User talk:Sepsis II

Currently banned for dealing with socks and pointing out how useless admins are at dealing with socks.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment

Hello. I have never come across your work on WP, the more so I want to thank you for the way you dealt with the Seaman arbitration issue.
For what it's worth, here is, in my opinion, what we are dealing with here. This is a high-tension topic, Mr Seaman was until recently one of the policy makers organising the covered payment of government money to sympathetic students in- and outside Israel, who would then support the current government's politics on Facebook, Twitter etc. pretending to act as private, objective contributors. He managed to be fired by his own gov't right before launching the programme on a grand scale, for making quite rude and undiplomatic political comments on his own FB page. His "friends" (or himself?) usually try to whitewash his WP page anonymously, Plot Spoiler is the only exception in a very long time, but the most extreme one of them all.
I didn't add anything to the article, I only brought back in what Plot Spoiler had blighted. I have rearranged one lead paragraph setting the events in a more logical, chronological sequence and addressed Plot Spoiler's formal complaints re. subchapter headings. The only additional material comes from Nishidani, a truly academic contributor. That would be it. All the best, ArmindenArminden (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem

I do try, but please keep in mind that I always leave explanation on talk pages, unlike other side. In the particular case of UANI, this is how it goes:

1. First they simply remove sourced material without any discussion, basically engaging in edit war.
2. After explanations on talk pages are given, then they claim source is "invalid". It can be an opinion written by university professor and published by academic house, but it's still "bad".
3. After running out of arguments, they play a passivity game. However, after they realize period of inactivity in my contributions (mostly few weeks), then they return to point 1 (new edit wars).

When I say they, I'm not sure am I talking about one person or group of people behind this accounts: AnarchistFakest, Averysoda, All Rows4, Bad Dryer... all blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, all socks, and all engaging in similar pattern like mr. PlotSpoiler. --MehrdadFR (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, there are poor editors out there, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to edit poorly as well. Try using the talk page more and try going to Wikipedia:Third opinion if you are stuck alone with a silent revert warrior again. Sepsis II (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Peculiar warning

Why did you give an edit warrring notice to someone for an edit from six weeks ago, for which the editor was already blocked? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a warning, just advice, and the editor has continued to revert on that particular article, and others, this week. Unlike many admins, I'd actually like to see him improve so that he doesn't get blocked. If you look up above on this page you can see us talking about this weeks reverting. Sepsis II (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification

As one of the editors who participated in the discussion leading up to this Rfc, please see Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hothead revert

Regarding this revert and the edit summary "bias, no consensus, stop edit warring go to talk page". 1. One revert does not an edit war make. 2. I am on the talkpage. 3. Take your own advice. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You really seem to have a problem. Reverting an good edit, that uses NPOV language and saying that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, is not going to make a good impression. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Most wikipedians have a problem with clearly bias edits. While you may deny knowing that you are pushing a POV it is obvious to everyone else what you guys are up to. 30/500 was suppose to make accounts like yours stop making such edits. Sepsis II (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Who are "you guys"? Are you accusing me of teaming up with other editors? If so, you better be prepared to show proof.

What 30/500? I have over 80,000 edits in over 7 years behind my name! Debresser (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As I showed in my edit summary, and explained on the talkpage, my edit is the best edit possible, in line with both NPOV and the source. Maybe it is you who has a bias? :) Debresser (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of teaming up with others, but there are a number of accounts who's main purpose for being here is for anti-Palestinian/Pro-Israel purposes.

A number of editors with an anti-Palestine agenda cleared 30/500 and came back with new accounts after being banned.

Your edit makes the sentence more vague when there was no need. The only purpose of the vagueness was to separate the Palestinians and their land; what a horrible goal. I'm a white agnostic scientist who has never been outside North America; I have no connection to the conflict. Sepsis II (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you not find the irony in you complaining about SPA? Or is it only pro-Israel editors you care about? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I never complained about SPAs, I dislike racist, nationalist editors who may or may not themselves be participants in the violence which they write about. I have no qualms with pro-Israel editors for I myself am one. It's the mass of anti-Palestine, pro-occupation, pro-Apartheid Israel editors who add bias and lies into articles and call me ethnic and religious slurs each week. Perhaps you don't receive insults and vandalism directed at you for your edits in the area as some neutral editors do. I've also rarely seen any help against these vandalism accounts from certain editors. Sepsis II (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that there are incidents of editors, usually IP editors, who make a edits like replacing "Palestine" by "Israel" in a few articles and then disappear. I regularly revert them.

At the same time, there are a few pro-Palestine/anti-Israel editors as well, who usually come all together to push their point of view. They also stalk me. It is not a healthy situation. At the same time, we have worked out many good edits and compromises with them.

I see your tone has now changed, and I think you have come to the conclusion that your initial attitude towards me was not justified. Let's leave it at that. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The only anti-Israel edit I can recall was this, the last anti-Palestine edit I can recall was about a minute ago on my talk page saying "Death to Arabs". I feel there are many editors closely involved in the conflict who edit to further their conflict here, some act like the Israeli mobs shouting Death to Arabs, some act like Israeli politicians, maneuvering, obscuring the facts and the debate, telling shameless lies, attacking and playing the victim, and biding their time between dust-ups. Sepsis II (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I was not talking about vandalism. I was talking about POV editing. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Was that another hotheaded revert on "Israel"? See Talk:Israel#Annexed or occupied. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Do hotheaded editors edit so fast they can't even read the whole paragraph? Sepsis II (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you do. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your vicious accusations on the talkpage, or I will have to ask for an official user review regarding you. My interactions with you, as well as your interactions with at least one more editor I see here on your talkpage, lead me to the suspicion (and nothing more than that at this point), that you are somehow less than neutral in your editing on Wikipedia regarding the IP-conflict. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Settlement reversion

Hello Sepsis II, I saw you reverted my edits on the settlements article, claiming there was no reason for deletion. I fail to understand where in the refs specified it says "It implied Israeli annexation of major parts of the Israeli-occupied territories, especially East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion and the Jordan Valley", where "Yigal Allon became Levi Eshkol's successor as Prime Minister in 1969" (which is technically true, but as a stand-in for less than a month), or that the next government was that of Rabin, which somehow erases Golda Meir out of history. The whole paragraph is not "basic information on Allon Plan", but rather a extremely poor attempt at WP:OR. Poliocretes (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary was that the source did not back up the sentence, but that sentence only included very basic information about the Allon Plan so there was no need for a source. I'm not a middle east history buff but it seems that the Allon plan is important to the history of the settlements. Sepsis II (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly important, but that does not justify a. an unreferenced assertion that you may think is "basic" but others may not, b. an unreferenced technicality, a clear WP:SYNTH as it links the plan with Allon's tenure, despite the latter being merely a short-lived measure following Eshkol's death in office, and c. a purely nonsensical statement (misreading what the reference actually says). You're an experienced editor Sepsis, you know that's not the way we do it. Poliocretes (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If you believe the sentence requires a source but you agree that the sentence is true, then I suggest adding a source. The only edit I made was to restore the sentence "It implied Israeli annexation of major parts of the Israeli-occupied territories, especially East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion and the Jordan Valley." The source for this sentence was related to the prior sentence which is why I moved it there. I haven't made any edits or comments outside this one deleted sentence so if there are other problems you want to change then go ahead. Sepsis II (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your request

You asked me to be Civil, but you are the one who asked to ban I/P related people from I/P related articles and I"ve seen you saying it more than once. Not sure what you meant by "less offensive", might be to the Arabs and might be to me, either way it sounds like some sort of a cynical statement. You said I should be civil if I want other people to bother discussing with me (though I can't recall when someone refused to discuss with me) and yet you used to designate your userpage for a list of Israeli editors, I sometimes find it hard to bother discussing with you.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a list of sockpuppets associated with organizations who were continually adding papers written by their organizations into articles; a blockable offense. There is nothing uncivil about the idea of restricting those who have a conflict of interest from edit certain articles, infact it is already policy. Sepsis II (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dedicating your own userpage for that is some sort of a statement don't you think? The only thing I learn about you is that you collect Israeli sockpuppets. Later you wish several times that a group of Wikipedians be banned over seemingly arrogant frustration (and you later tell people to remember it's not a forum) than you make cynical arguments, so after all that, as well as the cynical arguments you gave in the List of violent incidnets, I already assumed you are trolling.

Try to see it from my perspective and remember that. There is being "civil" and there is also being "nice", both can't survive without each other, remember that, even when discussing with people you politically don't like. I am a centre-leftist Israeli, I get bashed by pro-peace Israelis, I get bashed by ultra-nationalist Israelis, I get bashed by social democrats, I get bashed by libertarians (in Israel those are opposites), and on the internet of course, I get bashed by most people who either support the Palestinians or dislike Israel. So my prejudice is strong with people who are in that category. Add all of this to what I"ve seen from you and understand why I thought you were trolling me there.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As I recall the sockpuppets were quite international, and as you may know, many of the worst and most anti-Palestinian editors in this area have come from Argentina, Australia, UK, and a number from the US. I suppose other wikis get the other Europeans. Sepsis II (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I get the point, I've seen new Israeli editors come here many times, each time astounded that we won't let them re-write wikipedia to match the Israeli viewpoint. Sepsis II (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Than you don't get the point. That's worthless. [1]--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sepsis. I have a pretty tragic vision of that conflict, and I make no attempt to disguise my basic sympathies lie with Palestinians. But I think I manage not to allow it to get in the way either of edits, nor of my relationships with editors who have a diametrically opposed perspective. It's just not productive of work. Bolter works well: he fights for his viewpoint, but is collegial, rule-compliant and contributes good stuff. When he had a rare outburst at the Incidents of violence in the IP conflict 2016 page,-he blew his cool -over a report he gave the impression of thinking was typical of 'Palestinian mendacity' - I thought:'This has just come straight on the heels of the Tel Aviv murders,' and, while irrational, is understandable', and I didn't jump at it to get at him. What we need here is good rule-compliant editors, it doesn't matter what the POV is. If I saw 10 'pro-Pal' editors who edited badly on behalf of the 'right' cause, at the edge of the rules, and 1 Israeli editor with a rule-compliant composure, in conflict, I'd probably find, sheerly on technical grounds, that I'd be obliged to respect the latter's contribution (and vice versa). Temptations to get angry, or intolerant in here, are both human, and yet counter-productive, as in life when there's work to do. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll still continue to protect NPOV without care for what POV is being pushed. But while you are here Nishidani, I was hoping you would comment on the labeling in wikipedia's voice of towns in Israel as being "Arab" or sometimes "Jewish". I don't see such labeling in other multi-ethnic nations. If this labeling is based on Israeli policy then I think we should separate it from wikipedia's voice. Have any insight into the matter? Sepsis II (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've 10 minutes to catch a bus, and no time to look into this, but obviously in the first line at least, one should not define a town/city in Israel ethnically. One should simply later one note, if necessary, its ethnic composition, if such things are relevant. It is a slightly different matter if part of the purpose of the town's foundation was specified as being one of catering to a specific sectarian or ethnic constituency.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll bring the matter up another day. Sepsis II (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mount Herrmon

How in the world do you miss the big edit notice about 1RR? Doug Weller talk 18:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was created so accounts like that can't vandalize the shit out of wikipedia. Feel free to block him already. Sepsis II (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't think of counting, my bad, but putting that in your edit summary would have helped. Blocked now for comments about Jews and Israel after given an alert. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw in your revert notice that you described my edits as vandalism. My edits were not vandalism. I am interested in the truth, not in vandalism. Also I was blocked for posting a comment on this talk page. Is that not allowed? BMGRAHAM (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, due to a rash of miseducated editors trying to push their own version of the "TRUTH" into wikipedia articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are not allowed to edit in that particular area. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.