Jump to content

User talk:Jobas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jobas (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 12 August 2017 (resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jobas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AnupamTalk 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve
Archives
1
2-|2A
3-

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

DiptanshuTalk 05:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Ein as-Sahla

Just to correct myself, the source was not the 2008 consensus, but an article on the village mentioned in the article. The village is part of a single municipality and only the population of the entire municipality, which has another two villages is shown in the ministry's list.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early African Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Western civilization

What is exactly your problem? The sources mention explicitly the Jewish influence, Judaism is a general definition the also includes 'culture' and that's the correct term for the article. Your game trying to stick to the source word by word is incorrect, let alone hypocrite as none of the sources mention the term 'civilization' for Rome or Greece (don't even mention Rome) for instance. As long as other cultures mention geographic origins Ancient Israel should be mentioned as well. Infantom (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me pls

I saw that you like my discussions but I am alone and I need support in the discussions, could you help me? --FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ablution in Christianity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Doug Weller talk 13:00, 30 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for editing while logged out and also using another account and am requesting that I be unblocked in accordance with WP:ROPE. I will not repeat these errors again and am thankful that this block allowed me to reflect upon my actions. I have made several positive contributions to Wikipedia (over 23,364 edits) and ask for forgiveness this one time. I appreciate you considering this request. Respectfully, Jobas (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing Doug's comment and the others posted, I am declining your unblock request for now. Come back in two months (sometime after August 1st) and we can discuss this. Ping myself and Doug Weller. In the meantime you can edit on other Wiki projects, just not this one. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (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.

You've done some good work here, but this is pretty serious stuff. All the more so because you've been around a long time and should have known better. All things considered I'm not absolutely opposed to giving you a second chance, but I'd probably be more sympathetic if the request came after a reasonable period of time. I'm not going to decline the request for now, but if you came back in a month with no evidence of block evasion we might possibly commute the block with the clear understanding that any repetition would end with an indef from which I seriously doubt you'd get another reprieve. Ping Doug Weller for his thoughts as the blocking admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ad Orientem, thanks for your reply and for your faith in me. If you think that I need a one-month break from Wikipedia, I totally understand and would be happy to apply for an unblock at that time. Respectfully, Jobas (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some time-off would be best. It is extremely unusual for someone caught socking to be given short term blocks or unblocked quickly. This is a very serious no-no. That said, I am not going to decline your unblock request until I've heard from Doug Weller, whose input I think is important as the blocking admin. Of course there is nothing stopping you from withdrawing your unblock request, and coming back in a month or two. IMHO such a request would be more likely to get a sympathetic hearing at that point. But I do want to stress that any block evasion would likely torpedo any hope of getting your block lifted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I will be traveling over the next couple of days so I may not respond quickly to anything addressed to me though I will try to check in briefly at least once a day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Take a look at Talk:English people. Socks chatting to themselves. Personally I'd argue that a month's time off at least is needed, and more than that, a topic ban from religious topics as that seems to be the focus of the socking and I'm not convinced that Jobas can resist the temptation to sock at those articles. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly User:Jobas' recent conduct of using sockpuppets has been deplorable. However, I'm not convinced that a topic ban is in order. User:Jobas has done some fantastic work on religion-related articles, such as creating Christian culture and Christian attitudes towards science, in addition to expanding existing articles, such as the one about Religion in Asia. I support defining User:Jobas' current block as being two months, rather than being an indefinite one. During this time, User:Jobas is prohibited from creating a new account or editing with an IP address. After he is unblocked, he should be aware that any violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy will result in another block of a longer duration. Keeping in mind both the nature of the offense, as well as User:Jobas' ten year investment in the project and relatively clean block log during this time, I believe that this is a good solution. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A blocked editor is by definition not allowed either to create new accounts or to edit as an IP. I do not suggest for one moment that Jobas has done so. My comment is simply to clarify any possible confusion which may be caused by the edit above from Anupam, which could be seen as showing a lack of understanding in the meaning of a block. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Anthony Bradbury, I knew that but highlighted it simply because the reason User:Jobas was blocked concerned editing from other accounts and IP addresses. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: I have no opinion on this block as I am not aware of the details, but I would like to point out the number of edits quoted is massively inflated because of the bizarre and obfuscating editing history which seems to involve adding one character and then changing it multiple times. I have no idea why except it inflates the number of edits, such as this Mramoeba (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a technical problem and as User:Nyttend said: " ... but when you have more than 100,000 edits on more than 50 wikis in more than 5 years of editing, you're not going to be doing some silly chain of self-reversion for nefarious purposes ... ". To this end, I have made a several positive contributions to Wikipedia (over 100,000 edits) on more than 50 wikis and in more than 10 years of editing. While I apologize for editing while logged out, I should note that my IP is dynamic. Therefore, my changing IP was not intentional, but something that is customary with my ISP. Respectfully, Jobas (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that, but it doesn't explain your use of IP addresses and your account at Talk:English people. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many chances for an editor well aware of our policy on sockpuppets?

Looking further into this, I am not at all happy with suggesting an appeal in two months. Jobas says " I will not repeat these errors again and am thankful that this block allowed me to reflect upon my actions." But it's only three years since he was reminded of the 9 female sockpuppets he created on Commons, which he said he did because he kept losing his password.[1] He made it clear at that time that he was aware of the rules. At about the same time he made a CU request at Commons.[2] He later (last year) seems to have changed his story, saying that "these sock-puppet it wasn't mine, i used to live in the campus so we shared IP with several students since we used the same Internet line. so it wan't mine as the test later show. and the i'm still working in wikipedia commons project, since user:Martin saw that there is no connection between these accout. (I never been blocked there for sock puppet as you claims)"[3] He also socked at the Arab Wikipedia.[4] This was several years after he was blocked here in 2007 for editwarring and using an IP to sock.

Then there are those chains of self-reverted one-byte space edits like this one.[5] He blamed this on a technical problem which he didn't explain, but they did stop - when User:Bishonen gave hin a final warning. However, they were replaced by rapid fire (several a minute) additions of 'see also's to articles. All of this make it very hard to look at his edit history (and vastly inflates it). Just as his deletions of his talk page here made it hard for me to see what other editors have said. On the Arab Wikipedia he archives it. I also note that a lot of his edits are copy/paste from other articles, for which he has been warned more than once during the last two or three years. Some of these have left out relevant context, others have left out the reference information, etc. I'd need to analyse them further but there's at least a hint of a religious agenda relating to Christians, Jews and Muslims. But it's hard to find these edits as they're buried in all the tiny edits.

Then there's the edit warring including a block this year.

@Ad Orientem, Anupam, Anthony Bradbury, and Mramoeba: Personally I think that this editor should not be unblocked for at least six months after which he can request the WP:Standard offer. If it is accepted I'd like to see some conditions place on him although I'm not sure how we can best stop his multiple tiny edits which I'm not convinced are that beneficial. Perhaps a restriction that slows him down? Doug Weller talk 14:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I don't feel able to comment on the block is exactly because of issues like this. I am aware of Jobas because he was deleting various atheist categories, about 2 or 3 per minute, from pages in alphabetical order, I had been editing prominent humanists so he kept popping up on my watchlist. Everything was swiftly hidden by the single character edits so it was incredibly labour intensive to see if this was just affecting "my" pages or was an ongoing problem, and one which I don't have the time or inclination to get involved with. There was a discussion surrounding that but it appears to have been edited out of Jobas's archive. Thanks for looking a little further, I remain convinced the editing style is deliberate. I don't know what Jobas has done this time around but I feel REALLY uncomfortable with an editor who works like this. Whatever I have said or done on Wikipedia, or that any of us has done, is transparent and obvious. Who knows what this guy is doing that isn't being picked up on? If he gets banned he just creates more accounts, and who knows how many of those there are that haven't been found? It's like playing games that no one else wants to play, and in the case of the pages I edit, pushing a religious agenda. Mramoeba (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't changed the story; in Wiki commons I wasn't able to edit by my Jobas main account till I created the SUL account; and I lived in a Student House of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem campus, where more than 100 students were living; We all shared the same IP address and so many of the accounts in Wiki commons editing from that IP weren't mine. And I have made a several positive contributions to Wiki commons (more than 150 files).
Here my block log in Arabic Wikipedia and It's possible to ask any admain there about me or about my edits. About those chains of self-reverted yes it was a technical problem and after the warning I used anther computer for editing and it's easy to check by IP I guess.
For my last 10 years editing here, beside this block I been blocked in 2007 for adding an information without supporting with a reference and editing while logged out (I was new here in that time and not aware of the rules); then the second block was this year for edit warning. So it's relatively clean block log.
user:Mramoeba, it’s not appropriate to use the time span in which I made the categorical edits in order to pronounce a statement on their validity. I had carefully studied the articles in which I removed categories and had recorded these in my notebook and made a decision upon them per WP:CATEGRS. After spending countless hours doing this, I then removed the categories in a short time span, after I diligently examined each article and in which pages that you been editing, I pushing a religious agenda, can you please give an example??. The main issue here was the use of alternative accounts, which I should have named on their userpages. I should note that I did not use my alternate account to tag-team edit war with my main account so I am a bit surprised that some users are calling for a six month block. However, if that’s what the Wikipedia community asks of me, I’m willing to comply and continue as a productive editor after that block expires. Thank you.--Jobas (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jobas, we have already had this discussion. Regarding your pasted reply about the categories, which you pasted every time anyone disagreed with you, the point was you were not making any meaningful judgement about the categories you were deleting, you did not have the time to do that because you were deleting them off faster than you could read the pages you were deleting them from. THAT was the issue, that you weren't making meaningful or useful contributions. You were targetting atheist pages. I don't know what other pages you target because I cannot be bothered to wade through the treacle that is your editing history. Remember, I asked you if you would instead like to help look at or check sources before deleting them? But no, you had no interest in keeping the category on pages, you were interested only in deleting them wholesale and leaving it to others to have to re-add them, presumably knowing full well that many pages would be overlooked. Once again, why should it be my job to go around looking for your illegal accounts? Do you think that is what I am here for, to play games and check up on people who show themselves to require policing? I have no desire to do that, thankfully some people have both the responsibility and the judgement to, and it is those people you are currently dealing with. Mramoeba (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again the edit but again my edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question; Just because you don't agree with me or with that rule it's not necessarily mean I targeting atheist pages. And if you genuinely believe I'm using more sock puppets or I have more accounts, take your concerns to WP:SPI.--Jobas (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this editor shouldn't be unblocked for at least six months, after which time the standard offer applies. They seem to expect others to use untold time and effort to clean up after them and, as Mramoeba says, 'to wade through the treacle that is their editing history'. Jobas, you have not answered the pertinent comment that you were deleting categories faster than you could possibly read the pages you were deleting them from. Therefore, I'm unimpressed by your quotations from WP:NONDEF. You had no way of knowing if the atheist categories you were removing were defining characteristics or not, so WP:NONDEF doesn't apply. And yes, you were targeting atheist pages Also, I'd be interested to know what kind of technical problem it was that was forcing you to make all those tiny edits and then self-revert them, as I have never come across anything like that. It's a pity you didn't try to do anything about it while people were still being patient with you and merely begging you to stop, before you got my sharp final warning. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
User:Bishonen I had carefully studied the articles in which I removed categories and had recorded these in my notebook and made a decision upon them per WP:CATEGRS. After spending countless hours doing this, I then removed the categories in a short time span, after I diligently examined each article.--Jobas (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your statement is true, and I'm not impugning your honesty, I congratulate you on a level of diligence that would be remarkable coming from our best editors. Unfortunately it is also a claim that for exactly that reason is likely to produce raised eyebrows if not outright accusations of lying from the community. Sometimes your better off just being quiet and letting things progress. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, it's like pulling teeth. Jobas, what was the technical problem? How did it manifest from your point of view? Please stop dancing round that. Also, please don't make additions to a comment that has already been answered, as you just did.[6] It wrongfoots the other person. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi Jobas. Based on the above comments, and in particular for me, the fact that this does not appear to have been your 1st time socking, I now think you should not request an unblock for at least six months. Additionally I think you should expect that a topic ban of at least a year on religion and atheism related subjects is likely to be a condition for your being unblocked. Further to the issues above I recall your trip to ANI back in February (the Xenophrenic discussion) where concerns were raised about AGENDA oriented editing on religious subjects, especially relating to atheism. There was some talk of a temporary topic ban then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen and User: Ad Orientem that a block for the duration of six months is warranted. Following the expiration of this block, I suggest that User:Jobas be allowed to return to editing, with a one-year WP:1RR restriction on articles pertaining to atheism/religion. If he violates 1RR, further blocks can be imposed. I think this condition will help prevent any detrimental behavior from occuring and at the same time, will allow User:Jobas to constructively edit on the project (e.g. his creation of the article about Protestant culture). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupsm: We are saying he can appeal in six months, not that it will automatically expire then. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: that works too - after six months, he can request an unblock per the standard offer. Cheers, AnupamTalk 20:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I think it's time we all stepped away from this discussion. There is a clear consensus in favor of a minimum six months before considering any unblock, with no guaranteed outcome. Let's let it go for now and come back to this in December. In closing, I want to again caution Jobas (no need for a reply) that any credible evidence of block evasion would likely be fatal to any unblock request. And now I am moving on. See you all in December. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an only peripherally uninvolved admin who has read through the whole thread I would agree that there should be no consideration of unblock for six months; I also favour the suggested topic ban to be implemented when or if, unblock occurs. And I would like to see an answer to the question repeatedly asked above; what was the technical problem causing large numbers of micro-edits? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate. I have seen Jobas editing for a few years on religion and atheism topics and found that Jobas provided many new and diverse sources to many of these articles. Like Ad Orientem and others have acknowledged here and in the section above, Jobas has done some meaningful work here on wikipedia. I think credit should be given for that much at least since he improved many of these wiki pages through the years. It seems there were some edit wars between one other editor named Xenophrenic. Both were found to be editing multiple similar religion/atheism pages and these resulted in quite a bit of edit warring from both editors over the wording of what the sources said on those pages (for example, Antireligion). Both were blocked recently temporarily over similar differences in point of views and personal remarks since the tensions were a bit high between them, see the noticeboard entry [7]. Aside, from that, I have not seen Jobas be aggressive or abusive in such articles with others, even when I disagreed with Jobas. But we have to keep in mind that religion/atheism pages are places where all sorts of views are controversial, so in a sense, this is not worth completely banning someone IF they have contributed to a good degree in good faith. On a side note, I never really encountered these micro-edits, until reading this talk page. Although, these little edits do look a bit odd, I think that Jobas can re-adjust and stop this and make an appeal in a few months. Time is good for reflection. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

once again edit warring after block august 2017

A user with the name Jobas started edit warring on quite a few pages on different WIKI languages. For example on July 30th refer [[8]]. Seems the block is not fully complete. Grsd (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely that the Jobas on the Arab Wikipedia is the same as this one. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it seems very very unlikely , that this concerns a different user. Same topics, e.g. Religion in europe, just a different language, same insertion of unsourced material that does not comply with WIKI guidelines . Grsd (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make up any false comment here and in admain talk pages as you done. The block is only in English wikipedia, not global or in other Wikipedia projects which are independent of English wikipedia, and yes I am the user on Arab Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, French Wikipedia etc, and it's not a secret that I have made a several contributions to Wikipedia on more than 50 wikis.
There is no "edit warring" going on in other Wikipedia project, any user can see that and can tell there is no edit warning going. and here is my edit's in ia.wikipedia.org that you claim i'm edit warning [9].--Jobas (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Take WP:OFFER and come back! Marvellous Spider-Man 05:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persecution by atheists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Persecution by atheists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jobas&oldid=795183313"