User talk:Jiujitsuguy

Gaza War

Again, remember that less than 4 reverts might constitute editwarring. Your last revert still is one less of 4 as the first in your last serie expired 08:32. I got 2. Shall I join your editwar? 50% chans your favoured version stays during the articleprotection. You can revert again at 23:21 without breaking 3RR. I hope some uninvolved bring this up at WP:AN/EW.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I really liked how lean Anon's proposal was. It cut out all of the other emotive this and that. "Inflicting huge civilian devastation" didn't jump out at me but I'm sure it can be reworded. I also only did the lead and didn't touch the infobox or the other small change that came up on the edit summary. (I think, since that is what I meant to do. I will check right now!)Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF! I must have been in the revert screen since the edit history shows me removing the text. Reincluding the "status"Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would expect resistance but am not sure myself how to word it. I think it needs to be crystal clear that there was plenty of damage to civilian buildings. This of course is already done in several ways throughout but it deserves some mention in the lead. Wording will be a tough one.Cptnono (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I dumbed it down more than that even. I'm sure there will be a few drafts coming up.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you provide the edit dif for the following comments:

• Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC
• Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do, I think you can get a block on him as disruptive editing. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I see you are not too clear on how to present diffs. I had a bit of a hard time figuring it out as well and it is time consuming. I think you go to the history page of the article or user page where the "diff" you want to use is and look down until you find the one that you are looking for. Check it out carefully and you should be able to copy the link location where it says "previous." Not sure how clear I am being but you will want to understand this so you can present your case. Stellarkid (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIFF lays it out. nableezy - 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of you to offer that. Here are a couple of the diffs for the comments mentioned above. [1][2] Stellarkid (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) [3]Stellarkid (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On talk pages, it's easier to look at the timestamp on the comment you want and then find that time on the page's history rather than search them one by one. Also, if you install the navigation popup gadget from the preferences menu on the top right, you can just hover over the history and see the diff without clicking through. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have to do a few other things but found a couple more of the above and two that speak to attempts at recruiting as well as un-collegial behavior : [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] Stellarkid (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Try disengaging with the conflict. Or go to the IRC to ask for "expert admin help" http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help The guys at the IRC can help you. For the "username" use your Wikipedia editor username (Jiujitsuguy) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jiujitsuguy. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block notice

I am blocking you for a week for edit warring per complaint here: [8] and onoing aggressive editing. If you feel it is unfair, you are welcome to appeal the block in the usual way. Please try to stick to 1RR and discuss changes. Endless reversion does not help anyone reach consensus. --BozMo talk 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You screwed up it looks like. I had a quick correspondence with the blocking editor which you can see on our talk pages. Read through it and if you agree and understand, it might be worth appealing. I found Template:Unblock and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks so try them out.Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to any other admin as I am going offline: this block has been on for 24 hours and you are welcome to lift it if you can obtain some sort of promise of good behaviour--BozMo talk 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the comments were no longer readily available. Here is the discussion you missed:

Words!

This is in regards to Jiujitsuguy's 1 week block. I believe Jiujitsuguy guy thought he was doing the right thing by removing what he thought was blatant bias. It was simply an instance of knee-jerk reverting. The edit summaries provided did not show the next revert which was my revert of his. I'm sure he was surprised when I reverted him since we both have the same concerns about what we both feel is biased editing by other editors but I felt that part of his edit needed to be reverted (it was actually an accident to revert the whole thing as silly as it sounds). He made an inquiry on my talk page immediately and we discussed it and he stopped edit warring. That being said, he should have double checked the article's talk page in the first place and could have been discussing the change there as well. He also could have tried working with the new context and I would hope that he is now aware of that. In regards to aggressive editing, that is a two way street. He is having a conflict with another editor and I applaud that editor for being up front about it. This additional ongoing noticeboard incident might shed additional light on it: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mr Unsigned Anon. Neither's mistakes are excused by the others but I believe the full context is important. I also can't pass judgment on either since I have screwed up bad enough to get a mention there. Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems and not meant to be punitive. His reverts were knee-jerk and he was rude to another editor the day before. His disruptive reverts were not ongoing. A good talking to and a shorter block might have done the trick. I don't know if he has a history of blocks for similar editing and if he does I 'm wrong. Just my two cents and I hope you will consider a firmer talking to with a reduction of the block (I would appeal o you for elimination but I assume that some point has to be made) to let him know that this cannot be an ongoing problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Sure other admins or I would shorten (or perhaps lift) the block if there was a reasonable sign he would behave now. However everyone always believes they are in the right and the other party is biased so trying to appeal based on rights and wrongs won't get him far. --BozMo talk 11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Cool. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of blocking. I'll shoot him an email if it is available in the toolbox. I hope you didn't think I was saying he was right to revert more than once in what he thought was fixing balance. Just saying poor form and screwing up is better than being malicious. Thanks for getting back to me.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the admin was willing to toss out the full week. Sucks you didn't have email enabled. While you were gone Stellar opened up an AE on Nableezy (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy and I have made a mention on an admins page regarding Mr.Anon who a couple of people think might be a sock puppet(User talk:Jehochman#Mr Unsigned Anon). I'm hoping that Mr.Anon was just being a jerk a couple times and is not a sock puppet. In regards to Nableezy, I think he deserves a block due to working the system too much and that sucks. All in all it is too much drama and I think it is ridiculous that you got a block and others did not. For that reason, if Nableezy receives a block from the page I won't be editing the page since I am obviously involved in this drama bullshit, too. Welcome back and have fun. We should be doing that more, right?Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cptnono. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your attack on the anonymous editor was inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of harmonious editing. Terrillja _talk 06:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh... you could argue Wikipedia:Mind your own business and Wikipedia:Talk page stalker but those are just cute essays. You probably shouldn't say such harsh things unless you want another block. I hear you and get your frustration. Just because we are being blunt, screw you since I got laid off myself ;) I'm enjoying the severance and hoping they don't realize the ratio of edits from their IP that was me! Welcome back and keep your nose clean. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not over the hill but I am getting a beer gut. Thus the misspellings I just corrected. The more of this Wikidrama I see the more I realize that nothing begs for a positive administrator oversight like concise boring statements with differences linked. I think I might try this new approach of being nice and seeing what happens.Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It basically is using multiple accounts or IPs to "to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." Swaying consensus and circumvention of sanctions or policy seem to be the the big concern from the cases I have seen. Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. A sock puppet check should be required here and the admin needs to pull the trigger. If he does not then we need to file the appropriate report. I am still hoping that he is not a banned user since he has done some good but even if he wasn't "to avoid scrutiny" might apply. If he was not banned I am hoping the talking to was enough but that isn't my call to make.Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks

Just for reference since you may need it in future, when you are blocked your own talk page is not blocked. The blocking admin generally will watch it and also if you post an appeal on it then the block will be reviewed by another admin. However in general the kind of comments which you left on my talk page complaining about another editor are unlikely to get you unblocked whereas comments like "sorry I went over 3RR I won't do it again" would have got the block at least shortened. --BozMo talk 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that anything by anyone else was "okay". If you still think this is about other people's conduct you are missing the point. I saw a serious rule broken by you and blocked you for it, correctly. You could have protested on your talk page or appealed the block, those were your opportunities to answer back. There is no requirement on admins to check every possible piece of history of every involved editor before blocking. There is always a history and everyone always thinks they are in the right. Hence we have rules like 3RR which are clear. --BozMo talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way WP:BAIT might help you if you feel you are being baited again. --BozMo talk 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly things do not quite work in the way you imagine. Simple cases like WP:3RR are posted on the relevant noticeboard and get dealt with rapidly by an admin more or less looking at the reported diffs (and typically dealing with a series of cases in a row). More complicated disruptive editing or sock puppeting could be dealt with at WP:AN/I or by opening an "WP:RFC" but admins don't get assigned like case officers, someone else will take it up depending on who has time on the day. In general admins shouldn't really deal with direct requests because it opens the possibility of people choosing sympathetic admins, you should go via the noticeboards. I did notice though that you had not gathered all the diffs together, which you would need. Also I think you would need to spend a little time looking at the relevant policies. --BozMo talk 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility, personal attacks, all of that drama

My AE was closed with a judgment that seems fair. I sent this over to Romac so keep it in mind. If he attacks you take it to a noticeboard or AE. Keep it cool and don't take the bait.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is called "arbitration". I am new to it also and technically was ineligible since I was not made aware of the process. I called out Nableezy for what I feel was pushing POV and was reported for discussing editors and not content on the article's talk page. I kind of disagree with my sanction in principle but it is clear that I'm not allowed to be a dickhead and I shouldn't be breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks and should not say "hey, your pushing POV!" so it is OK. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This page has too many people from this article on it.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead will cause a storm. It would have to be worded very carefully. "Israel was victorious military wise. So and so Hamas leaders called it a victory at rallies since they stood their ground." (very rough draft!). For "prose" I am looking at the general body of the article. Maybe a subsection of the Campaign section going into some detail on the parameters defining victory. It could be called "Outcome".Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that. It might be a little long for WP:MOSHEAD though. Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy

Welcome back. I just wanted to ask you if you would try to put something in the edit summary box when you make changes on a page. It just helps to understand where you are coming from. Thanks, Stellarkid (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

...without any mention of Hamas -

I hope it doesn't surprise you, since the report does not condemn Hamas. So why should UNHRC bother? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs Mr Unsigned Anon

I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. Since you placed a block on me based on his allegations against me, I think that in the interest of fairness, you at least review them and determine an appropriate sanction, if any is warranted.

Here [[9]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.

Here [[10]] he makes inquiries about my race.

Here [[11]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.

Here [[12]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

Here [[13]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.

Here [[14]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.

None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive.

If you determine that what he did was not disruptive or offensive, I'll accept your decision and leave it at that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The sixth one is not the right diff but I can understand why you find the others irrelevant and puerile. They are not really "high grade" offensive stuff and could conceivable been intended to amuse not upset. Unlike for 3RR something of this type does require the time to look at all the edits back etc. which takes longer. I will have a look at his wider edits when I have time and perhaps warn him on civility. Meanwhile I would feel much happier if I could see you commenting "of course I should not have risen to it and gone over 3RR" --BozMo talk 07:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I say, civility is a bit more complicated and I have to look at both sides. There appear to be places when you have been abusive back [15] and also other editors have commented on your "combatative approach" etc. However much you feel the victim and you have righteous indignation about your edits there isn't really a clear case that teasing by UA went to the point where WP:BAIT turned into WP:HARRASS. You probably don't like my answer but you clearly play hard ball with your complaints about other people (including me) and you could always open an RFC if you want. The strongest point in your favour is that you said you did not realise you were blocked for three days: if that was because you took a cool off period then that was a good thing to do. I will watch UA for a little while and see what he/she says but I think ignore it and move on is the best advice. --BozMo talk 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyw7

You have messages on my talk page! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Contentious Edits

Jiujitsuguy I am sure you are aware that many of your edits to Gaza War are contentious. Requesting that you discuss edits that are bound to be reverted, for example your recent first-sentence edit changing the belligerents. Cordially, RomaC (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Expiry" is a word, there was no spelling mistake, please use a dictionary instead of sarcasm. Second point Israel and Gaza is better than Kadima and Hamas, although political parties' names may be relevant as commentators have suggested the attack was prompted by the Israeli election campaign. On the final point, can you tell me in your opinion, is Cordesman's report more, equally or less relevant than Goldstone's? Cordially, 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)RomaC (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting editors for edit warring

Please could you use Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. As I tried to explain you are not supposed to pick your admin --BozMo talk 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits regarding WP

This edit [16] contain POV-edits and other questionable parts. Your continously effort to remove or povpush this part is noted. Your requst of sources was met. Your objection to give it an own section was met [17]. And you even have the stomach to call my edits to satisfy your requst editwarring. [18]. I urge you to selfrevert the edit and stop povpushing or it will be brougt to admins attention. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)