns over the article but not trip over WP:NPOV. You showed no interest in doing so, another hallmark of WP:TEND.

The Personal Attack is more clear - you called another editor a liar. Pretty simple stuff. You can say that they're wrong, you can show them in diffs where you didn't say what they said you said, you can question whether their contention is accurate - but when you accuse them of malice and deception (implicit, in that they lied), that becomes a personal attack. You're not talking about what they said, you're talking about them directly, and that helps no one.

The above is enough to decline to unblock. But even then, we have the Sockpuppetry. I am struck by the coincidence that two editors working in the same area, editing the same article, could have such striking similarities in style, format, and phrasing as to be mistaken for one another. Part of the problem, of course, is that they edit in the same area, and both are clear examples of Tendentious editing. If you're doing the same things as a blocked account, and writing in the same manner, then you're going to fail the WP:DUCK test, checkuser or no. Editing different articles doesn't prove anything, nor does your history outside of the Falkland Islands issue. Had you edited other articles, never setting foot in this dispute, it's possible that you could have continued to edit without incident. But the instant you take up old disputes, the instant you wade into drama, the game is up - this is why we have the Duck Test, and that is why it has been used to block your account and many others. Nothing you said in this request can account for that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

...and how do you address your massive and multiple violations of WP:NPA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my request and responded to that. Cheers.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments about NPA, you took what was said out of context, and tossed out accusations of lying in response - that is very much a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you're hurling vague accusations, like that I took something out of context. It is a fact that the editor in question said to me "twice now you've claimed Alex restricted himself to user talk pages." And it is a fact that I never claimed such a thing. I have provided evidence that the mentioned editor's statements about me were false. And when you denounce an editor's improper behavior and you have evidence to back up the denunciation, that's not a personal attack as per Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry, but the rules are the rules.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for any admin noting the difference on IP, Alex has edited from Argentina. IP evidence from Abenyosef's editing came down to the same IP range and geolocation. Personal information that would violate WP:OUT has been lodged with User:Nick-D that explains it all. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said in the SPI, this means nothing if you don't have a thorough knowledge of how internet provision works in Argentina. Quite possibly, many totally unrelated IPs geolocate to the same place. The address provided by the geolocation page is in Buenos Aires, and I live in Rosario. I offered to prove this in the SPI.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received any personal information about 'Abenyosef' from WCM that I can find in my email inbox or spam filter, and don't particularly want it. As I noted in discussions of the SPI report on my talk page, I think that it's pretty clear that this is Alex79818 based on behavioural evidence (to which I'd add the nature of this unblock request), so I'm not an uninvolved admin for the purposes of this unblock request. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it was about User:Alex79818, I didn't want to make too much of it as I am very aware of WP:OUT but it does explain the IP evidence. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates as the review proceeds[edit]

Since this review seems to be taking some time, I'm updating my request, enriching it with diffs and new arguments. All important updates are specified with the corresponding date. I request that the reviewing editor takes these updates into account as they assess the case.

In particular, I have added defenses against the charges of violating WP:NPA and WP:TEND.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again[edit]

WP:AN/Idiscussion here --Shirt58 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand if you're supporting me or what, hahaha.
This is a déjà vu of Kafka's Process, with a few admixtures from The witches of Salem. All this story of being indicted and blocked without a shred of evidence is quite surreal. If you have some empathy for me, I'll give you a barnstar. Ehm, well, no, I actually can't. But I'll like you a lot.--Abenyosef (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I'm requesting a new review because the first reviewing editor, UltraExactZZ, charges me (like the blocking editor did) with WP:TEND. He then goes on to make this charge the centerpiece of his refusal to unblock, under the following logic: I engaged in WP:TEND; blocked user Alex79818 also engaged in WP:TEND in the same article; therefore, I must be a sockpuppet for Alex79818. However, I did not engage in WP:TEND. First let's see UltraExactZZ's charge:

I'm not comfortable with unblocking this account until I know that there will be no drama afterward. It is clear from the contributions of this account that you're going to fight tooth and nail for your preferred version of the Falkland Islands article, and that your preferred version favors one party over another. Advocating a non-neutral version of the article when a neutral version is in place is the very definition of Tendentious Editing. A first step here would have been to see if there was some sort of middle ground that would address your concerns over the article but not trip over WP:NPOV. You showed no interest in doing so, another hallmark of WP:TEND.

Now, let's see the change I was trying to introduce in the Falkland Islands article, which consisted of a single word that I'm highlighting in bold[19]:

The article currently states: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities." This is misleading, since it would appear that the settlement was both British and Argentinian, or even British only. This is not so. The settlement was established on Argentina's behalf, with Argentinian manpower, the currency used was Argentinian, the language spoken was Spanish and Vernet was appointed military and political commander by Argentina. More to the point, the scholarly sources describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [20], [21], [22], and many others. If there's no objection, I'll implement the clarifying change: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both Argentine and British authorities."--Abenyosef (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To be sure, the fact that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian is an element that favors Argentina's position in the Falkland Islands dispute. However, introducing that information in the article does not violate WP:NPOV. Why? Because for a statement to be non-neutral, there must exist an alternative statement -- a competing point of view. And in this case there doesn't. It's not that Argentinian sources claim that the settlement was Argentinian and British sources claim something else. All sources, Argentinian, British and neutral, agree that the settlement was Argentinian. I proved this giving a variety of sources; in particular in the following post[23]:

*In a UK parliamentary debate it is described as an Argentinian settlement: [24]. *A book about colonies describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [25]. *A book about self-determination describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [26]. *A book about Commonwealth history describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [27]. *The BBC describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [28]. *A book about the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [29]. *The Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [30]. *The Survey of British and Commonwealth Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [31]. *A book on wars in Latin America describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [32]l *The Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [33]. *The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committe describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [34]. *A book on the diplomacy of the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [35]. *The Year Book of World Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [36]. *... hey, even Wikipedia is already describing it as an Argentinian settlement: [37]. If it looks like an Argentinian settlement, if it walks like an Argentinian settlement, if it sounds like an Argentinian settlement, it's not a duck, it's an Argentinian settlment.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice, from the last example in my list, that the wording I was trying to introduce (i.e. the addition of the adjective "Argentinian") had already been implemented in another article with the same set of editors (although, upon the publication of the list, User:Wee Curry Monster rushed to that article to delete the word "Argentine"[38]). I.e., the wording that UltraExactZZ describes as "tripping over WP:NPOV" had already obtained the consensus of the same editing team in another closely related article. Eventually, I found a British historian, writing a book about the Falklands war from a British perspective, who supported the change I wanted to make, and he became my favorite example[39]:

Take, for instance, Martin Middlebrook, the British military historian. When he summarizes the Falklands' history, he says: "An Argentinian settlement was established at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis) with Louis Vernet as governor. Britain protested."[40] We are not so conceited as to believe that we know more than a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, are we? Of course, he knows that the story is more complex than that, but when he summarizes he says that, and we must respect the judgment of a distinguished scholar.

Therefore, the edit I was fighting "tooth and nail" to introduce does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. Let's see: *It's an abundantly sourced statement. *The sources come from all sides in the dispute (British, Argentinian and neutral). *The sources include reputable news outlets like the BBC and historians like Martin Middlebrook. *There's no competing statement. *It had already been introduced in another Wikipedia article. For that reason, my behavior did not constitute WP:TEND. As per this policy, "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view[.]" And the WP:NPOV policy establishes five principle violations of neutrality[41]. Neither the blocking nor the reviewing admins have described exactly how I committed any of the five. Therefore, I'm not a tendentious editor, which is key to debunking the sockpuppetry charge. The reviewing adming stated:

I am struck by the coincidence that two editors working in the same area, editing the same article, could have such striking similarities in style, format, and phrasing as to be mistaken for one another. Part of the problem, of course, is that they edit in the same area, and both are clear examples of Tendentious editing.

But since I'm not a clear example of Tendentious editing (as I have amply proved), I can't be a sockpuppet for another, blocked editor who did engage in WP:TEND. For that reason, I request that the charges of WP:TEND and WP:SOCK be immediately lifted. That would leave the charge of violating WP:NPA, which, in general, is not met with an indefinite block. I have a response for that charge, too, but it would be long and I don't want to tire the new reviewing admin. So that first things first: please drop the accusations of WP:TEND and WP:SOCK, and, consequently, remove the indefinite character of my block. Abenyosef (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if I believed every word you said, your endless battleground approach to editing Wikipedia, and inability or unwillingness to behave collaboratively, would mean that you were unlikely to be helpful to the project. However, there is a big "if" there: there is plenty of evidence that this account has been run by the same person as other accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Any admin reviewing this unblock request may care to review User talk:Alex79818#Blocked, the similarities are compelling evidence for socking. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin reviewing this unblock request may care to notice that User:Wee Curry Monster launched an SPI against me in which he claimed[42]:

Alex79818 has been a long term disruptive editor on Falklands topics for some time. On 26 August 2011 he was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. At that time his IP was blocked for six months. Abenyosef showed up on Falkland Islands on 26 February 2012, exactly six months later.

However, this is false, since Alex79818 was blocked on 20 August 2011, not on 26 August 2011. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided that his IP was blocked for six months. In other words, User:Wee Curry Monster does not appear to be a reliable source for statements affecting me.
All charges against me have been simply words. In the same SPI, User:Wee Curry Monster claimed: "Alex79818 filled the page with tendentious argument, Abenyosef has been doing the same" as one of the "compelling similarities" between Alex and me. However, neither User:Wee Curry Monster, nor the blocking admin, nor the first reviewer have provided a single example of myself engaging in WP:TEND. The reason is easy to grasp: I didn't.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I entered Wikipedia in 2007. In my years in the project, I have helped improve articles through productive discussion with other users[43]; I have sought advice at the policy pages when in doubt about an edit[44]; I have refrained from making an edit when given good reasons not to[45]; I have accepted wordings proposed by editors holding different views than mine[46]; and I have even congratulated my opponents in a discussion when they proved me wrong using reliable sources[47]. I.e., I'm perfectly able and willing to collaborate with other editors. But it takes two to tango. I was indefinitely blocked on block-evasion grounds, charged with being a sockpuppet for Alex79818. I'm not a sockpuppet. My contribution history, as exemplified by the links above, does not follow the typical pattern of a sleeper account. The blocking admin admitted that he was "confused" by my contribs[48], so that he suspected I might be using a compromised account. But I also proved that I'm not using a compromised account[49][50][51]. So there's no clear-cut explanation as to how Alex79818 and I could be one and the same user. The sockpuppet accusation doesn't stand the Occam's razor test. Update 1, 24 March 2012: See the linguistic evidence that I'm not Alex79818[52]. Update 2, 24 March 2012: See my pledge not to get involved in personal confrontation[53]. Abenyosef (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are obviously Alex on the basis of your contributions (including the tone, length and other features of the unblock requests here). As such, I'm declining this request and locking this talk page to prevent any further time-wasting unblock requests. If you really want to return to editing, please see WP:STANDARDOFFER as it's the only way that this will be permitted. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • (Non-administrator comment) The evidence is convincing even if you are not a sockpuppet, your edits still appear to have a striking large amount of similarity to the ones of Alex79818. You need to not make such remarks for unblocks. If you continue to waste the time of helpful administrators, your talk page will be revoked (this is not an accusation, but just a reminder). The standard offer will not help you in this case either. Abhijay What did I do this time? 00:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. It's the first time in my life I'm appealing something. I think my last request is the one I should have written in the first place. (I'm a slow learner, but a learner nonetheless.) This last request concisely explains why my presence in Wikipedia is useful and not disruptive, and it also explains why I'm not a sockpuppet.
I understand your concern about wasting the admins' time, but I also understand that these reviews are done on a voluntary basis, and that those admins who don't have the time to review a request will just not get involved.
The "striking similarity" argument is subjective, especially when no concrete evidence is provided. Our needs, preferences, wishes, sometimes influence our perceptions. If we factor in that I'm not a clear sockpuppet, and that a lot of complicated assumptions would be required to justify how I am a user writing under another user's name, we've got a compelling case of a Reasonable doubt, in which case WP:DUCK does not apply.--Abenyosef (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) So tell me, if you aren't Alex79818, then who are you? The evidence is convincing and concrete. Similarly, stuff provided at WP:SPI (according to this article talk page) is "concrete evidence", and thankfully Wikipedian users are not stupid because Wikipedia has the tools to determine who are socks and who are not. Alex79818 engaged in the similar Falkand Island disruption, got blocked because of it, and yet you have continued in the same fashion. The behavior between both you and Alex79818 are identically similar, and there's no other conclusion other than you displaying the same behavior as Alex79818. I'd have to a be a complete idiot if I was writing this all now without the evidence. If you really are Alex79818, taking upon new identities by creating new accounts isn't such a great idea. Abhijay What did I do this time? 07:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not Alex, I may be one of the other 7 billion human beings on the planet. The evidence provided in the WP:SPI was vague; what few concrete details were given turned out to be inaccurate. For instance, it was claimed that Alex was blocked on 26 August 2011[54], but as you can check out, he was blocked on 20 August 2011[55]. The blocking editor claimed that I had the same IP as Alex[56], only to later backtrack and confess that he was charging me on his beliefs, not on what he knew for sure[57]. To prove that some writer is the same as some other writer you've got to take chunks of text and compare sentence structure, frequency of use of certain words, idioms employed, etc. That's the only concrete evidence that can be given. All the rest is babble.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next admin/non- admin about to review this. Ab hijay  ☎ 06:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know Alex, if you'd like to be unblocked, please calm down while making requests. Not only you are blocked as a sockpuppet (that is true, based on clear behavioral grounds) you are blocked for WP:NPA and WP:TEND. See user talk:Gaba p. Bmusician 11:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you people have convinced me you truly believe I'm Alex. I'm gathering from our writings stylistic evidence that I'm not. He spells encyclopaedia, I spell encyclopedia. He calls others "mate," I've never resorted to colloquialisms. I'm working on a complete study of that. But quite apart from that evidence, there's no logical explanation as to how I can be Alex. I'm not a sleeper account, I'm not a compromised account, other options would require too complicated assumptions. Doesn't that instil a single drop of doubt into your mind?
On another note, my latest request is concise and calmly written, I think. I'm learning.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:NPA and WP:TEND, these do not normally warrant indefinite blocks (in fact, the only instance of a personal attack that is punished with an immediate block is a death threat). See the respective policy pages. The reason I was indefinitely blocked is sockpuppetry. And I'm not a sockpuppet.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic evidence that I'm not Alex79818[edit]

This is work in progress.

1) Alex uses one hyphen to mark a dash: As I said - the effect is cumulative[58]. I use two: if an American came to the Apollo 11 article and found that the American nationality of the astronauts is not mentioned -- wouldn't it be logical for him to try and fix that[59].

2) Alex invariably places the comma after the quotation mark (",): those editors and admins which some would refer to as the "regulars", the "law", the "cabal", etc.[60] I invariably place the comma before the quotation mark (,"): it said "Falkland's Island," in the singular, not "Falkland Islands," and this is very relevant information.[61]

3) Alex always uses the adjective "Argentine": they rarely or never hold a view that would be beneficial to the Argentine POV[62]. I overwhelmingly use "Argentinian": I'll implement the clarifying change: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both Argentine and British authorities."[63]

4) Alex uses the word "mate" as a term of address: May I remind you based on the last ARBCOM proceeding that numerous editors have dirt on you mate[64]; Real simple, mate[65]; Well guess what mate, now it’s provided[66]; You’re the one claiming a dispute here, mate, not me[67]. I never used that term to address anyone.

5) Alex spells with -pae- the word "encyclopaedia" and its derivatives: I agree with Langus, news can be of encyclopaedic interest.[68] I spell them with -pe-: Be it bad faith or ignorance, an encyclopedia should display neither.[69]--Abenyosef (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6) Alex misspells the word "breach": Breeches of WP:AGF by Wee Curry Monster[70]. I spell it correctly: I have absorbed quite a lot of aggression on this page, which I would confidently describe as a breach of collegiality.[71]

7) Alex uses the Internet slang acronym IMHO: there's no need to disrupt, IMHO[72]. I don't.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If ypu aknowledge you breached policy and agree to abide by the rules there is a (very, very) very slim chance that an admin mmay decide to pardon you. If however you continue to just launch unblick requests denying what multiple admins have decided you did you ae going to be blocked form even editing your talk page. I wuld susgest easting humble pie, and perhapas even going so far as to agree to not edit Falklands realted pages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking all day about your advice, and I believe you're right in one aspect. I am not a sockpuppet and I won't apologize for what I'm not. But it is true that I could have avoided personal confrontation with another user, and I didn't. I think it's appropriate to promise that I won't engage in that behavior again. Below is my pledge.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pledge not to get involved in personal confrontation[edit]

At the Falkland Islands talk page I was drawn into some sort of personal feud with another editor. Among other things, this user accused me of disrupting the article[73] where other editors found no disruption at all[74]. He also accused me of trying to impose censorship[75][76][77], which I showed to be wrong[78].

But two wrongs don't make a right, and I did use irony to mock him[79][80], and I said he had lied when he inaccurately reported one of my edits[81].

I understand that engaging in such behavior is harmful not only to my objectives, but also to Wikipedia as a whole; I also understand that under a rigorous interpretation of policy, it can be construed as an instance of personal attack.

Being in the minority in a Talk Page is not easy, since one is likely to be met with hostility. However, it is also true that minority editors are necessary and even vital for the project, since our vigilance helps purge articles of factual errors, as I have done[82]. For this reason, I hereby promise not to get involved in personal confrontations again, and to resort to the appropriate channels of mediation and arbitration if ever I feel under attack again. That way, the Falkland Islands article will continue to have its minority editor in place, and unnecessary belligerence will be avoided.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also advise you to stop preseting 'evidance', admins will go through your edit history and look at what you have said in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abenyosef&oldid=1141291825"